NEW YORK, NY Feb. 1 (DPI) – The New York Times this weekend endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, and – in what was too overwhelming to be organized pushback by the Sanders campaign – more than 5,000 reader comments almost universally dismissed both the newspaper’s endorsement and the candidate.  The stark reader reaction suggested, too, that Clinton has little if any grassroots support among Democratic voters, which bodes poorly for her easily securing the party’s nomination.

The reader response so favored Clinton’s rival, Bernie Sanders, that it even raised questions about the judgement of the NYT’s editorial board, which came across as completely out of step with its own readers. As the six-most recommended comment asked: “So what does the NY Times think when the comments to their endorsement overwhelmingly support Bernie Sanders?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-endorsement.html

Even the readers themselves picked up on the pushback. Wrote one:

I just read (well, scanned, really, but enough to classify) all of the readers pick comments. Of the 2645 comments, I counted 159 (+/-) in agreement with the editorial. That’s about 6%.

Top six reader-recommended comments:

You do realize that Bernie Sanders has over 30 years of experience in an elected office. Hillary has only had 7. For an independent to have won so many elections is impressive, whereas Hillary was mostly appointed to her positions. Big difference as we live in a democracy. The argument that Bernie has less experience has absolutely no merit.

Of course when the board of directors chooses, it’s Hilary, but when it’s the employees, it’s always Bernie.

Uh, yeah, we know NYTimes, you’ve been making this perfectly clear.

Sorry NYTimes – you are completely out of step with your readers on this – we are all tired of the Clinton and Bush political dynasties and their subservience to corporate and 0.1% interests – domestic and foreign. Not much else to be said, your readers comments have been saying this pretty unanimously for months now.
I could pull the plug on my subscription, but I think you answer to other masters than your rank and file subscribers…

Deeply qualified?  Sorry, married to the president is not a qualification. In no job interview would a candidate who said “my experience is my husband had the same job” be considered anything but insane.  Her term in senate? 8 years. Accomplishments? (crickets) Secy of state? And it was a diplomatic disaster. She presided over the worst waning of American power in our history. Lost half of Ukraine. Watched Middle east descend into chaos. I’m not saying those events are her fault, but she sure didn’t prevent them.  Meanwhile, Sanders has been a Chief Executive as Mayor of Burlington. And been in the Senate much longer than Clinton. She is a dilettante who shifts her positions with the wind and would be unheard of if not for her famous husband; he is a long-time committed activist who has not changed his basic positions in his many decades of public service. Hillary is the face of the establishment center; Sanders is a voice of the People At least admit why you support her: YOu dont trust that Sanders wont actually do some major wealth distribution, while you know Clinton wont.
It has nothing to do with experience or how detailed their policy proposals are.
Shame on the Times.

So what does the NY Times think when the comments to their endorsement overwhelmingly support Bernie Sanders?