Why Vogue Magazine’s Presidential Endorsement Is a Big F’n Deal
It’s often said that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified presidential candidate of all time, and she’s running against someone with no formal political experience and whose business expertise seems open to question as well.
Yet Donald Trump is still in the race, and he could still become the next president. In the run-up to November 8, when the votes will finally be cast and counted (and you should defget yours in there), prominent people and news outlets have been taking unusual steps in what’s been a decidedly out-of-the-ordinary campaign season. Now it appears that Vogue is the latest to join the fray.
. @voguemagazine has never officially endorsed a presidential candidate before now. https://t.co/hpaqFtqNIo
— Kate Bennett (@KateBennett_DC) October 18, 2016
Just today, the world’s top fashion magazine published its first-ever endorsement of a presidential candidate. Naturally, they sided with Hillary. While the magazine “has no history of endorsements,” the editors wrote that “Given the profound stakes of this one, and the history that stands to be made, we feel that should change.” Here’s what else they had to say about it:
We understand that Clinton has not always been a perfect candidate, yet her fierce intelligence and considerable experience are reflected in policies and positions that are clear, sound, and hopeful.
Women’s issues have taken center stage in the last several weeks in a way they rarely do during presidential campaigns. It’s an odd turn of events that while one candidate is fending off allegations of sexual assault and of boorish, sexist behavior in general, the other candidate is a woman. Perhaps that played a role in Vogue, catering to a largely female readership, feeling compelled to speak up. (Though, as they note, the magazine “has enthusiastically covered Hillary Clinton’s career” for decades.)
Vogue isn’t the only publication that’s broken with tradition this year, though. The Atlantic is one of the country’s most prestigious magazines and considers itself more dedicated to weighing ideas than taking sides. Before this year, its editors had issued just two presidential endorsements in the mag’s nearly 160-year history: for Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and for Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. They chose to make that three this year and endorse Clinton, writing:
Hillary Rodham Clinton has more than earned, through her service to the country as first lady, as a senator from New York, and as secretary of state, the right to be taken seriously as a White House contender. She has flaws (some legitimately troubling, some exaggerated by her opponents), but she is among the most prepared candidates ever to seek the presidency.
But maybe the most surprising endorsement so far came from a newspaper in Arizona that had never, in 126 years, endorsed a Democrat. (The paper is called the Republic, for crying out loud!) But this year, the paper’s staff chose to endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton over someone who “hasn’t even let the American people scrutinize his tax returns.”
Yes, it’s a historic year, with two historic candidates and a deeply, bitterly divided country trying to choose between them. Anyone who’s still trying to decide who to support has more resources than ever.
Should magazines like Vogue take stands on important issues more often? Let us know what you think @BritandCo.
(Photos via Yana Paskova, Jessica Kourkounis and Joe Raedle / Getty)
