A Bizarre Endorsement for Obama

New University editorial staff meeting

"So that's it...proven leadership experience, judge of character- we're endorsing Obama. Now, let's have (another) drink."


I suppose I should cut more slack for our college newspaper at UC-Irvine (New University) for some of the nonsense they publish. New University is presently completely to the left, which is not unusual for a campus newspaper. True, these are kids-or young adults-however you want to term it. I assume they are also products of the journalism schools that teach them that their job is to right wrongs, correct injustices and expose conservative wrongs. Yet, I can't resist the temptation to point out a few loony statements that appeared today in New University's endorsement of Barack Obama for President.

I won't go into detail and try to pick apart every statement. If they like Obama, that's fine. However, there are a few sentences in that editorial that are absolutely laughable. I have put them in caps.

First, there is this:

"To restore America's image, this country needs someone capable of bringing PROVEN LEADERSHIP to the position (capitals mine), someone who can take control of the conflict in the Middle East, someone who has a consistent stance on civil liberties and human rights, someone who can take care of the little guy, someone WHO IS A GOOD JUDGE OF CHARACTER (caps mine) and someone who evokes confidence.

OBAMA HAS DEMONSTRATED ALL THESE QUALITIES AND MORE."

Exactly what proven leadership is New University talking about?

Judge of character? What about Bill Ayres, Bernadine Dorhn, Khalid Rashidi, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, James Meeks and Michael Pfleger?

"Beyond civil liberties and human rights, OBAMA ALSO WANTS AMERICANS TO HAVE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS (Caps mine)."

In whose pockets, the ones who earn it or someone else?

"IN CONTRAST, SARAH PALIN IS DANGEROUSLY INEXPERIENCED."

In contrast to Obama??

Now I repeat, this was an editorial-thus an opinion. Of course, a technique of writing an opinion essay is to use facts to support one's opinions. In this case, the New University used outright laughing out loud whoppers to make their points.

And I almost overlooked this quote that appeared under the Opinion page title:

"'Can I interest you in the chicken?' she asks. 'Or would you prefer the paltter of sh-- 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."-David Sedaris. (The word I cut out was not cut out in the newspaper. This is not the first time New University has printed 4-letter words. It leads me to wonder-are there any adults in charge in the New University? What are they teaching these young aspiring writers?

This is the next generation of the New York Times, LA Times et al.