If you've read them, you can probably skip this post. Here are the shorter versions of three day's worth of anti-Clinton editorials.

Saturday

"Voting for Trump Is Not Enough"

The shorter version: you must vote for Bill Cole for governor because Jim Justice is a Democrat and he might support Clinton. Sorry, Intelligencer, but Justice is not a Democrat -- he is a Trump-like political novice who might have been the Republican's candidate had not the party's establishment candidate, Bill Cole, gotten there first. How desperate is one of the Republican Party's major propaganda outlets that "Justice is a Democrat" is now their argument for voting for Bill Cole?
Just a thought: the local's have endorsed Bill Cole for governor. If Donald Trump is such a great candidate, why hasn't either paper endorsed him?

Sunday

"Probe Puts New Light on Clinton"

The opening sentence from Sunday's editorial:

Voters already knew Hillary Clinton is a criminal.

(They did?)

A much shorter version of this editorial: forget about logic and evidence, lock her up!

Monday

"Clinton Endangered National Security"

Shorter version: the Democratic response to the latest email revelations shows that they don't know history.

The FBI Director, James Comey, who Mike Myer has previously accused of copying the abuses of J. Edgar Hoover, is now a hero again much like formerly-hated Wikileaks got praised in Sunday's editorial. (Interesting bedfellows to say the least.) The Democratic defense, according to the editorial, is that this "wasn't Watergate, after all." This was the Democrat's response? Okay, the editorial ignores all other Democratic responses but please tell me, which Democrat said that? I just spent 30 minutes unsuccessfully trying to find just one Democrat who said those or similar words. My search turned up nothing. My hunch is that this is a Mike Myer editorial -- the "straw man" argument is his favorite.

All three editorials are similar to the many anti-Clinton and anti-Democratic editorials that preceded them: they don't develop any of their arguments and they use little or no evidence -- they're essentially undocumented attacks on Democrats posing as a serious editorials.

Of course, the Intelligencer still has not said a single critical word about Trump's sexism, racism, nativism and xenophobia and it appears to have no problem publishing columnists who share Trump's prejudices. While not an editorial, I did want to mention one of the locals' favorite columnists, Pat Buchanan, who I've argued is often a stand-in for their point-of-view. Buchanan's Saturday column, "Presidency From Hell?", (subtle!) about a possible Clinton presidency brought out the best of his sexism.

Here's a sample:

Reports of poor health and lack of stamina may be exaggerated. Yet she moves like a woman her age.

And:

She makes few mistakes as a debater, but she is often shrill -- when she is not boring.

You gotta love him.