News-Record.com

Not very nice attitude, Doug. You might as well just come out and admit, that if you were Serbian, you'd be a sniper.

Note to Secret Service: He's kidding.

"I would like your paper to support Senator Clinton."

Would you? Well, sorry to disappoint.

****************
Everyone knows the N&R is backing Obama 100%. Hillary's folks shouldn't waste their time, no matter where they hail from.

But, bottom line: This is our primary.* Doug

You got that right and it appears to be the slap happy political campaign of the century.

http://arcticbeacon.com/images/3_Stooges.jpg

Meanwhile today, 3 more Americans were killed in Iraq and the price of gas jump another 16 cents a gallon, and Pizza Hut said today that their pizzas will triple in price due to the increase cost wheat. Delta Airlines and United Airlines call off their merge today since their lawyers cannot afford to make the merge talks due to cost of Oil and their combined loss of 10 billion dollars for March. Southwest Airlines was fine 10 million dollars for reporting the failures in their aircraft wiring as required by law. Puzzed CEO's of Southwest cannot understand why they are only airline making reasonable profit and why government seize 25% of their profit for the year.

js,

Only until we find someone more liberal. Maybe we'll get Ralph on our ballot this time.

Seriously, we're not planning to make an editorial endorsement in the presidential race. How you interpret whatever else we do is up to you.

Doug, do you honestly believe the readers haven't noticed the N&R's constant drum-beating for the Obama campaign?

I mean, check out Allen Johnson's blog. Or the headline from last week's story about the Pennsylvania primary.

And -- be honest here -- do you really think the N&R would endorse John McCain over either Obama or Clinton? When is the last time the paper endorsed a Republican in an important, contested race?

I just wish the N&R would admit, "Yes, our opinions are left-leaning." I think this would give the paper more credibility; much more so than playing "The Emperor's New Clothes" and clinging to a neutrality everyone knows doesn't exist.

js,

At this time, we don't plan to endorse in the presidential race so the question about McCain is moot.

The headline you referred to said: "Clinton's victory deepens split among Democrats"

I had not seen that as pro-Obama but maybe it is if it makes the point that a Clinton victory is bad for Democrats. But I thank that interpretation is up to the reader; it's not explicit in the headline itself.

I do think, in general, there's been a pro-Obama tilt in the MSM. But that's my subjective interpretation.

I don't know the whole history of News & Record endorsements. The old Daily News was liberal, the old Record was conservative (Tony Snow wrote editorials for the Record). But neither one made a statement on its masthead that "we're liberal" or "we're conservative." It's better to let readers draw their own conclusions. I know there are liberal readers who think we're not anywhere near liberal, even though probably most readers think we are.

When's the last time the N&R endorsed a Republican in an "important contested" race? That's a tricky question. I could say Howard Coble in 2006 but you'll dismiss that as not really "contested." I could say Jim Snyder over Bev Perdue for lieutanant governor in 2004 but you could dismiss that as not "important" (I agree, actually). How about Bill Wright over Earl Jones and Jim Rumley over Maggie Jeffus in legislative races in 2006? Or Trudy Wade and Roger Cotten over Paul Gibson and John Parks for the Guilford County commissioner at-large seats in 2004? Not important? If Wade and Cotten had won, Republicans would have a majority on the board of commissioners today.

Okay, so in the past four years, exactly four Republicans in significant races have received the N&R's endorsement by your count.

Now, how many Democrats have been endorsed during that time? I bet it's a lot more than four.

(And I would argue that in two of these races, the Republican was endorsed by default. The endorsement of Wright was more of an indictment of Earl Jones' shady politics, while the Jim Rumley endorsement was due largely because Maggie Jeffus has been an ineffective legislator. These are back-handed, "lesser of two evil" endorsements at best.)

js,

So, where is this leading? Do you think the newspaper shouldn't make endorsements, or it should make sure it endorses equal numbers of D's and R's, or it should endorse mostly R's?

The N&R's editorial endorsements are on the record for readers to make of what they will.

You're being deliberately obtuse, Doug. You understand my point -- the N&R has a liberal slant, like most of the mainstream media.

And that's fine. But don't try to pretend the N&R is politically neutral or unbiased when the overwhelming majority of endorsements go to Democrats.

I'm not pretending anything. Making any endorsement, like voting, is clearly inconsistent with neutrality. That's not evidence of "bias." When you vote, you're not steered by biases, you support the candidates whose views most closely conform to your own.