The New York Times endorsed Clinton as did the Des Moines Register (which I read regularly when I lived in Iowa), Quad Cities Times, Myrtle Beach Sun, Denver Post, etc.  But wait, Obama got the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, [South Carolina] State, etc. ad nauseum.  Who did Edwards get?  I honestly don't remember; I have endorsement fatigue.

I want to speak briefly about Senator Edwards, because I think he has a defining moment forthcoming.  He was always my second choice; I loved his passion for discussing and addressing poverty.  He proudly proclaimed that he was against Washington lobbyists, and while I know he could not rid Washington of them, I thought he might at least dent them.  The fact that he recognized that special interests had run amok was very encouraging; it meant that someone could at least see sense and recognize part of the problem in Washington.

That is exactly why I don't think he will and certainly hope he doesn't endorse.  What is the particular difference between a lobbying position and an endorsement?  After all, they serve the same purpose; they try to persuade someone in a biased manner.  Both undermine the judgment of the voter, and ultimately, I see no essential difference.

I would hope that Senator Edwards entrusts his supporters to make a decision based on their convictions, the same with Governor Richardson.  So, I wish we would all take a second to realize that endorsements are actually subverting our own judgment when we allow them to sway us completely.  Take each with a grain of salt and for God's sake, please realize that supporting someone due to a particular endorsement is no better than voting solely due to a lobbyist's argument.  You're better than that.

I hope this particular diary was unnecessary; please assure me that this didn't need to be said.