Saturday, October 18, 2008


The Chicago Tribune endorsed the Democratic candidate for president for the first time in its 161-year history:
On Nov. 4 we're going to elect a president to lead us through a perilous time and restore in us a common sense of national purpose.

The strongest candidate to do that is Sen. Barack Obama. The Tribune is proud to endorse him today for president of the United States...

On Dec. 6, 2006, this page encouraged Obama to join the presidential campaign. We wrote that he would celebrate our common values instead of exaggerate our differences. We said he would raise the tone of the campaign. We said his intellectual depth would sharpen the policy debate. In the ensuing 22 months he has done just that.

Many Americans say they're uneasy about Obama. He's pretty new to them.

We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party's nominee for president.

We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.

The change that Obama talks about so much is not simply a change in this policy or that one. It is not fundamentally about lobbyists or Washington insiders. Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government. His opponents may say this is empty, abstract rhetoric. In fact, it is hard to imagine how we are going to deal with the grave domestic and foreign crises we face without an end to the savagery and a return to civility in politics...

The Republican Party, the party of limited government, has lost its way. The government ran a $237 billion surplus in 2000, the year before Bush took office -- and recorded a $455 billion deficit in 2008. The Republicans lost control of the U.S. House and Senate in 2006 because, as we said at the time, they gave the nation rampant spending and Capitol Hill corruption. They abandoned their principles. They paid the price.

We might have counted on John McCain to correct his party's course. We like McCain. We endorsed him in the Republican primary in Illinois. In part because of his persuasion and resolve, the U.S. stands to win an unconditional victory in Iraq.

It is, though, hard to figure John McCain these days. He argued that President Bush's tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, but he now supports them. He promises a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but his tax cut plan would add an estimated $4.2 trillion in debt over 10 years. He has responded to the economic crisis with an angry, populist message and a misguided, $300 billion proposal to buy up bad mortgages.

McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate--but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin's exposure to the public. But it's clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment's notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country...

McCain calls Obama a typical liberal politician. Granted, it's disappointing that Obama's mix of tax cuts for most people and increases for the wealthy would create an estimated $2.9 trillion in federal debt. He has made more promises on spending than McCain has. We wish one of these candidates had given good, hard specific information on how he would bring the federal budget into line. Neither one has.

We do, though, think Obama would govern as much more of a pragmatic centrist than many people expect.

We know first-hand that Obama seeks out and listens carefully and respectfully to people who disagree with him. He builds consensus. He was most effective in the Illinois legislature when he worked with Republicans on welfare, ethics and criminal justice reform.

He worked to expand the number of charter schools in Illinois--not popular with some Democratic constituencies.

He took up ethics reform in the U.S. Senate--not popular with Washington politicians.

His economic policy team is peppered with advisers who support free trade. He has been called a "University of Chicago Democrat"--a reference to the famed free-market Chicago school of economics, which puts faith in markets...

When Obama said at the 2004 Democratic Convention that we weren't a nation of red states and blue states, he spoke of union the way Abraham Lincoln did.

It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation's most powerful office, he will prove it wasn't so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama's name to Lincoln's in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.

Read the whole thing.

Wow. What's next, The Wall Street Journal? FOX News? Maybe if they knew him as well as The Chicago Tribune does.


The Candy Man said...

The Trib ain't quite the WSJ... although Peggy Noonan had a nice article in that paper today or yesterday criticizing Palin. So who knows.

Obama is from Chi-town, so it's to be expected, but still: Yay!

asher said...

Wasn't this paper just brought and under new management about two years ago?

Watch Citizen Kane again and you can tell me how the owner of a news media controls it's idological tone.

Did you hear any good Obama jokes yet? Oh, right...there aren't any

Serach said...

LOL. Wow, a paper in a state where the candidate is from and was already guaranteed at least 70% in the particular city is really going to cater to the 500k Bush voters instead of the 1.5m Kerry voters. Riiight.

Newspapers are businesses, too.

What's so strong about the WSJ is that it's got a conservative voice despite being in NYC.

Jewish Atheist said...


LOL. Wow, a paper in a state where the candidate is from and was already guaranteed at least 70% in the particular city is really going to cater to the 500k Bush voters instead of the 1.5m Kerry voters. Riiight.

Uhhh... they did "cater to" the 500k Bush voters instead of the 1.5m Kerry ones. Were you being sarcastic?

Tigerboy said...

"Obama is from Chi-town, so it's to be expected . . . "

"LOL. Wow, a paper in a state where the candidate is from . . . "

I'm not sure you guys understand how significant it is that The Chicago Tribune has endorsed Obama. This is a paper so conservative that it has *never* endorsed a Democrat, going all the way back to before The Civil War. Never. They liked Abe Lincoln, and every Republican since!

This is the newspaper that very famously, and very wrongly, printed the morning edition after the election in 1948 with the headline "Dewey Defeats Truman!" It's easy to get things wrong when you only pick Republicans.

And yes, they absolutely "cater to" Bush voters.

The Tribune's endorsement of Obama is big.