News Media Commentary: Editorial- Mark Warner for Senate

Today, the Washington Post endorsed Mark Warner for U.S. Senate.

The Editorial Board brought out the adjectives today- calling Warner a "successful entrepreneur who rescued Virginia from insolvency by streamlining government while modestly raising taxes." James S. Gilmore III (am I supposed to be using their full names here? Am I going to get in trouble for not putting the R in Mark R. Warner?) was described unattractively as "an unapologetic, not very thoughtful partisan whose reckless tax cuts nearly drove Virginia to financial ruin."

And somewhere Gilmore goes "Ouch!" You gotta feel bad for the guy after that blow.

The Editorial said itself (personifying articles for the win!), "The contest between Mr. Warner and Mr. Gilmore is as much a referendum on their tenures as governor as it is on their plans for the Senate." And apparently, despite many saying this is a bad idea, it's the correct option to judge the future performance of a politician on his past performance in a completely different office!

However, the Post does look ahead as well- saying Gilmore's "knee-jerk opposition to the $700 billion federal rescue of the financial system shows that his irresponsibility would continue in the Senate," as he accuses and attacks Wall Street high rollers and other "nebulous punching bags" (what a great line!) without offering any good alternatives.

The Editorial Board also points out fairly that some of Warner's campaign promises seem a bit- strange. The fact that Warner supports "Congress's effort to undermine the District's ability to author its own gun laws," an effort he would never support in Virginia, seems particularly strange. He also doesn't offer any specifics on how to fund U.S. transit upgrades.

Overall though, the Board must think he's a pretty good choice. I mean, who endorses a candidate a full three weeks before the contest?

Very interesting. Though the Post seems to lean left in its endorsements usually anyways, the Board presents a very good reasoning of why it supports Warner over Gilmore.

Now I still think they could do more with the online presentation. Have they ever considered producing a video showing exactly why they're endorsing a particular candidate over the other? I don't think anyone's done that yet- it would be innovative and a great way to expand into new media. I feel like they could at least have thrown in a few sidebars comparing Warner's policies with Gilmore's positions at least- just repurposing content to put online seems a little lazy and non-innovative to me.