home

About Those Texas Newspaper Endorsements

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:54:00 PM EST
Tags: Texas '08, Barack Obama (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I wrote earlier about the Daily Texan's endorsement of Hillary. A comment to my post made me do some checking.

Here's the thing. In the debate last night, Barack Obama pointed out that every major Texas newspaper has endorsed him. The Daily Texan says it's a major paper who hasn't endorsed Obama, but leaving that aside, Obama's right and here's the list.

What Obama didn't point out was that in 2004, except for the Corpus Christi Times, every one of those papers endorsed George Bush over John Kerry.

< Ras Poll: Clinton Leads In OH By 8, TX By 3 | The Latest on the SuperDelegate Front >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    About Those Texas Newspaper Endorsements | 34 comments (34 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Thanks for this (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Shawn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:10:21 PM EST
    I wasn't sure, but I had a hunch this was the case when Obama made that boast last night. Anybody that knows anything about the editorial page history of the Dallas Morning News, for instance, knows that having their endorsement is hardly a badge of honor or something worth crowing about before a Democratic audience.

    Haven't You Heard (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:11:09 PM EST
    If conservatives endorse Obama it's cause he's "bringing them over."

    And of course, it goes without saying if a conservative endorses Clinton it's either cause they think she's beatable or because she herself is too conservative.

    Well.  Duh!

    Haven't You Heard (none / 0) (#22)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:33:00 PM EST
    If conservatives endorse Obama it's cause it's a GOP conspiracy to get the Dems to nominate that weakest candidate

    And of course, it goes without saying if a conservative endorses Clinton it's because she's bringing them over.

    Well.  Duh!

    Parent

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:02:55 PM EST
    I never really heard that that much from Clinton supporters.

    Maybe it's cause I spent most of this primary on a blog where 90% of the folks there hate Clinton and if I'd have spent time on a blog where the split was more even then I'd have been confronted with more co-equal amounts of BS from both groups of supporters.

    Still, it's just a sense I get.  Speaking only for myself, when Zbigniew Brzezinski endorsed Obama I didn't feel the need to attack Z-big's motivation.  Although I did feel Z-big's endorsement of Obama, the actual statement itself was more of disendorsement of Clinton than an endorsement of Obama, I did take the man at face value.  I felt no need to dis-credit his intent, sincerity, what have you.

    On the other hand, when folks like Gavin Newsome endorsed Clinton, the first thing I heard from Obama supporters is that Clinton was cashing in a favor based on Bill helping out Gavin's mayoral race back when it wasn't such a sure thing he'd win.  When Wesley Clark endorsed Clinton it wasn't because that's what Clark really felt, Clark was letting his ambition get the better of him in the hopes of getting a job (VP?) from a Clinton administration.   Same is true when Joe Wilson endorsed Clinton.

    In all cases, the person who was endorsing Clinton was, according to the Obama supporter, either caving in to "Clintonian cronyism" or motivated strictly by ambition.

    Again, maybe all these impressions I have of Obama supporters are based on spending too much time on one particular blog that shouldn't be considered very representative of the typical Obama supporter.


    Parent

    GOP has voters & papers pushing Obama... (none / 0) (#26)
    by john5750 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:28:39 PM EST
    Republican Party always wanted Obama to be the nominee; flushed his coffers with cash; saw him as easier Democrat to defeat
    Republican Party activists have been organized by the GOP to throw their weight behind Barack Obama, the Democratic rival of frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Early in Obama's campaign, top Republican fundraisers flushed his coffers with cash, something the deep pockets hadn't done for any candidate in their own party.

    http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html

    Parent

    Thnx for that John... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:39:28 PM EST
    That article, has filled in some of the blanks I had been wondering about. I always thought Obama sounded like a puppet, but could not figure out who the puppetmasters were, pulling those strings.

    Doesn't sound like "change" that I
    "can believe in".

    Looks like Hillary is out then, shame - she has stood up to a lot, and despite having a huge amount of support, in the end, I can't see her winning against the power of that right-wing machinery.

    Wouldn't mind so much, if he had one or two decent policies that approximated Democrat policy platforms, (and I could "believe" that he was even luke-warm sincere in supporting those policies with his power as POTUS) domestically or internationally.

    Republican vs Republican-Lite -- hmmm, the media might prefer GOP in November, but they won't lose much sleep, if they end up with Obama as second-best.  

    To me, best thing now is for Clinton to stay in as long as she can, "buy time" for core Democrats to see if something turns up in the remaining time. After all Huckabee is staying in grin.

    And if the US does end up with a Republican President again, then at least its an honest one, not a pretend one.

    Either way a blue congress will have its work cut out for them, but would be much more demoralising to have to fight your own so-called Party Pres.

    Parent

    JGarza (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:32:35 PM EST
    lose your insulting and demeaning tone or leave. I've deleted your comment. If you have something substantive to say, do it politely.

    So (none / 0) (#1)
    by tek on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:55:45 PM EST
    Clinton didn't get an endorsement?

    No endorsement (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:08:37 PM EST
    from a paper which endorsed Bush.  Maybe a good thing for a democrat  :-)

    Parent
    Wow. (none / 0) (#2)
    by hvs on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:57:05 PM EST
    That's fantastic. Just the swing we want to see. (Very important to me, Barack got the Feingold "endorsement." That is, Feingold voted for him in Wisconsin. Cool. Why can't we have Feingold for president?)

    This has to do with Texas (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:03:25 PM EST
    newspaper endorsements . . . how?  I do not follow.


    Parent
    This is why newspaper endorsements are meaningless (none / 0) (#3)
    by JJE on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:02:12 PM EST
    Both Obama's and Clinton's.  Why do people need journos to tell them what to think?

    And in this case, I would want to (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:05:41 PM EST
    see their GPAs. Actually, as I know a lot of media folks, we might just want to ask for ALL of their GPAs before we look on them as an intelligentsia.:-)

    Parent
    Every major California newspaper (none / 0) (#33)
    by hairspray on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:13:06 AM EST
    endorsed Obama and he lost quite handily in spite of it.

    Parent
    Uh, Does Bush being the former... (none / 0) (#4)
    by mike in dc on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:03:07 PM EST
    ....governor of Texas ring a bell?  

    I guess the point is supposed to be that these newspapers don't have the best interests of Democrats at heart?  
    The New York Times endorsed John McCain, was that a poison pill delivered to the Republicans?

    Texas went about 60-40 for Bush in 2004, but he was from Texas and we really didn't make a meaningful effort there.  The demographics there are shifting slowly in our favor.  Developing a strong organization there this time around might not pay off in this election(except by forcing McCain to divert resources to hold on to "safe" states , and also increasing our total share of the national popular vote(which helps with the "mandate" argument)), but we could turn it into a purple state by 2012 and a blue state by 2020.

    Making a meaningful effort in Texas (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:12:46 PM EST
    would be like throwing money down a rathole for democrats.  Travis county was the only county to go blue in '00, while Hilalgo joined Travis in '04.  Take the UT students out of Austin and Travis wouldn't go blue either.

    McCain will not have to spend a dime to win in TX.

    Parent

    El Paso County went blue in 2004 (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:48:57 PM EST
    too.  El Paso is by some accounts upwards of 60-70% Latino, although who fits within that definition can be a little fuzzy around the edges.

    There is Ft. Bliss--a huge military base....The enlisted peronnel can tilt toward the Democrats....And there are lots more enlisted than officers....

    Parent

    50 state strategy... (none / 0) (#31)
    by mike in dc on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:51:44 PM EST
    ...should be more than just empty words.  We have the opportunity to build the party everywhere, particularly if Obama opts out of public finance.  We could probably afford to spend a little bit to push us from 38 percent to 44 or 45%.  It helps our congressional candidates in Texas, and it pushes up our total share of the national popular vote.  There's a huge difference between winning with 51% of the national vote and 55%.  55% would not only gain us a lot of seats in Congress, it would intimidate and demoralize the GOP for the first few months of Obama's term, giving us time to get some major stuff passed.

    Parent
    Come on down. (none / 0) (#32)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:23:41 PM EST
    You want to spend the money here, we'll be happy to take it.

    Parent
    Yeah so Obama is getting all the (none / 0) (#6)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:03:29 PM EST
    old Bush endorsements....Hardly a thing to brag about when ya consider it....

    Come on... (none / 0) (#9)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:09:24 PM EST
    Jeralyn... you are better than this.

    Texas is a conservative state.  Bush was the Governor there.  It makes complete sense that their newspapers would have endorsed Bush.

    But seriously... how is a Bush general election endorsement related to an Obama primary endorsement?

    The more useful information (none / 0) (#13)
    by Baal on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:14:36 PM EST
    would be who these papers endorsed during the Democratic primary in 2004, as opposed to the general election.  You are comparing apples to oranges.  Also, times have changed.

    Again, as you did with the ratings of Senator's performance from various liberal groups, you are trying to make the case that Hillary is more progressive than Obama and the data you bring to bear to make this case are not convincing. This is a very large straw man.

    By the way, the Daily Texan is a student newspaper!  

    True... (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by americanincanada on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:18:36 PM EST
    it is a student newspaper. But isn't the CW that Obama gets all youth vote and especially college students?

    Parent
    no, I'm making the point that (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:18:49 PM EST
    these newspaper endorsements don't mean the papers think Obama should be President. They only think he should be the Democratic nominee. Considering they won't support him in the November election makes their support of him now irrelevant and meaningless to me.

    Parent
    The Texas Democratic primary in '04 (none / 0) (#17)
    by Shawn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:19:47 PM EST
    occured one week after John Kerry had wrapped up the nomination. So I doubt you could make any relevant comparison.

    Parent
    Do we know who (none / 0) (#14)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:16:46 PM EST
    the Austin student paper endorsed the last time around?

    In 2000 (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:31:17 PM EST
    the Daily Texan endorsed Ralph Nader and in 2004 they endorsed John Kerry for the general election.  No clue about primary endorsements.

    From my observations in driving around in Austin, if you went only by bumper stickers, I'd say Ron Paul would be the next president.  :-)


    Parent

    in my experience (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:34:42 PM EST
    Newspaper editorial "beliefs" seldom change, even when the staff do.  For instance, the NY Times has had different editors over the years, but the prevailing slant has been decidedly liberal.  Same with the WSJ and their republican slant.

    In the case of student papers, the entire staff doesn't just pack up its bags and leave at the end of the year.  Writer attrition varies, and of course in just about every student publication, the out-going editors have a vote as to who next gets their job.  In cases where the editor is elected, the voters are from the body of the newspaper.

    So, while the same PERSON isn't running the paper, the same type of PEOPLE are.

    Parent

    Kerry. (none / 0) (#20)
    by liminal on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:32:20 PM EST
    They endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004.  

    Parent
    The point of a newspaper... (none / 0) (#24)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:52:31 PM EST
    is to sell newspapers, right?  If you have one candidate that's wildly popular, why would you endorse the one that isn't so popular?  You might just alienate the people who actually buy your newspaper.

    I don't get the whole group/organization endorsement thing anyway, myself.  If a person wants to endorse, that's fine, that person is in 100% agreement with themselves.  But how does it work in a big group or organization?  Is it just a simple majority that decides who the group endorses?  Is it just whoever is in charge that decides?  That's what I don't get.  All the newspapers and labor unions and activist groups endorsing candidates, I have to wonder how many of the people within their own ranks actually agree with the endorsement?  Because I'm damn sure it's usually not 100%...

    scatcat (none / 0) (#27)
    by scatcat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:29:14 PM EST
    The Daily Texan is a university newspaper.  They may consider themselves a "major newspaper", but Obama was referring to newspapers from major cities.

    Your point that all Texas newspapers endorsed Bush is peculiar.  The Bush endorsements came during the General Election, and is not surprising, given the fact that Bush is from Texas.   Obama is still running in the primaries, and these same newspapers typically endorse a candidate in each party (the ones I am familiar with have endorsed  McCain).

    Are you trying to equate Obama with Bush by citing this?  If so, I find this equation to be illogical nonsense.  

    Completely irrelevant, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#28)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:14:28 PM EST
    And you know that.  

    Huh? (none / 0) (#34)
    by chemoelectric on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:45:31 AM EST
    Why should he even dream of pointing this out? If in 1941 a newspaper endorsed staying completely out of the War, would that be relevant in 1942 after the Battle of Pearl Harbor and declaration of war against the United States by the Axis powers? "Oh, when you quoted from that newspaper's editorial about how awful Hitler is, you neglected to point out that they opposed even going to war against Hitler, until after he declared war against us."

    Obama Newspaper endorsments (none / 0) (#35)
    by USAsince1680 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:26:56 AM EST
    I've done some investigating myself.  It seems that two of the newspaper endorsments, Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express, are papers owned by the Hearst Corporation whose chairman, George Hearst, Jr., is a contributor to the Republican National Committee.  You better believe he's backing the person he considers to be the Democratic loser.  The other big paper, The Austin American Statesman is owned by Cox Newspapers, Inc. along with 13 other Texas newspapers.  The CEO of Cox Newspapers lives in Atlanta, Georgia - Obama country -- and has no ties to Texas.  This media bias is the norm across the country and is the reason Hillary gets such bad press while Obama is the Teflon man.  If he becomes the Democratic candidate, the Republican controlled newspapers are ready to knock him out of the water with in depth coverage of his handling stress in high school and college by sniffing cocaine, his admitted past distrust of whites and desire to emulate Malcolm X, his allegiance to his African homeland, etc. - just the tip of the iceberg.  

    About Those Texas Newspaper Endorsements | 34 comments (34 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment