THE NOMINATING process this year produced two unusually talented and qualified presidential candidates. There are few public figures we have respected more over the years than Sen. John McCain. Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president.
The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama's relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.
Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building. At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation. Abroad, the best evidence suggests that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.
Read the whole thing.
9 comments:
Or, in short, he's a smarter campaigner, politician, and public servant.
Reading their whole piece, it sounds like "yes, Obama's plans aren't all that realistic; yes, McCain makes a lot of good points; but regardless, we really like that this guy sounds so good when he talks."
Why do newspapers endorse candidates? Doesn't that kind of defeat trying to be impartial and reporting the facts?
Ezzie:
To me it sounds like: neither candidate is perfect, but Obama is much better because of his intelligence, temperament, and policies. Their endorsement of McCain is "easy" and "without ambivalence."
They say that McCain is right to favor ending the tax break for companies offering health insurance, but that Obama's policies on just about everything else are superior.
HH:
Why do newspapers endorse candidates? Doesn't that kind of defeat trying to be impartial and reporting the facts?
To an extent, it does, but I think editors of major newspapers are among the best-qualified people in the country to make such decisions, so I think it's worth it for them to give us their views, as long as they are clearly marked as editorial and not news.
HH said: Why do newspapers endorse candidates? Doesn't that kind of defeat trying to be impartial and reporting the facts?
[laughs]
An impartial newspaper? Does such a thing exist? *Can* such a thing exist?
cyberkitten
I agree with you, but endorsing a candidate just screams out bias. A newspaper can try to wiggle out of being called bias at times, but once they start endorsing, all that is out the window.
HH said: I agree with you, but endorsing a candidate just screams out bias.
As long as you know which way the bias is going I see no problem with a newspaper backing a candidate. As long as the bias is up front what's the issue? I mean... we already know which side of the political fence the newspapers we read are on... right? Though mine are on the Left... [grin]
Yay!
Post a Comment