From the L.A. Times recent endorsement of Obama:

"Indeed, the presidential campaign has rendered McCain nearly unrecognizable. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was, as a short-term political tactic, brilliant. It was also irresponsible, as Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory. The decision calls into question just what kind of thinking -- if that's the appropriate word -- would drive the White House in a McCain presidency. Fortunately, the public has shown more discernment, and the early enthusiasm for Palin has given way to national ridicule of her candidacy and McCain's judgment."

I live in L.A.

The L.A. Times has endorsed the more liberal candidate for as long as I can remember, which is about 35 years worth of elections.  This goes for the presidential race, governor, mayor, senatorial, and ballot proposition. I don't even have to know what the issue is. I can predict what the L.A. Time endorsed.

The same is probably true of the S.F. Chronicle, Boston Globe, N.Y. Times, New Orleans Picayune (Spelling is probably wrong, sorry), and the next dozen papers in line.

And you are so surprised they continued with the same old same old.

"I'm shocked, shocked, to find there is gambling going on here."

If Mother Teresa was alive and a Republican, the LA Times would endorse a liberal. I too have about 35 years worth of elections under my belt, and I can't remember the last time the LA Times endorsed a Republican candidate, or a conservative issue.

The only reason I read the LA Times is for the Sports section. For the most part, you can't get too political w/sports.

...that I am aware of, was earlier this year when it endorsed McCain as the Republican candidate.  You might say "of course" because he was the most left leaning, I would say "of course" because the others were even more of a (bad) joke.

You say that earlier they endorsed McCain. When they did so, it was in the primary, so they were only endorsing Dems against Dems, and GOP against GOP.

They were not endorsing him against a Dem.

Rather, between multiple GOPs they were selecting one, and of course, if they had to chose between the GOP, they selected the one most identified with a the moderate wing.

In doing so, they were not endorsing him as against a Dem.

When it is GOP v. GOP, of course they chose a GOP. When it is Dem v. GOP, they always have endorsed Dem.

...and the last president it endorsed was Nixon.  Yea...of course it means nothing - fucking left wing media.

Read their editorials.  It is not only that they endorse the more liberal, with the exception of 40 years ago.  It is that 90% of their views reflect the same thing. From capital punishment to education and on and on, they are one-sided.

The letters to the editor are typical.  I was having this discussion during the time that we went into Iraq.  Regardless of the ultimate right or wrong, at the time most people were in favor of it.  You may think they were "duped," but that is not the point. Most people backed it, which is why most Dems like Clinton and Kerry voted for it.

My friend mentioned that she thought the paper was fair.  That morning they had 10 letters on the subject, with 9 against invading. In other words, when the country was 75% in favor, they ran letters 90% against.

Look at the letters in the paper for the last week.  Remember the polls have a 6 to 10 point gap.  The letters are 80% Dem, if you total them for the week.  

PLEASE understand one point. I don't object to the paper having a view and encouraging it. That is their right.

In Europe, there are known conservative and liberal papers. You get the Times and you know what their position is before you unfold it.  You get the Guardian and you likewise know what they will say.

The thing I object to is here they pretend to be objective.  Of course they are going to endorse Obama.

-- Modified on 10/19/2008 6:24:25 AM

They made a good point. My statement doesn't apply that to anything else that they've said.  

-- Modified on 10/19/2008 12:56:08 PM