The "Bradley Effect" is one of those oft-repeated myths in politics. The idea centers around believing that whites would tell a pollster that they intended to vote for a black candidate but then in the privacy of the voting booth would change their minds and vote for the other candidate. The more extreme view is that an individual would outright lie about supporting a black candidate in order to sound racially accepting knowing full well that as a voter he or she could never vote for a black candidate. In Tom Bradley's case, though he was favored by 10% in polls leading up to election day in 1982, he lost his bid for the California governorship to Republican George Deukmejian.
But let's break this notion down. Why would a voter lie to a pollster, i.e. would someone with overt racial prejudice state for some reason an intention to vote for a black candidate? Does a voter stating an intent to vote for an opponent of a black candidate somehow automatically imply racial bias? Seems like a stretch to me. Then I found out from listening to Tell Me More on NPR and following up by reading an op-ed in the New York Times, the Bradley Effect is--surprise--an oversimplification! The only racial bias is that used by the media in attempting to explain the results of a complex election with the simplest of explanations. What may also have lost Bradley the governorship was that Republicans had a ballot issue on guns that year which energized Republicans (guns, God, and gays!) to come out and vote. In addition, more than a million absentee ballots were cast that year (another stealth effort of the Republicans) and their votes were not included in any of the pre-election polling models.
So the Bradley Effect, as it is widely understood, had little to nothing to do with racial politics. And in fact, I would submit that this year we may see an effect that should be called the Obama Effect. Kathleen Parker noted this last week in the Washington Post, and I'm quite sure after canvassing in Virginia, that there may be a considerable number of voters who would never admit intending to vote for the democrat to their families, co-workers, and friends. But in the privacy of the voting booth, seeing that the Republican party of today is bereft of its stated ideals, some voters who would never declare so in public may pull the lever for...Democrat Barack Obama.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Democrats Have Their Own "Hillary Clinton" Now
I'll admit that I panicked when Sarah Palin came on the scene. I saw her introductory speech the Friday after the end of the Democratic nominating convention and was duly impressed. She had formidable skills connecting with her audience and a biography as a woman governor, mother of five, and a solid conservative that gave me pause if not outright fear that she could be the one to suck the oxygen out of the Obama campaign. In fact, that's just what happened for two weeks or so following the Republican convention, where Gov. Palin wowed the crowd even as the press was digging trying to find out who she was.
But now a Washington Post/ABC poll shows that Palin is a bigger drag on McCain's ticket than even President Bush! (Remind you of any particular democrat who is popular with the base but not the rest of the country?) I guess serving as the McCain campaign's attack dog drove up Palin's negatives with independents even as the Republican base gobbled up the red meat she was serving. Although there is still talk of what Sarah Palin will do after the campaign ends and whether she'll be back in 2012, there is no doubt that Democrats would take great pleasure in working to defeat her. Just as Republicans recoiled at the thought of a President Hillary Clinton and would surely have mobilized like never before to defeat her, Sarah Palin now serves the same function for the Democrats. She causes a gag reflex among most liberals and Democrats alike. The idea that McCain thought that Democrats would trade Hillary Clinton for Sarah Palin was insulting enough, but now she's getting so much negative media coverage that it will be hard for her to recover the middle ground where many women's politics lie.
Personally I'm hoping that a few years in the wilderness will force Republicans to come back with a more inclusive message. Perhaps the country is not so center right after all. And besides, Mitt Romney, Tom Ridge, Bobby Jhindal, and who knows who else might have something very forceful to say about Palin trying to win the Republican nomination for the presidency in 4 years even as many hard core Republicans view Palin as the future of their party. But wouldn't that be a fascinating race to watch? Palin will have more experience governing Alaska (assuming she can get re-elected) as well as the invaluable experience of having been part of a national campaign. And she certainly knows how to eviscerate her opponents with a wink and a smile! Sarah Barracuda is not going away, but we Democrats are hopeful that other Republicans who praise her now will take her down just as Republicans were grateful that Barack Obama took Hillary out of the game.
And just like with Hillary, the media have found a new figure with whom the public is fascinated--by her marriage, her political machinations, and of course her personal style. If John McCain loses (let alone should he win) the media will happily speculate about what Sarah Palin will be doing the next four years. We have already seen the beginnings of the pack journalism mentality going after the next new thing!
But now a Washington Post/ABC poll shows that Palin is a bigger drag on McCain's ticket than even President Bush! (Remind you of any particular democrat who is popular with the base but not the rest of the country?) I guess serving as the McCain campaign's attack dog drove up Palin's negatives with independents even as the Republican base gobbled up the red meat she was serving. Although there is still talk of what Sarah Palin will do after the campaign ends and whether she'll be back in 2012, there is no doubt that Democrats would take great pleasure in working to defeat her. Just as Republicans recoiled at the thought of a President Hillary Clinton and would surely have mobilized like never before to defeat her, Sarah Palin now serves the same function for the Democrats. She causes a gag reflex among most liberals and Democrats alike. The idea that McCain thought that Democrats would trade Hillary Clinton for Sarah Palin was insulting enough, but now she's getting so much negative media coverage that it will be hard for her to recover the middle ground where many women's politics lie.
Personally I'm hoping that a few years in the wilderness will force Republicans to come back with a more inclusive message. Perhaps the country is not so center right after all. And besides, Mitt Romney, Tom Ridge, Bobby Jhindal, and who knows who else might have something very forceful to say about Palin trying to win the Republican nomination for the presidency in 4 years even as many hard core Republicans view Palin as the future of their party. But wouldn't that be a fascinating race to watch? Palin will have more experience governing Alaska (assuming she can get re-elected) as well as the invaluable experience of having been part of a national campaign. And she certainly knows how to eviscerate her opponents with a wink and a smile! Sarah Barracuda is not going away, but we Democrats are hopeful that other Republicans who praise her now will take her down just as Republicans were grateful that Barack Obama took Hillary out of the game.
And just like with Hillary, the media have found a new figure with whom the public is fascinated--by her marriage, her political machinations, and of course her personal style. If John McCain loses (let alone should he win) the media will happily speculate about what Sarah Palin will be doing the next four years. We have already seen the beginnings of the pack journalism mentality going after the next new thing!
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Tracking Conservatives Who Support Obama (Or at Least Think Palin Has Got to Go)
Much has been made of the whispers in conservative circles regarding McCain's candidacy. Much of the invective is directed at Sarah Palin and I somehow fear she will be blamed for the fall of the Republicans from power as surely as Eve was blamed for Adam's fall from grace. Personally I can't stand the woman's politics, but she has only performed as she was directed to by her patron, John McCain. Still, most of the conservatives who are now displeased with the prospect of losing the White House (odd that winning 7 of the last 10 contests leads the Repubs to such a sense of entitlement) usually get around to citing the Palin pick as woefully lacking given our times and smacks right in the face of John McCain's judgment and the notion of "country first." I love how Laura Ingraham and others dismiss these intellectual conservatives as not representing the "real" America, whatever the hell that means! But just for the fun of it, here are some of my favorites. Almost all praise Obama, but I have to admit I take special pleasure in posting the ones that bash McCain-Palin:
10/31/08
On thedailybeast.com, Jeffrey Harte, a former speechwriter to Reagan and Nixon who also worked at the National Review for four decades, is also endorsing Obama as a repudiation of the Bush years and the defiling of true conservatism: "Republican President George W. Bush has not been a conservative at all, either in domestic policy or in foreign policy. He invaded Iraq on the basis of abstract theory, the very thing Burke warned against. Bush aimed to turn Iraq into a democracy, "a beacon of liberty in the Middle East," as he explained in a radio address in April 2006.
Lawrence Eagleburger was the secretary of state for George H.W. Bush, the undersecretary of state for political affairs for Ronald Reagan, and a U.S. ambassador to Yugoslavia. On NPR's Talk of the Nation Eagleburger said of Governor Palin: "I don't think at the moment she is prepared to take over the reins of the presidency," he says. "I can name for you any number of other vice presidents who were not particularly up to it either. So, the question, I think, is — can she learn and would she be tough enough under the circumstances if she were asked to become president?"
Ken Adelman, a conservative Republican who "campaigned for Goldwater, was hired by Rumsfeld at the Office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon, was assistant to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld under Ford, served as Reagan’s director of arms control, and joined the Defense Policy Board for Rumsfeld’s second go-round at the Pentagon, in 2001" was interviewed via e-mail in The New Yorker:
Michael Smerconish, The Philadelphia Inquirer: "John McCain is an honorable man who has served his country well. But he will not get my vote. For the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago, I'm voting for a Democrat for president. I may have been an appointee in the George H.W. Bush administration, and master of ceremonies for George W. Bush in 2004, but last Saturday I stood amid the crowd at an Obama event in North Philadelphia...Last Saturday at Progress Plaza, I heard Obama say: 'The American people aren't looking for somebody to divide this country; the American people are looking for someone to lead this country.'"
10/17/08
Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal: "Her supporters accuse her critics of snobbery: Maybe she's not a big "egghead" but she has brilliant instincts and inner toughness. But what instincts? "I'm Joe Six-Pack"? She does not speak seriously but attempts to excite sensation—"palling around with terrorists." If the Ayers case is a serious issue, treat it seriously. She is not as thoughtful or persuasive as Joe the Plumber, who in an extended cable interview Thursday made a better case for the Republican ticket than the Republican ticket has made. In the past two weeks she has spent her time throwing out tinny lines to crowds she doesn't, really, understand. This is not a leader, this is a follower, and she follows what she imagines is the base, which is in fact a vast and broken-hearted thing whose pain she cannot, actually, imagine. She could reinspire and reinspirit; she chooses merely to excite. She doesn't seem to understand the implications of her own thoughts."
10/13/08
Christopher Hitchens, slate.com: "The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: "What does he take me for?" Precisely this question is provoked by the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin. I wrote not long ago that it was not right to condescend to her just because of her provincial roots or her piety, let alone her slight flirtatiousness, but really her conduct since then has been a national disgrace. It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her—her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations—were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses."
10/10/08
Christopher Buckley, thedailybeast.com, and son of National Review founder William F. Buckley: "John McCain has changed. He said, famously, apropos the Republican debacle post-1994, “We came to Washington to change it, and Washington changed us.” This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget “by the end of my first term.” Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?"
10/9/08
David Brooks, The New York Times: "Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive. But no American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin. Nobody so relentlessly divides the world between the “normal Joe Sixpack American” and the coastal elite.
Kathleen Parker, Washington Post: "Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.
9/5/08
Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post: "Obama was sagging because of missteps that reflected the fundamental weakness of his candidacy. Which suggested McCain's strategy: Make this a referendum on Obama, surely the least experienced, least qualified, least prepared presidential nominee in living memory.
Palin fatally undermines this entire line of attack. This is through no fault of her own. It is simply a function of her rookie status. The vice president's only constitutional duty of any significance is to become president at a moment's notice. Palin is not ready. Nor is Obama. But with Palin, the case against Obama evaporates. "
10/31/08
On thedailybeast.com, Jeffrey Harte, a former speechwriter to Reagan and Nixon who also worked at the National Review for four decades, is also endorsing Obama as a repudiation of the Bush years and the defiling of true conservatism: "Republican President George W. Bush has not been a conservative at all, either in domestic policy or in foreign policy. He invaded Iraq on the basis of abstract theory, the very thing Burke warned against. Bush aimed to turn Iraq into a democracy, "a beacon of liberty in the Middle East," as he explained in a radio address in April 2006.
I do not recall any "conservative" publication mentioning those now memorable words "Sunni," "Shia," or "Kurds." Burke would have been appalled at the blindness to history and to social facts that characterized the writing of those so-called conservatives.
Obama did understand. In his now famous 2002 speech, while he was still a state senator in Illinois, he said: 'I know that a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, of undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without international support will fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda. I'm not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.' "
Duberstein said he was influenced by another prominent Reagan official - Colin Powell - in his decision.
"Well let's put it this way - I think Colin Powell's decision is in fact the good housekeeping seal of approval on Barack Obama."
Powell served as national security advisor to Reagan during Duberstein's tenure as chief of staff.
Duberstein spoke with Zakaria about his final days in the Reagan White House. The Reagan official, along with Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, also discussed the transition process to a new administration."
Lawrence Eagleburger was the secretary of state for George H.W. Bush, the undersecretary of state for political affairs for Ronald Reagan, and a U.S. ambassador to Yugoslavia. On NPR's Talk of the Nation Eagleburger said of Governor Palin: "I don't think at the moment she is prepared to take over the reins of the presidency," he says. "I can name for you any number of other vice presidents who were not particularly up to it either. So, the question, I think, is — can she learn and would she be tough enough under the circumstances if she were asked to become president?"
"Give her some time in the office and I think the answer would be — she will be adequate. I can't say that she would be a genius in the job," he adds.
Ken Adelman, a conservative Republican who "campaigned for Goldwater, was hired by Rumsfeld at the Office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon, was assistant to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld under Ford, served as Reagan’s director of arms control, and joined the Defense Policy Board for Rumsfeld’s second go-round at the Pentagon, in 2001" was interviewed via e-mail in The New Yorker:
10/19/08"Why so, since my views align a lot more with McCain’s than with Obama’s? And since I truly dread the notion of a Democratic president, Democratic House, and hugely Democratic Senate?
Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.
When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure.
Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.
That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain’s main two, and best two, themes for his campaign—Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.
I sure hope Obama is more open, centrist, sensible—dare I say, Clintonesque—than his liberal record indicates, than his cooperation with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid portends. If not, I will be even more startled by my vote than I am now."
Michael Smerconish, The Philadelphia Inquirer: "John McCain is an honorable man who has served his country well. But he will not get my vote. For the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago, I'm voting for a Democrat for president. I may have been an appointee in the George H.W. Bush administration, and master of ceremonies for George W. Bush in 2004, but last Saturday I stood amid the crowd at an Obama event in North Philadelphia...Last Saturday at Progress Plaza, I heard Obama say: 'The American people aren't looking for somebody to divide this country; the American people are looking for someone to lead this country.'"
10/17/08
Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal: "Her supporters accuse her critics of snobbery: Maybe she's not a big "egghead" but she has brilliant instincts and inner toughness. But what instincts? "I'm Joe Six-Pack"? She does not speak seriously but attempts to excite sensation—"palling around with terrorists." If the Ayers case is a serious issue, treat it seriously. She is not as thoughtful or persuasive as Joe the Plumber, who in an extended cable interview Thursday made a better case for the Republican ticket than the Republican ticket has made. In the past two weeks she has spent her time throwing out tinny lines to crowds she doesn't, really, understand. This is not a leader, this is a follower, and she follows what she imagines is the base, which is in fact a vast and broken-hearted thing whose pain she cannot, actually, imagine. She could reinspire and reinspirit; she chooses merely to excite. She doesn't seem to understand the implications of her own thoughts."
10/13/08
Christopher Hitchens, slate.com: "The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: "What does he take me for?" Precisely this question is provoked by the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin. I wrote not long ago that it was not right to condescend to her just because of her provincial roots or her piety, let alone her slight flirtatiousness, but really her conduct since then has been a national disgrace. It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her—her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations—were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses."
10/10/08
Christopher Buckley, thedailybeast.com, and son of National Review founder William F. Buckley: "John McCain has changed. He said, famously, apropos the Republican debacle post-1994, “We came to Washington to change it, and Washington changed us.” This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget “by the end of my first term.” Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?"
10/9/08
David Brooks, The New York Times: "Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive. But no American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin. Nobody so relentlessly divides the world between the “normal Joe Sixpack American” and the coastal elite.
She is another step in the Republican change of personality. Once conservatives admired Churchill and Lincoln above all — men from wildly different backgrounds who prepared for leadership through constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking. Now those attributes bow down before the common touch."
Kathleen Parker, Washington Post: "Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.
No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I've been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I've also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.
Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage, and there's not much content there."9/5/08
Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post: "Obama was sagging because of missteps that reflected the fundamental weakness of his candidacy. Which suggested McCain's strategy: Make this a referendum on Obama, surely the least experienced, least qualified, least prepared presidential nominee in living memory.
Palin fatally undermines this entire line of attack. This is through no fault of her own. It is simply a function of her rookie status. The vice president's only constitutional duty of any significance is to become president at a moment's notice. Palin is not ready. Nor is Obama. But with Palin, the case against Obama evaporates. "
Monday, October 20, 2008
Endorsement Go-Round
Lately I've found myself in tears reading the newspapers (online that is). And the same thing happened yesterday during "Meet the Press." I was overcome with emotion so quickly that I didn't really know how to get control of what was happening within me. Upon reflection I guess I was just feeling in my gut the possibility (the reality?) that these United States might just elect a black man to become president! This is no small achievement for our nation and one that I frankly never thought I would see in my lifetime. But then here comes this Barack Obama seemingly out of nowhere, poised to get rid of the baby boomers and all of their existential angst, 60s idealism, and arguments over who lost the Vietnam War. This is truly a time of generational transformation in our country. It is only fitting that in this referendum on the issues facing our country, this election--like Clinton vs. Bush in 1992--is viewed as the older generation's priorities vs. against the younger generation's. Here, I will keep track of the endorsements thus far, with the most recent first.
11/3/08
How beautiful that Dick Cheney's hometown paper, the Casper Star-Tribune also endorsed Obama! "It would be easy for the Star-Tribune to simply agree with the majority of voters in this red state and endorse the Republican candidate for president.
But this isn't an ordinary election, and Sen. Barack Obama has the potential to be an extraordinary leader at a time we desperately need one. The next occupant of the White House will inherit a national economy that's collapsing and two wars our nation has been fighting for years, depleting valuable resources we need to fix a multitude of domestic problems. Far too many of our nation's citizens live paycheck to paycheck, worried about whether they'll have a job next week or if a medical crisis will bankrupt them.
What America needs most in these troubled times is a president who will move the country in a positive direction. The candidate who is most likely to chart a new course that will lead us to better days is Obama. Moreover, he is the best candidate for Wyoming."
10/30/08
The Economist: "Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism."
10/26/08
Financial Times: "In responding to the economic emergency, Mr Obama has again impressed – not by advancing solutions of his own, but in displaying a calm and methodical disposition, and in seeking the best advice. Mr McCain’s hasty half-baked interventions were unnerving when they were not beside the point.
The editors of Anchorage Daily News endorsed Obama over the Republican ticket that includes Alaska's own governor, stating that electing her "would stretch the governor beyond her range," among other comments:
"Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.
The New York Times endorsed Obama (what a surprise) and criticized McCain, whom the paper endorsed in the Republican primary: "Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries, has spent the last coins of his reputation for principle and sound judgment to placate the limitless demands and narrow vision of the far-right wing. His righteous fury at being driven out of the 2000 primaries on a racist tide aimed at his adopted daughter has been replaced by a zealous embrace of those same win-at-all-costs tactics and tacticians.
The most important was from Colin Powel who spoke without notes for about seven minutes. His endorsement is seen as slamming the door on the Republican party who used and abused him in the runup to the war and damaged Powell's reputation in the process. Personally I never understood why he went along when he seemed so unsure, but in the end he was a loyal soldier to his commander-in-chief.
The LA Times first skewered McCain: "Indeed, the presidential campaign has rendered McCain nearly unrecognizable. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was, as a short-term political tactic, brilliant. It was also irresponsible, as Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory. The decision calls into question just what kind of thinking -- if that's the appropriate word -- would drive the White House in a McCain presidency. Fortunately, the public has shown more discernment, and the early enthusiasm for Palin has given way to national ridicule of her candidacy and McCain's judgment."
...And then refuted the "elitism" label: "We may one day look back on this presidential campaign in wonder. We may marvel that Obama's critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment, and belittled his eloquence, as if a gift with words were suddenly a defect. In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be."
The endorsement of Obama by The Eagle of Bryan-College Station, Texas is notable because the paper has never endorsed a democrat for president in its 50 years as a publication, not even Texan native son Lyndon Johnson in 1964. The editors panned McCain's judgment in picking his running mate as well as his intractable stance on ending the war in Iraq. But this time here's the praise for Obama: "Every 20 or 30 years or so, a leader comes along who understands that change is necessary if the country is to survive and thrive. Teddy Roosevelt at the turn of the 20th century and his cousin Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan -- these leaders have inspired us to rise to our better nature, to reach out to be the country we can be and, more important, must be.
The one that brought me to tears was the Chicago Tribune, which hasn't endorsed a democratic candidate in all of its 147 years as a publication and boldly compared Obama to Lincoln: "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."
10/13/08
The New Yorker (notable for its many other reasons besides Sarah Palin to oppose McCain, but here's the pro-Obama part): "By contrast, Obama’s transformative message is accompanied by a sense of pragmatic calm. A tropism for unity is an essential part of his character and of his campaign. It is part of what allowed him to overcome a Democratic opponent who entered the race with tremendous advantages. It is what helped him forge a political career relying both on the liberals of Hyde Park and on the political regulars of downtown Chicago. His policy preferences are distinctly liberal, but he is determined to speak to a broad range of Americans who do not necessarily share his every value or opinion. For some who oppose him, his equanimity even under the ugliest attack seems like hauteur; for some who support him, his reluctance to counterattack in the same vein seems like self-defeating detachment. Yet it is Obama’s temperament—and not McCain’s—that seems appropriate for the office both men seek and for the volatile and dangerous era in which we live. Those who dismiss his centeredness as self-centeredness or his composure as indifference are as wrong as those who mistook Eisenhower’s stolidity for denseness or Lincoln’s humor for lack of seriousness."
Here is a selection of the rest of the field, which Obama is garnering at a 3 to 1 ratio, according to Editor & Publisher as of October 13.
Washington Post
Denver Post
Philadelphia Inquirer
Boston Globe
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Philadelphia Inquirer
San Francisco Chronicle
Sacramento Bee
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Detroit Free Press
11/3/08
How beautiful that Dick Cheney's hometown paper, the Casper Star-Tribune also endorsed Obama! "It would be easy for the Star-Tribune to simply agree with the majority of voters in this red state and endorse the Republican candidate for president.
But this isn't an ordinary election, and Sen. Barack Obama has the potential to be an extraordinary leader at a time we desperately need one. The next occupant of the White House will inherit a national economy that's collapsing and two wars our nation has been fighting for years, depleting valuable resources we need to fix a multitude of domestic problems. Far too many of our nation's citizens live paycheck to paycheck, worried about whether they'll have a job next week or if a medical crisis will bankrupt them.
What America needs most in these troubled times is a president who will move the country in a positive direction. The candidate who is most likely to chart a new course that will lead us to better days is Obama. Moreover, he is the best candidate for Wyoming."
10/30/08
The Economist: "Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism."
10/26/08
Financial Times: "In responding to the economic emergency, Mr Obama has again impressed – not by advancing solutions of his own, but in displaying a calm and methodical disposition, and in seeking the best advice. Mr McCain’s hasty half-baked interventions were unnerving when they were not beside the point.
On foreign policy, where the candidates have often conspired to exaggerate their differences, this contrast in temperaments seems crucial. For all his experience, Mr McCain has seemed too much guided by an instinct for peremptory action, an exaggerated sense of certainty, and a reluctance to see shades of grey.
He has offered risk-taking almost as his chief qualification, but gambles do not always pay off. His choice of Sarah Palin as running mate, widely acknowledged to have been a mistake, is an obtrusive case in point. Rashness is not a virtue in a president. The cautious and deliberate Mr Obama is altogether a less alarming prospect."
10/25/08The editors of Anchorage Daily News endorsed Obama over the Republican ticket that includes Alaska's own governor, stating that electing her "would stretch the governor beyond her range," among other comments:
"Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.
Since his early acknowledgement that economic policy is not his strong suit, Sen. McCain has stumbled and fumbled badly in dealing with the accelerating crisis as it emerged. He declared that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" at 9 a.m. one day and by 11 a.m. was describing an economy in crisis. He is both a longtime advocate of less market regulation and a supporter of the huge taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailout. His behavior in this crisis -- erratic is a kind description -- shows him to be ill-equipped to lead the essential effort of reining in a runaway financial system and setting an anxious nation on course to economic recovery."
10/23/08The New York Times endorsed Obama (what a surprise) and criticized McCain, whom the paper endorsed in the Republican primary: "Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries, has spent the last coins of his reputation for principle and sound judgment to placate the limitless demands and narrow vision of the far-right wing. His righteous fury at being driven out of the 2000 primaries on a racist tide aimed at his adopted daughter has been replaced by a zealous embrace of those same win-at-all-costs tactics and tacticians.
He surrendered his standing as an independent thinker in his rush to embrace Mr. Bush’s misbegotten tax policies and to abandon his leadership position on climate change and immigration reform."
10/19/08The most important was from Colin Powel who spoke without notes for about seven minutes. His endorsement is seen as slamming the door on the Republican party who used and abused him in the runup to the war and damaged Powell's reputation in the process. Personally I never understood why he went along when he seemed so unsure, but in the end he was a loyal soldier to his commander-in-chief.
The LA Times first skewered McCain: "Indeed, the presidential campaign has rendered McCain nearly unrecognizable. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was, as a short-term political tactic, brilliant. It was also irresponsible, as Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory. The decision calls into question just what kind of thinking -- if that's the appropriate word -- would drive the White House in a McCain presidency. Fortunately, the public has shown more discernment, and the early enthusiasm for Palin has given way to national ridicule of her candidacy and McCain's judgment."
...And then refuted the "elitism" label: "We may one day look back on this presidential campaign in wonder. We may marvel that Obama's critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment, and belittled his eloquence, as if a gift with words were suddenly a defect. In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be."
The endorsement of Obama by The Eagle of Bryan-College Station, Texas is notable because the paper has never endorsed a democrat for president in its 50 years as a publication, not even Texan native son Lyndon Johnson in 1964. The editors panned McCain's judgment in picking his running mate as well as his intractable stance on ending the war in Iraq. But this time here's the praise for Obama: "Every 20 or 30 years or so, a leader comes along who understands that change is necessary if the country is to survive and thrive. Teddy Roosevelt at the turn of the 20th century and his cousin Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan -- these leaders have inspired us to rise to our better nature, to reach out to be the country we can be and, more important, must be.
Barack Obama is such a leader. He doesn't have all the answers, to be sure, but at least he is asking the right questions. While we would like more specificity on his plans as president, we are confident that he can lead us ever forward, casting aside the doubts and fears of recent years.
The one that brought me to tears was the Chicago Tribune, which hasn't endorsed a democratic candidate in all of its 147 years as a publication and boldly compared Obama to Lincoln: "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."
10/13/08
The New Yorker (notable for its many other reasons besides Sarah Palin to oppose McCain, but here's the pro-Obama part): "By contrast, Obama’s transformative message is accompanied by a sense of pragmatic calm. A tropism for unity is an essential part of his character and of his campaign. It is part of what allowed him to overcome a Democratic opponent who entered the race with tremendous advantages. It is what helped him forge a political career relying both on the liberals of Hyde Park and on the political regulars of downtown Chicago. His policy preferences are distinctly liberal, but he is determined to speak to a broad range of Americans who do not necessarily share his every value or opinion. For some who oppose him, his equanimity even under the ugliest attack seems like hauteur; for some who support him, his reluctance to counterattack in the same vein seems like self-defeating detachment. Yet it is Obama’s temperament—and not McCain’s—that seems appropriate for the office both men seek and for the volatile and dangerous era in which we live. Those who dismiss his centeredness as self-centeredness or his composure as indifference are as wrong as those who mistook Eisenhower’s stolidity for denseness or Lincoln’s humor for lack of seriousness."
Here is a selection of the rest of the field, which Obama is garnering at a 3 to 1 ratio, according to Editor & Publisher as of October 13.
Washington Post
Denver Post
Philadelphia Inquirer
Boston Globe
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Philadelphia Inquirer
San Francisco Chronicle
Sacramento Bee
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Detroit Free Press
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)