MAKES A GOOD POINT!

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.“

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.

By Greg Mitchell and Joe Strupp

Published: October 14, 2008 10:55 AM ET