The editorial board of the highly respected scienctific journal Nature have made public their endorsement of the junior senator from Illinois. It appears this is the first time Nature has officially endorsed any political candidate.
The crux of this anomaly came in this resounding bit of text.
"The core values of science are those of open debate within a free society that have come down to us from the Enlightenment in many forms, not the least of which is the constitution of the United States."
In light of Governor Sarah Palin's recent vocalizations regarding constitutional interpretation I can understand why these editor's have chosen to endorse her opponent.
Palin on amendment 1
"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told AM talk radio host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."
By this interpretation of the constitution all political candidates should be immune to media criticism? How do we keep discussions about Sarah Palin objective when objectivity itself is what is at stake?
I felt embarrassed for the Governor when I heard this today.