home

Chicago Sun Times Endorses Obama

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:17:30 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain, Sarah Palin (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Add the Chicago Sun Times to the list of papers endorsing Sen. Barack Obama. Why won't it support McCain?

[S]omewhere along the line, McCain stopped being McCain. The maverick who always thought for himself turned his thinking over to others. He became too driven to win.

He reversed his position on major social issues to curry favor with the Republican base. He pulled silly surprises from a hat, such as “suspending” his campaign. Most egregiously for a man of advanced age who knew how important this decision could be, he chose the unqualified Gov. Sarah Palin to be his vice president. (emphasis supplied.)

On Obama: [More...]

Here in Chicago, we have been watching Barack Obama and sizing him up for some time. We knew him well before he introduced himself to the nation with his electrifying speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

We saw the strength of character, the steady temperament, the dazzling intellect, the good judgment, the compassion, the ability to see through others’ eyes.

Barack Obama, we believe, will stand tall for America, first and always, but will restore our nation’s stature in the world.

< Atlanta Journal Constitution Endorses Obama, Blasts McCain | Obama and Hillary in Florida Monday for Early Vote Start >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Chicago Sun Times Endorses Obama | 51 comments (51 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    You're just waiting for BTD to (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:20:19 PM EST
    eat a little crow over Palin, I can tell.


    Hey, ten points. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:23:20 PM EST
    Just sayin'.

    BTD tipped his hand the other day.  His argument over Palin is based in gallantry, not political analysis.  He believes that turning Palin into a laughing stock and placing on her the blame for McCain's failure will reflect negatively on women in politics as a whole.

    At least, that's my interpretation of his remark.

    Parent

    100% correct (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by dws3665 on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 11:35:00 PM EST
    I think you could call it gallantry, but I also think you could call it patriarchy/sexism. He is very well-intentioned, but the idea that you can't criticize female candidates is sexist. Or maybe that's too harsh. Perhaps he feels like you shouldn't criticize weak candidates of either gender who have difficulty defending themselves.

    Either way, it is clear that highlighting Palin's lack of qualifications has made a difference in the perception of the GOP ticket.

    Parent

    Criticism (none / 0) (#30)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 11:41:33 PM EST
    is different from crucifixion.  And until I see the exact quote from BTD I will think it is unfair to criticize the word choice "gallantry."


    Parent
    didn't intend to criticize it (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by dws3665 on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 11:48:31 PM EST
    I was quoting Larry - but I also think that's a reasonable way to characterize where BTD has been coming from this whole time. He expressed, repeatedly, his opinion that criticizing/piling on Palin was counter-productive and ran the risk of alienating even further the voters who were so upset at the sexist treatment HRC received.

    Personally, I think the term "crucifixion" is hyperbolic and melodramatic. Seeking the Vice Presidency is not for the meek. By selecting her, McCain opened the door; had she been capable of responding to the challenges of media scrutiny, she would have.

    Parent

    But gallantry (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by lilburro on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 12:20:45 AM EST
    adds a tint of paternalism to what BTD is saying and I don't get that from him at all.  Not having Sarah Palin as your focus doesn't automatically make you gallant.  And it was obvious in the beginning that criticizing her WAS having a negative effect on the fortunes of Democrats.  We are very lucky that Biden and Obama have been very careful in their criticisms of her.  Does that make them gallant?  Remember, the economy has changed everything.  Slamming Sarah Palin is not as dangerous any more and doesn't get the attention it did.  

    Obviously there are a zillion things to criticize Sarah Palin about.  I don't really have a problem with that.  But sometimes criticism comes with such strikingly deep disrespect that it makes you pause.  The level of hysteria a few days after her pick was really nuts.  Again, go back to BTD's comparison of how people were treating Tim Kaine as a possible choice.  The attitude towards him was much different and his qualifications in key areas were just as bad.

    Believe me though, I am grateful that light has been shined on her crazy right wing views.

    Parent

    well, (none / 0) (#44)
    by dws3665 on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 12:38:38 AM EST
    I think the paternalism was there. I guess we just saw things differently. But like I said above, I'm willing to be mistaken about that.

    I don't know what makes you say that it was "obvious" that criticizing her was a negative for Democrats in the beginning. Her nomination was a stunt, and it worked temporarily. At least that's my view.

    Kaine is an interesting counter-point; but of course he wasn't chosen, and therefore not either subjected to the scrutiny or given the opportunity to acquit himself in the national spotlight, both tests that Palin failed. Kaine also had more of a national profile (he won the governorship of a large state, adjacent to the nation's capital, in a race that garnered considerable public attention) and a somewhat better resume in politics (Mayor of Richmond vs Mayor of Wasilla is not really even close). How he ultimately would have been treated isn't really knowable. But it does raise questions; thanks for reminding me of that.

    Quayle, while not a governor, is another counter-point. He was ridiculed mercilessly (also using some gender-based attacks, interestingly: "Ken Doll"), though he probably did a little bit better than Palin in the national spotlight.


    Parent

    re: paternalism (none / 0) (#48)
    by lilburro on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 01:52:55 AM EST
    again, all I've read about BTD's stance on Palin recently is here:

    VP Post Debate Thread 1

    where he writes

    "I confess that I am pleased Palin did not fail."

    and

    "I did not want to see a woman fail
    I did not want to see her succeed, but I did not want her to fail."

    and

    "The symbol matters
    You act as if that is not so and you know better."

    I completely agree that symbols matter - when there's so few women in visible political office, their performance becomes the standard for future women and is a representative of the silent majority, etc.  George W. is sadly a symbol of our country for many.  Apropos the quotes I selected above, I don't think that gallantry is an appropriate description of their content or tone.  IMO those comments are not paternalistic and I think describing them as "gallant" discredits BTD's points.  But heck, Larry may be referring to something more recent though so maybe I'm using the wrong point of reference.  My impression is that BTD is hardly paternalistic.  His writing really about gender issues has been fantastic.  He is a great ally in women's progressive struggles and causes.

    Anyyyyway.  I agree Palin was a stunt, but it worked at first because in the beginning, Republicans were able to turn around all the criticism of Palin on Obama.  And cry sexist, etc.  Just cry it, btw - I have not seen a coherent argument re: her treatment or abiding concerns about sexism from the Right.  As I'm sure you haven't either.

    More than anything else, I am just fascinated, or less generously, completely confounded by Sarah Palin.  Consider this - unlike Hillary Clinton, who chose to run for office and ran her campaign from the beginning, Sarah Palin was chosen.  So another set of people (the McCain camp) decided to incorporate her, for a litany of reasons we do not at this time know.  What they intended to do and were hoping for from her is unclear, but the differences between running for President and being chosen for Vice President create totally different breeding grounds for sexism.  The McCain camp could very well have chosen her to just milk her sex appeal or whatever.  Their gender moulding/manipulation makes this much different from Hillary deciding, hey, I want to be President, here I go.

    Parent

    Not exactly (none / 0) (#39)
    by Teresa on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 12:13:30 AM EST
    He expressed, repeatedly, his opinion that criticizing/piling on Palin was counter-productive and ran the risk of alienating even further the voters who were so upset at the sexist treatment HRC received.

    Mostly, he argued that sexism was bad period. I'm not talking about his back and forth with Jeralyn about whether or not criticizing her qualifications was productive. I'm talking about in the beginning when she was attacked by the media for having no foreign policy experience, etc., when he was wondering if a male governor would be held to that same standard.

    Parent

    fair enough (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by dws3665 on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 12:28:41 AM EST
    It's my opinion, though, that he decried sexism while engaging in a form of it, with respect to your former example (the back and forth with Jeralyn).

    Let me be clear - I am a huge BTD fan, and I know he is pro-women's rights and pro-women politicians (with progressive ideas, of course). It is my opinion, though, that his take on Palin was influenced by a protective, paternalistic take on the right way to treat women. I may be wrong, as I acknowledged above. He certainly didn't have this idea about HRC, who he was fair about praising and criticizing, imo - which is why I said his defense of her may have had more to do with Palin's inability to get it right.

    Finally, I guess I do disagree with the notion that a male governor with similar "qualifications" and who made similar gaffes would have gotten better treatment. But of course, that is only an opinion.

    Parent

    BTD was fierce in his defense of Hillary (none / 0) (#45)
    by Teresa on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 12:45:25 AM EST
    during the primaries. Are you saying that he feels Palin is unable to defend herself but Hillary was? Maybe so, but that's not how I saw BTD. He was the most vocal blogger I saw in defending Hillary when she was treated unfairly.

    About the governor thing...the treatment of Palin started before she made any gaffes so that's not a fair comparison. I'm not trying to say I think she'd be a good VP, I just think you are reading BTD wrong on this particular issue. He's going to fight against sexism wherever he sees it.

    Parent

    Hmmm. (none / 0) (#46)
    by dws3665 on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 01:03:00 AM EST
    Are you saying that he feels Palin is unable to defend herself but Hillary was?

    I'm hypothesizing it, not stating it as fact. Look, BTD was apoplectic for some time -- even to the point of refusing to blog for a while -- when Jeralyn took to focusing on Palin's lack of qualifications for the office. He just thought it was ghastly. Why? Jeralyn's criticisms were very focused (with an exception or two) on her qualifications, and BTD acted like this was some type of massive affront to propriety. Had Palin been a man, do you think he would have reacted that way? I do not. I read his reaction as reflecting a degree of "you don't treat women that way." In my mind, that is a paternalistic reaction. His remarks were not confined to those criticisms of Palin that were beyond the pale - he repeatedly said (paraphrasing) "don't focus on Palin; it's bad politics and sends the wrong message about women candidates." It may have been bad politics, but I don't think criticizing Palin had anything to do with "women candidates" in general.

    I agree with you whole-heartedly that BTD was extremely fair toward HRC during the primary - he defended her when she was baselessly attacked, and he pointed it out when he thought she was wrong. He was consistent with his principles. That's why I found it so unusual to see him recoil when Palin's obvious shortcomings were all the rage -- here at TL and elsewhere -- for a couple weeks after her nomination (and, really, continuing onward after that, though in somewhat less emotional tones).

    However, I have to concede your point - I may have been reading his reaction incorrectly. I don't know; this is just my interpretation, and I welcome differing viewpoints. I appreciate your responses to my comments.

    Parent

    If I may jump in here (none / 0) (#49)
    by lilburro on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 02:11:48 AM EST
    IIRC, BTD's point at that time was if you can't define what level of experience counts as "passing the test," then it is difficult to attack Palin for hers.  So many of us were willing to look past Obama's inexperience.  I have heard him compared often to Lincoln in order to bypass questions of experience.  And of course Republicans were happy to say, well the top of your ticket is as inexperienced as the bottom of ours!!  So he and others here on that basis found discussing Palin endlessly to be a bad move strategically.

    Also, when Palin was chosen it was a very weird time.  McCain was actually up, we were down.  Palin is chosen...our lead is gone...and so, the Palin attacks are happening all the time.  It was a very weird situation for me.  I kept wondering what was going on??  Why did it seem like our society was flipping out?  Even at the beginning, before her VP acceptance speech, expectations for her were really low.


    Parent

    And good for him for that. His daughters are (none / 0) (#3)
    by Teresa on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:27:09 PM EST
    lucky girls.

    Parent
    there are those of us with daughters (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:31:12 PM EST
    who believe picking palin is a major setback for our daughters and who are not obliged to give her a free ride to "protect" our daughters.  

    Parent
    Ah, give Palin some credit (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:33:55 PM EST
    she made Obama qualified! /s  ;)

    Parent
    heh! (none / 0) (#16)
    by Faust on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:50:10 PM EST


    Parent
    nicely done (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:52:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Ah, give Palin some credit (none / 0) (#21)
    by mapleh23 on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:59:04 PM EST
    That must mean McCain is a genuis.
    This is good news for McCain!

    Parent
    I have no problem with criticizing any (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Teresa on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:43:27 PM EST
    politician for their qualifications, records or stances. It's the other stuff on other blogs that bother me. I don't want a good female candidate to fear being Palin'd or xxxxxxx'd (that other woman candidate). The sexism that I have seen isn't right no matter who it is directed toward.

    I'm not saying you have been disrespectful Jlvngstn. I'm only saying that I agree with BTD and since he has argued fiercely against sexism in the past, it wouldn't have been right for him to not do so now.

    Parent

    But being "Palin-ed". . . (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:47:34 PM EST
    is being criticized for qualifications, records, or stances.  No problem there.

    It's being Clinton-ed that worries me on behalf of women politicians (including, potentially, my two daughters).

    Parent

    In which category would you (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:55:04 PM EST
    place mocking Gov. Palin's accent?  Winking?  Choosing to have her family come on stage?  Including Levi Johnston at DNC?  

    Parent
    Well. . . (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 09:01:35 PM EST
    I place the caricature of personal attributes, at least when done by comedians or editorial cartoonists, outside the kind of misogynistic attacks Clinton suffered from.  That's just comedy, they do it to every politician (every public figure, really), male or female.  Certainly they hit both Obama and McCain pretty hard in the last SNL debate skit.

    I think it was Palin's decision to have her family come on stage, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.  In terms of making fun of her family, while I think it's probably counterproductive and sometimes tasteless, again, it happens to both men and women.   In fact, the two biggest targets of that kind of stuff I remember have been Carter and (Bill) Clinton.

    So, I guess I consider most of what you've mentioned to be within fair grounds for political / social commentary.

    Parent

    Perhaps I should have been more (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 09:06:50 PM EST
    specific.  Exclude SNL.  

    Parent
    Some places Larry, but some of it has been (none / 0) (#20)
    by Teresa on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:56:37 PM EST
    awful. I think it would have existed even if she had been a two term Gov. from Alaska with an impressive background. I know you had to read some of it.

    But I agree with you otherwise. I'm almost relieved that we don't have to listen to Hillary being bashed for four years. I read your comment about having your cake and eating it too when you first returned to DK. That post made me feel so good because I have some things to look forward to now! It's a good attitude to have.

    Parent

    there HAS been sexism against Palin (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by dws3665 on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 11:42:37 PM EST
    Most definitely. I actually just typed out a list of examples, but then I realized that I was basically repeating them here and perpetuating them, so I erased. Melissa McEwan has a list of the most egregious examples here, if you have the curiosity and a strong stomach.

    I think it is important that we, as "the Left," be able to criticize female candidates just as we do male candidates, but without sinking into demeaning gender-based attacks. There is a difference between being "Palin-ed" and "HRC-ed."

    Parent

    i get ya (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:55:31 PM EST
    just pointing out a differing opinion and the right wing pundits crying sexism over the tina fey impersonations drag down sexism as well.  It is a pity that McCain put her in a situation that she was utterly unprepared for (I said this 2 days after he picked her and said she would perform awfully) and it is a setback for women because he appointed a talking head.

    Parent
    I agree. They should embrace the Tina Fey (none / 0) (#22)
    by Teresa on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:59:05 PM EST
    stuff. Priceless publicity. At least she has been able to laugh at herself. Too bad McCain's campaign didn't take the same attitude. Those impersonations are priceless.

    Parent
    Well, unless they make him mad I should (none / 0) (#4)
    by Teresa on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:27:43 PM EST
    add.  :)

    Parent
    I"m not saying anything against BTD, (none / 0) (#5)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:30:16 PM EST
    but gallantry and chauvinism actually go hand in hand, IMO. Palin is a failure because she's unqualified. No lipstick, cologne or fotoshop.. ahem.. could fix that deficit.

    Parent
    Henceforth, no Presidential nominee (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:33:06 PM EST
    will be able to tap the Governor of any sparsely-populated state for VP.  

    P.S.  Even Joe Biden criticized Sarah Palin today, as he spoke to a crowd of 300 or so people in New Mexico.  See AP.

    Parent

    I don't think (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:59:59 PM EST
    the population of her state had much to do with the perception of Pallin.  She's been Governor for a year and a half and before was mayor of a small town.

    Sarah Palin's claim that Alaska's separation from Russia by the Bering Straight qualified as foreign policy experience was the lamest resume stretch imaginable.  I think she knocked herself out with that claim.  I'd bet that the great majority of people who heard that one were astounded. McCain's claim that she was one of the nation's foremost energy experts also had to hurt.

    The whole thing was just plain chitzy from the start and it showed.

    Parent

    politics (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by dws3665 on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 11:54:54 PM EST
    He criticized her comments about the "Pro-America" parts of America. This was a softball sitting out over the plate, and a campaign would have been silly not to pick up on them. Much like they have criticized her "palling around with terrorists" comment. It is good politics.

    I think it would be more accurate to say that no future candidate will be able to tap a political neophyte governor with no national profile or policy expertise for VP.

    Parent

    A first term, female governor of (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 11:57:02 PM EST
    a state which is not in the media spotlight.  How's that?

    Parent
    whose name... (none / 0) (#37)
    by dws3665 on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 11:59:14 PM EST
    rhymes with "mail in" -- /s.

    I just don't know that the female is necessary in your list, but I really don't think we are disagreeing too strongly.

    Parent

    It is definitely likely (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by lilburro on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 12:23:52 AM EST
    that political operatives who might be contemplating that would think, "gah!  shades of Sarah Palin!"  

    Parent
    Did you hear NPR Marketplace today? (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:34:30 PM EST
    Seems a bookie in Ireland is already paying off on Obama bets--so the bettors can reinvest their winnings in another bet.

    Parent
    Which post was that? (none / 0) (#29)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 11:38:43 PM EST
    I am curious.  I remember the one he wrote after the VP debate where he was glad she did not fail, as that could have had a negative impact on women and women in politics.

    I would be surprised if he actually called that gallantry.  It seems less like gallantry and more like social activism.

    Parent

    That is the post. . . (none / 0) (#51)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 07:15:07 AM EST
    on which I am basing my opinion.

    And I don't mean "gallantry" as either a positive or negative term, simply descriptive.  Or rather, to me it contains both positive and negative elements.

    The more important point I'm trying to make is that BTD's feelings about Palin's role in the campaign, although argued from a point of political analysis (looking at polls to see how important Palin is as an issue) but from a more meta perspective.  Therefore, getting engaged in a conversation about what the polls really say isn't a productive form of engagement -- because the crux of BTD's argument is something different.

    Parent

    Post hoc CW reasoning proves zip (none / 0) (#32)
    by rilkefan on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 11:43:16 PM EST
    "[S]omewhere along the line, McCain stopped being McCain. The maverick who always thought for himself turned his thinking over to others. He became too driven to win."

    The above is a deeply ignorant claim.  Why should anyone care what a deeply ignorant editorial board has to say?

    Parent

    No, I'm just proving my own point (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:33:49 PM EST
    that I've made since the day McCain nominated her -- John McCain conceded the election with his choice of Palin: "Nothing shows McCain's poor judgment as much as this choice. "

    Or, as I wrote here:

    John McCain picked Sarah Palin to get the enthusiastic support of the evangelical, radical right. He didn't think it would matter that she has no national experience because he perceived he could argue Obama didn't either.

    A big miscalculation. Obama presented himself for 17 months to the American people, they heard him debate more than a dozen times, they made their own decision that he was ready for the job and the Democrats voted him their nominee.

    Obama wasn't unilaterally appointed by a party's nominee in a transparent play for the evangelical and female vote. As if Sarah Palin could fill Hillary Clinton's shoes by virtue of her gender. As if women wouldn't see that Sarah Palin is the antithesis of Hillary Clinton on issues. As if anything would evoke Palin's lack of qualifications more than to compare them to Hillary's.

    John McCain went for a twofer because his campaign was in trouble. He had failed to excite his base with only 60 days to go. He took a risky shortcut to try to catch up, trying to get two birds with one stone. It's backfiring big-time.

    ....Voters now know Obama. They vetted him during the course of the campaign. 18 million Democrats voted he was their choice. Voters don't know Palin from Adam. What they do know: She's under investigation in Alaska and she's got no relevant experience. And that only now, after selecting her, is McCain sending his team to Alaska to fully vet her.

    Voters are left with only two conclusions: Either McCain didn't vet Palin which is shockingly, near-criminally negligent or he did vet Palin and still picked her, which has got to be the most desperate, jaw-droppingly reckless political move in decades.

    Sarah Palin is not ready for prime-time or the Vice-Presidency, let alone to be one heartbeat away from the Oval Office. As I also wrote the day her selection was announced, "I think she will crash and burn faster than any national candidate in recent memory."
    Post hoc CW reasoning proves zip (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by rilkefan on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 11:46:12 PM EST
    except that one is willing to use that quality of argument.

    Parent
    And every single (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by JThomas on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 02:26:27 AM EST
    endorsement by papers cite McCain's selection of Palin as a negative due to her inexperience and lack of basic knowledge of international relations.
    It was clearly a mistake by McCain,imo.

    Parent
    The truth is that the (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kenosharick on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:40:03 PM EST
    overwhelming majority of the nation's MSM "unofficially" endorsed Obama a year or so ago.

    "Media darling." (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 08:45:18 PM EST


    Parent
    The truth is that the (none / 0) (#26)
    by mapleh23 on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 09:10:13 PM EST
    It is about time that the Democrats benefit from "the liberal media".

    Parent
    You're right! (none / 0) (#52)
    by kenosharick on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 10:31:52 AM EST
    This "liberal media" sure didn't help in 2000 or in 2004!!

    Parent
    oh puhleeeeeeeeezzzzzzzeeeeeeee!!! (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by cpinva on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 09:53:10 PM EST
    sen. mccain is a "maverick" in his own mind. if flip-flopping on issues, when politically suitable, and giving free donuts to your press buddies, constitutes being a "maverick", then i guess sen. mccain qualifies. otherwise, he is not now, and never has been a "maverick".

    just stop, stop, stop! pushing this nonsensical tale, it's character fraud at its basest.

    who needed to use sexist comments to ream gov. palin? i sure as heck didn't. her complete lack of any reasonable qualifications is so self-evident, only a total tool would be forced to stoop that low.

    Chicago playing home-town favorites (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by abdiel on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 12:08:21 AM EST
    I think the Chicago Sun Times just used boilerplate McCain criticisms to mask their one reason for endorsing Obama: he's from Chicago.  

    Most of the other examples posted on this blog are masking the fact that those editorial boards most likely supported Obama since he started their campaign.  These endorsements don't prove much more than that.

    If you show me some prominent Arizona newspapers pulling for Obama rather than their home-town kid, then McCain really has some problems.

    McCain is toast (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by rilkefan on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 12:23:09 AM EST
    because he's a poor candidate, because Bush is a millstone around his neck, because the financial crisis is killing the conservative brand, and because Obama is running a strong campaign.

    Parent
    Clearly (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by dws3665 on Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 01:05:29 AM EST
    You don't know much about the history of the Trib's editorial board.

    Parent
    Chicago Sun Times Endorses Obama | 51 comments (51 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment