1) It really doesn’t matter who a magazine, or newspaper for the matter, endorses for the presidency. He specifically shows how both the New York Time and the Wall Street Journal are distinctly biased. And while there specific, overt endorsements mean little, which I agree with. My overarching concern is that if the editorial staff is overwhelming biased in their political alignments, it will creep into the articles and news reporting in a more subtle way. For example, in what information they choose to investigate, which stories they choose are important.
2) The second point, it did agree with, is what is very important for the next president, is who their advisers are. No one person can be an expert at everything – they have advisers which assist them in interpreting the information and guiding them towards the correct choices. It is those advisers which have a huge impact on the policies which affect our lives. Unfortunately many of these advisers are not solidified until after the nominee actually wins the office – by which time it’s too late.
One final note what the big catch-phrase this year, “change” — but then again, what first-term nominee hasn’t uttered those words. Rarely, if ever, have we been looking to replace a president with a carbon copy. Even good presidents, had their own week points, and we’d love to see those elements improved upon.
Wouldn’t it be nice for the candidates to stop speaking about change, as if they’re the first one with that idea – or the only one speaking about it. Second to that is the assumption that views/policies/etc of the party of the incumbent, is also that of the new candidate – thus, that part is not about change, but “more of the same”.