(Chicago) Sun-Times endorses Barack Obama for president

[LTR]

Source: Chicago Sun-Times

Americans are ready to be one country. By the millions, they yearn to bridge their differences, to find common cause, to rise above ideology, race, class and religion.

They have grown weary of the culture wars and the personal attacks, tired of the exaggerated lines that divide. They dare to imagine a more constructive discourse, a debate marked by civility and respect even in disagreement, a politics that begins with listening to each other.

Nothing else so fully explains the meteoric rise of Sen. Barack Obama. If America had preferred a master of policy for its next president, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have won the Democratic nomination. If America valued experience in public life above all else, Sen. John McCain would be trouncing Sen. Obama in the polls.

But it is Sen. Obama who won his party's nomination, and it is he who leads in the polls. Americans across the land want to pull together, and in Sen. Obama they see a man of exceptional gifts who just might show them how.

Our endorsement for president of the United States goes to Sen. Barack Obama, Chicago's adopted son. He has the unique background, superior intellect, sound judgment and first-rate temperament to lead our nation in difficult times.


Read more: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1228111,sun-times-endorses-barack-obama-101908.article#

---

The Sun-Times used to be even more conservative than the Tribune, though they have repositioned themselves in recent years to be a 'progressive, working class paper.' Like the Trib endorsement, this is a very well-written endorsement by one of his hometown papers.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

1. Wow........

The Sun-Times was always a most conservative rag, as you said, sometimes making the Tribune look liberal.

This is pretty astonishing, but, then, what hasn't been astonishing about this whole Obama campaign.

Has any paper endorsed McPOW?

[Newsjock]

2. Yes

Here's the tally so far. The (B) says they endorsed Chimpy in 2004, so he's picked up zero new endorsements.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003875230

The Obama-Biden ticket maintains its strong lead in the race for newspaper endorsements, picking up 24 more papers in the past day, including the giant Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune on Friday afternoon (see separate story), and the Miami Herald, Philadelphia Inquirer, Portland's The Oregonian, Denver Post, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Salt Lake Tribune, Kansas City Star, Southwest News-Herald (Ill.) and Chicago Sun-Times late Friday or Saturday.

This brings his lead over McCain-Palin by this measure of daily papers to well over 3-1, at 64-18, including most of the major papers that have decided so far. In contrast, John Kerry barely edged George W. Bush in endorsements in 2004, by about 213 to 205.

JOHN McCAIN
18 newspapers total
About 1.7 million daily circulation

CALIFORNIA
Napa Valley Register: 16,283
The San Francisco Examiner (B): 80,000

COLORADO
Mountain Valley News (Cedaredge): 2,000
The Daily Sentinel (Grand Junction) (B): 31,349
The Pueblo Chieftain (B): 49,169

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
The Washington DC Examiner (N/A): 100,073

FLORIDA
Tampa Tribune

MARYLAND
The Baltimore Examiner (N/A): 50,000

MASSACHUSETTS
Boston Herald (B): 182,350
The (Lowell) Sun (B): 44,439

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Foster’s Daily Democrat (B): 22,547
Union Leader (Manchester) (B): 51,782

NEW YORK
New York Post (B): 702,488

OHIO
The (Findlay) Courier (B): 22,319

TEXAS
Amarillo Globe-News (B): 44,764
Dallas Morning News (B):

WASHINGTON
(Spokane) Spokesman-Review (B): 89,779

WEST VIRGINIA
Wheeling News-Register (B): 12,821

[Tangerine LaBamba]

3. There's something wrong here.

I've lived in the greater DC area - 15 minutes from the White House - for more than 30 years, and I've never heard of the Washington, DC "Examiner."

I googled it, and found a website. OK, so it's an online publication.

Then, there was a Baltimore "Examiner." I googled that, too, and got an identical website.

The only thing I can guess is that these are "hand-out" papers, left for free at bus stops.

Thank you for this. You name is apt.

[Newsjock]

8. The Examiners ...

... are descended from the San Francisco Examiner, once one of the city's great newspapers. But it's had a very checkered decade, has gone through many changes of ownership and much drama, and is now owned by Bush-loving billionaire Philip Anschutz. He took the name to D.C. and Baltimore and started papers there that, yes, are free-distribution, only in the "elite" (read, "rich") ZIP codes of the area.

And even in SF, the Examiner is now a free paper with rapidly falling print distribution. It's a mere embarrassing shadow of its former self.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

9. I guess I live in the wrong neighborhood

Here, across the river from DC, we're so blue, the Examiner doesn't find its way over.

That's a shame, about the SF Examiner, which was a terrific paper. I'm sorry to hear that.

But, gee, Newsjock, thanks for the information. I really lucked out with you.

:toast:

[never cry wolf]

4. No, the Sun-Times used to be a blue collar union paper

Until Rupert Murdoch (the foreigner, to use Mike Royko's term) bought it in 1984:

During the Field period, the newspaper had a populist, progressive character that leaned Democratic but was independent of the city's Democratic establishment. Although the graphic style was urban tabloid, the paper was well-regarded for journalistic quality and did not rely on sensational front-page stories. It typically ran articles from the Washington Post/Los Angeles Times wire service.

In 1984, Field sold the paper to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, and the paper's style changed abruptly toward that of its suitemate New York Post. Its front pages tended more to the sensational and its political stance shifted toward the conservative. This was in the era that the traditional Republican bulwark, the Chicago Tribune, was softening its positions, ending the city's clear division between the two newspapers' politics. This shift was made all but official when the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Mike Royko defected to the Tribune

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Sun-Times

[Tangerine LaBamba]

5. Beware of believing Wikipedia.....

If you're using it as any kind of authoritative source, you're in trouble. The Sun-Times was a decidedly conservative paper when I lived in Chicago in the late sixties and early seventies. We subscribed to it, but only for Mike Royko. Murdoch's purchase probably made it worse - we were gone from Chicago by then, but it was hardly "progressive."

And I'm SERIES about Wikipedia. It's only as good as the people who post stuff there, and that means anyone can put just about anything there.

[noel711]

6. I grew up in Chicago.... thru the 50's and 60's and the Times

was the 'go-to' paper of the working people.

(We used to read the Chicago Daily News, until they
went under...)

The Tribune was the conservative sheet...still is.

But until it was sold to a fool, and became sleazy rag,
we all loved the Times.

[snappyturtle]

7. Thank you. I grew up in nw Indiana and I remember the leanings

of these papers exactly as you do!

[diane in sf]

11. I grew up in Chicago and we used to read all three, my fave was the Daily News

followed by the Sun-Times, didn't have much use for the Trib.

Col. McCormick must be spinning in his grave about now.

[LTR]

10. They have gone more progressive in the past few years

After the whole Conrad Black scandal, they reoriented themselves and decided to shift to the left. They are no longer a right-wing rag. Anyone reading a typical issue would realize that.

[radfringe]

12. full list of newspaper endorsements

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7528371