Flimsiest. Endorsement. Ever.

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Las Vegas Review-Journal, Nevada's largest newspaper, is crazy in a decidedly libertarian sort of way -- very much like Nevada itself. Consider the content of today's opinion page. An editorial entitled "Green obstructionism" calls the Sierra Club "anti-capitalist, green extremists," and an editorial cartoon features Uncle Sam drowning in the "Federal Red Ink Lagoon" as a woman gets ready to throw in an anchor with the words "universal health care" on it.

But let's focus on the other editorial, an endorsement of Barack Obama (via RCP) ahead of this Saturday's caucuses. The editors spend the opening paragraphs of their shallow piece making a case against Clinton and Edwards. Clinton lacks experience -- contrary to what she and her campaign are stressing. She was merely "a witness and enabler during her husband's presidential terms". Moreover, she supported universal health care, which, see above, is the worst sort of heresy. As for Edwards, his "anti-capitalist populism is not in this country's long-term best interests". I didn't know Edwards was "anti-capitalist," but I suppose anyone who isn't an anti-government cheerleader for the free and unregulated market is an anti-capitalist, if not worse. In the past, the editors no doubt would have thrown around the "communist" smear.

Anyway, Obama it is. Right? Well, yes, but the editors attack him, too:

Is Barack Obama, then, the ideal Democratic candidate for president? Hardly. His policy recommendations -- when he can be convinced to get any more specific than "I represent change" -- are the opposite of "change." They're old-line, welfare-state solutions that haven't spent enough time in the microwave to appear even superficially appetizing.

Sen. Obama is a relatively young man with relatively little of the kind of real-world experience that prepares a candidate to stand firm against urgent advice to, say, bomb some remote population of defenseless civilians to "send a message," or plunge the economy into a dark night of unforeseen consequences by crippling the free market in the name of "fighting greed."

Basically, all three top Democrats are bad. So why Obama? Because he's "likeable," "a good enough orator," "a good politician, in the non-insulting sense that he knows how to speak to individual Americans and give them the feeling he cares about their concerns". In other words, though the editors don't say it, he's another Bill Clinton, but without all the Clinton baggage. They don't want another Clinton presidency, which would be a "horror movie," and Hillary has all those "negatives". At least -- and it is truly the very least -- Obama would put up a competitive fight in the general election.

Against? Well, Mitt Romney, if the editors of this newspaper have their way. Their endorsement of Romney on the Republican side will appear in tomorrow's edition. (Does it seem odd that libertarians would support Romney over his rivals? No. Paul may be more to their liking in many ways, but he's not a major candidate, and Romney, who has stressed his social conservative and national security credentials, is basically the most pro-business of all the candidates (despite pushing a populist message, and likely a totally insincere one, in Michigan). Huckabee is a christianist theocrat, of course, and while McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson have presented low-tax, pro-business platforms, they can't compare with Romney on this front.)

It seems that the editors are endorsing Obama as the lesser of the evils in a party for which they don't much care. Maybe it was because they needed to endorse someone, anyone, on the Democratic side, because they felt they had to make a pick for both sides, but their case for Obama is extraordinarily weak. It's the sort of "praise" you can do without, but which may, this coming Saturday, help put Obama over the top.