The New York Times editorial board endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton Saturday, writing the endorsement is "rooted in respect for her intellect, experience, toughness and courage over a career of almost continuous public service."
The Times touted Clinton's record as first lady, New York senator and secretary of state in their endorsement, claiming she has shown the ability to work with politicians from opposing parties to enact her policy agenda.
"When Mrs. Clinton was sworn in as a senator from New York in 2001, Republican leaders warned their caucus not to do anything that might make her look good," the editorial says. "Yet as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she earned the respect of Republicans like Senator John McCain with her determination to master intricate military matters."
The editorial also praised her foreign policy record as secretary of state, but does mention her missteps in that role.
"As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton was charged with repairing American credibility after eight years of the Bush administration’s unilateralism," the editorial board wrote. "She bears a share of the responsibility for the Obama administration’s foreign-policy failings, notably in Libya. But her achievements are substantial."
Clinton's ability to bounce back from her failings, however, is another one of her strengths as a politician and presidential candidate, according to the endorsement.
"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," the editorial board wrote.
The endorsement only made passing reference to Republican nominee Donald Trump, who "discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway," according to the Times.
The editorial board added it will publish another editorial to explain why Trump is the "worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history."