"Barack Obama picked up at least 15 newspaper endorsements this weekend, including six in swing states Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina and Missouri. John McCain, as far as we know, gained none.
The Wisconsin State Journal and The Sun of San Bernardino had backed Bush in 2004. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch called Obama's opponent, John McCain, "the incredible shrinking man" who had made a horrific pick for his running mate.
Backing Obama:
In Ohio, The Blade in Toledo and the
Dayton Daily News;
the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,
St. Louis Post-Dispatch,
The Tennessean of Nashville,
the Wisconsin State Journal.
the Asheville (N.C.) Citizen-Times,
and in California
the Fresno Bee,
Sacramento Bee,
Contra Costa Times,
The Herald of Monterrey, and
The Sun of San Bernardino (which had picked Bush over Kerry)."
=========
Anybody got any links of McNasty endorsements from this weekend?
That is great news for the Obama campaign. My question is, whom will the San Antonio Express-News endorse this time around? It already leans heavily to the right. So I wonder if they'll make the intelligent choice this time around and endorse the Democrat for President.
"It already leans heavily to the right"
SA being above all a military burg, EN will probably go with Whott's 300 retired generals and endorse McSameOld and make-work/make-career for the military, aka, bogus and badly run/extended wars.
And that's a shame too. There are so many more aspects to the San Antonio electorate than just a bunch of retired generals. But I do concur.
Why is a newspapers endorsement a big deal? Honest question.
because it's 15 more things that palin didn't read.
Paper newspapers are in serious decline, even their on-line versions, as is their influence.
But in their attempt, at least some of them, to be responsible, serious contributors to society, supposedly after serious reflection on the candidates, they endorse. No big deal.
It would be anamolous if HUSSEIN were up 10 points, as he is, but these newspapers were 15-0 for McNasty.
So the newswpapers are some indication of which way the wind is blowing, and wind ain't filling McBottomGun's sails.
That would be 15 newspapers of how many tens of thousands?
NRA Endorses McCain
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...dorses-mccain/
Reform Party USA endorses McCain
The AP reports Reform Party USA endorsed John McCain for president Saturday during its convention in Hicksville, New York. Party Chairman Frank MacKay says representatives from 27 states voted to endorse McCain, while none backed Barack Obama.
http://www.independentpoliticalrepor...for-president/
As you stated, newspaper endorsements aren't worth much, but to play your game, here's a few that have endorsed McCain;
The New York Post, The Washington D.C. Examiner, The San Francisco Examiner, The Baltimore Examiner, The Findlay Courier, The Spokesman Review (Washington State), The Boston Herald, etc.
I see you skipped estimation day in elementary school.
http://www.naa.org/info/facts99/11.html
I stand corrected, 1 of every 100 threw their suppport behind Obama.
Not bad for a single Sunday. What I'm wondering is if he gets free newspapers now?
Over the weekend.
Nice echo effect.
LMAObecause it's 15 more things that palin didn't read.
Where'd you get that list?
Off the top of my head.
Yeah, no one saw that coming
Disingenuous.
And on a related note, to the suprise of everyone: MSNBC, CNN, HNN, CNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, Al Jazeera, and 75% of FNC also endorsed The Messi..er...Obama.
Liberals everywhere were said to be celebrating the news and denouncing the lemminglike stupidity of the unintelligent and obviously brainwashed McCain supporters.
You said it...
The Repugs have handed the Whotts a super-weak, losing ticket and worse campaign, so the Whotts have to tie themselves in knots trying to put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a big, fat, oinking pig covered in .
Damn...I got an ignored trifecta. *fistpump*
Still annoying having to scroll past 3 ignored posts in a row though...try to break it up a bit guys.
Why Obama's Shocking Landslide in Newspaper Endorsements Really Matters
Barack Obama's smashing lead over John McCain in newspaper endorsements could prove significant - especially since the deluge began four days ago, just as Obama began to sink in most polls.
By our count over at Editor & Publisher he leads by a better than 3 to 1 margin (102 to 32 at last count). In contrast, when we did our final count in 2004, John Kerry barely edged George Bush, 213-205, and in elections before then, the GOP candidate almost always took the lion's share of endorsements.
What's startling is when you look at that list of large papers that have backed Obama. It's a who's who of the dominant papers in nearly every giant metro: Boston, New York, both papers in Chicago, Cleveland, Philly, Pittsburgh, D.C., Atlanta, both papers in L.A., Detroit, both papers in Seattle, Portland, Miami, Orlando, Raleigh, Buffalo and more. McCain's only clear wins are in Columbus and San Diego, and barely managing a split in Texas, of all places. It's a veritable landslide.
But even more revealing, Obama has an even wider lead in those that have switched sides. That flipflop number is now close to 25, with McCain only picking up one paper from the Kerry side in 2004 (the Daily Press in Newport News, Va.)
The list of switches to Obama includes such GOP stalwarts as the Chicago Tribune (never has endorsed a Democrat in its long history), Houston Chronicle and Austin American-Statesman, plus the Denver Post, New York Daily News and a host of others. Two other large papers that did not endorse at all in 2004 (the L.A. Times and Plain Dealer in Cleveland) also backed Obama. And the list goes on and on.
What's amazing is that one paper after another cites Sarah Palin as clearly unqualified to be president. Yet many of the pundits that appear in some of the same papers, and others, have not ventured to state this clearly (like David Brooks, who has failed to state this in print). It is clearly a driving point in why so many have switched away from McCain.
True, many Obama papers are in safe blue states but many others are in the red zone. Certainly the Denver Post will help in Colorado, for example. But let's look at Ohio as a prime case.
I argued here recently that while some scoff at the importance of newspaper endorsements, what about this: On the eve of the 2004 vote, I looked at the 15 top toss-up states and picked the winner for each - based purely on newspaper endorsements (size and number). I got 14 right, only missing on Florida.
I gave Ohio to Bush based largely on the stance of the two largest papers in the state: The Columbus Dispatch backed Bush (after much wrangling) while the Cleveland Plain Dealer sat it out. Sure enough, Bush won a squeaker.
But this time around, the Plain Dealer has backed the Democrat, and most of the other middle-sized city papers have also come out for him (Dayton, Akron, etc.), with the Canton Repository, a Bush backer in 2004 switching to Obama.
So scoff if you like--but when I my toss-up picks in early November, most likely I will be putting Ohio in the Obama column. And as goes, Ohio....
For the E&P count and numerous other stories on this issue: go here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-m...tml?view=print
==========
Opposite the widespread dirty tricks by the Repugs, never get y, but McNasty's people are pissing into a hurricane. They can't even maintain lead in W. VA.
75% of FNC also endorsed The Messi..er...Obama.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
