The New York Times supports Barack Obama. The NY Post supports McCain. That these nationally recognized papers are invested in national politics is crucial to any election, since this is where a majority of Americans get their news (besides The Daily Show, natch) so the bias of the paper can (theoretically) sway a large constituency. Or so the thinking goes.

Not so much for the Huntsville Times, located in Alabama, which therefore elected not to support either candidate in 2008 because no one cares about them, anyway.

Clever move, since the decision (or lack thereof) drew more attention to the little paper that couldn't. Except Huntsville is owned by Advance Publications, the same guys pushing out the doomed Star-Ledger and owned by a little man named Si Newhouse.

But editor John Ehinger tipped his hand too early in the gimmick, claiming the idea for the paper was to allow readers "to make the endorsement themselves." You mean voting? "Endorsing" means "voting" in this particular instance, right?

At least Ehinger doesn't have visions of grandiosity when talking about the publication:

While TV and radio have local news, it tends to be narrow and limited in quantity. If you want to know what the city Planning Commission did last week, where do you look? To The Times, of course…We don't have access to the candidates. I can't call Barack Obama or John McCain (and maybe not even Bob Barr) and ask them to come in to meet with the six-member editorial board.

Cute soundbite, and mighty humble too, but too bad — no matter how small or insignificant you believe your local community to be, forgoing a comment on the national election because that's the job for the big boys is a terrible miscalculation of the power of print. Or at least a terrible miscalculation of the dwindling power of print.