Every year I wonder the same thing: if journalists are expected to be so obsessed with “objectivity,” in the sense that they’re expected to suppress all intellect in the pursuit of Absolute Zero Opinion, why are newspapers permitted to give endorsements?  It seems a tacit violation of that most sacred of principles. . .

And certainly, when the D&C gets into the act, I’m especially chagrined.   Yes, the D&C Editorial page is awash in endorsements of Republican incumbents, as you might have expected.  They do support Carmin Gumina in Webster, but I mean, it’s not like you could have endorsed Dave “Teachin’ ‘tards is For Suckers” Malta.  And they also had to add in there that Gumina “doesn’t consider himself a staunch Democrat,” like it’s OK for Republicans and other decent people to vote for him.

There’s also an endorsement of Ted Nixon in the 10th, but here despite many worthy reasons to support Mr. Nixon, it seems the D&C was caught between endorsing the old guy or endorsing the Republican.  Hmm. .  Which constituency to pander to?

I guess what really frustrates me about these endorsements isn’t so much the implicit lack of “objectivity”: I don’t believe you can be intelligent and not have an opinion in such things.  What I object to is the fact that all this supposedly deep cognition of the candidates happened behind a closed door.  Where were the interviews and the head to head comparisons?  No, those comparison charts don’t often reveal subtleties, but at least they reveal something.  The D&C’s coverage of the elections has thus far been nonexistent, and their coverage after this will be slanted.

So, yeah.  I’m less than excited with the endorsements . . .