Another 2016 milestone.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Most. Surreal. Election. Year. Ever.

The first few sentences from a Tuesday editorial at The Arizona Republic further galvanizes that sentiment. 

Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles.

This year is different.

The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified.

That’s why, for the first time in our history, The Arizona Republic will support a Democrat for president.

Well, as far as Donald Trump not being conservative, that makes him no different than most Republican candidates who have been GOP nominee since Reagan. But still, how is Hillary Clinton a viable alternative?

The challenges the United States faces domestically and internationally demand a steady hand, a cool head and the ability to think carefully before acting.

So is peddling the lie that a YouTube video was the catalyst for the 9/11//2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi evidence of "thinking carefully?" Is the implication here that it takes a "steady hand" and "cool head" to fabricate a story in an effort to preserve her boss's chance for reelection as President?

How about continually denying she was grossly negligent in handling classified information via her private (yet vulnerable) email server, despite FBI Director James Comey basically saying someone of less notoriety would face charges?

Clinton knows how to compromise and to lead with intelligence, decorum and perspective. She has a record of public service as First Lady, senator and secretary of state.

Sure she has a record. But is it anything worth touting? As First Lady, her attempt at heading up healthcare reform was a farce. And when her husband allowed her to be humiliated by blindly defending him against accusations of dalliances with an intern, she was seen equally as a proverbial doormat and political opportunist for staying with him when the truth was revealed. Oh, and can anyone name anything noteworthy about her Senate career (other than voting yes on the Iraq war and opposing gay marriage)? And of course her issues as Secretary of State are well documented, mostly being defined by the P.R. blunder of the "reset" button as well as mishandling classified information.

Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton has flaws. She has made serious missteps.

Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of State was a mistake, as she has acknowledged. Donations to the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of State raise concerns that donors were hoping to buy access. Though there is no evidence of wrongdoing, she should have put up a firewall.

Yet despite her flaws, Clinton is the superior choice.

She does not casually say things that embolden our adversaries and frighten our allies. Her approach to governance is mature, confident and rational.

How I read this "endorsement" is the newspaper had a choice between a thin-skinned narcissist and a pathological lying psychopath. Obviously the psychopath is their preferred candidate.

----------------------------------------