More Input From the College Press

---

"There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down."

Buffalo Springfield

---

As we approach the eve of the election, more college newspapers are standing up and expressing their preference in the presidential race.

I'm pleased to see more and more college newspapers promoting democratic activity. Young people have a lot at stake in every election.

I've seen one of those newspapers that supports the candidacy of John McCain:

• Ole Miss' Daily Mississippian.

But most support Barack Obama and his message of change:

• The University of Arizona's Daily Wildcat.


• Eastern Illinois University's Daily Eastern News.


• Northern Illinois University's Northern Star.


• The University of Illinois' Daily Illini.


• Indiana University's Indiana Daily Student.


• Iowa State University's Iowa State Daily.


• The University of Kansas' University Daily Kansan.


• Tufts University's Tufts Daily.


• Michigan State University's State News.


• The University of Michigan's Michigan Daily.


• Ohio University's The Post.


• Kent State University's Daily Kent Stater.


• The University of Oklahoma's Oklahoma Daily.


• The University of Pennsylvania's Daily Pennsylvanian.


• The University of Pittsburgh's Pitt News.


• The University of Wisconsin-Madison's Daily Cardinal.


• The University of Wisconsin's Badger Herald.


• Stetson University's The Reporter.


• The University of Louisville's Louisville Cardinal.


• The University of Missouri's The Maneater.

The Flyer News of Dayton University declined to endorse a candidate. But it encouraged its readers to vote.

"[C]hoose for yourself and exercise your right as an American," the newspaper said. "Be a part of 'The Year of the Youth Vote.' Now that's a movement we'll endorse."

So will I.

Taking a Principled Stand

We are a few days away from the finish line of what has been the longest, most engrossing national campaign in America's history.

As such, we have been witnessing a flurry of last-minute editorial activity as newspapers take sides, endorsing either Barack Obama or John McCain.

A few days ago, I wrote about the need for college newspapers to get involved and to encourage political participation by the young. I was gratified to see a number of endorsement editorials popping up on college newspaper web sites in recent days, and I hope that inspires young people to vote.

But, occasionally, I run across a college newspaper like the Loyola Phoenix of Loyola University in Chicago.

The editors of the Phoenix apparently gave the matter a great deal of thought, then decided not to endorse anyone because to do so would suggest an absence of objectivity. And that would damage their ability to report the news.

I commend the editors for taking a principled stand.

I might have been inclined to dismiss it as a cop-out if not for the final sentence in the editorial:

"The only thing we endorse is voting."

Choosing Up Sides

I posted my prediction for the presidential election a couple of days ago. Included in my post were dozens of links to newspaper endorsements of either Barack Obama or John McCain.

Endorsements continue to come in, and, although most of the news has been good for the Obama campaign, McCain has been receiving more endorsements in the South lately — dampening earlier enthusiasm that suggested Obama would be in position to win Southern states that haven't voted for a Democrat in more than a generation.

For example, McCain has been endorsed lately by:

• The Albany (Ga.) Herald, which endorsed Bush last time.


• The Marietta (Ga.) Daily Journal, which endorsed no one last time.


• The Knoxville (Tenn.) News Sentinel, which endorsed Bush in 2004.


• The Galveston County (Texas) Daily News, which endorsed no one in 2004.

Outside the South, McCain has picked up a few endorsements, here and there:

• The Twin Falls (Idaho) Times-News, which supported Bush in 2004, and


• the Willoughby (Ohio) News-Herald, which also endorsed Bush last time.

But the editorial momentum has been with Obama in this election campaign:

• The Lafayette (Ind.) Journal and Courier.


• The Portland (Maine) Press-Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram.


• The Cape Cod Times.


• The Joplin (Mo.) Globe.


• The Youngstown (Ohio) Vindicator.

And I'm particularly glad to be seeing editorial activity from the college newspapers:

• The University of California-Santa Barbara Daily Nexus.


• The University of California-Berkeley Daily Californian.


• The Columbia University Daily Spectator.


• The University of South Carolina's Daily Gamecock.


• The University of Tennessee-Martin Pacer.


• Southern Methodist University's Daily Campus.


• Bates College's The Bates Student.


• Davidson College's The Davidsonian.


• The Slippery Rock University Rocket.


• The Miami University (Ohio) Miami Student.


• The University of Michigan-Dearborn Michigan Journal.


• And I located that editorial in the Duke Chronicle to which I referred in my presidential prediction post.

Elections are about everyone's needs. Young people need to be involved, and their school newspapers can play a valuable role in motivating them to participate.

"Without a journal, you cannot unite a community," Gandhi said, and I've always believed he was right.

But I also believe Michael Graham when he writes, in the Boston Herald, that objective journalism has been the loser in this year's election.

On both sides of the political spectrum.

And, as a lifelong advocate of a free press, I am saddened by that development.

Matchmaker, Matchmaker

---

"The change that Obama talks about so much is not simply a change in this policy or that one. It is not fundamentally about lobbyists or Washington insiders. Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government. His opponents may say this is empty, abstract rhetoric. In fact, it is hard to imagine how we are going to deal with the grave domestic and foreign crises we face without an end to the savagery and a return to civility in politics."

Chicago Tribune

---

Speculation is running wild about whether former Secretary of State Colin Powell will issue an endorsement of one of the presidential candidates when he appears on NBC's "Meet the Press" tomorrow.

The speculation has spread and now includes foreign media as well as domestic.

Philip Sherwell of The Telegraph of London sounds like Tevye from "Fiddler on the Roof" as he leaps from one conclusion to the other.

"On the other hand ... "

To illustrate what I mean, Sherwell begins his article by observing "Colin Powell ... is expected to denounce 'ugly' personal attacks on Barack Obama and may endorse the Democrat for the nation's top job."

Sherwell then quotes Powell's former chief of staff as saying that Powell has bemoaned the "vitriol, bile and prejudice" in the campaign and "I'd expect him to talk about it."

But Sherwell also points out that Powell's ex-aide describes him as a "loyal soldier who owes a lot to some people in the Republican Party," which he concedes is "a factor that could mitigate against an endorsement by a man not prone to gesture politics."

In short, Sherwell speculates that a Powell endorsement of Obama is a definite maybe.

(While reading Sherwell's article, I was almost disappointed that I didn't hear a chorus singing, "Find me a find, catch me a catch ...")

There are a few genuine endorsements to talk about today.

• Perhaps the most significant comes from the Chicago Tribune.
  
  It may not seem especially surprising that the fifth-largest newspaper in the United States (with a circulation of nearly 1 million), which happens to serve the city where Obama makes his home, has endorsed the Democratic nominee.
  
  Until you realize that this is the first time in its 161-year history that the conservative Tribune has endorsed a Democrat for president.
  
  The paper was a strong advocate of the abolition of slavery, and it supported favorite son Abraham Lincoln when he sought the presidency in 1860. But it hasn't always endorsed Illinois politicians who ran for the nation's highest office. It did not support Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson when he ran against Republican Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s.
  
  Supporting a Democratic presidential nominee is a new experience for the Tribune, but it doesn't always endorse the Republican nominee, either, as its editorial points out — although the examples it cites are endorsement editorials that were written by journalists several generations removed from the current editorial staff.
  
  In 1912, when former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt sought to return to the White House as the Progressive Party's candidate, the Tribune backed Roosevelt.
  
  And, in 1872, instead of supporting Republican President Ulysses S. Grant's bid for re-election, it endorsed the editor of the New York Tribune, Horace Greeley (at left), who ran as a Liberal Republican but was endorsed by the Democratic Party.
  
  Last spring, the Tribune endorsed both Obama and McCain in their parties' primaries, but the Tribune admits that it is "hard to figure John McCain these days" and asserts that he "failed in his most important executive decision" — when he picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate.
  
  "Give him credit for choosing a female running mate," writes the Tribune, "but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. ... McCain put his campaign before his country."
  
  In contrast, says the Tribune, "Obama chose a more experienced and more thoughtful running mate — he put governing before politicking."


• In comparison, I guess, the other two high-profile newspaper endorsements are neither surprising nor particularly historic.
  
  The Washington Post, for example, has a track record of supporting Democrats — although, for many years, late publisher Katharine Graham insisted on a policy of not endorsing presidential nominees.
  
  Since at least 2000, however, the Post has been endorsing presidential candidates — but, while conservatives often mention the Post and the New York Times as the joint Eastern apex of the so-called "liberal media bias" in American journalism, the truth is that the Post has endorsed some Republicans and taken conservative positions on some issues.
  
  But it lives up to expectations in its endorsement of Obama.
  
  "There are few public figures we have respected more over the years than Sen. John McCain," writes the Post, shedding crocodile tears. "Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president."
  
  The Post also uses Palin as a scapegoat, saying "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."
  
  But, while she may be convenient for that role, that doesn't mean the Post might have endorsed McCain if he had chosen someone else for his ticket.
  
  And the Post recites the qualities it believes Obama possesses that make him the best choice. "He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment."


• In the eyes of its modern-day readers, the Los Angeles Times follows a liberal editorial policy, but it was not always so.
  
  When I wrote a paper in graduate school on the 1932 election (to which I referred in this blog last month), I studied the Times' coverage of the campaign — and the Times' editorial policies clearly were different in those days.
  
  Students of history know 1932 was the year Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt defeated President Herbert Hoover in a landslide. On Election Day, the Times' front page ran an item in a box above the fold with a headline advising readers "Where to Vote For Hoover."
  
  Most Angelenos (like most Americans) did not follow the Times' recommendation when they went to their polling places.
  
  Times have changed.
  
  And one of the things that has changed is the Times' long-standing ban on endorsing presidential candidates. The newspaper stopped endorsing presidential candidates during the Nixon presidency but is resuming the practice this year.
  
  Today's Los Angeles Times says it endorses Obama "without hesitation."
  
  And recent voting history suggests that California will be in the Democratic column in November.
  
  It appears likely that, with its first presidential endorsement in nearly 40 years, the Times will achieve an electoral symmetry with its readers in 2008 that it wasn't able to achieve three-quarters of a century ago.
  
  Palin, once again, takes the hit for the Republicans. The Times writes that the decision was "irresponsible ... [It] calls into question just what kind of thinking — if that's the appropriate word — would drive the White House in a McCain presidency."
  
  And the Times isn't bashful about borrowing the poetic style of its preferred candidate. Obama, the Times writes, "represents the nation as it is and as it aspires to be."

I don't know if Powell will endorse anyone tomorrow or not, but I do know there will be legitimate endorsements published in the nation's newspapers in the next couple of weeks.

Whether the so-called "liberal media bias" exists, the truth is — as statistics clearly show — that the majority of newspapers that endorse presidential candidates have tended to endorse Republicans over the years.

In the last half century, the exceptions to that rule have occurred when the Republican candidate was considered to be too extreme (1964) or out of touch with the public while presiding over a recession (1992).

Thus far in the 2008 general election campaign, Obama leads in newspaper endorsements by about a 3-to-1 margin. Obama also has been endorsed by a few magazines — The New Yorker, Vibe, Rolling Stone and Esquire.

But only 82 newspapers have endorsed a candidate so far, according to Editor & Publisher. More than 400 newspapers endorsed a candidate in 2004.

Clearly, many, many newspapers that usually endorse a presidential candidate have not done so yet.

Perhaps they're waiting to focus their attention — as political observers tell us the voting public does — after the World Series.

Burying the Lead

I worked in the newspaper business for 10 years. I taught reporting and editing for four years.

So I feel qualified to say what I'm about to say.

The New York Times' political blog, "The Caucus," buried the lead today.

It reported that former President Jimmy Carter "walked right up to the line of endorsing Barack Obama, but, nope, stopped just short of actually crossing it."

Then, after using several paragraphs to explain Carter's non-endorsement in comments to a Nigerian newspaper, the blog reported that "Hanoi Jane" Fonda has vocally endorsed Obama in full view of the press in this country.

There may be those who disagree with me, but I think that, while Fonda's "endorsement" was about as informal as this sort of thing can be (given, as it was, as the response to a question from the paparazzi at the Los Angeles restaurant where she had just dined), anything that Fonda says is a punch in the stomach for many conservatives and some centrists who still remember her visit to North Vietnam in 1972.

It should have led the story.

Some people have forgiven Fonda, choosing to think of that episode in her life as symbolic of the deep divide that the Vietnam War had carved in American life.

Twenty years ago, Fonda said, " I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm very sorry that I hurt [Vietnam veterans]."

But there are many who still react with deeply felt emotion when she says or does anything political.

Also, Fonda is a feminist of long-standing. I suspect that many of Hillary Clinton's supporters assumed Fonda would be in their corner. If that is true, her support for Obama must seem like betrayal to many of them, even if she has given no indication whether she ever was a Clinton supporter.

I admire President Carter, but, knowing his history as an advocate of civil rights, his apparent support for Obama doesn't surprise me.

And I think most readers, whether they were alive when Carter was in the White House or not, tend to dismiss Carter as irrelevant, a former president who was denied re-election by a landslide.

This in spite of a post-presidential career that has been more brilliant than most.

Fonda's support for Obama is, however, a bit of a surprise, for a couple of reasons.

And the response that she remains capable of provoking makes her a political lightning rod.

She should have been the lead.

Anticipating 'Tsunami Tuesday'

"Tsunami Tuesday" is so big, CNN is going to be covering it for 40 solid hours. Starting at 6 a.m. Eastern on Tuesday.

On the Democratic side, the unanswered question is, what will John Edwards' supporters do?

The assumption, before he actually withdrew from the race on Wednesday, was that Edwards' supporters would naturally gravitate to Barack Obama, since both candidates campaigned as agents of change -- and both painted Hillary Clinton as the agent of the establishment.

But when you examine the exit polls in the previous primary and caucus states, you find that the demographics that favored Edwards are demographics where Hillary has always had strong appeal. Edwards' voters are part of her natural base.

Another -- lesser -- recurring theme of Tuesday's primaries is, simply, "home." If it isn't the actual state of one's birth, it's a state where the candidate lived in the past or lives today.

There are four Republicans remaining in the race, and three have a "home" state casting its votes on Tuesday. There are, technically, three Democrats remaining, and each, including Mike Gravel of Alaska, has a "home" state voting.

Only Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican from Texas, does not have a "home" connection on Tuesday. Texas' primary will be held in March.

REPUBLICANS

In the GOP primaries, John McCain appears to be headed to victory in Alabama, American Samoa, his home state of Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma and Tennessee.

Mitt Romney gets the nod in his adopted home states of Massachusetts and Utah.

Mike Huckabee will be a factor in the South -- not just in his native Arkansas, either, although I do expect him to win there. It looks, for example, as if he will make a credible showing in Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee. And he might have a strong second-place finish in border states like Missouri and Oklahoma.

There are far fewer caucuses than primaries on Tuesday, but some states have chosen to take that approach to delegate selection. I think Romney's message favors him in the Colorado caucuses (where I think his support may exceed that of McCain and Huckabee combined). I pick McCain in the Alaska, Montana and North Dakota caucuses.

West Virginia's Republicans will be holding a convention on Tuesday to allocate their delegates. That's a dicier proposition, since we're not dealing with primary voters or caucus participants in that state, but I'm going to guess that it will be a two-way split between McCain and Huckabee. Romney could be a factor, but I think the other two will finish ahead of him.

DEMOCRATS

In the Democratic primaries, I believe Clinton will win her first adopted home state, Arkansas, and her current adopted home state, New York. But I think she will lose the state where she was born and raised, Illinois -- her opponent, Obama, represents that state in the Senate and I think he will receive more than 50% of its votes on Tuesday.

In addition to winning Arkansas and New York, I think Clinton will hang on to win in American Samoa, Arizona, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah.

The movement away from Clinton gives the edge to Obama in Connecticut. I think he will enjoy substantial victories in Georgia and Illinois.

Alabama looks like a tossup on the Democratic side. Based on the findings from earlier polls, the movement has been in Obama's favor.

So the question is whether he's reached his plateau or are there Clinton supporters who may yet be swayed to his side?

I think both Alabama and Missouri will go down to the wire on the Democratic side, so the fluidity of the vote in those states is crucial to determining the winner in each.

In the caucuses, I think it's too close to call in Colorado. I expect Clinton to win in the Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, and North Dakota caucuses.

CALIFORNIA

I haven't mentioned California, to this point, because the state is so large and represents such a huge bloc of delegates in both parties that it is clearly the prize to win on Tuesday. And that means it deserves to be written about by itself, not lumped in with two dozen other states.

Yet from what I've heard -- from public and private sources -- the race is technically too close to call on both sides.

Bear in mind that there is a significant difference in how delegates are awarded in each party. Democrats will award California's delegates proportionally. Republicans will award them on a winner-take-all basis. So, in California (and other states, too), the Republicans will have three candidates on the ballot who will wind up spending millions of dollars between them and receive nothing for their investments.

On the Democratic side, I'm going to predict a narrow victory for Clinton, but I don't know if the division of the delegates will reflect that outcome.

On the Republican side, I'm going to predict that the endorsements last week from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani will push McCain across the finish line just slightly ahead of Romney.

A wild card in the primaries is the weather. A winter storm is possible in northern California, which could suppress the turnout in places like San Francisco and Sacramento.

The Pacific Coast isn't the only area where weather could influence the outcome. Rain is expected in New York City. And snow is a possibility in the Northeast and the Rocky Mountain states. Even if it isn't snowing, it's probably going to be cold in many locations.

And another question is how the Latino voters will vote. That demographic was the key to Clinton's triumph in neighboring Nevada a couple of weeks back, and McClatchy Newspapers thinks Latinos could hold the key to success for the Democrats in California.

For that matter, as McClatchy observes, there are sizable Hispanic populations in other "Tsunami Tuesday" states as well -- Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, and New York. And, given the racial tension that has existed between blacks and Hispanics for many years (along with the jockeying for position in the party that some journalists have alleged is occurring between the two ethnic groups), that might be a factor that favors Clinton.

In California, where I predict a narrow Clinton win, nearly 11 million residents are Hispanic, representing nearly one-third of the state's population. Blacks account for only 2 million residents, less than 7% of the population.

But the catch is that a far higher percentage of blacks actually vote in elections.

Hispanics, as the fastest-growing ethnic group in America, have the potential to influence the outcome of elections for a generation or more. But they have to participate in greater numbers than they have in recent years in order to wield that kind of influence.

MEDIA MUSINGS

With so many states voting in what amounts to a "national primary," it seems appropriate to take a look at what some of the editorial writers and political beat reporters across the country are saying.

Endorsements for Clinton

Buffalo News: "With President Bush’s record, any new president will represent change. The question is: Who will succeed in effecting it? In our estimation, the edge in the Democratic campaign decidedly goes to Clinton."

Cape Cod (Mass.) Times: "Senator Clinton has endured humiliation and contempt on a Shakespearean scale. Yet she is still standing, still committed to the civic goals she first set for herself at Wellesley. That should tell Democrats something about the inner strength she would bring to the job."

Denver Post: "Clinton's long record of public service has better prepared her to deal with two of this country's greatest challenges: the war in Iraq and the health insurance crisis."

Hartford Courant: "Voters who thought they were getting a fiscal conservative in George W. Bush must be profoundly disappointed. Mrs. Clinton's positions reflect the fiscal discipline her husband managed to effect in the 1990s."

Kansas City Star: "Some critics have focused on the mistakes of her husband’s administration. But if Sen. Clinton is to be held responsible for some of those mistakes -- which is appropriate -- she must also get credit for some of its successes."

Memphis Commercial Appeal: "There are few differences among Democratic candidates about how to improve the lives of Americans. ... Clinton, however, has the experience needed to step into the Oval Office at this critical time and get these jobs done."

New York Daily News: "Based on her experience and her service on behalf of New York, The News backs Hillary Clinton in the full expectation that from here on out she and her husband will abide by standards of fairness -- and, more important, that she intends to draw firm, clear lines should she make it to the White House."

New York Times: "As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign."

Endorsement for Huckabee

Rolla (Mo.) Daily News: "Huckabee has proven a politician with a religious conscience is not a detriment, but a good, solid attribute."

Endorsements for McCain

Buffalo News: "McCain ... has shown an ability to work across party lines to gain reforms in which he believes, and his steadiness would be a valuable quality in a president."

Cape Cod (Mass.) Times: "Honorable. Bipartisan. Experienced. Those are just some of the attributes that describe Sen. John McCain of Arizona. He has a strength of character that does not waver when the polls suggest that he should."

Chicago Tribune: "One Republican candidate for president dedicated himself to American honor, American duty, long before Sept. 11, 2001. The world of 2008 is the dangerous world John McCain unknowingly spent a military and political career preparing to confront."

Joplin (Mo.) Globe: "McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, is the only candidate with a consistent record and credibility on the war in Iraq. Although considered a maverick, he appears to be a unifier rather than a divider."

Juneau Empire: "McCain already has given decades of service to his country. He has shown a willingness to fight powerful interests for what he believes in and has shown he has the fortitude and experience to lead this country. He deserves the backing of Alaska Republicans ..."

Kansas City Star: "[McCain] has a very long track record of denouncing business as usual in Washington, which led us to endorse him in the 2000 GOP primary as well. He has been a tireless advocate of campaign finance reform and better ethics in government."

Knoxville (Tenn.) News: "A recent Wall Street Journal article identified McCain's Republicanism as more Theodore Roosevelt than George W. Bush. We think that, after the last eight years, a majority in the nation will be OK with that."

Los Angeles Times: "At a different moment in American history, we would hesitate to support a candidate for president whose social views so substantially departed from those we hold. But in this election, nothing less than America's standing in the world turns on the outcome. Given that, our choice for the Republican nominee in 2008 is sure and heartfelt."

Memphis Commercial Appeal: "Among McCain's opponents, Mitt Romney's business acumen and his executive experience as governor of Massachusetts make him an impressive candidate. On the balance, though, McCain seems to have more to offer. McCain seems to have a broader appeal among moderates and independents, which would be useful in uniting the country behind a set of common goals."

New York Post: "America is at war -- in Iraq and against a global Islamist terror network committed to the nation's destruction. McCain indisputably understands the nature of the threat, and what it will take to defeat it. And he will not flinch."

New York Times: "We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. ... Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe."

Oakland Tribune: "McCain has demonstrated the experience, character and leadership needed for the presidency. He is not afraid to speak his mind on key issues, even if his ideas may be unpopular among some members of his own party."

Sacramento Bee: "McCain is a partisan Republican in the mold of Theodore Roosevelt. And, like T.R., he is not a prisoner of doctrinaire thinking or poisonous hyperpartisan politics."

Selma (Ala.) Times Journal: "McCain’s character is impeccable. He has demonstrated that strong character by standing against torture of prisoners of war, although he was tortured unmercifully as POW in Vietnam."

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "[U]nlike any other candidate in the Republican field, Mr. McCain offers a chance to change the national discourse. He is a Republican in the mold of Barry Goldwater, a principled conservative, not a kleptocratic opportunist. "

Tuscaloosa (Ala.) News: "We disagree with McCain on many domestic issues and we were disappointed by his strong advocacy of an increased American presence in Iraq. Yet we believe that McCain is a level-headed man who would avoid entangling this country in future debacles overseas."

Endorsements for Obama

Chicago Sun-Times: "[T]his newspaper is endorsing a man because of how he makes us feel, the hope he evokes within us, the patriotism that he inspires in us and, most important, his ability to unite Americans, no matter their color, gender or social background."

Chicago Tribune: "Barack Obama is the rare individual who can sit in the U.S. Senate yet have his career potential unfulfilled. He is the Democrat best suited to lead this nation."

Joplin (Mo.) Globe: "Perhaps the greatest appeal of the senator from Illinois, other than a charismatic personality and sincerity in espousing his views, could be that he is being labeled the candidate of change. His Capra-esque campaign promotes the ideas of change and hope from a grassroots base. His is a fresh political voice."

Juneau Empire: "Many people question whether he has enough experience ... to lead the nation. But what would prepare a person for the hardest job in the world? Would an extra decade in the Senate serve to polish or tarnish? For a man so young to go so far shows that he can tackle the challenge of being president. Perhaps his newness represents a risk, but at least it's not the risk of sameness."

Knoxville (Tenn.) News: "Obama ... was challenged early in the campaign for his lack of experience in Washington, but he has deftly turned that criticism into an asset, pointing out that those who got us into war in Iraq and built the deficit had a wealth of political experience."

Los Angeles Times: "In the language of metaphor, Clinton is an essay, solid and reasoned; Obama is a poem, lyric and filled with possibility. Clinton would be a valuable and competent executive, but Obama matches her in substance and adds something that the nation has been missing far too long -- a sense of aspiration."

New York Post: "Obama represents a fresh start. His opponent, and her husband, stand for deja vu all over again -- a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency. Does America really want to go through all that once again? It will -- if Sen. Clinton becomes president."

Oakland Tribune: "Obama has a rare combination of youthful optimism and mature sagacity that have made him a national leader and one who would be the best choice for the Democratic presidential nomination."

Rolla (Mo.) Daily News: "What Obama lacks in political experience, he makes up for in charisma."

Sacramento Bee: "Obama's lack of experience at the highest levels of government might lead to mistakes. But that risk is smaller, in our view, than the benefit of moving on from the Bushes and the Clintons, who have been in the White House for longer than some young voters have been alive."

Santa Fe New Mexican: "Hillary Clinton is only one of two outstanding candidates for the Democratic nomination, and The New Mexican endorses the other: Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. Shorter on experience, he also is unsullied by the quid-pro-quo world of Washington."

Selma (Ala.) Times Journal: "We haven't seen indications of Obama flip-flopping for the sake of political collateral. Instead, he has stuck to his beliefs in the face of harsh criticism. He has acknowledged his weaknesses. Obama has stood up for what he believes in, and he has reached across partisan political lines when necessary, despite his liberal ideology. These are marks of a leader ..."

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "Comets don't come around that often. In January of 1961, Ann Dunham Obama was six weeks pregnant with Barack Obama Sr.'s child when President Kennedy said at his inauguration that 'the torch has been passed to a new generation.' It's that time again."

Tuscaloosa (Ala.) News: "Obama ... continues to impress us with his magnetic leadership qualities. A brilliant and persuasive speaker, he is a unifier who is dedicated to breaking the Washington gridlock that most Americans detest."

Endorsements for Romney

Denver Post: "Romney is the best choice for Republicans because he possesses 'the executive acumen necessary to implement policies that produce results,' especially in the areas of health care and the economy."

Hartford Courant: "Mark Twain said about Wagner that his music 'is better than it sounds.' Mr. Romney is a better leader than his perplexing campaign performance makes him out to be. ... [I]f you throw him a knotty problem that needs to be solved by Friday, he's the candidate we'd bet on to have it done by Tuesday. "

General Political Writing

Cynthia Tucker, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "When it came to one of the most important issues of our generation, Clinton made the wrong choice. Obama discerned the right course and had the courage to take it."

David Runciman, Boston Globe: "As the presidential primary season enters its critical phase, the air is thick with accusations and counter-accusations that the candidates don't practice what they preach. In what is now an inevitable feature of presidential politics, the leading contenders are desperate to pin on one another the toxic label of hypocrite."

Elizabeth Holmes, Wall Street Journal: "The Republican presidential campaigning rolls on this weekend, with Sen. John McCain working to make headway with the party's stalwarts and Mitt Romney facing renewed attention on his Mormon faith."

Greg Harton, Northwest Arkansas Times: "Parties ought to go back to closed primaries in which only registered Democrats get to vote for the Democratic nominee, and only registered Republicans get to do the same in their party's process."

Jim Tynen, Provo (Utah) Herald: "Barack Obama's rousing speech on Martin Luther King Day showed his potential to redeem America -- or wreck it."

Jim Wooten, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "John McCain presents a real dilemma for conservatives. ... With a Republican majority in Congress, he’d be a good successor to George W. Bush. With a Democratic majority, which is likely, he’s a crapshoot."

John Kass, Chicago Tribune: "If Sen. Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination and is later elected president, her prospective First Laddie will dance into the White House. Only, Bill Clinton won't be elected this time. He'll be the spouse and therefore untouchable. And that's not only her problem; it's our problem, even if you're not a Democrat."

Kathleen Parker, The Oklahoman: "... [W]hat if Barack Obama were white? What if Hillary Clinton were a man? What if John McCain were a woman? What if Mitt Romney were a black female Baptist? The 'what if' question is useful across the board as voters wrestle with identity politics."

Maureen Dowd, New York Times: At Thursday's Democratic debate, "Suddenly, everyone was in the mood for love. Would the scream team turn into the dream team? ... How could Hollywood not fall in love with Hollywood’s favorite plot? After lots of sparking and sparring, the couple falls into each other’s arms in the last scene."

Michael Barone, U.S. News & World Report: "Just shy of a month ago, after the first votes were cast in Iowa and New Hampshire, it seemed that the Republican Party faced a fluid and fractious nomination contest, while the Democrats faced a clear-cut choice between two not particularly adversarial candidates. What a difference a few weeks can make."

Mickey Hepner, Edmond (Okla.) Sun: "One of the most important traits of a great president is having good judgment. While Hillary may have more experience, it was Obama who showed the best judgment on the most important issue of our time -- the Iraq War."

Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune: "This newspaper will not declare its preference for president until October ... But it's not too early to voice admiration for much of what has unfolded to date in the presidential sweepstakes. Early state voters have narrowed both ... fields to produce two lively contests that bode well for positive change in Washington."

The Oklahoman: "... Super Tuesday's spate of caucuses and primaries ... will award more than 1,000 (Republican) convention delegates. McCain appears in good shape but must reach out to the most conservative Republicans to complete a broad GOP base."

Orange County Register: "Barack Obama benefits most from John Edwards' decision Wednesday to quit the race for the Democratic nomination, according OC Political Pulse's poll of seven interest groups in the county. ... However, many people said the eventual GOP nominee gains the most from Edwards dropping out, including 22% of independent and third-party voters ... [reflecting] an opinion that Edwards would be the Democrat most difficult to beat in November."

Paul Krugman, New York Times: "[John] Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built."

Salt Lake Tribune: "The Tribune has endorsed Romney and Clinton. On Tuesday it will be time for Utahns to make the only endorsements that really count, the ones that come from the ballot box."

Susan Eisenhower, Washington Post: "If the Democratic Party chooses Obama as its candidate, this lifelong Republican will work to get him elected and encourage him to seek strategic solutions to meet America's greatest challenges. To be successful, our president will need bipartisan help."

Kennedys Supporting Obama

Some have compared Barack Obama to John F. Kennedy.

Now, Kennedy's daughter, Caroline, has endorsed Obama's candidacy in an article in today's New York Times.

"My reasons are patriotic, political and personal," she writes. "Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible."

Caroline isn't the only Kennedy supporting Obama's candidacy, which is all the more surprising when one considers the cozy relationship Bill and Hillary Clinton have enjoyed with the Kennedy family.

Her uncle, Ted, President Kennedy's youngest brother and the senior senator from Massachusetts, also is supporting Obama.

Still, there's a bit of a split in the Kennedy clan these days. Bobby Kennedy's daughter, Kathleen, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland, is supporting Hillary Clinton.

"I respect Caroline and Teddy's decision, but I have made a different choice," she said.

Massachusetts hold its primaries on "Tsunami Tuesday," Feb. 5.

Maryland holds its primaries a week later, on Feb. 12.

New Endorsements in Iowa

Perhaps it shouldn't come as a surprise, with more than a majority of its editorial board being female, but the Des Moines Register has endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic caucus for president.

"Readiness to lead sets her apart from a constellation of possible stars in her party, particularly Barack Obama [who has taken the lead in recent Iowa polls], who also demonstrates the potential to be a fine president," writes the Register.

"When Obama speaks before a crowd, he can be more inspirational than Clinton," the Register says, and I'm inclined to agree. I was watching C-SPAN yesterday and I saw a live broadcast of Obama speaking to an audience in Iowa. It was impressive, but it reinforced my opinion that Obama's biggest problem is that he's green, not that he's black (even though his race may be a major stumbling block in the South).

The Register seems to agree about Obama's inexperience. "Yet, with his relative inexperience," the newspaper says, "it’s hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead.”

More surprising, perhaps, is the newspaper's endorsement of John McCain on the Republican side.

Polls have shown McCain far behind Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson in Iowa, where McCain has barely made any effort at all. But the Des Moines Register seems intent on rewarding McCain for his consistency in his positions -- even when those positions hurt Iowans, as in his opposition to ethanol.

“The force of John McCain’s moral authority could go a long way toward restoring Americans’ trust in government," the Register says, "and inspiring new generations to believe in the goodness and greatness of America.”

That's going to be a tall order for the next president, whomever it turns out to be.

By the way, for a humorous take on the Clinton-Obama war of words, read today's column by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times.

Do Endorsements Matter?

In an interesting article, Michael Powell of the New York Times wonders if political endorsements really make a difference -- a question we've asked recently.

Powell recalls that Mayor Ed Koch endorsed Al Gore's presidential bid in 1988. Gore went from 7% in the polls in New York to 10% in actual votes on primary day and promptly dropped out of the race.

Koch, who is often sought for his endorsement, says, “I tell them: ‘I’ll be happy to do so, but I’m telling you, it doesn’t mean a thing.’ ”

That's not necessarily true, as Powell goes on to point out. But, in spite of "reporters who tend to type breathlessly about which candidate has taken the lead in 'the endorsements race,' ” endorsements really seem to be more important for the surprise value than volume.

Don't discount the numeric impact, however. As one Republican consultant told Powell, a flock of endorsements "creates a sense of momentum,” and Hillary Clinton can testify to the importance of that -- assuming she wins the nomination.

But if Clinton doesn't win the nomination, political pundits may be more inclined to talk about the surprise value of certain endorsements, such as Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani.

Powell begins his article with a reference to Robertson's endorsement:

"So the most unlikely pairing of the presidential campaign is unveiled, with the Rev. Pat Robertson flashing a television-practiced smile at Rudolph W. Giuliani, the thrice-married, pro-abortion-rights former mayor of New York. This same preacher once said that the terror attacks of Sept. 11 proved that God was lifting his protection from an abortion-giving, gay-loving nation."

Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune says Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani says a lot about the nature of politics in 2008.

Maybe this is the latest twist on the old "opposites attract" adage.

Or perhaps "politics makes strange bedfellows" is due for another revival.

Huge Endorsement for Huckabee?

If The American Spectator is correct, at a time when we have recently seen Pat Robertson endorse the candidacy of Rudy Giuliani and former presidential candidate Sam Brownback endorse John McCain, we may be on the verge of witnessing an even bigger endorsement among social conservatives.

According to The American Spectator, Dr. James Dobson is planning to endorse former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee within the next 10 days. The endorsement will include an appearance by Huckabee on Dobson's radio show, which is broadcast nationally.

Such an endorsement could be a real bonanza for the Huckabee campaign in terms of fund-raising. According to a source close to the Huckabee campaign, Dobson's endorsement "would help us get to the Thompson-McCain level (in fund-raising) if not higher. Dr. Dobson's endorsement means that much."

It didn't take long for the God-o-Meter to react. Huckabee's ranking is now the best among Republicans -- but, not, apparently, because of Dobson's impending endorsement. The God-o-Meter was responding to another endorsement of Huckabee, this one from Rev. Donald Wildmon of Tupelo, Miss.

Wildmon is the founder of the American Family Association and has been involved in protests against pornography and violence in the media.

Among Wildmon's targets have been the following TV shows -- Three's Company, Charlie's Angels, Magnum P.I., M*A*S*H and Dallas.

Do people pay attention to endorsements when making their voting decisions? Here in Dallas, the candidate who was recently elected mayor was endorsed by former Dallas Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach. Did Staubach's support make a difference in the election? Some say yes, some say no.

As far as what kind of impact Dobson's endorsement will have on the campaign is concerned, CNN contributor Roland Martin contends that the focus of evangelical Christians "was never really principles of the faith but the Republican Party" and they will line up reliably behind the eventual nominee.

Even if that nominee is Rudy Giuliani, with his record of being pro-gay rights and pro-choice? Martin says yes, because the evangelicals will be united by their concern about Hillary Clinton appointing Supreme Court justices.

Are evangelical voters that united in their views? We'll see.

Surveys have mixed results when it comes to the influence that endorsements have on elections. Newspapers issue endorsements every election season, but there is no solid evidence that such endorsements affect the outcome. There are always a few voters who vote for every candidate endorsed by a publication, and there are always a few who vote against every candidate endorsed by that publication.

Ultimately, though, it seems most voters make up their own minds, and it remains open to debate how much influence endorsements have on their decisions.

The main value that endorsements seem to have is the "buzz" value. The more publicity a candidate gets, the better off he is.

By that measuring stick, the big loser this week is Fred Thompson, who has seen his other rivals pick up big-name endorsements but has failed to gain a big-name endorsement of his own. Giuliani and McCain each snared big names this week, Mitt Romney recently gained the support of Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich and reports indicate that Huckabee is on the verge of getting one (Dobson) following the endorsement of another {Wildmon).

Huckabee May Gain Endorsement in New Hampshire

The Republican members of the New Hampshire State Employees Association (SEA) are planning to meet with presidential candidate Mike Huckabee at the end of this week with the apparent intention of endorsing his candidacy, according to a report in the Manchester Union Leader.

The group's Democratic members have already endorsed John Edwards for his party's nomination. If the Republican members endorse Huckabee, that will mean that the front runners in both parties have been ignored by the organization.

In other news affecting New Hampshire, Democrats in Michigan may make the date of their January primary official tonight. If that happens, it would clear the way for New Hampshire to schedule its primary date. By law, New Hampshire's primary must be the first in the nation.

The Battle for Endorsements -- and Momentum

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani picked up a significant endorsement today in Texas. And in the battle for the allegiance of Southern voters.

Gov. Rick Perry, who succeeded George W. Bush in 2001 when Bush became president and then was elected on his own twice (2002 and 2006), endorsed Giuliani and became a national co-chair of Giuliani's campaign.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney picked up a couple of endorsements this week. One was from Bob Jones III, the grandson of Bob Jones, who founded the conservative college that bears his name in South Carolina. The other endorsement for Romney came from another famous name -- Rep. Connie Mack Jr., R-Fla., whose father was a senator from Florida.

The "middle class" is the hot new buzz word in politics, but MSNBC wonders what the middle class is.

Jonathan Martin of The Politico says the Romney campaign is trying to narrow the focus of the campaign into "us or Rudy," thus taking attention away from the other contenders.

When the issue is framed that way, Romney's campaign clearly believes rank-and-file Republicans will feel that Romney better represents their beliefs. And that Romney is the best alternative to Giuliani.

But one Romney supporter in the media, Dean Barrett of the Weekly Standard, thinks Romney needs to find his voice.

Romney drew fire recently from John McCain for his assertion that he represented the "Republican wing" of the Republican Party. Lately, Giuliani is drawing criticism from McCain for supporting pork-barrel spending.

The Republican candidates in general seem to have their own problems with the presumed Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.

According to the latest Fox News polls, the top four Republican candidates -- Giuliani, Romney, Fred Thompson and McCain -- trail Clinton by varying margins nationally.

McCain and Giuliani run the closest races -- head to head, Clinton gets 47% in each matchup, while McCain draws 44% and Giulani draws 43%. Those margins tend to fall within the margin of error, so it could be closer than it appears in both cases.

The Fox polls show that Clinton beats Romney and Thompson by identical 50-38 margins.

The surveys were conducted within the last week.