It’s no surprise that the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post have endorsed Obama, but the Chicago Tribune? That’s kind of earthshattering. And it’s a stronger endorsement than Fred Hiatt’s petulant concession. The Tribune has never before endorsed a Democrat. They have endorsed every Republican candidate for president except Ulysses S. Grant during his reelection campaign (they endorsed Horace Greeley before he became associated with the Democrats) and William Taft (they endorsed former-Republican Teddy Roosevelt). I think the quantity and quality of Republican support for Obama is a good sign for both his campaign and for his prospects as a president. I don’t think we’ll see the same kind of loony resistance to Obama’s presidency that Clinton had to endure. Of course, we’ve seen an element at the McCain-Palin rallies that will be totally unreconciled to the outcome of this election, but that can’t be helped. It’d be nice if McCain and Palin would stop feeding that beast, but it will be with us in any case.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
13 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
I don’t think we’ll see the same kind of loony resistance to Obama’s presidency that Clinton had to endure.
That in one prediction of yours I don’t think will hold up Boo.
I guess I should be more specific. I don’t think we’ll see the NYT’s pursue some Whitewater fantasy or see a Mellon-Scaife funded attempt to destroy Obama.
On the other hand, FOX will still be FOX and the WSJ will be apoplectic, as always.
But I don’t think the center-right Establishment is going to see Obama as illegitimate, the way that they did with BC.
I don’t think we’ll see the NYT’s pursue some Whitewater fantasy
This may be true. I certainly hope so. I don’t quite recall the ’92 election – did the Whitewater allegations come out during the campaign, or did they start cropping up after he’d won the election.
or see a Mellon-Scaife funded attempt to destroy Obama.
This I find doubtful. Some rich-ass billionaire somewhere who hates Democrats and black people will be working on this. Heck, make that IS working on this. Count on it.
On the other hand, FOX will still be FOX and the WSJ will be apoplectic, as always.
Heh. The WSJ can be as stupid as they want. When they start wailey-wailing about how the Democrats plans will “destroy the economy” this time, I hope they get a full throated “George W Bush” shoved back into their faces and are suitably ignored. Being purchased by Rupert Murdoch probably won’t help them much.
I do wonder a bit about FOX, though. Murdoch isn’t an ideologue so much as he’s a whore for power. He’s probably as happy with center-left as he is with center-right so long as he’s making money. He seemed to have a decent relationship with Tony Blair, IIRC. I wonder if with Democrats taking all of the reigns of power, Murdoch might start to change his mind about letting FOX News be Roger Ailes personal playground.
I doubt it – I’m sure he suspects that with the right wing out of power, there may be a resurgence of viewers for right-wing news. But I guess I wouldn’t be completely surprised to see FOX take a “bold new direction” and make a move to the center.
A Democratic congress with supermajorities will probably have some punitive action against hate radio and FOX. I don’t expect a return of the Fairness Doctrine, but I do expect some increased regulation of the public airwaves.
But I don’t think the center-right Establishment is going to see Obama as illegitimate, the way that they did with BC.
On the contrary, I think with Congressional supermajority for the Democrats a real possibility at this point, the center-right Village Idiots will be clutching those pearls and swooning so hard at Barack’s “failure to bring true change with his overly partisan agenda” that we’ll see Obama’s press honeymoon measured in picoseconds.
Obama’s imaginary “scandals” will be on the cocktail circuit faster than shit through a goose, and as you said the real problem will be the right’s complete insistance that Obama is not even worthy of being considered human, much less President.
It’s not the Village loonies Obama has to worry about. It’s the people who wish to do him physical harm, and who will almost certainly try to do so, driven by nearly two decades of the Pretty Hate Machine.
It’ll be different from Clinton, certainly.
People weren’t trying to kill him for being President.
I’ve always suspected that the Trib seriously damaged itself with its tortured, loony endorsement of Bush in 04. Maybe they figure they can’t afford to lose any more credibility now that they’re on a financial precipice. Especially since they’d never be forgiven around here if they put the knife in Obama.
Whatever the reasons, if even the Trib is going for Obama, it’s hard to imagine that any major paper this side of the Wash Times will endorse McCain. What a difference a year makes.
I will never forgive McCain and his sidekick for sowing racist seeds. They’ve grown into plants.
I think an Ad of McCain and Bush during Katrina; with people drowning they were eating cake and celebrating a birthday.
McCain should never be made welcomed. He should be reminded of his shame.
I don’t think history will be very kind to McCain-Palin.
The Obama campaign is looking for more security at PA offices after recent threats.
Get this.
This is truly awesome and it can’t be dismissed as Obama’s hometown newspaper, either. This is like the Vatican Council electing the Archbishop of Canterbury as Pope. I had expected a lukewarm endorsement of McCain, citing the “War on Terror” and “free market principles”.
It wasn’t a less of two evils endorsement, either. It was full throated and solid. I can only conjecture that moderate Republicans want their Party back and wish to thoroughly repudiate the neoconservatives.
I remember my late father telling me a joke from the Depression era: A cab driver is telling a friend about his new girlfriend. He tells him that she has everything, looks, poise, smarts. “In fact, she even has syphilis”, he concludes. His stunned friend says,”WHAT? Do you know what syphilis is?” The cabdriver answers, “No, but the Tribune is against it, so it HAS to be something good.” THAT’s the newspaper that just ringingly endorsed a Democrat for President for the first time in their 148 year history.
A clear case of “strange bedfellows”. Great story from your dad!
Thanks. I wish he could have been alive to see this.
My dad, a solid socialist liberal, died young one year after Reagan took office. I’m sure that was a stomach punch to him in his struggle against cancer. He was a vet of WWII and Korea, an idealist and deeply fair man, appalled by greed and selfish corporations and individuals, even the sports celebrities he admired so much for their skill and talent.
Thankfully his gall was spared the abuses of the Reagan Era, and my god he would have probably hung himself if he had been around to see the Texas Cowboy selected into the presidency.
Sentimental moment for me here.