This kind of crosses over into more of the political than I usually go here at EMUTalk.org, but I couldn’t resist:
As I noticed via the Ypsi City Desk this afternoon, for the upcoming presidential campaign, the Ann Arbor News has joined the ranks of the firmly uncommitted. Or, more accurately perhaps, “For president: flawed candidates, no endorsement.” Not to spoil it too much, here’s the last few paragraphs:
These are both good men at heart. Both, we are sure, are well intentioned.
Yet both have indulged in campaigning that is beneath them. Each has distorted the record and the positions of the other. This campaign – which held the promise of, for once, possibly remaining civil and grounded in issues – has sunk into the mud like the rest of them. All four candidates on the major-party tickets have participated in that, to varying degrees. And all four should be embarrassed.
Our political endorsements aren’t really meant to tell people how to vote, but rather to add to the public discussion on important issues. In this race, some will surely see this lack of endorsement as a cop-out or a lack of courage. So be it. For us, it’s simply a reflection of reality.
One of these two men will win on Election Day. Whoever he is, here’s hoping he proves us wrong.
First off, if you follow the link to that editorial, be sure to take a look at the comments. From what I read of them (shortly before this post), the comments so far could be summed up as “BOOOOOOOO!”
Second, given the AAN’s typical editorial endorsements of Republican candidates (for example, W. twice), perhaps what this non-endorsement really says is “Jeez, we just could not possibly endorse McCain, so we’d rather just opt out entirely.” And as far as I’m concern, a non-endorsement is pretty much an acknowledgment that folks in southeast Michigan are going to turn out for Obama.
Third, in this overt “non-endorsement” (which is a kind of odd format– as one of the commentators on the Mlive site points out, instead of running an editorial that says “we’re not going to endorse anyone,” why not just skip it all entirely?), the editorial board of the AAN has joined that curious group of America voters, the all-important “undecideds.” And just the other day, The New Yorker published a very funny essay by David Sedaris titled “Undecided.” I think this passage sums things up for me:
I look at these people and can’t quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention?
To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”
To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.
I mean, really, what’s to be confused about?
So, by this analogy, the AANews is like a layman who just wants attention, or a diner who is, um, kind of slow. Neither comparison is exactly flattering.
Oh, and just to be clear: sitedad offered his unequivocal endorsement in the title of this post, and he paid for this message.
