Mike (not Bloomberg) emailed me, entirely right, calling me out for mentioning the Post’s endorsement of Obama and completely ignoring the Times’ endorsement of John McCain.
The truth is I wasn’t totally looking into things for a real post. The main idea I was getting behind was the front-pageness of it (and the possibility of confusing the readership).
But Mike’s right. There really is no reason for a paper with clear and evident political leanings (like the Post to the right and the Times to the left) to endorse a candidate in the primaries of the “other” side. I mean, does the editor that wrote the editorial affiliate with the republican party? Does that editor need to make a choice about who to vote for in the primary? Likely not. So why invent an endorsement of a candidate you won’t vote for? At best it comes off as irrelevant, at worst, devious (acting as sort of an anti-endorsement), and in the middle disingenuous. So why do it?
The Times says, “We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president [but] still, there is a choice to be made,” when in truth there is no such choice. Just as I don’t have a choice in the Democratic primary (since I don’t have a vote in it), my choice and therefore my endorsement is irrelevant. Does it matter if I favor Obama over Hillary? No. Especially if my choice is based on who I think is more beatable. If you’re going to acknowledge that you have no area of agreement with the candidates, why endorse one at all? Especially if you have no chance of endorsing that candidate for the actual presidency? The analysis that follows (explaining the Times’ choice of McCain) is irrelevant, because all of those “good things” are BS, since they don’t really believe them (or at most, in a “lesser of two evils” kind of way).
All the Times and the Post are doing are saying who they prefer to lose to their true choice for President. That just makes no sense.