Most newspaper endorsements for Presidential candidates are worthless. Editorial staffs typically le [...]…

The proverbial dam is breaking [via E&P]:
The Denver Post, which had backed George W. Bush in 2004 and is owned by Republican-leaning William Dean Singleton, this evening endorsed Barack Obama for president. So did the Chicago Sun-Times, Kansas Ci…

Do they have to be recent? If so, why? Here's why I ask: I suspect that apostates come out of the woodwork only when a candidate on either side really melts down. That doesn't happen very often. So maybe your question implies a level of equivalence that isn't appropriate.

I hear what you're saying, and I think it's true enough. And it's true that the Chicago Tribune is pro-Republican. Perhaps this endorsement will move some more moderate Republicans toward Obama.

But what I'm saying is that the base's response it already baked right into the process.

From a political standpoint, it's really kind of awesome.

But from a policy standpoint, you get what we've gotten these past eight years.

As with so much of our political process, the impediments are structural.

Marlowe- you asked for it!
Joe Lieberman – a biggie- who went from being named the VP candidate on the Gore ticket to campaigning actively for McCain , and who was a heartbeat away from being named the VP candidate on the McCain ticket.

(this was only avoided due to Bill Kristol who urged McCain to go with a conservative– though why anyone with an ounce of sense would listen to a washed-up pundit who's wrong more than he's right is a head-scratcher!)

Obama should send him a thank-you note because Palin is the gift that keeps on giving to the Democratic Party.

I would argue that Obama's temperment has been the key to his rapid rise to
power. He is able to work as a consensus-builder rather than by
confrontation.

Republicans love to nominate tough fighters like Palin and McCain- those
who say they want to kick ass, because they never have gotten over their
infatuation with John Wayne.Conservatives eat all of that up.

But, at this time the country is weary of confrontation and voters finally
realize that dividing the country into two warring factions will not solve
our problems. A consensus builder/concilliator is what is exciting us. (that
is also why Clinton — a good politician but a polarizing one- did not catch
on fire while Obama did)

While the majority of the American people have recognized the greed, corruption, lies, hypocrisy, cronyism, and general incompentence of the last 12 years of Republican governance, the neocon Republicans choose to continue their own delusions.

The neocons always invent some reason to live their fantasy. No happenstance is ever their responsibility. It is always the some other guy's fault.

The neocons lie not only to the American people, but also to themselves.

Their justified fall from power is well earned.

The neocon Republicans have become a sad footnote to the history of the United States.

That is a million dollar question, isn't it Kritt.

My insertion of “Palin” into your quote highlights its relevance.

The key issue in elections, I would argue, is “character”.

Obama really has nada experience. But he has impressed a lot of people with his character. His calm, cool discipline. His respect for others.

I was very impressed by Barack Obama at the height of the financial crisis. He was at the White House, at Bush's invitation, and he didn't swan about. He knew his place as a junior senator, there only as a courtesy of the president.

John Kerry or HRC would have rushed the cameras, to pronounce this or that. McCain, in fact, did that. Obama didn't. As Obama said, he did not have the authority or power to do anything.

What politician would have resisted the spotlight like that? Impressive. The most discipined Democratic politician in generations.

You are generally right…most newspaper endorsements are irrelevant.

Elrod's reference to the Chicago papers' endorsement is, however, VERY important.

The Chicago papers have been Obama's toughest critics in the MSM. They also know Obama . . . and the political machine he came from . . . far better than anyone.

For them to endorse Obama for President means something.

Elrod . . . your comment about how Palin “disqualified” McCain among even Republican leaning papers is reflective of the diversity of conservative opinion.

Many conservatives were very upset with the Palin pick. I have defended Palin against unjust attacks . . . but the thought of her being VP I find very unsettling.

(Excellent post/thread, btw Elrod. Very informative.)

He rushed to name his VP right after the Dem Convention to break up their momentum, having met her once.

Which begs the question- does more experience really lead to better judgment? McCain, Cheney and Nixon are/were experienced pols– Lincoln, Obama and Kennedy are/were relatively inexperienced.

“Poor” Chris Buckley was hardly “hounded” out of the National Review. He initially played it as such, in an unfortunately titled (later revised), piece at Tina Brown's Beast. But his ideological perspective was discordant with the magazine's in general.

Actually, the examples you guys point out reinforce my point. There are apostates on the Right. Name me apostates on the American Left.

Rudi, the MSM has largely ignored the Ayers story. Stanley Kurtz was the first (and I believe still only) person from the MSM to access the Annenberg Challenge Files. When the NYT et al flew reporters to godforsaken towns in Alaska, no expense spared, these documents sat in the heart of Chicago.

If there was a real connection between Obama and Ayers, it would have been in there.

Turns out, of course, there wasn't a connection. But the MSM didn't know that.
They just decided not to look.

Notice the common thread in every Obama endorsement: Sarah Palin.

McCain's VP pick has simply disqualified him in each of these editorials – including the normally Republican ones.

You hear the same thing from smart Republican pundits like Brooks, Frum and Krauthammer too.

Palin meant putting the campaign before country.

All newspapers are nothing but mainstream media. It doesn't matter if a newspaper mostly supports Republicans. If it turns around and decides to support a Democrat instead, the ability to dismiss it is built right in to the mindset.

That's why no one cares about newspaper endorsements anymore.

No fat lady is going to sing after reading the editorial page.

The Times actually started out as a conservative Republican paper in the 1850s. Conservative Republican back then is like conservative Democrat today. It ran against the dominant ideological strain of the new Republican Party at the time, but was very pro-business. In reality, the Times, under Henry Raymond, was more of a Whig paper than a Radical Republican paper. You can see that legacy right up to the McKinley endorsements. The Chicago Tribune, by contrast, was a real Radical Republican organ.

When Sulzberger took over the Times and made it into the “Grey Lady,” the paper moved toward the Progressive wing of the GOP – although it went to Wilson in 1912. By the 1920s it had become disaffected with laissez-fair Republicanism.

You must be joking.

Look at poor Christopher Buckley who was hounded out of his position at National Review for having the temerity to endorse not only a liberal, but one who purportedly hangs out with washed up terrorists.

What about poor Mort Kondracke who was attacked by his cohorts at Fox for daring to break with the pack of wolves and actually be “fair and balanced” about Joe the unlicensed Plumber?

Or the barrage of angry e-mails sent to Kathleen Parker for her chutzpah in questioning Palin's readiness to be a heartbeat away.

Marlowe, Marlowe, Marlowe (sigh).

2004 October 17 John Kerry
2000 October 29 Albert Gore, Jr.
1996 October 27 William J. Clinton
1992 October 25 William J. Clinton
1988 October 30 Michael Dukakis
1984 October 28 Walter Mondale
1980 October 26 Jimmy Carter
1976 October 24 Jimmy Carter
1972 September 28 George McGovern
1968 October 6 Hubert H. Humphrey
1964 November 1 Lyndon B. Johnson
1960 October 27 John F. Kennedy
1956 October 16 Dwight D. Eisenhower
1952 October 23 Dwight D. Eisenhower
1948 October 3 Thomas Dewey
1944 October 16 Franklin D. Roosevelt
1940 October 24 Wendell Willkie
1936 October 1 Franklin D. Roosevelt
1932 November 6 Franklin D. Roosevelt
1928 October 18 NY Times states “Happy with Either”
(Hoover or Smith)
1924 November 2 NY Times declined to endorse
1920 November 2 no specific endorsement although the Editorial is highly critical of the Republicans
1916 October 21 Woodrow Wilson
1912 November 5 Woodrow Wilson
1908 October 20 William Howard Taft
1904 August 31 Theodore Roosevelt
1900 October 11 William McKinley
1896 October 20 William McKinley

This is just what I have been saying. Conservative opinion today is not nearly so monolithic as . . . say . . . liberal opinion.

Can any of you imagine the New York Times endorsing a Republican?

Can any of you imagine the New York Times actually saying something positive about a Republican candidate in an editorial – without equivocation or being a backhanded compliment?

Of course not.

That said…both the Tribune and the Sun-Times have endorsed Obama. That is important . . . as neither paper fell under the sway of what John Kass termed “Hopium”.

The Chicago papers were relentless critical of Obama . . . when the rest of the MSM was in its schoolgirl crush, and did not dare even ask Obama a question. The Chicago papers pounded Obama about Rezko . . . a topic largely verboten in the media in the rest of the country.

Remember Obama's famous line: “C'mon guys, I've answered like eight questions.”

That was to reporters for Chicago papers, who were pressuring Obama to talk about Rezko…to answer questions….which – as Obama's response indicates – was something no other member of the media dared to do with Obama back in March.

Thus, as Elrod says, these endorsements carry weight . . . far more than the predictable New York Times template “fill in the blank” endorsement of a Democrat.

Barring mischance, Obama will be president in 2009.