As a surprise to absolutely no one, the Times endorsed Hillary Clinton today. The editorial board heralded her for her "intellect, experience and courage," and made the case for voting for Clinton not just because "she isn’t Donald Trump," but because of her experience, proven leadership record, and grace under pressure. Though they did note that Trump is "the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history," so there's that.

The Grey Lady, which previously endorsed Clinton in the Democratic primary, urged voters to consider her not as the reluctant alternative to Trump, but as a future president who would combat global terrorism, ease national economic tension, champion policy that would help women and children, and enact sweeping legislation on crime, policing, race relations, climate change, college debt, and small business support, to name a few. The endorsement ran through her record as Secretary of State, U.S. Senator, and First Lady, and acknowledged her weaknesses—but the attacks on her character, per the Times, "have distorted perceptions of her character":

She is one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation, whose willingness to study and correct course is rare in an age of unyielding partisanship. As first lady, she rebounded from professional setbacks and personal trials with astounding resilience. Over eight years in the Senate and four as secretary of state, she built a reputation for grit and bipartisan collaboration. She displayed a command of policy and diplomatic nuance and an ability to listen to constituents and colleagues that are all too exceptional in Washington...

...Mrs.Clinton’s service spans both eras, and she has learned hard lessons from the three presidents she has studied up close. She has also made her own share of mistakes. She has evinced a lamentable penchant for secrecy and made a poor decision to rely on a private email server while at the State Department. That decision deserved scrutiny, and it’s had it. Now, considered alongside the real challenges that will occupy the next president, that email server, which has consumed so much of this campaign, looks like a matter for the help desk. And, viewed against those challenges, Mr. Trump shrinks to his true small-screen, reality-show proportions, as we’ll argue in detail on Monday.

Through war and recession, Americans born since 9/11 have had to grow up fast, and they deserve a grown-up president. A lifetime’s commitment to solving problems in the real world qualifies Hillary Clinton for this job, and the country should put her to work.

Earlier this week, the Los Angeles Times endorsed Clinton, pointing out that Americans have to choose between "an experienced, thoughtful and deeply knowledgeable public servant or a thin-skinned demagogue who is unqualified and unsuited to be president."

And the Cincinnati Enquirer, which has not endorsed a Democrat since Woodrow Wilson, also endorsed Clinton this week, albeit begrudgingly:

The Enquirer has supported Republicans for president for almost a century - a tradition this editorial board doesn’t take lightly. But this is not a traditional race, and these are not traditional times. Our country needs calm, thoughtful leadership to deal with the challenges we face at home and abroad. We need a leader who will bring out the best in all Americans, not the worst.

That’s why there is only one choice when we elect a president in November: Hillary Clinton...

...Trump is a clear and present danger to our country. He has no history of governance that should engender any confidence from voters. Trump has no foreign policy experience, and the fact that he doesn't recognize it - instead insisting that, "I know more about ISIS than the generals do" - is even more troubling. His wild threats to blow Iranian ships out of the water if they make rude gestures at U.S. ships is just the type of reckless, cowboy diplomacy Americans should fear from a Trump presidency. Clinton has been criticized as being hawkish but has shown a measured approach to the world's problems. Do we really want someone in charge of our military and nuclear codes who has an impulse control problem? The fact that so many top military and national security officials are not supporting Trump speaks volumes.

On the other hand, yesterday Trump got the only endorsement that matters.