The Washington Post Endorses

Again, it was only a matter of when:

THE NOMINATING process this year produced two unusually talented and qualified presidential candidates. There are few public figures we have respected more over the years than Sen. John McCain. Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president.

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. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama’s relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.

UPDATE: The Chicago Tribune has never endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate before, but it did today.

This endorsement makes some history for the Chicago Tribune. This is the first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party’s nominee for president.

The Tribune in its earliest days took up the abolition of slavery and linked itself to a powerful force for that cause–the Republican Party. The Tribune’s first great leader, Joseph Medill, was a founder of the GOP. The editorial page has been a proponent of conservative principles. It believes that government has to serve people honestly and efficiently.

With that in mind, in 1872 we endorsed Horace Greeley, who ran as an independent against the corrupt administration of Republican President Ulysses S. Grant. (Greeley was later endorsed by the Democrats.) In 1912 we endorsed Theodore Roosevelt, who ran as the Progressive Party candidate against Republican President William Howard Taft.

The Tribune’s decisions then were driven by outrage at inept and corrupt business and political leaders.

We see parallels today.

11 thoughts on “The Washington Post Endorses

  1. shani-o October 17, 2008 at 10:03 am Reply

    Wow, he got the Post to buy into Hope.

  2. scott October 17, 2008 at 10:15 am Reply

    It isn’t that heard to get the Post to buy in. The Post has had a liberal bent since I was a child in D.C.

  3. shani-o October 17, 2008 at 10:37 am Reply

    Scott- I know, I went to school in D.C. But usually they try to pretend they’re not a bunch of bleeding heart libs. Maybe I should have added he got them to admit it.

  4. scott October 17, 2008 at 10:57 am Reply

    I am surprised that the Post waited this long to endorse anyone. I thought they would have already done so.

  5. quadmoniker October 17, 2008 at 11:34 am Reply

    Scott:
    Newspapers usually do wait until really close to the election. Also, if you read the full endorsement, it’s pretty equivocal. They don’t sound like liberals, truth be told.

  6. scott October 17, 2008 at 11:58 am Reply

    quadmoniker:

    The Post has quite the history of having a liberal bent. As a child my father got both the Post and the Washington Star b/c they represented the opposite political opinions in D.C. After the Star folded the Washington Times took up the conservative banner in D.C. While I don’t care if the Post has a liberal bent, I’ve always found it dishonest that they have gone to such great lengths throughout the years to deny it.

  7. quadmoniker October 17, 2008 at 12:02 pm Reply

    Scott:
    I don’t think their editorial pages deny it at all. The same with the Times. It’s the news pages that fight the accusations of bias. And if you had ever worked with journalism, you would know that those accusations are ridiculous. You would understand that the only bias news people have is a bias in favor of people who call them back quickly.

  8. quadmoniker October 17, 2008 at 12:03 pm Reply

    And I never said they weren’t liberal. You’re just twisting my words, Republican-style. I said they don’t sound all that liberal in their endorsement.

  9. scott October 17, 2008 at 12:14 pm Reply

    quadmoniker:

    First, I didn’t reference or twist anything you said. My statement was my own statement independent of what you did or did not say and was based on my experiences growing up reading the Post. Second, as far as your reference to my “twisting my words, Republican-style,” I find it amusing b/c last time I checked liberals can and do twist people’s words as well. I suppose it is easier to believe that only Republicans can do such nefarious things.

  10. ladyfresshh October 17, 2008 at 5:06 pm Reply

    for clarification purposes

    Scott: You did specifically address quad

  11. quadmoniker October 17, 2008 at 5:12 pm Reply

    You know, some people really can’t take a joke.

    Also, I have since been schooled by G.D., and, apparently, WaPo’s endorsement was a surprise to some, since their editorial page has been drifting more to the right recently.

    http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=10&year=2008&base_name=wapo_endorses

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: