I just saw
this in The Nation, largely agreed with it, and thought I'd pass it along. Enjoy (or not)! :)
...by any reasonable measure the [Washington Post's] declaration -- which was to be expected but which comes at a point when Deeds needs the boost -- is less a classic endorsement than a warning about what would happen it Deeds loses to McDonnell.
As such, the Post's editorial provides a devastating confirmation of the roughest attacks on the Republican nominee...
[...]
An intellectually agile "dexterous politician" who happens to be a sexist homophobe who would bend the policies of the state toward theocracy? Yikes! The Post is essentially saying that McDonnell is a smart theocrat.
So the Virginia race is framed as a contest between a disappointing candidate and a dangerous candidate.
That's not the way politicians like to frame things. They like to deal in absolutes -- good guys versus bad guys. But the Post's intervention, with its realistic assessment of the contest, may offer the best hope left for Deeds to make a connection with the Democrats and especially the moderate independents who have tipped Virginia to the Democrats in recent years -- but with whom this year's Democrat has yet to close the deal.
Personally, I'll take the "Disappointing Dem" any day over a "theocrat," even if said "theocrat" happens to be a "smart" one. I'd add that, in addition to being a "theocrat" ("Pat Robertson's Manchurian Candidate" as I like to call him), Bob McDonnell is also a big fan of "trickle down/big-corporations-are-always-right" Bush-o-nomics, a global warming skeptic (or possibly even denier), anti-science in general, and heading up a ticket that's as extreme or even more so (in the case of Ken Cuccinelli) than McDonnell is. Other than all that, Bob McDonnell would make a great governor! Heh.
