[Paleo Conservative]

Michael Kinsley is the editor of they LA Times. I really don't think there's much doubt about who the LA Times will endorse.

[BurbankKarl]

Good, they can lose tens of thousands more subscribers

[JennysCool]

Yes. Their choice is shrouded in mystery!

[Reagan Man]

I wonder who Michael Kinsley supports?

Maybe Ralph Nadar. ;^)

[Ciexyz]

How will they know which candidate they're endorsing -- Kerry of the "flip" or Kerry of the "flop".

[Jeff Chandler]

...the envelope, please.

[lady lawyer]

Oh, the suspense.

[BluH2o]

I really don't think there's much doubt about who the LA Times will endorse.

You wouldn't be meanin' that Kerry fellow ... would ya? ;)

[SevenofNine]

AS So Cal person I see it hey I want to know

We don't know YET WHO they going pick that too mysterious

My educate bet they pick John Kerry

[Paleo Conservative]

This is all I will quote from the article.

Tony Day, who served as editorial page editor from 1971 to 1989, said Otis Chandler, the former publisher, had wanted to steer the paper away from its "ferociously Republican" roots and toward a more mainstream approach, so he stopped presidential endorsements after 1972. "At the time, it was the best thing to do because the paper was able to break with the past and continue what I think was a rather long march toward a more sophisticated, and dare I say more liberal, newspaper," Day told E&P.

[Timm]

Wow. I'm staying tuned. Who will they pick?

[Simmy2.5]

They didn't before? I guess I just never noticed that they never made a choice concerning the President (especially since they made choices for the offices in this state [mostly Democratics]).

Not that it mattered, it is almost a given who they are going to choose. If they ever said Bush, Hell would've official frozen over.

[Tamzee]

Tony Day, who served as editorial page editor from 1971 to 1989, said Otis Chandler, the former publisher, had wanted to steer the paper away from its "ferociously Republican" roots and toward a more mainstream approach, so he stopped presidential endorsements after 1972. "At the time, it was the best thing to do because the paper was able to break with the past and continue what I think was a rather long march toward a more sophisticated, and dare I say more liberal, newspaper," Day told E&P.

ROFLMAO!

Go ahead, dare to say liberal... that's like daring to state that a mile is longer than an inch ;-)

[mammer]

They will come out and say Bush will win because of the Swift boat guy's and all of the mean stuff coming out of the Bush camp. Kerry the victim poor Kerry the true war hero.

[ladyinred]

ROTFL! As if we never know who they are for?

[jporcus]

Gee, this is a really tough one. Can't wait to see who they pick. It may even sway me to subscribe.

[MJY1288]

With all of Kerry's flip flops, and his current standing in the Polls.... I wouldn't be surprised to see the left abandon Kerry and endorse George W. Bush

[goldstategop]

Yep. It will be <drumroll.... JOHN FORBES KERRY! (I'm so excited at their break with tradition - like their preference for him was a secret). (laughing)

[AgThorn]

Been living out here in LA County for 22 years and dropped this liberal rag so long ago it's not funny ... I relish the annual phone calls for a subscription to tell them why I don't and never will.

I broke down today at lunch, desperate for something to read, and bought one .. man am I sorry, on the front page disquised as 'presidential race coverage' are two anti-Bush hit pieces, opening up to two whole pages inside about all this crap on Bush being AWOL and staying stateside, etc.

My apologies to the world for giving this rag 50 cents today ... I had a week moment ... I should have torn the label off my t-shirt and read it, it would have been much more enlightening!!

[Rockitz]

Who gives a DemocRATS @$$?

Signed,

A proud non-subscriber for over 17 years.

[orangelobster]

This might bring Kucinich back into the race and be just the thing to put him over the top to reach the White House.