'L.A. Times' Shifts Policy -- And Seems to Favor Obama

By: Greg Mitchell and Joe Strupp One of the most closely-watched editorial endorsements in the race for the White House is that from the Los Angeles Times. True, it is not based in a swing state. But it has a firm recent history of choosing not to endorse any candidate for president. And with a conservative new owner, Sam Zell, will it tilt right or continue its non-endorsement policy?

The answer seemed to emerge this morning.

The paper's editorial has been running since Sunday essays it bills this way: "A series of editorials on the issues facing the next president as a lead-up to The Times' endorsement for the White House." So that takes care of one thing: The paper WILL reverse policy and endorse.

And today it seem to broadly hint which candidate will earn that nod.

Today's editorial on the campaign concluded with strong criticism of John McCain for driving people apart, and for picking Sarah Palin. The final graf reads, "On the question of who will best bind up this torn nation, we are far more troubled by what we know about McCain than what we don't know about Obama. It is proper to admire McCain's service to his nation -- as a military man and as a senator -- and he deserves our respect. On the question of who best can reunite us, however, we cannot put our faith in a man who has done so much to drive us apart."

Yet it does NOT then add: "And for that reason, this newspaper endorses Barack Obama for president."

Editorial Pages Editor James Newton told E&P today that the paper will endorse for president for the first time since 1972, but said the final endorsement had not been written and readers should not take the recent series of editorials as a sign of which way the paper is headed.

"I think we are trying to be even-handed in those pieces," Newton said. "I don?t think anything should be read into those pieces."

The paper stopped endorsing for president after its 1972 backing of Richard Nixon, which Newton said angered many on the staff. "We stopped doing it because of the [Chandler] family's relationship with Nixon and that the family was so wrapped up in Republican politics and the paper' political coverage was heavily Republican in those days."

Newton said then-publisher Otis Chandler "wanted the paper to have more of a neutral voice. It was a smart thing to do then, but no longer. We are not part of a political party and we have an editorial board that has all kinds of opinions."

The nine-person board, which includes Newton, plans to meet today and Thursday, he said. He noted that they had endorsed Obama and McCain in the primaries. "We don?t generally vote," he said of the endorsement process. "It is usually clear where people stand. We will continue to meet until we have something done."

The paper had discussed bringing back presidential endorsements in 2004, when Michael Kinsley oversaw the editorial pages. Kinsley told E&P at that time that "If it was up to me, I imagine we would do it."

Newton said the decision was made soon after the 2004 election to return to presidential endorsements this year. "We have continued to endorse on other elections, ballot measures," he said. "Endorsements help some people make up their minds and it is a useful exercise for the paper."

Asked when the endorsement would be published, Newton said only that it is "expected shortly."

Today's editorial is titled: "Bringing us together: The next president will need to bridge partisan divides." It is set up with this:

"The task of repairing those divisions will fall to one of two men -- or, rather, to one of two tickets. And the question for those who care about such things thus becomes: Will Barack Obama and Joe Biden do more to reconstruct a culture of mutual regard, or will John McCain and Sarah Palin fare better?" An excerpt follows. It's all at www.latimes.com.

Follow frequent updates on endorsements, the media and the campaign at our new blog:
The E&P Pub
*

[McCain] denounced torture as a senator but equivocated as a candidate, refusing to support legislation that would hold the CIA to the same interrogation guidelines used by the U.S. military. He sponsored immigration reform as a senator, then announced as a candidate that he would no longer support his own bill. He has studiously avoided eye contact with Obama during their debates, and at one point referred to him not by name but merely as "that one." Whatever else one reads into that remark, it cannot be regarded as respectful. Political expediency is no substitute for leadership. Certainly, it's not the mark of a maverick.

Then there are the candidates for vice president. For his choice of running mate, Obama selected a verbose and malapropistic congressional colleague who sometimes trips over himself trying to make a point. And yet Biden is a veteran member of the Senate, respected by both parties. He is honest, steady and a proven leader steeped in foreign affairs. It is terrible to imagine the need for a vice president to step up to the presidency in an emergency, but it is comforting to know that Biden could do so.

By contrast, McCain's choice was cynical and undercuts his own claims to moderation, as even McCain seems to know. Time and again in the second debate, he cited his friendship and cooperation with Sen. Joe Lieberman, the former Democrat who now straddles the parties as an Independent. But McCain sought to extract advantage from that association even though he passed over Lieberman in favor of Palin. With that decision, McCain rejected a bipartisan political veteran in favor of an unqualified neophyte -- one prone to divisive rhetoric -- in order to placate his party's right wing. Palin brought us "drill, baby, drill," this year's polarizing and vulgar bit of political speech. McCain then unleashed Palin to tear down Obama, and she responded by suggesting that Obama liked to "pal around" with terrorists. Palin's boast that "the heels are on, the gloves are off" is just too embarrassing to warrant response.

McCain since has tried to cool off his supporters, but he lit this fire -- he and no one else is responsible for those who shriek at Palin's rallies, who proclaim that Obama is an Arab and who wish him harm. This campaign is more crass and more virulent because McCain made it so. That Palin has ended up alienating not only moderates but also conservatives is this race's enduring irony.
*
Follow frequent updates on the media and the campaign at our new blog:
The E&P Pub