DMN endorses Huck, Obama

I can't say i agree with your choice on either side as I have finally decided that I am going to vote for Thomspon as he reflects my views the closest, but I understand them. I am fearful of Obama's lack of experience, I would probably vote for Clinton if I was a dem voter. McCain is my second choice. But overall, seems like thoughtful endorsements. At least it seems that members of your board listened instead of knee-jerk partisanship (select the most vulnerable candidate of the other party). Does this mean you made up your mind how you will personally support? Have you decided which party primary you will vote you plan on participating? Here in California, we have no choice, I am registered GOP so I only get to vote in the GOP. Good editorial.

Have a very Merry Christmas.

Excuse the horrible writing structure. I am not a writer but a humble opinionated CPA who is terrible at typing.

I think this the problem with Joe Biden. People seem to agree with a lot of his ideas, but when they find out who they are aligned closest to, they either think, "Joe Biden? He's got no shot" or, "Who?" Maybe that's why he's got no chance.

I ask politely-what does Obama stand for? We get all the "bring people together".When anyone disagrees with the few stand he has taken, they're called divisive. But part of being a leader is taking a stand, even if unpopular.

His tax plan is undefined. He seems to have the saem illusions about the all-knowing all-loving "international community" that made John Kerry a joke. In the illinois state senate, he voted "present" rather than for or against various abortion bills. It's one thing to say you can respect your opposition, that you disagree but understnad your opposition. It's quite another to take no stand at all.

I would never vote for HRC, but were she to become president, we've already dealt with the 8 years of soap operas combined with decent economic policy and middle-of-the-road policy on everything else based on polls. And it would be much the same-adults running economic policy(where have you gone Robert Rubin; a nation turns it leveraged eyes to you)and lurching along by what's popular on the rest. We have and could live with that. It's a case of the devil you know. And we don't really know a damn thing about what Obama wants to do were he elected.

I know that practically all newspapers have traditionally endorsed a candidate in each party's primaries, and they certainly have that right. But I have to wonder... why bother?

Sure, under the Constitution, the Boston Globe certainly has the right to endorse, say, John Edwards and Mitt Romney. But since the Boston Globe is and always has been the voice of the far left, what Republican could possibly care which candidate their editorial board prefers? Or, if you prefer to reverse the political slant, the Wall Street Journal editorial board certainly has a right to endorse John McCain and Bill Richardson, but what Democrat would care what the Wall Street Journal says?

The Dallas Morning News isn't THAT closely identified with either party (I tend to think of their editorial board as the voice of the country club Republican- just slightly right of center on economics, just slightly left of center on social issues). Still, as a matter of principle, I think the DMN, like all newspapers, should endorse just one candidate, period.

I only get to vote for one candidate in one party on primary day. Newspapers should (voluntarily) restrict themselves to picking one candidate, too.

Huck-Obama would be a dream presidential contest. On both sides.

Rudy-Hillary would be a nightmare. Also on both sides.

As someone that lives and works in NYC, let me assure you-Bloomberg will not be a successful candidate. he has managed to cow the supposedly-tough NY press(see also Clinton, Hillary) with threats of careers should they go forward with negative press about him, which must be the nice thing about owning a meid company. Above all, his career at Salomon Brothers ended in part because of a sexual harrassment suit. While I'm not fond of these laws, Bloomberg's alleged behavior was ghastly. Philosphically, his nanny state/Richie Rich attitude makes certain this lisping midget will not run.

Huck-Obama would be a dream presidential contest. On both sides.

Rudy-Hillary would be a nightmare. Also on both sides.

I agree. McCain-Obama would be good too IMO.

Both candidates literally scare me when it comes to foreign policy. Obama has virtually no experience as an executive. And I don't truth Huckabee's ability to separate his "pastor" hat from his "politician" hat. (See his record on pardons.) I love a lot of their ideas. (Not all). I just don't have confidence that they have what it takes to be President of the United States.

I've been thinking the same thing. It seems like a lot of these candidates don't have much experience, actually. There's a lot I like about Huckabee and a lot I like about Ron Paul, but when it comes down to it I'm not sure if I would actually want either to be president. I really wish McCain would make a comeback.

Jonathan:

If the DMN was really Pravda on the Trinity, Rod would never have a job there ...