The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times have all endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president. There really isn't any surprise there. Each of them have promoted the campaign by stealth in their stories of the campaign.
The New York Times has been the most egregious of the bunch, so there'd be no surprise if they join the ranks of the endorsers for Obama. Now they are publishing a hit piece on Cindy McCain.
It is interesting to look at the editorials containing their endorsements.
The Los Angeles Times, in their editorial to be released tomorrow says, "He is no lone rider." "He is a consensus builder, a leader. . . . He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be."
Consensus builder?! A leader?! Obama hasn't lifted a finger to work with the GOP on anything. He hasn't ever bucked his own party on any issue. Obama is product and part of the Daley Chicago machine. He never reformed anything. That is just plain laughable.
The LA Times boasts that they haven't endorsed a Democrat for president ever. Their last presidential endorsement was in 1972 for Richard Nixon. This also isn't the same Los Angeles Times. Back then, the paper was owned by the Times Mirror Company (I used to work for them) of the Chandler Family. It is now owned by the Chicago Tribune. No doubt there's some big Chicago influence there, if you catch my drift.
The Washington Post's endorsement is not surprising either since it is well-known to be a pro-Democrat liberal newspaper. But its editorial is telling.
"The choice is made easy in part by Mr McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president," says the Post.
Right. Obama has had no executive experience, has no notable achievements in any elected office and cavorts with leftists and Black Liberation Theology loons. Sarah Palin is arguably more qualified as Obama.
It described Obama as "a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building."
Here we go again, "consensus-building." Sorry, the evidence does not support this. In fact, it is quite the opposite.
"Mr Obama has the potential to become a great president," wrote the Post. "Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr Obama's relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes."
They have "reservations and concerns" on Obama, yet they diss on Sarah Palin. Some had high hopes about Jimmy Carter, but we know what a disaster he was. Such hypocrisy!
The fortunate thing nowadays is that newspaper endorsements don't carry the weight as they once did. People don't make up their minds on choosing a candidate based on what a newspaper says. Their editorial slant during the campaign can easily tell one who they're backing. It is not transparent.
But it is still laughable to read of their reasoning for supporting Obama.
UPDATE 10/24/08:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The New York Times endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for U.S. president on Thursday, saying he had "met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change."
The Times posted its endorsement on its Internet site on Thursday evening and was to publish it in Friday editions of the newspaper.
Earlier this year, the newspaper endorsed New York Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, but it said Obama had long ago erased the reservations that led it to make that decision.
"He has drawn in legions of new voters with powerful messages of hope and possibility and calls for shared sacrifice and social responsibility," the Times said. "He has shown a cool head and sound judgment. We believe he has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation's problems."
The newspaper declared that the choice between Obama and Republican John McCain was easy.
"Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries, has spent the last coins of his reputation for principle and sound judgment to placate the limitless demands and narrow vision of the far-right wing," it said.
It would be a surprise if the New York Times endorsed McCain considering the trashing (disguised as "journalism") they've given him.
No comments:
Post a Comment