Extraordinary Observations

Having watched various newspapers and magazines make their presidential endorsements over the past few months, I anxiously awaited to hear what the editors of my local paper, the Plain Dealer, had to say. I give the Plain Dealer credit for endorsing Barack Obama for President today, but I have a few concerns to address. The Plain Dealer has had a not-so-impressive endorsement history in recent years. They endorsed George W. Bush in 2000, writing:

Bush possesses a quality his opponent, Al Gore, cannot claim: authenticity. After nearly eight years of the Clinton-Gore administration, we believe Americans long for leadership that will not hide behind the absence of a 'controlling legal authority' to justify its actions.

Then the PD made a controversial decision in 2004, endorsing no one:

After nearly four years spent watching George W. Bush as president, and after a year of watching Sen. John Kerry campaign to oust him, we have decided not to add one more potentially polarizing voice to a poisoned debate. We make no endorsement for president this year.

So it seems like a victory for Democrats that Barack Obama won this year's Plain Dealer endorsement. That is, of course, until you dig into the endorsement itself.

The Plain Dealer's editors begin with a discussion about what kind of leader America needs. The editors conclude by saying, "Barack Obama can be that leader". The PD then goes into an endorsement of essentially both candidates, writing:

We find much to admire about both Obama and McCain. Obama's background is an only-in-America amalgam of Kansas and Kenya, Hawaii and Indonesia, Harvard Yard and Hyde Park. McCain is every bit as much a biographer's dream: a son and grandson of admirals who embraced their tradition of service, then forged his own through war, the Hanoi Hilton and 26 years in Congress. Traveling very different paths, each man has come to know and to benefit from the best of this country. Having endorsed McCain and Obama in their respective party primaries, we have little doubt that either could serve capably as president. Certainly, either would be a huge improvement over the incumbent.

The endorsement ends with these sentences:

Electing any president involves a leap of faith -- a risk. Such is the power of the office. For a country in need of a new direction and a new tone, Barack Obama is a risk worth taking.

To me, despite the headline, the Plain Dealer's editors make anything but a ringing endorsement of Barack Obama; which makes me wonder, what is the PD afraid of? Are they hedging their bets in case Obama turns out to be a dud, like their endorsement of Bush in 2000? Are they trying to evade responsibility for their endorsement by calling Obama a "risk"? Are the editors at odds with the publisher again, as was the case in 2004? Is this a compromise piece intended to praise and criticize both candidates without making an endorsement that is contrary to the endorsements made by an increasing number of newspapers this year? Maybe the PD is intimidated by the people in the comment section of their website who threaten to cancel a subscription based on one endorsement or another?

One other matter that bothers me is what the Plain Dealer's endorsement doesn't mention: any issues! There is no mention of energy, taxes or foreign policy. No mention of which candidate has better policies to help cities like Cleveland; and no mention of which candidate is better at breaking from Bush's policies. Having read over a dozen endorsements of both Obama and McCain these past few weeks, I am confident in saying that the PD's is one of the weakest and least convincing endorsements to date.