I received this spam earlier today from The New Republic:
Dear all,
I will be announcing The New Republic's Democratic primary endorsement on CNN's "Paula Zahn Now" tonight at 8:30. Please check http://www.tnr.com tonight at 8:45 to read the endorsement, as well as four dissenting pieces by TNR staff writers. And check back beginning Monday, January 12, for an online free-for-all about the merits and weaknesses of TNR's preferred candidate, also written by TNR staffers.
Yours,
Peter Beinart
Remember, TNR is a publication that bills itself of the Left, while owned by a hard-core Republican and Zell Miller Democrat who just donated $2,000 to Bush-Cheney 2004.
Whose interests do you think those guys have in mind?
So they have injected themselves into the Democratic primary process, like wolves in sheep's clothing, advertising on progressive blogs and perpetuating the myth that they are a journal of the left. And now they aimed to help Real Democrats select their nominee.
Who would they choose? The suspence ("it'll be Lieberman") was ("it'll be Lieberman") killing ("it'll be Lieberman") me.
Because as we all know, "When you've lost The New Republic, you've dug yourself a hole in the Democratic primaries." Right?
They endorsed Lieberman.
Good for them. I've been trying to make the argument that The New Republic lacks any relevance within Democratic Party circles.
They've just made the case for that better than I ever could.
Update: Thirdparty writes in the diaries:
"I don't believe that [the voters] are going to be controlled by what any politician or pundit says." - Lieberman on the Today Show, 12/9/03, in response to Gore's endorsement of Dean
"I truly believe this endorsement will have an effect on how people decide to vote." - Lieberman on CNN, 1/7/04, in response to the pundits at TNR endorsing him (possibly not verbatim)
I don't think there's a publication in existence that can sway any votes with its endorsements at this level. I like my local alternative weekly for deciding on non-partisan judges and other local elections I don't follow. But who the heck is going to choose a president based on what a newspaper or magazine tells them?
As for people, the only endorsements that matter are Gore and the two Clintons. I know people are waiting to see who Harkin endorses, but I think his endorsement would carry as much weight as NH's Shaheen (in other words, not very much).
Another Update: Justaguy writes in the comments
Reading the endorsement I found it odd that Dean was mentioned so many times. 13 to be exact. Bush is mentioned 14. Clinton 11. Clark 3. Kerry 2. Gephardt 1. Edwards 0. Lieberman himself, 23.
Also and more tellingly, Lieberman is contrasted with Dean in 5 paragraphs. Kerry 2. Clark 2. Gephardt 1. Liberals in general 4. Bush 0.
And that last scores is what bothers me the most.
TNR has decided that the best case it can make for its choice is to tear down his Democratic opponents. Lieberman is right because they are wrong. Bush is an afterthought. Reading the piece on would never know Lieberman was going to run against Bush at all.
If you read the cases for Edwards, Gephardt, Clark and Dean, those are all well-written endorsements about why their chosen guy would be the best nominee. The way endorsements should be written. The Lieberman piece, on the other hand, was about tearing the party down.