LA Times Editorial Board endorses someone for president. Go figure.
To the surprise of 13 non-subscribers in Burundi, the Editorial Board of The Times newspaper today endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president.
"It is Obama's character and temperament that come to the fore. It is his steadiness. His maturity. These are qualities American leadership has sorely lacked for close to a decade," the editorial said.
The editorial also criticized Sen. John McCain, whom it endorsed for the Republican nomination before the California primary, as becoming "nearly unrecognizable" in his position switches since last winter.
And it roundly pounded his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as running mate as "the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory."
The editorial by the editorial board praised Obama for his vice presidential choice of Sen. Joe Biden as demonstrating "more competence than drama." You can read the whole endorsement thingy for yourself here.
To the ongoing disbelief of media conspiracists, the editorial board is a separate entity from The Times newsroom or LATimes.com, the online home of The Ticket. To be absolutely honest, other than....
...the well-respected editor, we don't even know who's on the editorial board anymore. In recent years they've cycled people in and out of there like a Starbuck's counter crew.
All we know is it's a super-secret society that talks politics and policies over those tomatoey El Pollo Loco lunches.
The board's decision creates all kinds of problems for political partisans. It endorsed a Democrat, which kinda blows up the idea of a rich Republican owner dictating policies from BelAir or Michigan Avenue.
Someone could suggest the endorsement confirms the mainstream print media's ongoing adoration of the liberal Windy City machine magi. Except this is the newspaper's first presidential endorsement of any kind since 1972, when it had appeared to learn its lesson and stopped White House endorsements after supporting Richard M. Nixon, who was forced to resign in disgrace. So, no Times pattern there.
In fact, Obama is the first Democratic presidential nominee endorsed by The Times newspaper ever, which makes him very special or weird.
There's been considerable debate in media circles over what impact, if any, newspaper endorsements have anymore, given the exploding environment for information elsewhere.
They do prompt healthy and thoughtful discussion in print, always a good thing in a vibrant democracy that often seems too hurried to read much anymore. And newspaper endorsements do seem to carry considerable weight in local races, where readers never heard of many candidates.
On the presidential level, the campaigns actually have people assigned to promote, track and publicize their newspaper endorsements as if they really matter. Historical evidence seems to indicate voters tend to soak up all kinds of information from a growing array of sources especially online, and then follow their own minds as if this was a democracy.
As regular readers of Ticket comments know, we here are a bunch of moronic, leftist, neocon idiots who are completely in the tank for whomever the commenter is against. We love being there.
If you're outraged or delighted by the newspaper's endorsement, spare us the need to delete your comment here. Send it to Letters@latimes.com. We don't really care.
Our comments are reserved for Ticket items, which will continue to strive to be the kind of equal opportunity offender our millions of readers have come to expect.
--Andrew Malcolm
To obtain instant cell alerts of each new Ticket item, go register here at Twitter.
character... temperament .... maturity
NO mention of accomplishments and experience or any legislative success! Wow!
If these are the qualification for presidency then why are they so worry about Palin's experience??
Posted by: frieda | October 17, 2008 at 02:13 PM
The most inexperienced candidate in US history is running for president in 2008, yet the LA Times endorses him. I'm shocked! "Gambling in Casablanca"?! You deserve the enmity of both democrats and republicans who fought for years to reform welfare. Senator Government will reestablish the soul-destroying horrors of socialism.
Posted by: DrBanks | October 17, 2008 at 08:10 PM
Good stuff as - almost - always, Malcolm.
Posted by: Jeff Balla | October 17, 2008 at 08:32 PM
Wow. That was really PROFESSIONAL. I know, reading your incredibly PROFESSIONAL commentary above that you are a reporter with AMAZING credibility and IMPECCABLE sources. And really BALANCED and FAIR: not a pound of persiflage in a ton.
Gotta work on that "charm" thing a little, though.
Posted by: Hart Williams | October 18, 2008 at 01:27 AM
And right on cue...here come the screaming lunatics.
Comment boards have been a good place to get a sense of the desperate atmosphere over on the far right of the political spectrum these days. A lot of anger. A lot of "It's Unfair!" accusations being thrown around. And very little sense of humor. I get the sense from rational republicans that it greatly disturbs them that these people are out there representing the party.
Posted by: Dan | October 19, 2008 at 05:56 AM
"character and temperament " I just don't know. Temperament, ok. But this life-long Democrat's biggest problem with Sen Obama ahs been exactly his character, or judgment.
Sure, he looks like he would be great on West Wing, but not so much as in the West Wing.
I shake my head in your general directions.
Posted by: Mike Zarowitz | October 20, 2008 at 05:10 PM
Just read the endorsement.
It is pretty obvious that letting go 150 senior editorial staff at LATimes .... well....results in really poor writing.
And I guess the young kids on the block don't remember Nixon either do they.
Need to tell them he was the president portrayed in "Dick".
Posted by: Obsrever | October 21, 2008 at 01:05 PM