Person 2: What do you mean every restaurant in town is Italian? What about that place at the zoo where an orange baboon throws its shit at you?
Person 1: Pick from among the Italian restaurants, please.
Three hundred thousand people just voted in Kansas because they seemed to think there is a difference between Jeff Colyer and Kris Kobach. It was the Republican primary so those voters can’t be Democrats. The gay Native American with a law degree who was raised by a single mother demographic in Kansas must be a lot larger than I imagined.
When someone writes something, and it is there in black-and-white for everyone to read; and one particular conservative pretends that there is no such text and complains that the logic of the article makes no sense; the writers are not at fault. Horse, water, etc.
Person 1: So that’s the only reason you chose that restaurant, because you’re staunchly pro-Italian? But Sergio’s is a restaurant and I like their ambiance.
Person 2: Oh, you’re one of those pro-ambiance intolerant diners, aren’t you?
Person 2: No, numbnuts. If Sergio’s was a gas station run by Italians, I wouldn’t choose to eat there.
Dude, I’m not the one trying to pretend that the text doesn’t exist where they endorse her in part because she is the same as every other Democrat in the race.
So, what would you like - X, X, or X?
Regards,
Shodan
Yes. I acknowledge that part. It is perfectly consistent with the rest of the article, including the line that you pretend does not exist.
Out of curiosity, why does this matter upset you so? Is it a race policy thing for you, where you see this as a sort of Affirmative Action on the part of the newspaper, in which they choose someone who is (a) qualified and (b) has dealt with adversity, so you just want to deny that this person is qualified?
I think having all your candidates have decent policy positions is a positive thing. Being a Republican, you’re probably more used to the situation where one of the candidates believes in ethnic cleansing or something, so it’s easier to exclude (or, in some districts, include) them on that basis.
NOT a point in her favor. 
Everyone knows you don’t need political credentials to win in an election anymore.
Honestly, she has a leg up on a lot of people since I presume as a lawyer she probably knows the law better than the average person.
You really are oversimplifying their reasons, and focusing only those details which you don’t seem to like (as is the OP).
I think it’s clear that the paper did not choose her (from among the Democrats) because of her policy positions, since they state that voters must look at something else when making a decision:
Voters must look at: Experience, Intelligence, Temperament and Life History. But Shodan is focusing only on the last item, with perhaps a bit of the first item.
I think the endorsement is best read as: We like her position on the issues, but have to admit they are not so different from other Democrats. Because of that, we looked at 4 other areas and found her to be the best of the Democrats in those areas.
I see nothing wrong with that thinking, and most people would react the same way when faced with several candidates who pretty much had the same policy positions.
More like,
Person 1: Let’s go to a restaurant.
Person 2: OK I want to go to good one.
Person 1: All the Restaurants in this town are good.
Person 2: Since all of the restaurants are good, lets go to an Italian one.
Urban: overhearing the final statement of the conversation. Clearly person 2 only cares about ethnicity rather than the quality of the food.
OK, I’m in on this game:
P1: Let’s go to a restaurant. Pick either Italian or Chinese
P2: The Chinese restaurants are all crappy, but there are 5 really good Italian restaurants.
P1: Ok, so it’s Italian. How do we pick the best Italian one if they’re all real good?
P2: Well, La Scala is my favorite. They all have pretty much the same menu items, but La Scala uses organic produce and the wait staff there always knows what’s most in season and which dishes are shining on any given night. The owner came up from nothing, too, so that’s kind of an added bonus.
Now I’m hungry. Dammit, nice going guys.
Sharice Davids won.
So we’re eating Italian tonight?
Clearly it was the newspaper endorsement that swung it for her. Newspaper endorsements are very influential these days, as everyone knows.
It is for me. I take them and vote opposite.
I guess she would have had your vote if the Kansas City Star hadn’t endorsed anyone, then?
Yeah. I believe that.
Normally I’d say something like “the opposite of a stupid plan is not automatically a smart plan” but this kind of… isn’t the opposite of a stupid plan.
I suppose that’s easier than, you know, actually thinking about the candidates.