The Afghanistan section is a few minutes in and it's some of the craziest footage I've seen in a while. Totally worth checking out:
This lays out one of the huge reasons we never should have gone to Iraq - because we weren't done in Afghanistan! That's where Bin laden and Al Queada were hiding out and we should have gone in strong and finished em off. Then we should have stayed and focused on rebuilding the country with infrastructure and schools so that they could thrive without being forced to fall back on drug dealing. We needed to help them develop a peace keeping force that could prevent any resurgence from the Taliban, and THEN we could leave. Instead we just left a handful of troops there and allowed bin laden to escape and Al Queada to regroup and rebuild while we fucked around in Iraq for NO GOOD REASON! All our resources have been sent to Iraq so now our troops in Afghanistan are sitting there without the proper support they need.
So messed up. So very messed up.
Funny thing is now there are Al Queada supporters basically endorsing McCain... I'm sure John doesn't want their support but their reasons for it are revealing. The reasons they want McCain to be president are the reasons I think that he has the wrong approach on the war:
WASHINGTON — Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.
The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."
On another level, I just wanna say I'm disappointed cause I made a post yesterday asking people to educate me on the "other side" that I'm so often accused of leaving out, but no one gave me any new info (or accurate info). Skot I was especially expecting you to have something cause you're a smart guy who seems to be very down the middle on issues. I'm gonna assume you just didn't read the blog yesterday and that's why. Anyway, if you missed it plz scroll down to the "Demonizing McCain" post and educate me in the comments there. I am not trying to be a dick or start a fight, I honestly want to hear what the "other side" is that I keep neglecting to post about. Thanks to anyone who takes the time to do that =)
And luckbox posted this in 84o's blog and it was so damn funny that I gotta repost it here so I can find it later:
I've had a couple people bitch about how I don't cover both sides of the story, that when I complain about shit the GOP / Right Wing do, there are equal crimes being committed by the DNC / Left Wing which I don't bother to mention. SkoT made that point in the comments to my last blog post and I replied asking him to give me some examples. I also wanna ask anyone else who's willing to take the time to join SkoT in educating me. Here's the original post:
On October 20 2008 22:38 k2o4 wrote:
I wouldn't mind a basic "Facts" test at the polls before you were allowed to vote. Like "Is Obama a Muslim?" If you get it wrong you can't vote cause you're a fucking idiot.
It's sad the way the far right is trying to demonize Obama and make his victory seem illegitimate with all this propaganda. Like fake said, it will leave the country splintered and angry and make it harder for us to come together and get things fixed.
All over the internet you see the far left demonizing mccain yet ive yet to see any lengthy diatribes about their evil in your blog.
Show me. Seriously, I'm not tryin to be a dick, I'm really curious. I've even started searching drudge to see what the liberals are doing that is out of line and I haven't found anything comparable to the Muslim lies, or the Ayers / Terrorist / ACORN BS. So please link me or just write a list of the specific things that are being done to demonize McCain.
I mean let's take snopes.com as an example as they collect urban legends being spread via email (another way of saying smears). Obama is rated #1 on their list of Urban Legend Categories, while McCain is #8. McCain only has 11 emails about him and 4 are actually true (not urban legends, not smears). On the other hand Obama has 40 with only 4 of them being true.
The false emails about McCain are on topics like "McCain came up with a clever put-down for a student who claimed the older generation can't understand the current one" and "McCain was one upped by a heckler during a campaign stop" and "McCain would not be eligible to draw a pension after serving two terms as president". The only bad one that was proven to be false says "McCain declared during a 60 minutes interview that he was a war criminal who bombed innocent women and children." That is a twist of a quote.
Then when you look at Obama's list it's pretty gross assault on his patriotism and filled with flat out lies:
Obama is a radical muslim who will not recite the pledge of allegiance.
Obama was sworn into office on the Quran
Access to Michelle Obama's senior thesis has been restricted until after the election (cause it has racist comments)
The book of revelations describes the anti christ as someone with characteristics matching those of Obama
Email compares proposed changes in taxes after the 08 election (and lies like crazy saying Obama is going to raise ALL of your taxes on everything)
Obama refused to make his birth certificate available for examination because it contains damaging information about him (amongst other stuff with the theme that he isn't a citizen)
Obama blew off US soldiers during a july 2008 trip to afghanistan.
3 former fannie mae executives are linked to the obama campaign as chief economic advisors
There's more in there which are half truths, like the Ayers shit that stretches the thin relationship they have to insinuate that Obama is close with terrorists. And that's just the emails which doesn't include the things Palin and McCain said from the stump, the mailers or the robo calls. They've used all those methods to say that Obama pals around with terrorists and that ACORN is committing voter fraud of epic proportions that destroy the fabric of our democracy.
That's pretty much the consistent theme I've seen - there's a few very weak, minor smears against Mccain which barely get any attention, and there is an ocean of disgusting smears about Obama which McPalin are trying to make front page news. But I'm totally open to being proven wrong =)
(weird, I made a new post and for some reason this one is the only thing showing up...)
WTF - this is getting worse and worse and worse...
A woman canvassing for Obama in Wisconsin was punched in the face by a man ranting about ACORN. The woman was part of a canvassing effort organized by friends of mine. As we were about to go on stage for Oobleck Election Play 2008: The Trojan Candidate, a friend of our lighting designer who was in the same canvassing group called and told her the story.
The silver lining is that when the woman who had been assaulted returned to Chicago, there was already a voicemail message from Barack Obama expressing his sorrow that she had had to go through such an experience.
That's it. McCain supporters are dicks. The usual gang of conservative bigmouths are inciting violence with their propaganda, and the suckers who want desperately to believe are so frustrated with the lack of believability of the propaganda that they're lashing out with violence and violent rhetoric.
Meanwhile, Obama has such a great organization that he heard about this small incident and contacted the victim before the end of the day.
More as the details come out.
Ridiculous shit. McPalin needs to stop lying about things like ACORN and Ayers cause they're inciting people to violence with their BS. ACORN has been getting death threats when they haven't done ANYTHING wrong!!!! The right wing gets absolutely insane when you throw this type of rhetorical red meat at them and McPalin know it, but they do it anyway.
ACORN:
At the same time we have the right wing blowhards like limbaugh saying Powell only endorsed Obama cause he's black... but if that's true how come NO black candidate before Obama was able to get the nomination... hell, before Iowa Hillary was getting the majority of the black vote!
Limbaugh, and Pat Buchanan, too (whom I work with at MSNBC and who I will say is decent even when he's way wrong, so I will cut a little slack), make their "he's one of us" vote claim regarding Powell in particular (blacks in general) in spite of the fact that a person of color has run for the White House in every presidential election over the last 24 years: Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. Gov. Douglas Wilder of Virginia in 1992. Former ambassador and conservative activist Alan Keyes of Maryland in 1996 and 2000. Former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois and the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York in 2004.
Plenty of opportunities for Powell and other blacks to willy-nilly support a brother (or a sister).
...
Clearly -- more important, factually -- most blacks don't vote for blacks just because they are black.
This should have been evident in the early stages of Obama's campaign, when Sen. Hillary Clinton initially out-polled Obama among blacks, to the surprise of everyone except people of color, who knew going in we weren't a monolithic voting bloc. Should've been evident when blacks and liberals had to ask the inane question: "Is Obama enough?" Even Michelle Obama was reduced to saying that one day black America would "wake up and get it" with regard to voting for her husband based on race.
Beyond the merit of that, or of any of those positions, it does not appear as though black America is handing Obama a "he's one of us" vote.
Rather, the majority of black Americans are giving their votes to the man who, as Powell said, has passed the tests of leadership, particularly over these last seven weeks.
I think the confusion is with the conservatives. Simply because they have a "he's NOT one of us" vote that is applied with a very narrow litmus test -- macaca, uppity, people from non-pro parts of America -- it does not hold true those with a more progressive nature have or use the opposite.
So some crazy McPalin supporters decided to sell some fucked up anti Obama "cause he's a muslim" bumper stickers @ a rally, and some Muslim McCain supporters ain't having it.
Props to those McCain supporters for standing up to this type of hateful BS!!!
It was also funny when the guy said "are you trying to lose us this election??"
Amazing endorsement - not because of who he is, but because of the way he laid it out. I've wanted to put my reasons for supporting Obama into words and Powell did it for me (and much better than I ever could). Listen to Powell lay out WHY Obama:
She's totally gonna end up with a career in TV after they lose this election, which works out for her cause that was her childhood dream. The Alaska Rap in the weekend update was fucking hilarious too =) Palin is definitely likeable when she's not talking about her views in regards to policy. As a vice president or president she's scary, as a TV personality she's cute and bubbly. Though she really didn't DO anything other than just stand there while being insulted. Her lines kinda fell flat. But I give her credit for being there and smiling through it. Anyway, here's the clips:
And gotta show the final result of the Mark Wahlberg joke:
Fun. Several news papers that endorsed Bush in 04 have endorsed Obama this year, including the Denver Post which is one of the biggest here in CO, a swing state. Right now Obama is dominating in news paper endorsements by 58-16... ouch. But there have been some really nice endorsements and it if you still don't have a decision made please take the time to read why these guys have chosen to support Obama:
However this election turns out, it will dramatically advance America's slow progress toward equality and inclusion. It took Abraham Lincoln's extraordinary courage in the Civil War to get us here. It took an epic battle to secure women the right to vote. It took the perseverance of the civil rights movement. Now we have an election in which we will choose the first African-American president . . . or the first female vice president.
In recent weeks it has been easy to lose sight of this history in the making. Americans are focused on the greatest threat to the world economic system in 80 years. They feel a personal vulnerability the likes of which they haven't experienced since Sept. 11, 2001. It's a different kind of vulnerability. Unlike Sept. 11, the economic threat hasn't forged a common bond in this nation. It has fed anger, fear and mistrust.
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.
-----------------------
This endorsement makes some history for the Chicago Tribune. This is the first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party's nominee for president.
The Tribune in its earliest days took up the abolition of slavery and linked itself to a powerful force for that cause--the Republican Party. The Tribune's first great leader, Joseph Medill, was a founder of the GOP. The editorial page has been a proponent of conservative principles. It believes that government has to serve people honestly and efficiently.
With that in mind, in 1872 we endorsed Horace Greeley, who ran as an independent against the corrupt administration of Republican President Ulysses S. Grant. (Greeley was later endorsed by the Democrats.) In 1912 we endorsed Theodore Roosevelt, who ran as the Progressive Party candidate against Republican President William Howard Taft.
The Tribune's decisions then were driven by outrage at inept and corrupt business and political leaders.
We see parallels today.
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.
Obama chose a more experienced and more thoughtful running mate--he put governing before politicking. Sen. Joe Biden doesn't bring many votes to Obama, but he would help him from day one to lead the 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.
-----------------------
Obama is deeply grounded in the best aspirations of this country, and we need to return to those aspirations. He has had the character and the will to achieve great things despite the obstacles that he faced as an unprivileged black man in the U.S.
He has risen with his honor, grace and civility intact. He has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions.
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.
It is inherent in the American character to aspire to greatness, so it can be disorienting when the nation stumbles or loses confidence in bedrock principles or institutions. That's where the United States is as it prepares to select a new president: We have seen the government take a stake in venerable private financial houses; we have witnessed eight years of executive branch power grabs and erosion of civil liberties; we are still recovering from a murderous attack by terrorists on our own soil and still struggling with how best to prevent a recurrence.
We need a leader who demonstrates thoughtful calm and grace under pressure, one not prone to volatile gesture or capricious pronouncement. We need a leader well-grounded in the intellectual and legal foundations of American freedom. Yet we ask that the same person also possess the spark and passion to inspire the best within us: creativity, generosity and a fierce defense of justice and liberty.
The Times without hesitation endorses Barack Obama for president.
Our nation has never before had a candidate like Obama, a man born in the 1960s, of black African and white heritage, raised and educated abroad as well as in the United States, and bringing with him a personal narrative that encompasses much of the American story but that, until now, has been reflected in little of its elected leadership. The excitement of Obama's early campaign was amplified by that newness. But as the presidential race draws to its conclusion, it is Obama's character and temperament that come to the fore. It is his steadiness. His maturity.
These are qualities American leadership has sorely lacked for close to a decade. The Constitution, more than two centuries old, now offers the world one of its more mature and certainly most stable governments, but our political culture is still struggling to shake off a brash and unseemly adolescence. In George W. Bush, the executive branch turned its back on an adult role in the nation and the world and retreated into self-absorbed unilateralism.
John McCain distinguished himself through much of the Bush presidency by speaking out against reckless and self-defeating policies. He earned The Times' respect, and our endorsement in the California Republican primary, for his denunciation of torture, his readiness to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and his willingness to buck his party on issues such as immigration reform. But the man known for his sense of honor and consistency has since announced that he wouldn't vote for his own immigration bill, and he redefined "torture" in such a disingenuous way as to nearly embrace what he once abhorred.
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.
Obama's selection also was telling. He might have scored a steeper bump in the polls by making a more dramatic choice than the capable and experienced Joe Biden. But for all the excitement of his own candidacy, Obama has offered more competence than drama.
He is no lone rider. He is a consensus-builder, a leader. As a constitutional scholar, he has articulated a respect for the rule of law and the limited power of the executive that make him the best hope of restoring balance and process to the Justice Department. He is a Democrat, leaning further left than right, and that should be reflected in his nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a good thing; the court operates best when it is ideologically balanced. With its present alignment at seven justices named by Republicans and two by Democrats, it is due for a tug from the left.
We are not sanguine about Obama's economic policies. He speaks with populist sweep about taxing oil companies to give middle-class families rebates that of course they would welcome, but would be far too small to stimulate the economy. His ideas on taxation do not stray far from those put forward by Democrats over the last several decades. His response to the most recent, and drastic, fallout of the sub- prime mortgage meltdown has been appropriately cautious; this is uncharted territory, and Obama is not a master of economic theory or practice.
And that's fine. Obama inspires confidence not so much in his grasp of Wall Street finance but in his acknowledgment of and comfort with his lack of expertise. He will not be one to forge far-reaching economic policy without sounding out the best thinkers and practitioners, and he has many at his disposal. He has won the backing of some on Wall Street not because he's one of them but because they recognize his talent for extracting from a broad range of proposals a coherent and workable program.
On paper, McCain presents the type of economic program The Times has repeatedly backed: One that would ease the tax burden on business and other high earners most likely to invest in the economy and hire new workers. But he has been disturbingly unfocused in his response to the current financial situation, rushing to "suspend" his campaign and take action (although just what action never became clear). Having little to contribute, he instead chose to exploit the crisis.
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.
"I've decided," he said. "My conclusion comes after reading the candidates' memoirs and campaign platforms, attending both party conventions, interviewing both men multiple times, and watching all primary and general election debates.
"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 amidst the crowd at an Obama event in North Philadelphia," says the Republican.
In just 16 days, a presidential campaign that has raged for almost two years will at last come to an end.
In that time, America has undergone profound changes. And for most Americans, those changes have not been for the better.
When the first, absurdly early straw polls were taken in Iowa in 2007, America was torn by a war in Iraq that seemed unwinnable. But the economy seemed reasonably sound.
That preoccupation with the war may help explain why Republicans passed over Mitt Romney's successful record of job creation in favor of war hero and foreign-policy specialist John McCain. On the Democratic side, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who wasn't even in Congress when the war began, bested Sen. Hillary Clinton in part because she voted to authorize the war.
Americans, as we now know, wanted change.
But as this race nears the finish line, America's priorities have changed, too.
The "surge" has reduced the level of violence in Iraq and President Bush has begun modest troop withdrawals. Sens. McCain and Obama differ mostly about the details and pace of future withdrawals.
But the speed and virulence of the worldwide liquidity crisis, caused by the collapse of the junk mortgage market, has stunned most Americans and has led voters, who now review their shrinking retirement funds and rising unemployment rates with alarm, to focus overwhelmingly on America's economic ills.
Given this inescapable economic agenda, The Post believes Barack Obama is better equipped to lead America back to a prosperous future.
Frankly, neither Obama nor McCain has a comprehensive plan to end the economic crisis, or to even calm our jittery nerves. But Obama's promise to surround himself with this country's top economic thinkers, such as Warren Buffet, is at least somewhat comforting.
In unsteady times, it may seem obvious to gravitate toward the veteran politician, but in this campaign, it's been the newcomer who has had the steady hand.
This fast-breaking global meltdown overwhelmed both campaigns and the final weeks of a hard-fought political contest are hardly the place for the cool, bipartisan thinking needed to get us out of this mess. Fortunately, bipartisan efforts by the Bush administration and Congress have at least bought America time to begin crafting long-term economic reforms.
Looking at McCain's and Obama's specific proposals, we unfortunately find much to dislike in both port- folios. We can live with Obama's call to raise taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a year. And, in fact, we've long thought it fiscally irresponsible to wage two wars on tax cuts.
However, we're concerned he may increase capital gains taxes at a time when the economy is starved for investment capital. Indeed, we'd favor eliminating capital gains taxes entirely if such profits are reinvested in another enterprise within one year.
We also would urge Obama to expand investment tax credits for businesses, to put profits back to work creating new jobs.
America's other most pressing long-term economic problem is health care.
Obama's plan, while not perfect, is far superior to McCain's catastrophic ideas. How does it affect the economy?
Consider this: General Motors now pays more than $1,500 for health care benefits, mostly for retired employees, on each new car sold.
America's competitors in Japan, Germany and China don't share such costs because their national health care plans are funded through broad-based taxes. Somehow, America must level the playing field.
McCain wants to eliminate the corporate tax deduction on existing health care plans, a cruel corporate surtax averaging $3,500 per employee. That tax hike would force employers to drop coverage for tens of millions of workers. The lucky workers who still had employer-paid benefits would have to pay income taxes on them — a $3,000 tax increase on a typical middle-income Colorado worker. And this massive tax increase on employers and employees alike comes from a man who asked repeatedly in the last debate: "Why raise anybody's taxes?"
Why, indeed, Sen. McCain?
We can't imagine a Democrat- controlled Congress would pass McCain's reckless health care tax. But even proposing such a scheme shows his woeful lack of understanding of America's economic underpinnings.
As to Obama, we confess we fear that a compliant Congress may be all too eager to approve his plans. That's why it's critical for him to reach across the aisle and draw the best team he can assemble to get America working again. Why not ask Romney to chair his health-care reform task force, or even serve as his economic recovery "czar"? There's precedent for such a move, since Wendell Willkie helped sell President Franklin D. Roosevelt's vital wartime lend-lease program after losing his presidential race to FDR in 1940.
What's the chance that Obama will reach out in such a bipartisan fashion? Actually, he has a long record of doing exactly that. We don't mean his brief tenure in the Senate so much as his successful run as a community organizer in Chicago.
Republicans love to mock Obama's history as a community organizer. But here was a man with no money to offer, no patronage to dispense, no way to punish his opponents. All he could do was to work with people from all walks of life, liberals and conservatives, business people and the unemployed, and bring them together in common cause for a better community. Could there really be better preparation to reunite a worried and divided America to again pursue our "more perfect union"?
If Americans were only worried about foreign affairs, McCain's stalwart service in the military and experience on the national stage would make him the more credible commander in chief. But our eyes have turned homeward and, in this hour, Obama has the eloquence and vision to bring us back together.
As novelist Christopher Buckley said in endorsing Obama, the Illinois senator "has a first-rate intellect and a first-rate temperament."
With the help and prayers of the American people, we believe those talents can also make Barack Obama a great president.
Americans are ready to be one country. By the millions, they yearn to bridge their differences, to find common cause, to rise above ideology, race, class and religion.
They have grown weary of the culture wars and the personal attacks, tired of the exaggerated lines that divide. They dare to imagine a more constructive discourse, a debate marked by civility and respect even in disagreement, a politics that begins with listening to each other.
Nothing else so fully explains the meteoric rise of Sen. Barack Obama. If America had preferred a master of policy for its next president, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have won the Democratic nomination. If America valued experience in public life above all else, Sen. John McCain would be trouncing Sen. Obama in the polls.
But it is Sen. Obama who won his party's nomination, and it is he who leads in the polls. Americans across the land want to pull together, and in Sen. Obama they see a man of exceptional gifts who just might show them how.
Our endorsement for president of the United States goes to Sen. Barack Obama, Chicago's adopted son. He has the unique background, superior intellect, sound judgment and first-rate temperament to lead our nation in difficult times.
Sen. Obama's strengths begin with the unusual circumstances of his childhood, a biracial and cross-cultural upbringing that imbued in him a remarkable ability to see the world through the eyes of others. A now-familiar story is told of how the young Barack, as the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review, would go around the table listening to all views on an issue. Then he would gesture toward the quietest person in the room and ask, "Bob, what do you think?" He called the shots, but was confident enough to hear out those with whom he might disagree.
Sen. Obama's remarkable talent for hearing all the disparate voices of America was perhaps nowhere more evident than on March 18 at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, when he delivered an instantly historic speech on race relations. As millions of Americans watched and nodded, he boldly challenged whites and blacks to see the truth in the other's perspective.
Guided by these same cross-cultural instincts, Sen. Obama climbed the ladder of Chicago Democratic politics -- from community organizer to state senator to U.S. senator -- while dodging the tag of "machine-made." We watched in admiration, here in Chicago, as he developed alliances with the old Harold Washington coalition, but also with party stalwarts such as state Sen. Emil Jones. He mostly steered clear of unwise political entanglements, and when he did use poor judgment, he learned from his mistake. The senator no doubt learned to appreciate the enormous importance of transparency in politics when he was dogged by questions about his relationship with Tony Rezko, the political fixer. When he finally sat down with the Sun-Times and answered every question, the Rezko story lost its steam.
Right on the issues
We agree with Sen. Obama on many of the most pressing issues of the day.
He is right when he says America must be open to talking to its adversaries. He is right when he says America must lose the swagger abroad and repair its standing in the world. He is right when he says America must stand with Israel.
Sen. Obama is right in his prescriptions for the economy, though they need expansion and vetting. He is right in his compassionate but fiscally prudent plan -- unlike Sen. McCain's plan -- to help millions of homeowners avoid foreclosure.
And Sen. Obama is right on energy policy. We support his proposals to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil by a host of means -- domestic drilling and nuclear energy, to be sure, but also an unprecedented national commitment to developing wind power, solar power and other forms of "clean" energy.
Tested in a marathon
It is a peculiar virtue of a marathon presidential campaign that the ordeal itself becomes a powerful test of who has the right stuff -- and Sen. Obama has won that test hands down.
From the moment he announced his candidacy, on a cold Saturday in Springfield in February 2007, he has demonstrated extraordinary leadership skills, grace under fire, laudable restraint and a sincere respect for the intelligence of the voter. He has surrounded himself with excellence -- imagine such competence moving into the West Wing -- and built what is perhaps the most effective ground organization in the history of presidential campaigns.
Sen. Obama writes his own best speeches. He refuses to play the "gotcha" game. He runs his own campaign -- it does not run him.
He has kept his cool while his opponent runs hot and cold. He shook off the advice from his senior advisers to "go negative" when the polls were more grim, the way President John F. Kennedy coolly rejected the overly bellicose advice of his generals in the heat of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Sadly, the same cannot be said of Sen. John McCain.
Sen. McCain is an American hero. His courage as a prisoner of war and his 26 years on Capitol Hill command our respect. Anybody who happened to notice him struggle to shake hands with moderator Bob Schieffer at the end of the third debate had to be moved.
But somewhere along the line, McCain stopped being McCain. The maverick who always thought for himself turned his thinking over to others. He cared too much about winning.
He reversed his position on major social issues to curry favor with the Republican base. He pulled silly surprises from a hat, such as "suspending" his campaign. Most egregiously for a man of advanced age who knew how important this decision could be, he chose the unqualified Gov. Sarah Palin to be his vice president.
Right for the times
Often in America's most difficult days, the nation has been blessed with extraordinary leaders who seemed just right for the times. We have in mind George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The times again demand an extraordinary leader. Our next president will take the oath of office in a country that is at war, heavily in debt, deeply divided and sliding into a recession. He will have to make hard choices -- the money won't be there for all his ambitious plans -- and he will have to work with a Congress so lopsidedly Democratic that it may be veto-proof.
Here in Chicago, we have been watching Barack Obama and sizing him up for some time. We knew him well before he introduced himself to the nation with his electrifying speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
We saw the strength of character, the steady temperament, the intellect, the compassion, the ability to see through others' eyes.
The very title of Sen. Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, foretold what America will need in the circumstances under which the next president takes office.
Success will require audacity, in all the best meanings of the word: nerve, spunk, grit and, especially, boldness.
And success will require a president and a people ready to embrace hope, in all the best meanings of that word: A conviction that what we want and need can be had.
Barack Obama believes in the audacity of hope. He inspires it in others. He inspires it in us.
Barack Obama should be the next president of the United States of America.
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.
The first question, in fact, might be why either man wants the job. Start with two ongoing wars, both far from being won; an unstable, nuclear-armed Pakistan; a resurgent Russia menacing its neighbors; a terrorist-supporting Iran racing toward nuclear status; a roiling Middle East; a rising China seeking its place in the world. Stir in the threat of nuclear or biological terrorism, the burdens of global poverty and disease, and accelerating climate change. Domestically, wages have stagnated while public education is failing a generation of urban, mostly minority children. Now add the possibility of the deepest economic trough since the Great Depression.
Not even his fiercest critics would blame President Bush for all of these problems, and we are far from being his fiercest critic. But for the past eight years, his administration, while pursuing some worthy policies (accountability in education, homeland security, the promotion of freedom abroad), has also championed some stunningly wrongheaded ones (fiscal recklessness, torture, utter disregard for the planet's ecological health) and has acted too often with incompetence, arrogance or both. A McCain presidency would not equal four more years, but outside of his inner circle, Mr. McCain would draw on many of the same policymakers who have brought us to our current state. We believe they have richly earned, and might even benefit from, some years in the political wilderness.
OF COURSE, Mr. Obama offers a great deal more than being not a Republican. There are two sets of issues that matter most in judging these candidacies. The first has to do with restoring and promoting prosperity and sharing its fruits more evenly in a globalizing era that has suppressed wages and heightened inequality. Here the choice is not a close call. Mr. McCain has little interest in economics and no apparent feel for the topic. His principal proposal, doubling down on the Bush tax cuts, would exacerbate the fiscal wreckage and the inequality simultaneously. Mr. Obama's economic plan contains its share of unaffordable promises, but it pushes more in the direction of fairness and fiscal health. Both men have pledged to tackle climate change.
Mr. Obama also understands that the most important single counter to inequality, and the best way to maintain American competitiveness, is improved education, another subject of only modest interest to Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama would focus attention on early education and on helping families so that another generation of poor children doesn't lose out. His budgets would be less likely to squeeze out important programs such as Head Start and Pell grants. Though he has been less definitive than we would like, he supports accountability measures for public schools and providing parents choices by means of charter schools.
A better health-care system also is crucial to bolstering U.S. competitiveness and relieving worker insecurity. Mr. McCain is right to advocate an end to the tax favoritism showed to employer plans. This system works against lower-income people, and Mr. Obama has disparaged the McCain proposal in deceptive ways. But Mr. McCain's health plan doesn't do enough to protect those who cannot afford health insurance. Mr. Obama hopes to steer the country toward universal coverage by charting a course between government mandates and individual choice, though we question whether his plan is affordable or does enough to contain costs.
The next president is apt to have the chance to nominate one or more Supreme Court justices. Given the court's current precarious balance, we think Obama appointees could have a positive impact on issues from detention policy and executive power to privacy protections and civil rights.
Overshadowing all of these policy choices may be the financial crisis and the recession it is likely to spawn. It is almost impossible to predict what policies will be called for by January, but certainly the country will want in its president a combination of nimbleness and steadfastness -- precisely the qualities Mr. Obama has displayed during the past few weeks. When he might have been scoring political points against the incumbent, he instead responsibly urged fellow Democrats in Congress to back Mr. Bush's financial rescue plan. He has surrounded himself with top-notch, experienced, centrist economic advisers -- perhaps the best warranty that, unlike some past presidents of modest experience, Mr. Obama will not ride into town determined to reinvent every policy wheel. Some have disparaged Mr. Obama as too cool, but his unflappability over the past few weeks -- indeed, over two years of campaigning -- strikes us as exactly what Americans might want in their president at a time of great uncertainty.
ON THE SECOND set of issues, having to do with keeping America safe in a dangerous world, it is a closer call. Mr. McCain has deep knowledge and a longstanding commitment to promoting U.S. leadership and values.
But Mr. Obama, as anyone who reads his books can tell, also has a sophisticated understanding of the world and America's place in it. He, too, is committed to maintaining U.S. leadership and sticking up for democratic values, as his recent defense of tiny Georgia makes clear. We hope he would navigate between the amoral realism of some in his party and the counterproductive cocksureness of the current administration, especially in its first term. On most policies, such as the need to go after al-Qaeda, check Iran's nuclear ambitions and fight HIV/AIDS abroad, he differs little from Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain. But he promises defter diplomacy and greater commitment to allies. His team overstates the likelihood that either of those can produce dramatically better results, but both are certainly worth trying.
Mr. Obama's greatest deviation from current policy is also our biggest worry: his insistence on withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq on a fixed timeline. Thanks to the surge that Mr. Obama opposed, it may be feasible to withdraw many troops during his first two years in office. But if it isn't -- and U.S. generals have warned that the hard-won gains of the past 18 months could be lost by a precipitous withdrawal -- we can only hope and assume that Mr. Obama would recognize the strategic importance of success in Iraq and adjust his plans.
We also can only hope that the alarming anti-trade rhetoric we have heard from Mr. Obama during the campaign would give way to the understanding of the benefits of trade reflected in his writings. A silver lining of the financial crisis may be the flexibility it gives Mr. Obama to override some of the interest groups and members of Congress in his own party who oppose open trade, as well as to pursue the entitlement reform that he surely understands is needed.
IT GIVES US no pleasure to oppose Mr. McCain. Over the years, he has been a force for principle and bipartisanship. He fought to recognize Vietnam, though some of his fellow ex-POWs vilified him for it. He stood up for humane immigration reform, though he knew Republican primary voters would punish him for it. He opposed torture and promoted campaign finance reform, a cause that Mr. Obama injured when he broke his promise to accept public financing in the general election campaign. Mr. McCain staked his career on finding a strategy for success in Iraq when just about everyone else in Washington was ready to give up. We think that he, too, might make a pretty good president.
But the stress of a campaign can reveal some essential truths, and the picture of Mr. McCain that emerged this year is far from reassuring. To pass his party's tax-cut litmus test, he jettisoned his commitment to balanced budgets. He hasn't come up with a coherent agenda, and at times he has seemed rash and impulsive. And we find no way to square his professed passion for America's national security with his choice of a running mate who, no matter what her other strengths, is not prepared to be commander in chief.
ANY PRESIDENTIAL vote is a gamble, and Mr. Obama's résumé is undoubtedly thin. We had hoped, throughout this long campaign, to see more evidence that Mr. Obama might stand up to Democratic orthodoxy and end, as he said in his announcement speech, "our chronic avoidance of tough decisions."
But Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.
COME JANUARY, a new president will take charge of a nation diminished, an America that is far shakier economically, less secure militarily, and less respected internationally than it was eight years before. The nation needs a chief executive who has the temperament and the nerves to shepherd Americans through what promises to be a grueling period — and who has the vision to restore this country to its place of leadership in the world.
Such a leader is at hand. With great enthusiasm, the Globe endorses Senator Barack Obama for president. The charismatic Democrat from Illinois has the ability to channel Americans’ hopes and rally the public together, at a time when the winds are picking up and the clouds keep on darkening.
Unlike many of his rivals this year of either party, Obama isn’t refighting the political or cultural battles of the 1960s. Instead, he is asking Americans to take responsibility for the nation’s problems now; no one else will take care of them, and the consequences of years of disunity and profligacy should not be visited upon future generations.
Obama shows great faith in the possibility of persuasion overseas and in the ingenuity of the American economy. While intransigent rogue states can’t be finger-wagged into giving up on nuclear weapons, perhaps they can be talked back from the brink. As fossil fuels become scarcer, and the ecological damage more evident, Americans can put up windmills and solar panels and drive more efficient cars.
Encouragingly, Obama has assembled an impressive economic team that understands both the power of the market and the need to discourage recklessness and promote social equity. He would broaden access to health insurance, using a mechanism akin to this state’s Commonwealth Connector. And he offers a tax plan that, in offering modest cuts to most taxpayers and taking back some past cuts for the highest earners, acknowledges the widening gap between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else.
The question, of course, is whether Obama can make good on his promises under the circumstances. For George W. Bush will leave a woeful legacy. The Iraq war, which was sold to Congress and the public on false pretenses, continues to consume billions upon billions of dollars, even as many of the plotters of Sept. 11 are still at large. In his efforts to cultivate democracy abroad, Bush has hacked away at its roots here: due process, the separation of powers, the conviction that there are some things that government must not do. Waterboarding and secret prisons abroad, warrantless wiretapping at home — these acts belie America’s image of forthrightness, the nation’s greatest asset in world affairs.
Meanwhile, as the planet gets warmer, its top energy consumer has no plan to wean itself from fossil fuels. Healthcare costs are strangling businesses. Real wages have declined for the average worker, even as the cost of food and fuel has skyrocketed. Vague unease about the economy has turned into outright fear as the financial system sank into quicksand and 500-point-plus plunges on the stock market have become a near-daily occurrence. Obama’s opponent, Senator John McCain, would try to solve all these problems by going back to the same Republican set of tools: tough talk abroad, tax cuts for the richest at home. In contrast, Obama’s presidency would benefit from the Illinois senator’s formidable political gifts. A graduate of Harvard Law School and a former community organizer on Chicago’s South Side, Obama debuted on the national political scene with a dazzling speech at the Democratic National Convention four years ago. Since then, every word of his books and his speeches has been closely parsed. Evident from all that scrutiny is a nimble mind, an ever more impressive grasp of policy detail, and an ability to listen to contradictory viewpoints. Obama is clearly a liberal. But when he led the Harvard Law Review, he won praise from conservative thinkers because he genuinely wanted to hear what they had to say.
Obama is hardly immune to political calculation. Though he has positioned himself as a supporter of campaign finance reform, he backed out of the public financing system after his ability to raise jaw-dropping sums over the Internet became apparent. In the general election campaign, he has been slow to admit how much the financial crisis would limit his policy options come January.
Even so, the way Obama has run his campaign has been a marvel of sound management: He laid down principles, put the right people in positions of authority, and spent money strategically. And he has shown a remarkable steadiness. Whether he was far behind Hillary Clinton before the Iowa caucuses or on the verge of locking up the Democratic nomination, whether he was leading or trailing McCain in the general election contest, Obama made the same forward-looking appeal to voters’ best instincts.
As the first black major-party presidential nominee, Obama has strived to make voters comfortable with a ‘‘skinny kid with a funny name.’’ And yet the historical significance of his bid is impossible to ignore. Voters can make no more powerful statement about America’s commitment to inclusion and opportunity than to put forward this man — Barack Hussein Obama, son of a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas — as the nation’s representative to the world.
An early Obama campaign slogan declared, ‘‘We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.’’ His critics deemed such rhetoric too ethereal. Now it seems prescient, as the nation confronts a financial crisis of historic proportions, as well as all the other policy failures and debt-fueled excesses of the last eight years. The United States has to dig itself out. Barack Obama is the one to lead the way.
Jeez it's getting bad. First it's "Kill him!" and "Terrorist" and "Treason" and so on... now a pack of 65 yr old ladies is attacking Obama supporters?!?? And on top of that we have the insanity of McCain saying that he doesn't care about Ayers but turning around and having his campaign do robo calls about Obama/Ayers... (Robo calls are those automated phone calls)
And what's up with McCain's comeback to the crazies at his rallies being "People say bad things at Obama rallies too!"... First off, wtf are you talking about? Got some video? Got a quote? Got a story? I haven't seen a damned thing. I've been to several Obama events and haven't heard a single person say anything crazy like "Terrorist" about McCain. Secondly, let's say there were people screaming "GEEZEER" and "Old Fart!" or some shit, how the hell does that justify the shit his supporters are doing? How does that justify all the video footage of supporters calling him a muslim and a terrorist? How does that justify their strategy of painting Obama as a scary terrorist muslim nigger who's going to enslave the whites of America?
Another report of violence at a McCain rally, this time a reporter is hit:
I sidled up to one of the Obama supporters and asked why they were there, what they were trying to accomplish.
As he was telling me a large, bearded man in full McCain-Palin campaign regalia got in his face to yell at him.
"Hey, hey, " I said. "I'm trying to interview him. Just a minute, okay? "
The man began to say something about how of course I was interviewing the Obama people when suddenly, from behind us, the sound of a pro-Obama rap song came blaring out of the windows of a dorm building. We all turned our heads to see Obama signs in the windows.
This was met with curses, screams and chants of "U.S.A" by McCain-Palin folks who crowded under the windows trying to drown it out and yell at the person playing the stereo.
It was a moment of levity in an otherwise very tense situation and so I let out a gentle chuckle and shook my head.
"Oh, you think that 's funny?! " the large bearded man said. His face was turning red. "Yeah, that 's real funny…" he said.
And then he kicked the back of leg, buckling my right knee and sending me sprawling onto the ground.
On a more positive note, the Washington Post made a great endorsment of Obama. Read it here.
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.
The first question, in fact, might be why either man wants the job. Start with two ongoing wars, both far from being won; an unstable, nuclear-armed Pakistan; a resurgent Russia menacing its neighbors; a terrorist-supporting Iran racing toward nuclear status; a roiling Middle East; a rising China seeking its place in the world. Stir in the threat of nuclear or biological terrorism, the burdens of global poverty and disease, and accelerating climate change. Domestically, wages have stagnated while public education is failing a generation of urban, mostly minority children. Now add the possibility of the deepest economic trough since the Great Depression.
Not even his fiercest critics would blame President Bush for all of these problems, and we are far from being his fiercest critic. But for the past eight years, his administration, while pursuing some worthy policies (accountability in education, homeland security, the promotion of freedom abroad), has also championed some stunningly wrongheaded ones (fiscal recklessness, torture, utter disregard for the planet's ecological health) and has acted too often with incompetence, arrogance or both. A McCain presidency would not equal four more years, but outside of his inner circle, Mr. McCain would draw on many of the same policymakers who have brought us to our current state. We believe they have richly earned, and might even benefit from, some years in the political wilderness.
OF COURSE, Mr. Obama offers a great deal more than being not a Republican. There are two sets of issues that matter most in judging these candidacies. The first has to do with restoring and promoting prosperity and sharing its fruits more evenly in a globalizing era that has suppressed wages and heightened inequality. Here the choice is not a close call. Mr. McCain has little interest in economics and no apparent feel for the topic. His principal proposal, doubling down on the Bush tax cuts, would exacerbate the fiscal wreckage and the inequality simultaneously. Mr. Obama's economic plan contains its share of unaffordable promises, but it pushes more in the direction of fairness and fiscal health. Both men have pledged to tackle climate change.
Mr. Obama also understands that the most important single counter to inequality, and the best way to maintain American competitiveness, is improved education, another subject of only modest interest to Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama would focus attention on early education and on helping families so that another generation of poor children doesn't lose out. His budgets would be less likely to squeeze out important programs such as Head Start and Pell grants. Though he has been less definitive than we would like, he supports accountability measures for public schools and providing parents choices by means of charter schools.
A better health-care system also is crucial to bolstering U.S. competitiveness and relieving worker insecurity. Mr. McCain is right to advocate an end to the tax favoritism showed to employer plans. This system works against lower-income people, and Mr. Obama has disparaged the McCain proposal in deceptive ways. But Mr. McCain's health plan doesn't do enough to protect those who cannot afford health insurance. Mr. Obama hopes to steer the country toward universal coverage by charting a course between government mandates and individual choice, though we question whether his plan is affordable or does enough to contain costs.
The next president is apt to have the chance to nominate one or more Supreme Court justices. Given the court's current precarious balance, we think Obama appointees could have a positive impact on issues from detention policy and executive power to privacy protections and civil rights.
Overshadowing all of these policy choices may be the financial crisis and the recession it is likely to spawn. It is almost impossible to predict what policies will be called for by January, but certainly the country will want in its president a combination of nimbleness and steadfastness -- precisely the qualities Mr. Obama has displayed during the past few weeks. When he might have been scoring political points against the incumbent, he instead responsibly urged fellow Democrats in Congress to back Mr. Bush's financial rescue plan. He has surrounded himself with top-notch, experienced, centrist economic advisers -- perhaps the best warranty that, unlike some past presidents of modest experience, Mr. Obama will not ride into town determined to reinvent every policy wheel. Some have disparaged Mr. Obama as too cool, but his unflappability over the past few weeks -- indeed, over two years of campaigning -- strikes us as exactly what Americans might want in their president at a time of great uncertainty.
ON THE SECOND set of issues, having to do with keeping America safe in a dangerous world, it is a closer call. Mr. McCain has deep knowledge and a longstanding commitment to promoting U.S. leadership and values.
But Mr. Obama, as anyone who reads his books can tell, also has a sophisticated understanding of the world and America's place in it. He, too, is committed to maintaining U.S. leadership and sticking up for democratic values, as his recent defense of tiny Georgia makes clear. We hope he would navigate between the amoral realism of some in his party and the counterproductive cocksureness of the current administration, especially in its first term. On most policies, such as the need to go after al-Qaeda, check Iran's nuclear ambitions and fight HIV/AIDS abroad, he differs little from Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain. But he promises defter diplomacy and greater commitment to allies. His team overstates the likelihood that either of those can produce dramatically better results, but both are certainly worth trying.
Mr. Obama's greatest deviation from current policy is also our biggest worry: his insistence on withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq on a fixed timeline. Thanks to the surge that Mr. Obama opposed, it may be feasible to withdraw many troops during his first two years in office. But if it isn't -- and U.S. generals have warned that the hard-won gains of the past 18 months could be lost by a precipitous withdrawal -- we can only hope and assume that Mr. Obama would recognize the strategic importance of success in Iraq and adjust his plans.
We also can only hope that the alarming anti-trade rhetoric we have heard from Mr. Obama during the campaign would give way to the understanding of the benefits of trade reflected in his writings. A silver lining of the financial crisis may be the flexibility it gives Mr. Obama to override some of the interest groups and members of Congress in his own party who oppose open trade, as well as to pursue the entitlement reform that he surely understands is needed.
IT GIVES US no pleasure to oppose Mr. McCain. Over the years, he has been a force for principle and bipartisanship. He fought to recognize Vietnam, though some of his fellow ex-POWs vilified him for it. He stood up for humane immigration reform, though he knew Republican primary voters would punish him for it. He opposed torture and promoted campaign finance reform, a cause that Mr. Obama injured when he broke his promise to accept public financing in the general election campaign. Mr. McCain staked his career on finding a strategy for success in Iraq when just about everyone else in Washington was ready to give up. We think that he, too, might make a pretty good president.
But the stress of a campaign can reveal some essential truths, and the picture of Mr. McCain that emerged this year is far from reassuring. To pass his party's tax-cut litmus test, he jettisoned his commitment to balanced budgets. He hasn't come up with a coherent agenda, and at times he has seemed rash and impulsive. And we find no way to square his professed passion for America's national security with his choice of a running mate who, no matter what her other strengths, is not prepared to be commander in chief.
ANY PRESIDENTIAL vote is a gamble, and Mr. Obama's résumé is undoubtedly thin. We had hoped, throughout this long campaign, to see more evidence that Mr. Obama might stand up to Democratic orthodoxy and end, as he said in his announcement speech, "our chronic avoidance of tough decisions."
But Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.
At least some people are keeping their sense of humor, like the heroes chick: