Sen. Maria Cantwell and Mike McGavick are touting newspaper endorsements published statewide as ballots are mailed. Candidates always do that. But what seems different this year is the wider reaction to endorsements, particularly to The Seattle Times backing of McGavick and, last week, Dave Reichert.

First, a summary of endorsements from the daily papers.

Cantwell has more. Her campaign blog refers several times an endorsement even from the Vancouver Olympian, which I guess is OK since she has been backed by both the Columbian.
and the Olympian.

The Olympian has some nice things to say about McGavick, too, and asks itself:

So why not endorse Mike McGavick for the U.S. Senate?

Simply put: He's a qualified candidate running at the wrong time.

This nation cannot afford another Republican in the U.S. Senate.

Cantwell has also been endorsed by The News Tribune and the Tri-Cities Herald — like the Olympian McClatchy papers — the Oregonian and the PI.

The Tri-Cities endorsement brought this response from Eric Earling at Sound Politics.

The Seattle Times today endorsed McGavick. He's also been endorsed by the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin and the Yakima Herald Republic, both owned by The Seattle Times, and the Bellingham Herald, the lone McClatchy paper backing the Republican.

The Times endorsement has really set off Cantwell backers. There's a critique on DailyKos, where a writer says, "it simply doesn't make any sense."

Daniel Kirkdorffer weighs in, too.

Reaction to the Times endorsement is not confined to political pundits. Jim Demetre, editor of Artdish, The Northwest forum on visual art, sparked a discussion about it on the group's site. Be sure to scroll down for "Happy Fun Fun with nihilism cartoons."

Who's missing from the list of aghast Times critics? David Goldstein. He's been so amped up since the Times endorsed Reichert he tried to write about McGavick today and ended up back on Reichert.

At the Slog, Josh Feit did some research, lists some of McGavick's positions and says:

And here's the flip-flopping Seattle Times against McGavick before they were for him, editorializing in the past against most of the McGavick positions I've noted above:

He comes up with five examples.

Critics on both sides like to say that MSM newspaper endorsements don't matter much in this age of New Media. But they must mean something given how much of the blogosphere was filled up with discussion about them the past week.