Endorsements
I've always been of two minds about candidate endorsements.
On one hand, they seem a waste of time, because most voters today are quite able to make up their minds themselves, thank you. I always remember a local elected official in Shamokin, Pa., where I used to be a reporter, scoffing at claims by various party committee people that they "controlled" 15 votes or 20 votes and could deliver them at election time. I suspect that "control" in many cases lasted only until the curtain was pulled shut in the voting booth.
On the other hand, endorsements CAN help truly undecided voters come into one candidate's camp or another. The New York Times telling you that in it's considered opinion, Hillary Clinton is the best Democratic candidate, or Ted Kennedy giving an enthusiastic thumbs up for Barack Obama, can help make up your mind, provided you respect the institution or person making the endorsement.
Then there's the situation--where I find myself today--of liking the arguments of both the Clinton and Obama endorsers, and those of Obama critics like New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. Hillary Clinton seems tougher and more able to take on the Republican right. But is she electable? Obama seems very electable, and an inspirational leader, but his national healthcare plan is inferior to Clinton's (see Krugman column linked above) and he's no Lyndon Johnson in the legislative arena. Is it better to bet on the 'horse' that will likely win, even if you don't think you'll like what he does afterward? Or should I bet it all on the 'horse' that is more likely to fight for the progressive agenda--provided she wins the race. What's a liberal democrat to do?
Pennsylvania doesn't hold its primary until April 22, which seems an eternity away. The race could well be settled by then, and I'll support whomever the Democrats nominate. But with how close the race for the nomination has become, we in the Keystone State may find outselves in the decidedly rare position of being kingmakers.