Presidential elections drag a host of controversies behind them every four years: mud-slinging advertisements, rhetoric lip-ups and campaign inconsistencies. But above all, endorsements seem to ignite the most passionate allegiance and debate. Choosing a blend of coffee or a Friday-night movie is personal and might spark casual debate between friends. But put an Obama supporter and a McCain supporter in a small room together, and the punches are sure to fly – hopefully not literally.

For many Americans, endorsing a candidate translates to aligning oneself with the candidate’s views on every issue. Were this the case, they would appear far less often. An endorsement does not necessarily mean the endorser agrees with every policy and stance; only that the endorser agrees more with the specified candidate than the alternatives.

Newspapers began as what might be considered today entirely opinionated publications. As time progressed, more emphasis and importance was placed on objectivity. Readers began demanding facts, looking down on political spin. Newspaper journalists met these demands, but believed, as the ones dedicating their careers to following current issues, they were most qualified to make an informed decision. This prerogative lives on in the editorial page, or opinion page.

Newspapers continue to run opinion pieces because the reporters believe discussion cannot begin until a stance is taken. Twice a week, the Optimist runs an editorial at the top of the opinion page. An editorial, which includes endorsements, is simply the staff’s majority opinion on a specific issue: an informed suggestion. The Optimist expects its readers to take it as such.