In a single headline, the LA Times just endorsed Hillary Clinton and summed up the entire election.

The choice couldn’t be clearer.

The Los Angeles Times editorial board just endorsed Hillary Clinton — and they offered a perfect description of the choice in this election:

“American voters have a clear choice on Nov. 8. We can elect an experienced, thoughtful and deeply knowledgeable public servant or a thin-skinned demagogue who is unqualified and unsuited to be president.
“[Donald Trump] has never held elected office and has shown himself temperamentally unfit to do so. He has run a divisive, belligerent, dishonest campaign, repeatedly aligning himself with racists, strongmen and thugs while maligning or dismissing large segments of the American public. Electing Trump could be catastrophic for the nation.
“By contrast, Hillary Clinton is one of the best prepared candidates to seek the presidency in many years. As a first lady, a Democratic senator from New York and secretary of state in President Obama’s first term, she immersed herself in the details of government, which is why her positions on the issues today are infinitely better thought-out than those of her opponent.”

Here’s why the Times says Hillary will be a champion for progressive causes and a fighter who can get things done in the White House.

She has a history of working across the aisle.

“Perhaps her greatest strength is her pragmatism — her ability to build consensus and solve problems. As president, she would be flexible enough and experienced enough to cut across party lines and work productively with her political opponents.
“As first lady, she worked with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides healthcare coverage to more than 8 million children. As a senator, she was instrumental in persuading a Republican president to deliver billions of dollars in aid to New York after September 11.”

She’s been fighting for families for decades.

“Throughout her public career, beginning with her work in the 1970s for the Children’s Defense Fund, Clinton has advocated for women, children, the poor and minorities. She fought for what came to be known as “Hillarycare” 15 years before ‘Obamacare’ became a thing.
“She supports abortion rights, wants to raise the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour, hopes to reform the sentencing laws that have overcrowded American prisons, would repair the Voting Rights Act and help students to leave college without enormous debt.”

She’ll fight for immigration reform. Trump? Not so much.

“Hillary stands for rational, comprehensive immigration reform.
“[Trump’s] signature proposal is to construct a wall along the southern border of the United States — and have Mexico pay the billions of dollars involved. Mexico, unsurprisingly, insists it will not. As for the 11 million immigrants already in the country illegally, they will either be rounded up and deported (though experts say that will cost billions of dollars, disrupt the economy, divide families and require massive violations of civil liberties) or perhaps some will be allowed to remain, living in the shadows.”

She’ll keep our country safe from terrorism.

“As secretary of state, she led the charge to persuade nations around the world to impose the tough sanctions on Iran that led to the landmark nuclear agreement, and she negotiated a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.
“Abroad she would strengthen America’s traditional alliances, continue the Obama administration’s efforts to ‘degrade and ultimately defeat’ Islamic State and negotiate with potential adversaries such as Russia and China in a way that balances realism and the protection of American interests.”

She’ll fight for a cleaner planet.

“Unlike Trump, Clinton accepts the prevailing science on climate change and considers the issue to be ‘the defining challenge of our time.’”

Ultimately, the decision isn’t even close …

“Clinton’s long history of advocacy and public service stands in stark contrast to Trump’s record of virtually no leadership at all. He’s famous and wealthy, a TV personality, a showman — but what in his resume suggests he is qualified to lead the country?”

Originally published at