Search for new and used cars from NH dealers.
web feeds

Mobile

Dec222007

An Inside Look At Our Presidential Endorsement Process

Filed under Uncategorized by nick pappas at 11:18 pm

Today’s endorsement of Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for president no doubt answers one of the questions some of you may have had leading up to the state’s Jan. 8 primary.

The editorial addresses both the who and the why, but it doesn’t say much about the how – that is, the process used by The Telegraph editorial board to arrive at a Democratic endorsement today and a Republican endorsement to be published next Sunday.

So I thought it would be beneficial to spend a few minutes explaining what might otherwise seem like a mysterious process.

As I mentioned in an op-ed piece two weeks ago, The Telegraph editorial board met with 12 of the 16 major presidential candidates in the television studios of Nashua High School South. (All of those one-hour interviews are available for viewing at http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/ and http://www.nhprimary.com/.)

Despite repeated efforts, we were not able to arrange interviews with Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson either because the candidate wasn’t interested or because we couldn’t agree on a day or time that worked for both of us.

Based in part on those interviews, as well as general observations over the long campaign, the five members of The Telegraph editorial board gathered on Tuesday afternoon in the newsroom conference room to try to reach a consensus on two candidates.

The editorial board consists of Publisher Terrence Williams, Executive Editor David Solomon, Managing Editor/Online Damon Kiesow, Vice President for Digital Media Ernesto Burden and myself, the editorial page editor.

We began the meeting by agreeing to a set of personal qualities that we felt were important for the next president to possess. They consisted of:

  • Leadership skills.
  • The ability to govern.
  • Conviction in his or her basic principles.
  • A commitment to open government and civil liberties.

We also agreed to consider the candidates’ positions on the major issues of the day and whether we felt the particular candidate was capable of generating broad support among voters in a general election campaign.

At that point, starting with the Republicans, I began reading the names of all the candidates and instructed the other members to stop me if they wanted to discuss the merits of a particular candidate in detail.

On the Republican side, we spent some time discussing Giuliani, Huckabee, John McCain, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. Among the Democrats, we debated the merits of Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Obama.

During this process, we each took turns advocating for – and in some cases against – a particular candidate. Many times, we were able to cite specific instances during our interviews with them that either encouraged or discouraged us from considering them for our endorsement.

For the Democrats, the final decision came down to Obama and Biden, the 35-year senator from Delaware who currently serves as chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Biden impressed us all with his command of international affairs and his pragmatic approach to dealing with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and other trouble spots in the world. While he did not get our endorsement, we agreed he would be a definite asset as a Cabinet member in the next administration.

In closing, I’m sure some of you are wondering why newspapers bother to endorse candidates in the first place. Fair enough. In fact, a recent poll found that newspaper endorsements rank somewhere between virtually meaningless and actually harmful to the candidate endorsed.

I can’t speak for all newspapers, of course, but the reason we endorse presidential candidates every four years is not – I repeat, not – to tell you what to do come Election Day. That’s entirely up to you.

Rather, we do it for the same reason we publish editorials the other 363 days of the year: to publicly state the opinion of this newspaper’s editorial board and, in so doing, contribute to the civic debate within the community.

At best, the editorial will introduce a line of thought that readers might not otherwise have considered; at worst, it will spark a public outcry that will generate debate over kitchen tables, at coffee shops and in the editorial pages and online forums of this newspaper.

Either way, we would like to think that is beneficial for both of us.

Nick Pappas is editorial page editor at The Telegraph. He can be reached at 594-6505 or npappas@nashuatelegraph.com.

Viewing 5 Comments

    • ^
    • v

    The editorial board deliberations seem considered and fair. Since all of the editorial board candidate interviews are videotaped and available on line, it might be of interest to watch a video of the deliberations for endorsements as well…maybe more so.


    Candidates certainly make a big deal out of newspaper endorsements. The Concord Monitor's anti-endorsement of Mitt Romney is an especially interesting wrinkle. I wonder if this reflects the trend in voter's attitudes where so many people feel like they're not voting for a candidate, but for the lesser of two evils.

    • ^
    • v

    Too bad other states get to pick a candidate before his home state does.


    I would have looked into his Church before I was so quick to endorse.

    If some of you get a chance to look into Obama. I would check out his church website.


    The trinity united church of Christ is racially biased. I like to know what I am really getting. His church affiliation makes me question his true allegiance.


    The United Church of Christ website states they have: A congregation with a non-negotiable commitment to Africa., A congregation committed to restoration, A congregation actively seeking reconciliation.


    In my opinion his allegiance should be a commitment to America. And if restoration or reconciliation means reparations, I had nothing to do with the 1860's.


    As a resident of Illinois I am not impressed with Obama. He really hasn't done anything here to instill confidence. And why does he not wear a US flag on his lapel?


    He is not a leader in my opinion. Simply another politician, nothing new here trust an illinois voter.

    • ^
    • v

    I commend the Nashua Telegraph for endorsing Barack Obama.


    Obama is one of the first decent , principled politicians running for America's highest office.


    There is something special about Obama that transcends party, race, gender et al. Americans are sick of the partisan bickering. Playing politics at the expense of the country is doing great harm to our nation. We cannot afford to allow that to continue.


    Obama inspires hope for better days ahead not just for Americans, but the world according to headlines worldwide.


    I hope all Americans recognize the extraordinary opportunity we have and what is at stake.


    The Nashua Telegraph made the correct choice.


    Will Americans?

    • ^
    • v

    I was undecided until last Saturday. I went to Nashua North to see his speech. I waited in traffic on Broad street for over an hour. It was like I was going to see a rock star. People were walking up and down the street with Obama signs chanting...Fired up...Ready to Go!!! I waited in line for over an hour and when I finally got in, we were ushered to a separate auditorium where they had speakers set up through out. The main auditorium that they had set up for his speech was over capacity and we were about 2000 extra. His speech was moving and convincing, The way he speaks truly is one of a legend such as JFK, or MLK. He then came over to us and shook all of our hands thanking us for being so patient and supportive. I heard an older woman behind me yell out "You make me feel proud to be an American - AGAIN!" That really got to me. I then made my decision, I have become an Obama supporter. It truly is time for a change, It is time for a fresh face. Vote on Tuesday.

    • ^
    • v

    Today in America we have a large growing class of people who are politically and emotionally unstable. We place them on a pedestal and try to predict their every move on the political landscape. Its high time we call a spade a spade. These so called independent voters are flaky and unbalanced. They don't have any core beliefs and can't tell right from wrong. They don't vote on issues...in fact many of them can't even tell what their values are. No ,they look around to see what others are saying and doing. They are more attracted by good looks and catchy soundbites. Independants don't have a stomach for fighting. They don't like hearing anything bad about candidates. Most are easily manipulated by the media. The differences between the right and the left are so stark now.....how can anyone not favor one side or the other? Either you are for the war on terror or you advocate surrender to the extremists. You are in favor of less government or bigger government. One must believe that either abortion is murder or a choice to made by the mother whether their children live or die. Maybe we should not be surprised....when you look around there are scores of couples living together before being married. What was once considered shameful and now winked at and considered the practical way to try someone out. Of course if one cannot commit to their mate how can they be expected to commit to a political party? It's high time to restore sanity to the political process and restrict the primary to those with their head on straight. Only then will these screwups be forced to choose their allegiance between good and evil! Before the next primary we need to restrict the right to choose the candidates for each party to those who choosen which side of the fence they will live on. The clueless and the kooks should be forced to wait it out to the main election to meditate on their flakiness.

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus