Las Vegas Review Journal's Endorsement Of Obama Is Less Than Enthusiastic

Comments (47)

Angry Vet wrote on January 16, 2008 11:29 AM:

Ouch.

That's a pretty scathing "endorsement," but an endorsement nonetheless, right?

My fingers and eyeballs hurt after that one. Shit, why even bother endorsing a candidate, then?

Thomas McDonald, New York, NY wrote on January 16, 2008 11:31 AM:

Michigan = Obama on ticket either way?

Clinton's Michigan numbers may mean its becoming more necessary for her, should she yet win the nomination, to add Obama to her ticket in order to win African-Americans and Independents. Whereas Obama would need Hillary less as he has won respectable support from women, etc. (besides other ways in which Hillary obviously doesn't make sense for VP). The upshot being that at this point, while Hillary remains favored overall, Obama is actually the one with a greater chance of being on the ticket altogether.

Thomas McDonald, New York, NY wrote on January 16, 2008 11:31 AM:

Michigan = Obama on ticket either way?

Clinton's Michigan numbers may mean its becoming more necessary for her, should she yet win the nomination, to add Obama to her ticket in order to win African-Americans and Independents. Whereas Obama would need Hillary less as he has won respectable support from women, etc. (besides other ways in which Hillary obviously doesn't make sense for VP). The upshot being that at this point, while Hillary remains favored overall, Obama is actually the one with a greater chance of being on the ticket altogether.

Tom wrote on January 16, 2008 11:32 AM:

Any evidence for them "rejoicing"?
I don't see any.
And was it ever on the website? It doesn't look to be there now.

Angry Vet wrote on January 16, 2008 11:33 AM:

One more note:

Any comments from TPM about the alleged Wexler call for impeachment of Cheney on the floor of the House today? It's rippling through DKos, but I have seen no coverage yet...

Greg wrote on January 16, 2008 11:33 AM:

yes, Tom. The Obama campaign sent out advance word of this. they were very happy about it.

Keith wrote on January 16, 2008 11:35 AM:

Yeah this was pretty pathetic by the Las Vegas Review Journal. At first I thought it was a joke. It's almost inviting folks to vote for HRC to spite them. Maybe that was their point.

Common Sense wrote on January 16, 2008 11:36 AM:

Greg:

To answer you and Ben, it's already gone.

Michael A wrote on January 16, 2008 11:36 AM:

Yep, pretty garbage endorsement. Some other poster said that the LVJR was a right-wing rag and from this "endorsement" it appears to be a true observation.

Tom wrote on January 16, 2008 11:37 AM:

I guess that was before they read it. Of course, there were some hints even in the announcement yesterday that this would be a weak endorsement. They said it was because he was the most viable.

Tom wrote on January 16, 2008 11:39 AM:

Keith,

Yes, that was almost certainly the point. The Review-Journal is hated by almost all Democrats in Nevada and they know that. So they know that if they endorse someone, it's likely to have a reverse effect.

Angry Vet wrote on January 16, 2008 11:40 AM:

Michael A-

Comments like "old-line, welfare-state solutions that haven't spent enough time in the microwave to appear even superficially appetizing" seem especially supportive of your contention.

God knows what an "old line, welfare state solution" actually is, since we have seen very little of those ideas actually put forth and implemented in this country.

LJ wrote on January 16, 2008 11:40 AM:

Not entirely surprising for a newpaper that endorsed George W. Bush over John Kerry in 2004 with lines such as this:

Sen. Kerry's entire campaign has been like the red cape that's designed to keep the bull from seeing where the matador really stands. The only government spending he has ever opposed has been boots and rifles and ammo for our troops.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/cands/endorsements/lasvegasrj091204.html

Odds are they'll back the Republican again this November. They're just getting in some early shots against Obama in case he's the nominee.

BluePuppy wrote on January 16, 2008 11:42 AM:

Ouch on the endorsement. And the link on Hillary Hating is on target, both for A. Sullivan and many who post here. The fear of Hillary has a communist-under-every-bed feel about it. Scary stuff, especially considering that it's an unholy alliance between the elite left, the MSM, and the right. The good news is that working Americans are tuning it out and supporting her.

spencer wrote on January 16, 2008 11:47 AM:

it remains to be seen how long this one stays on the Obama homepage.

I don't see it there now, so I guess the answer is: not long.

grover_rover wrote on January 16, 2008 11:49 AM:

Holy hell, that is their idea of an endorsement? It basically sounds like "he is worthless, but at least he isn't Hillary". And to peg him as worthless, they use a combination of conservative-sounding critiques of his policy ideas ("They're old-line, welfare-state") and unsubstantiated attacks on his experience and rhetoric ("a relatively young man with relatively little of the kind of real-world experience that prepares a candidate to stand firm against urgent advice to..." and "His policy recommendations -- when he can be convinced to get any more specific than 'I represent change'").

Seriously, I'm sick of people who say he is too vague on issues or what he plans to do about these issues. He has laid out plans for action just as much as any other candidate, the problem is with the unobservant idiots who are too lazy to do their homework (or even pay that much attention to the campaign) to be able to understand where he, and other candidates, stand. And what "change" exactly is the Review Journal looking for? Do they expect us to go from the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush slow (or fast) eroding of progressive policies to something more progressive than we have ever done before? I agree that all of the candidates' healthcare plans fall short of what we need (which is more like Kucinich's plan), but do you think that is really feasible right now? Also, do you think running on an all out pro-gay-marriage platform right now is feasible? No, don't be naive. Obama's policies are as much change as he can promise in his first term, he isn't about lying to the public and promising radical changes overnight. He knows that is impossible and he is straight with us about that. What change he is really talking about goes beyond a change in Bush's policies (which is something all Democratic candidates can do), he is talking about a change in how our government runs and relates to Americans and the rest of the world. He is talking about bringing the country together, he is talking about cooperation and open government, he is talking about transparency and working to help average people, he is talking about accountability. Those are the changes that are most important to his message, and there is no evidence that he can't deliver on these promises. So there is a chance for change, and it has nothing to do with old school politics.

And the Review Journal basically assumes that because he is young he can't handle pressure from outsiders, even though he has been tested throughout his entire career and has shown himself to be strong, intelligent, and principled and to have great judgment. He has all of the qualities of a great leader, he can inspire and energize people like no candidate has in decades, and therefore the assertion that he is hardly ideal is bullshit. He is as close to ideal as any nominee is that I can think of in recent history (or history at all, to my knowledge). So perhaps the Review Journal should have told us a little about what they view as "ideal" so we can see where they are coming from.

Anyway, sorry for the rant, but whoever wrote that "endorsement" was a goddamn idiot.

Jeremy wrote on January 16, 2008 11:49 AM:

On "Hillary hatred". One thing to add to the discussion is the point that a lot of folks like myself get incessantly bullied by Hillary's supporters. I simply think that Obama would make a better president, but whenever I make the argument based on his superior judgment and strong track record (especially on ethics reform) I got nailed as a "hater".

Think her "behind the scenes" work on SCHIP is over-hyped? Hater. Think she should have voted for the 02 Levin Ammendment if she was really "voting for diplomacy"? Hater. Think she shouldn't have co-sponsored legislation with Rick Santorum that could limit access to emergency contraception? Hater. Think "First Lady", with no security clearance, isn't the greatest qualification ever? Hater.

It hasn't helped that she's resorted to the politics of fear to manipulate voters. The experience actually increased by feelings of bitterness towards Senator Clinton. I do not think that hers is the direction that we want to take the party. We could spend all day parsing out the feelings people have toward her. To be sure, in many cases it has to do with the RW smear maching. But then, Hillary has done more to immitate them than to rise above it. She's got her own Karl Rove: Mark Penn. And her own Rush Limbaugh: Taylor Marsh.

I just think that we need to move on.

Angry Vet wrote on January 16, 2008 11:50 AM:

BP-

Maybe, maybe not. I'd like to see some quantification of "Americans tuning it out."

Personally, my opinion of the American electorate is not nearly so high. These are the same dingbats that elected GWB, and RE-ELECTED him by higher margins four years later.

Basically because they'd "like to have a beer with him."

The HRC-hating piece is on point, true. As are certain criticisms of Obama reference his experience. But again, so what?

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't?"

I'd rather take a chance on a relative unknown. This coming from a man who did not think Carter was a mistake.

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 11:51 AM:

His policy recommendations -- when he can be convinced to get any more specific than "I represent change" -- are the opposite of "change." They're old-line, welfare-state solutions that haven't spent enough time in the microwave to appear even superficially appetizing.

huh??

that's just terrible writing. trying way too hard to be clever.

Angry Vet wrote on January 16, 2008 11:52 AM:

Jeremy-

My thoughts exactly. Especially your last point- perhaps the ultimate goal of "MoveOn.org" is to eliminate the source of problems in the Democratic Party.

Just saying, no need for people to suggest I am attacking or being generally evil.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 16, 2008 11:55 AM:

Well, it is certainly not much of an endorsement, that is certainly true. It is not the first newspaper to say bad things about Obama and it will not be the last. Their loss; not much point in dwelling on the matter now.

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 11:57 AM:

the endorsement should have just read:

"obama isn't an actual progressive like edwards or a clinton like hillary, so obama it is!"

Kefa wrote on January 16, 2008 12:03 PM:

You good folks get mad with me but this IS the only way to win.....Clinton/Obama 08.

It's not so bad.....you can do it. Just say it. Get used to it. ;)

BluePuppy wrote on January 16, 2008 12:10 PM:

Angry Vet, have you read John Judis' analysis of the New Hampshire vote?

The whole article is here

This is a key finding in who is supporting which candidate:

"There was an increase in Clinton's support among voters with only a high school degree or less, but there was also a slightly smaller increase among Obama voters from this group. Where Clinton dramatically picked up support from the pre-election poll to the final poll was among voters with college degrees and higher."

Jeremy wrote on January 16, 2008 12:20 PM:

Kefa. Do you really mean that that's the "only way" to win or are you being hyperbolic? Suppose Obama gets the nomination. Do you really think that there's no way he could win? Do you think there's now way she'll win if Hillary gets the nomination and picks someone other than Obama as a running mate?

I think the real aim of your post was to belittle Obama. I just don't see why we should settle for the candidate with the Iraq albatross around her neck. Think about it in the general election. Which of our candidates can hit back credibly on foreign policy? I think that the answer is clearly Obama. He alone can say that he didn't support their "dumb war" and has the judgment to get us out of their mess responsibly.

Angry Vet wrote on January 16, 2008 12:21 PM:

BP-

Checking it right now. Note, your link is bad.

Ok, fine. I understand the statistics.

However, I fail to see how this is evidence of "Americans tuning out." Based on the FACT that turnout for the NH primary was (and I am pulling this outta my ass) somewhere in the 20-30% range, I fail to see how any vote is really an example of the American electorate and their view of Sen. Obama as a whole.

Also, shall I note the demographics of the state of New Hampshire vis-a-vis the United States?

NH-
White persons (not hispanic)- 93.9%
Hispanic/Latino origin- 2.3%
African-American- 1.1%

USA-
White (not hispanic)- 66.4%
African-American- 12.8%
Hispanic- 14.8% (dodgy statistic and conservative estimate)

Need I suggest that your sample size is most definitely NOT representative of Americans as a whole?

Perhaps you should change your original assertion to:
The good news is that working [NEW HAMPSHIRITES} are tuning it out and supporting her.

Data garnered from quickfacts.census.gov

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 12:24 PM:

Isn't the point that he is campaigning to pick up the Republicans, even to the right of Hillary, thus this isn't so bad? If this paper is such a rag as the locals describe, would a progressive be looking to this paper for guidance? Couldn't this have the impact of reaching at least a few R's who may be disgusted with their own party trusting their own on which of the D's to vote for and that most of their devoted readership couldn't be swayed anyway?

AJ wrote on January 16, 2008 12:25 PM:

The rival Las Vegas Sun (which is yet to endorse) on LVRJ:

They could have been more patronizing. They could have been more disingenuous. They could have been more cynical (Just read the opening sentence.).

But I don’t see how.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal’s endorsement this morning of Barack Obama is an exemplar of intellectual bankruptcy, designed to be an attack on Hillary Clinton by using a phony embrace of Obama. It is likely to have the opposite effect because Democratic activists loathe the RJ — and they are who will be voting Saturday. And with the RJ’s track record on major endorsements, this could be, as CityLife Editor Steve Sebelius put it, the kiss of death for Obama’s campaign.

Obama should make a joke out of this back handed endorsement.

Bill R. wrote on January 16, 2008 12:30 PM:

The endorsement makes a couple of valid points. One- Americans vote for who they like, not necessarily even for who they agree with on policy. Reagan is a case in point.
Two- If Hillary has the nomination, the conversation is going to be about Bill and Arkansas, deja vu all over again, particularly since Hillary has made Bill and his record front and center. And you are going to see the resurfacing of stories like this one, not to be dismissed as a right wing hit piece. A liberal journalist in a liberal publication.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/1998/09/11/newsa/

frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 12:33 PM:

This is what the half-wits running that paper constitutes an editorial voice? More like an idiotorial voice. The "endorsement" could have as easily been written by some trash talking right wing blogger or talk radio blowhard.

No wonder the Obama campaign removed it from it website. With friends like that, who needs crude, troglodyte enemies?

BluePuppy wrote on January 16, 2008 1:00 PM:

Sorry about the bad link. Here it is:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=17dabbce-95ad-40c1-805c-5c12d0158ba8

I'm interested in the economic voting patterns or what some people are calling the Tsongas/Bill Bradley effect. This is to say that Obama is getting support from upscale voters while Hillary’s support primarily comes from those with less means. However, Judis points out that Hillary was able to erode Obama's support among those with a college degree or more, perhaps giving her an edge. I think economic voting patterns are interesting in the context of Hillary hating. For those of us who are supporting Hillary, and reading blog posts and MSM commentary, the meme that Hillary is status quo is absurd. According to some, Hillary is more progressive than Obama--which I suspect is why Andrew Sullivan supports Obama. I see Hillary as capable of attaining our progressive goals. The Clinton Wars of the last 15 years is entering a new chapter. Clinton has outlasted her enemies; Ken Starr, Bob Dole, and Gingrich are without power. She has the desire, the will, and the know-how to pass this generation's progressive agenda. I think the experience of living through the Clinton Wars has made many of us weary of hope talk. I think Obama, should he get the nomination, would be put through the rightwing meat grinder which the Clintons went through in the 90s (or Kerry more recently). I think Hillary has a pragmatic view of elections and how to attain progressive victories. My hunch is that downscale voters hear her economic message and are making a political calculation that she can achieve her goals.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 16, 2008 1:08 PM:

'even to the right of Hillary,'

**chuckles**

**sigh**

Anywho...

those still under the delusion that republicans are going to vote for Obama in the GE really need to get a grip.

No matter what they're saying about Obama NOW (prior to him actually winning the nomination), they are going to SLAUGHTER him on policy positions once he's matched up against whichever republican manages to squeak through.

They only 'like' Obama because he's in a position to defeat a Clinton.

Once that's over with...

BOOM! THWAP! KAPOW!

(did you guys see Brokaw on Letterman? te he he)

Angry Vet wrote on January 16, 2008 1:13 PM:

WJS-

You are right, to a point.

Clobbering him on the issues, though? Or do you mean sordid rants and hints and pushes towards racism?

By the way, noting Bob Dole as an "enemy" of the Clintons is downright laughable.

And Gingrich IS still on the scene. What do you think will happen if the Republican nomination goes to the convention and Hillary is the Dem nominee?

Republicans will coalesce around the "anti-Clinton."

All of which works nicely into Bloomberg's hands.

I also fail to see how Obama is not progressive, or is not as progressive as Hillary. On the issues, he left where you expect of a Democrat (I figured use of the word "right" there would have been too ironic for my blood).

willyjsimmons wrote on January 16, 2008 1:26 PM:

@Angry Vet

'Clobbering him on the issues, though? Or do you mean sordid rants and hints and pushes towards racism?'

Two part answer.

No. I mean actual policy.

Immigration.
Taxes.
Health Care.
Terrorism.

I'm not saying that I think Obama's positions are 'wrong' per se. (although I'm in the Krugman camp in regards to some of Obama's positions on specifics)

Does Obama embrace the right-wing frame of 'amnesty' or does he reshape it during the GE?

Does Obama embrace the right-wing frame on taxes, or does he reshape it?

Health Care, same question.

Etc etc.

The amount of 'white noise' that will come from republicans on these issues is going to be almost deafening.

Part two:

For sure, the 'Southern Strategy' will be in full effect.

If they did it to Harold Ford, rest assured they will do it to Obama.

Franklin wrote on January 16, 2008 1:34 PM:

Agreed about the idiotorial.

It reminded me a bit of the "minutemen" folks who complain that immigrants from Mexico (illegal and otherwise) don't speak English.

I would love to make citizenship in this country conditional on learning to THINK in English. Can a person actually make a coherent, rational, and structured argument for their point of view?

Reading the LVRJ editorial board, I was blown away by just how stupid the reasoning was. The entire editorial can be reduced to three sentences:

"Hillary's husband screwed around. Obama is vague. Edwards likes unions."

If the LVRJ editor was actually honest he could have simply said:

"I hate Democrats."

or more accurately

"I am a drooling idiot."

I've read college newspapers with better structured and organized arguments than the litany of idiocy in the LVRJ. What. An. Idiot.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 16, 2008 3:04 PM:

For sure, the 'Southern Strategy' will be in full effect.

If they did it to Harold Ford, rest assured they will do it to Obama.

Hell's bells, man, the 'Southern Strategy' will be in full effect against Clinton just as much as Obama, even if she is white. Clinton will not carry any more southern states than will Obama. Both of them will begin the general election in the same way that Dwight Eisenhower did, with every one-time-confederate state (Florida very much included) given up as a loss. The business of either Clinton or Obama winning will be the business of winning enough midwestern and western swing states so as to still achieve an electoral college majority without the south.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 16, 2008 5:44 PM:

'Hell's bells, man, the 'Southern Strategy' will be in full effect against Clinton just as much as Obama, even if she is white.'

No need for the 'Southern Strategy' against Clinton when CDS will surely take over.

Don't you think?

Clearly, republicans already appear to favor a black man over her.

Even Obama says so.

LOL

Mary wrote on January 16, 2008 6:53 PM:

I love the way Greg skipped over the beginning of the article. The thing slamms Clinton. You have to go to his link. It is hysterical that he choose the "less than enthusiastic" about Obama from the thing. Take a look:

"As state Democrats prepare to hold their Saturday caucuses, cynical Republicans might well encourage them to choose Sen. Hillary Clinton, figuring her high "negatives" -- the unusual number of Americans who tell pollsters they'd never vote for her under any circumstances -- would virtually guarantee a GOP victory in the fall.

That's why it's a good thing for Democrats that freshman Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has managed to challenge the perception of Sen. Clinton's "inevitability."

The Clinton campaign cites Sen. Clinton's "experience." In fact, she's a one-term-plus-a-year senator whose lackluster legislative record rivals Sen. Obama's. Other than that, the "experience" in question must surely refer to her presence as a witness and enabler during her husband's presidential terms.

Suffice it to say there are dozens of issues that Americans happily dismissed as "water under the bridge" as the Clinton era came to a close, but which would quickly ensnare Sen. Clinton and her party in a presidential race that would soon look like a struggle to escape the La Brea tar pits."

Now I ask you - who are they less than enthused about. Gee Greg, the astounding twist you give things. Are you sure you are not vying for a spot on the Rove (ooops Hillary) campaign?

Mary wrote on January 16, 2008 6:58 PM:

The approach to repairing the problems in this country cannot be explained in 30 second soundbites. If you think Obama is vague or just running on hope, please see his "Plan for America" here:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 16, 2008 7:04 PM:

Obama . . . "Sucks slightly less than the other Republican running for the Democratic nomination for President."

Hell! I'm switching my vote right now.

jamiouyt wrote on January 18, 2008 1:37 PM:

Purchase discount phentermine diet pills

Purchase prescription phentermine diet pills

watImmown wrote on January 23, 2008 10:11 PM:

Just look at these

http://www.wowzamedia.com/forums/member.php?u=1282 http://www.wowzamedia.com/forums/member.php?u=1282

irrevynoigo wrote on January 25, 2008 4:17 PM:

hi
nice site

asian porn
free porn video
teen porn
free porn movie
free porn pic
free lesbian porn
cartoon porn

Aneliusettief wrote on January 26, 2008 7:37 PM:

Hi!

cheapest viagra prices cheapest viagra prices

Aneliusettief wrote on January 27, 2008 12:59 AM:

Sup!

cheapest viagra prices cheapest viagra prices

Aneliusettief wrote on January 27, 2008 1:12 AM:

Welcome!
buy viagra online buy viagra online

irrevynoigo wrote on January 27, 2008 1:41 AM:

hi
nice site

http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=274116 ">free porn pic
http://www.deepskysoftware.net/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=11465 ">porn
http://www.hssforum.org/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=4388 ">free porn movie
http://www.group-office.com/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=26470 ">free porn sex
http://www.adsensechat.com/member.php?u=9092 ">free porn film

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)