While Clinton and Kasich are their respective parties' most qualified candidates this campaign season, their capabilities are being eclipsed by voters' preference for style over substance.
Our copy of The New York Times arrived on the driveway early yesterday morning and, because of the current internet-based paradigm of "pushing" news before it's seen in print, I already knew what it contained regarding today's Iowa caucuses. On the eve of this long-awaited start to the 2016 presidential primary process, the paper's editorial board announced its choices for endorsements--the time-honored political practice of publicly bestowing support to or approval of a person or position. With a long history of endorsing presidential candidates that goes back to Abraham Lincoln's first run for the White House in 1860 (and an overall 61 percent--24 out of 39 times backing the winner--accuracy rating for those general elections), the receipt of "The Gray Lady's" auspicious sanction was seen by many politicians as a needed boost to a flagging campaign or as yet another example of the inevitability of their cause or candidacy to the voting public. In today's social media-dominated world where everyone can have a platform and express an opinion, newspaper endorsements have diminished in importance but are still seen as "bellwethers" to gauge support within the media "establishment".
