In its most prominent opinion slot, on its Sunday edition op-ed page, the New York Times today features Maureen Dowd absolutely ripping Hillary Clinton and her husband as moral lepers, and sympathizing with:

a president, campaign and party are all left twisting themselves into pretzels defending her.

The opening of the piece sets the tone:

IT says a lot about our relationship with Hillary Clinton that she seems well on her way to becoming Madam President because she’s not getting indicted.

If she were still at the State Department, she could be getting fired for being, as the F.B.I. director told Congress, “extremely careless” with top-secret information. Instead, she’s on a glide path to a big promotion.

And that’s the corkscrew way things go with the Clintons, who are staying true to their reputation as the Tom and Daisy Buchanan of American politics. Their vast carelessness drags down everyone around them, but they persevere, and even thrive.

Dowd then zeroes in on the specifics of today:

 In a mere 11 days, arrogant, selfish actions by the Clintons contaminated three of the purest brands in Washington — Barack Obama, James Comey and Loretta Lynch — and jeopardized the futures of Hillary’s most loyal aides.

Note that Dowd’s readers, predominantly liberal upscale Democrats, are cast, along with Obama and Lynch, as victims here of Hillary’s base nature.

The Times is signaling its readers – including the editors of most other news outlets – that they will have to grit their teeth and vote for Hillary. It’s OK to laugh at her level of corruption and self-dealing. But at least she isn’t Donald Trump.