New York Times endorses Obama

[Feanor]

This endosement isn't a surprise, admittedly. What I like best, though, is how thoroughly it puts the lie to the notion that McCain is somehow a "maverick" who will right the mistakes of the Bush regime.


There are many quotable paragraphs and I advise everyone to read the whole editorial. Some of my favorites comments ...

In the same time, Senator John McCain of Arizona has retreated farther and farther to the fringe of American politics, running a campaign on partisan division, class warfare and even hints of racism. His policies and worldview are mired in the past. His choice of a running mate so evidently unfit for the office was a final act of opportunism and bad judgment that eclipsed the accomplishments of 26 years in Congress.

Given the particularly ugly nature of Mr. McCain’s campaign, the urge to choose on the basis of raw emotion is strong. But there is a greater value in looking closely at the facts of life in America today and at the prescriptions the candidates offer. The differences are profound.

Mr. McCain offers more of the Republican every-man-for-himself ideology, now lying in shards on Wall Street and in Americans’ bank accounts. Mr. Obama has another vision of government’s role and responsibilities.
...

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. ...

Amen!

[kexodusc]

Oh geez...This is like the kiss of death isn't it?
If I'm Obama, I distance myself from this...

[Feanor]

Oh geez...This is like the kiss of death isn't it?
If I'm Obama, I distance myself from this...

There plenty of people who will dismiss NYT opinion out of hand. So don't worry: Obama won't be bragging about this endorsement.

I distinctly recall Palin at some rally joking about reading something in the NY Times as if to say, "See? I'm not quite the anti-intellectual red-neck you suppose, although of course I consider their opinions not those of real Americans".

[kexodusc]

There plenty of people who will dismiss NYT opinion out of hand. So don't worry: Obama won't be bragging in person about this endorsement.

I distinctly recall Palin at some rally joking about reading something in the NY Times as if to say, "See? I'm not quite the anti-intellectual red-neck you suppose, although of course I consider their opinions not those of real Americans".

If the NY Times wanted to make some real news, they should have backed McCain. That would have shocked a lot of people, sold well, and possibly even influenced some voters. This show of support however, I don't think will have any meaningful effect one way or the other as it was fairly predictable, and I don't see any McCain supporters jumping ship because of this.

This is a non-issue in other words. Wonder why they even bothered?

[Rich-n-Texas]

If the NY Times wanted to make some real news, they should have backed McCain. That would have shocked a lot of people, sold well, and possibly even influenced some voters. This show of support however, I don't think will have any meaningful effect one way or the other as it was fairly predictable, and I don't see any McCain supporters jumping ship because of this.

This is a non-issue in other words. Wonder why they even bothered?

Translated (IMO): Wonder why Feanor even bothered?

[Feanor]

If the NY Times wanted to make some real news, they should have backed McCain. That would have shocked a lot of people, sold well, and possibly even influenced some voters. This show of support however, I don't think will have any meaningful effect one way or the other as it was fairly predictable, and I don't see any McCain supporters jumping ship because of this.

This is a non-issue in other words. Wonder why they even bothered?

The NY Times said it because they needed to put it on the record. Secretly the NYT editors likely agree that it isn't going to sway any McCain/Palin supporters, (dupes that they are: hello, Rich) -- or anybody -- at this late date.

So as Rich asks, why did I bother? Simply because I think the NY Times is calling it like it is and stating the case better than I ever could.

[Rich-n-Texas]

So does that mean you're going to STFU now?

[Feanor]

So does that mean you're going to STFU now?

Small chance of that!!

[Rich-n-Texas]

I'm allowed to dream ain't I?

Look at that! Another week gone by. Time for a beer. Hey, I can't find Sleeman Honey Brown here so please FedEx me some okay?

[Feanor]

Okydoky ... email me your address. Might not make it for election night, though.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I was hoping to have it by the weekend, but I guess I'll have to make due with what's available.

Anyway, didn't mean to derail your thread...

[GMichael]

Anyway, didn't mean to derail your thread...

Yes you did.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Yes you did.

You know it and I know it... and umm well, I think he knows it too!

[tyrocks00]

what do you expect? please. the NY times is a liberal newspaper of course they are going to endorse obama