The Columbian newspaper, which in 2004 endorsed George W. Bush, has endorsed Barack Obama.
But as we examined leadership qualities of both men, we saw Obama’s massive strides in uniting his own Democratic party, even reaching beyond his party to speak to all Americans. McCain, in stark contrast, continues to slog through a fractious Republican Party that often is his worst enemy.
It takes strong leadership skills to enlist record numbers of volunteers and to continually explore new heights in the polls, as Obama methodically demonstrates.
As for judgment, Obama chose a running mate who neither hurt him in the polls nor diverted the spotlight from the main man on the ticket. McCain’s choice has done both. McCain tries to masquerade this recklessness as the virtue of a maverick. Would he use that same recklessness in appointing Supreme Court justices and Cabinet members? Which candidate in recent weeks has shown a presidential demeanor? Which could best restore worldwide respect for the U.S.? Which man has tried to soothe — not stoke — rancor in the homestretch of this campaign? Clearly, that man is Obama.
Wow. This endorsement will make the righties howl, if they have any howling left in them.
It’s been a pretty big day for Obama in newspaper-endorsement land, for what it’s worth. From Editor and Publisher:
The Obama-Biden ticket maintains its strong lead in the race for newspaper endorsements, picking up 16 more papers in the past day, including the giant Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune on Friday afternoon (see separate story), and the Denver Post, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Salt Lake Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times tonight.
This brings his lead over McCain-Palin by this measure to over 3-1 so far, at 56-16, including most of the major papers that have decided so far. In contrast, John Kerry barely edged George W. Bush in endorsements in 2004, by about 220 to 205.
The readership of the 53 newspapers backing Obama now stands at well over 7 million. He gained two biggies yesterday in The Washington Post and San Francisco Chronicle, and today picked up the Modesto Bee in addition to the larger papers.
An interesting footnote: the Chicago Tribune has never endorsed a Democrat for president. Ever. Something about that Abraham Lincoln guy I think.
Is the political re-alignment of the United States very nearly complete? If you look at the maps Darryl has posted below, it would seem that way. The Republican’s Southern Strategy of 1968 has come to its final and logical conclusion, confining the GOP Party to the South and states that are rather southern in culture. (This isn’t my thinking, it’s put forth by none other than the mastermind of the Southern Strategy, Kevin Phillips, in his book “American Theocracy.”)
It would be nice if we get past our history some day, but the racist incidents and histrionics we are currently enduring in this campaign show we still have a ways to go. I know it’s going out on a limb to try to speak for most Americans, but you have to be pretty tone deaf not to pick up on the genuine longing for a leader who will do a good job and get this country working on the severe challenges we face.
Here’s the one wingnut unafraid to openly express what lies in many wingnut ghoul’s frozen hearts (caution, you’ll need to take a shower after seeing this):
http://www.local12.com/mostpop.....b18ef1c2d1
The Los Angeles Times, which has not endorsed a presidential candidate in over 30 years, has endorsed Barack Obama.
http://tinyurl.com/672mjt
This is possible the most eloquent endorsement in the country.
The Washington Post also endorsed Obama. Their endorsement editorial is well written and worth reading in entirety, but fair use limits me to posting excerpts. I recommend googling “Washington Post endorses Obama” and reading the whole editorial. Herewith a fair amount of excerpts:
” … 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. … Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. …
“A McCain presidency would not equal four more years [of Bush], but … Mr. McCain would draw on many of the same policymakers who have brought us to our current state. …
“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. …
“A better health-care system also is crucial to bolstering U.S. competitiveness and relieving worker insecurity. … Mr. McCain’s health plan doesn’t do enough to protect those who cannot afford health insurance. …
“Overshadowing all of these policy choices may be the financial crisis …. 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. … He has surrounded himself with top-notch, experienced, centrist economic advisers …. [H]is unflappability … 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 … also has a sophisticated understanding of the world and America’s place in it. …
“It gives us no pleasure to oppose Mr. McCain. Over the years, he has been a force for principle and bipartisanship. … 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. …
“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. … 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.”
Oh blah, blah, blah.
How about these two pieces of inescapable logic:
Reagan, HW Bush, and Junior have plunged the USA in near bankrupt status. When Reagan took office, we were the largest creditor nation. After those three mentioned “leaders”, we have the largest debt the world has ever known, almost equal to our GNP.
The Patriot act is the most un-American document written by anyone in modern times. It makes everything this country stood for a sham joke. It has been the starting point for the legal defense of torture, illegal search, and warrant less search and seizure.
This by the political party that warned you that the Democrats wanted to take away your constitutional rights.
The Washington Post, and the rest of them can go fuck themselves. They were supposed to be the watchdogs of government. They were Junior’s lapdogs instead.
Journalist Demands McCain Retraction!
Ellis Cose, writing in Newsweek, says:
” … On Thursday night’s ‘Late Show,’ Letterman confronted Sen. John McCain … on the accusation repeatedly hurled about by his running mate, Sarah Palin, that Barack Obama ‘pals around with terrorists.’ And he eventually got McCain to concede (if only in the most backhanded and ungracious way) that the charges — which happen to be ridiculous on their face — were just ‘words.’ …’
“Unable to get McCain to admit Obama was not ‘palling around,’ with Ayers, he tried another tack: ‘OK, so all right. Let’s say we give her [Sarah Palin] William Ayers. He was 8 and William Ayers was 29. But they palled around.’ At that point, McCain interjected, ‘There’s millions of words said in the campaign. Come on!’
“Millions of words. Yes. But those particular words have, in fact, spawned some very ugly reactions. Yet, instead of rejecting them or disassociating himself from them, McCain defends them, while demanding that Obama ‘repudiate’ John Lewis, who publicly condemned Palin’s incendiary slurs. …
“Lewis was so distressed by what he saw talking place at the McCain-Palin rallies that he issued the following statement: ‘What I am seeing today reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse. During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who only desired to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed one Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama. As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Governor Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all.’
“McCain responded with outrage, accusing Lewis of linking him to George Wallace, segregation, and the murder of four little girls — this, incredibly, from a man who has no problem linking Obama to terrorism. But as Lewis subsequently pointed out, he did not accuse McCain of being George Wallace; he accused the campaign of carelessly and provocatively using words … that could provoke irrational and hateful behavior. And the campaign is guilty as charged.
“It is unworthy of McCain to try to turn that true and heartfelt observation into some kind of racial slur; just as it is unworthy of McCain to continue to defend the hateful words of his running mate.
“Millions of words said in a campaign. Yes, but some deserve to be condemned and retracted. … McCain … has doggedly refused to reject those of his own running mate, which he is obligated to do before demanding repudiation of anyone else.
“As for Letterman, I … give him my special citation for journalist of the year — for taking on a figure of the political establishment and giving him hell, while many of my ‘mainstream’ peers gave him a pass.”
(Quoted under fair use.)
Roger Rabbit Commentary: I have no respect for John McSame anymore. He stoops to the same slimeball tactics as the worst Busheviks. He’s a hypocrite and a louse. If he comes to Washington, someone go to the pharmacy and buy out their supplies of Rid, because we’re gonna need that stuff.
Don’t worry. Milton Friedman is protecting us all from the Great Beyond — with his Invisible Hand!
uSP is totally irrelevant now. Their death knell rang when they started ‘banning’ commenters who were not rubberstamp ditto-heads.
The “Shark” now prowls in an empty pool.
michael smerconish has endorsed obama.
holy moley.
7. W. Klingon Skousen spews:
“The “Shark” now prowls in an empty pool.”
As opposed to ATHEIST KLOWNS like you who prowl in a CESSPOOL of vulgarity and mental illness.
From today’s Rasmussen:
Saturday, October 18, 2008
“Obama is viewed favorably by 55%, McCain by 53%. Those figures include 40% with a Very Favorable opinion of Obama and 30% with a Very Unfavorable opinion of him. For McCain, the comparable numbers are 23% Very Favorable and 24% Very Unfavorable.
Forty-four percent (44%) of voters are certain they will vote for Obama and not change their mind. Forty percent (40%) say the same about McCain. Thirteen percent (13%) have a preference for once candidate or the other but still say they might change their mind.”
While I still do not believe McCain will pull this out, it is interesting that 70% of voters have a very strong opinion of O-blah-blah one way or the other vs. only 47% have a very strong opinion of McCain.
I think that is because McCain’s negative campaign has pushed folks one way or the other on O-blah-blah. A negative campaign MUST be balanced with a very clear message however….and that is what McCain has failed to do well enough.
I tend to believe these numbers. It’s also amazing how many voters still say they could be swayed…..not that McCain has the campaign to sway them. But they are unconvinced by O-blah-blah.
The tanking of the stock market has really hurt McCain badly. Had all this bad economic news happened post-election, we would be looking at a dead-heat.
McCain has run an amateurish campaign. I’ll still vote for him anyday over Mr. “Government must spread the wealth” O-blah-blah.
What about the stats for endorsements in 2000? I think that year many moderate to conservative newspapers and commentators endorsed Gore because he was so clearly the better qualified candidate. But the voters largely ignored that, or at least 1/2 of them did. These newspaper endorsements speak really well of Obama, especially since his opponent is McCain who has been the darling of the press for awhile. But I’m not sure the voters will pay much attention. Fortunately they seem to be flocking to Obama for other reasons.
The Columbian. They’re nothing but a bunch of terrorist symphathizer, communist, class-warefare wagin’, America hatin’, no flag pin wearin’, cut’n runnin’, gun-bannin’ liberal abortionists.
The Salt Lake Tribune endorsed a black (the Mormon church has issues…)Democrat? Maybe hell really has frozen over.
This is all great news.
slingshot spews:
The Columbian. They’re nothing but a bunch of terrorist symphathizer, communist, class-warefare wagin’, America hatin’, no flag pin wearin’, cut’n runnin’, gun-bannin’ liberal abortionists.
FYI…You forgot to insert ATHEIST PROGRESSIVE PINHEADED KLOWNS!
It pretty much sums up the right wing philosophy for the last 30 plus years. Considering the shape of things, if this is “country first” at work, I’ll pass.
@14
You think “ATHEIST” and “PROGRESSIVE” are insults. That’s funny.. It’s as insulting as “CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVE”.
Keep your eyes on your e*trade account. Where ya plannin’ on buyin’ NOV this week? *wink* Don’t worry, you probably won’t pay more in taxes under a President Obama…
Oh and, don’t worry about socialized medicine. You’ll be on medicare when that colon cancer and heart disease from eating all that elk and whipped cream catches up with ya. All us real Americans will be payin’ for it then.. *wink*.
Course since revenue shouldn’t be flowin’ into the government and needs to stay out there creatin’ jobs and stuff, maybe we won’t have medicare by then.. Well, some small towners out there in real America will have ta pray for ya.. *wink*
Sorry I just couldn’t resist. Really? Calling names is what your contribution is here? Really? You know Troll calls this a left wing hate blog, but honestly since the goat / sex stuff disappeared (thankfully), most of the hate and name calling is either links to videos of McCain/Palin rallies or stuff like “ATHEIST PROGRESSIVE” You say that like it would offend me.. “PINHEADED KLOWNS,” now that’s just stupid…
Don’t worry, you probably won’t pay more in taxes under a President Obama…
I hope he does. We in the middle class haven’t had a raise for over 30 years. His ilk have had nothing but raises.
A raise in short term capital gains to about 45 or 50 percent sounds fair to me. Capital should be patient. A long term capital gains rate equivalent to taxes on wages is fair.
HE can pay off Bush’s fucking stupid folly. He and his bunch were cheerleading it all the way. Even those who weren’t Bush-lovers like Warren Buffet and many others are totally OK with modestly higher taxes and even a old-fashioned soaking of the rich like in FDR’s day.
It’s justified. We’re THAT close to a global depression.
@17
Now now, I was being sarcastic about his continual investing stuff. I think he fancies himself very wealthy. I’d wager he’s probably not as wealthy as he thinks he is..
I’m very much going to pay higher taxes under a President Obama, and as I’ve said before in these pages, I’m really okay with it. I went off on Mr. Cynical a day or so ago in the LIES thread…
It’s odd how some of my more left leaning friends are surprised to hear I’m okay with paying higher taxes. I’m also surprised to see how many of my republican and even libertarian friends are saying that higher taxes are necessary to get us out of this mess. Of course they want a smaller government in return but I think many on the left would agree that it needs to shrink in some ways.
The sad fact is, we’ll all likely pay higher taxes regardless of who wins. Even those on the right can’t forget “Read My Lips.” I doubt Senator McCain, should he be elected be able to hold down most taxes in the current environment. The difference for me is, I believe Senator Obama would create a tone and intention in government that would spend the money more wisely and thoughtfully than Senator McCain. I do not believe he’ll spend my money for me in ways that honor me, my labor or my kids.. The last 8 years are shining examples of what I do not want to pay taxes for.
I agree by the way on short term capital gain. Regular rate + FICA + medicare would be okay with me.. Most of my republican friends would slap me for saying so but… :)
rla–
What Government Agency do you work for??
Apparently you have no appreciated capital assets either. Pay SS & Medicare on ST Capital Gains…your generosity with other people’s money knows no bounds.
1st $250,000 on your house doesn’t count.
I tell you what rla–
There is no way a pinhead like you makes over $250,000/yr….unless it’s from a trust fund..mommy’s money. Is that it??
You can VOLUNTARILY contribute more of YOUR money to the US Treasury and let O-blah-blah “spread it around”.
Let us know how much you are sending in, willya?
It is amazing the disportionate % of ATHEISTS on this Blog. ATHEIST’S are a small % of the population…yet 90% PLUS on HorseAss.
Says it all.
You KLOWNS worship your own intellect.
Then are angry & jealous at those who create wealth & jobs by risking capital.
I post my trades when I make them. Always have. Look at the dates & times KLOWN.
You spew that you make over $250,000 with absolutely ZERO evidence. LIAR!
To the American right wing, there is no greater offense, no greater attack on their “moral” core, absolutely no greater threat to their skewed sense of freedom than to pay for what they get.
19 – It’s true Mr. C. Many of us left-leaning folks here don’t subscribe to your superstitions.
Our benchmark is what’s REAL. What’s real is that your ilk use government to line your pockets with favorable tax and regulatory treatment. Then you go and sue each other and buy each other out concentrating more and more wealth into fewer hands.
Some of your superstitious sects call that “God’s plan”.
We call that plain old human greed and right wing BULLSHIT..
Let’s just put the few remaining self-described Republicans into big pens down in Mississippi and Alabama.
Wow, remember “pemanent majority?” Hell, we have some trolls in here who still argue that their wacky misogynist, racist, anti-intellectual, reality-denying plutocratic “philosophy” represents a majority view. I told you they were reality-denying.
19 Cyn
Or we can readjust the tax burden so that the richest pay more and the middle class pays less. And we can readjust the economic balance so that increases in properity are reflected in RISING WAGES for workers. After all, consumer spending is what drives our economy, and the workers shouldn’t have to be borrowing money from millionaires in order to improve their standard of living because real wages stay stagnant for decades.
10 Cyn
Yeah, it’s just “amazing” how many voters are “unconvinced” by the first black major party presidential candidate, who has led the race for all but a single week following the GOP convention. Weird, huh? You’d think a black candidate would have had a real easy time of it, given that there’s no racism in America and all.
@7 SoundPolitics gets three time the volume
of HorsesASS. Sorry to rain on your parade.
@19
:) This is funny. I don’t need to prove my wealth or its origins to you. I’d be curious though as to what would pass for proof short of my ssn or a pdf of a tax return. Although since you accused me of being a trust fund child, a W-2 would be better I suppose.. My mother would have found this very funny…..
I’m not nearly as generous with other people’s money as republicans of the last 30 years.
As any decent investor knows there is a state called over leveraged. We as a country are way over leveraged. Strategically, it is working against us. It’s hard to argue with this. Watch the interview with Mr. Buffett on Charlie Rose not so long ago. He said it better than I.
Lower government spending will not resolve this problem. Even if you don’t count the trillions that are “off the books”, we would need ZERO federal spending for 4 or 5 years to pay off the current debt. No military, no law enforcement, no congress, no FAA, no FDA, no CDC, no social security, no nothing.
Simply reducing government spending isn’t going to solve the problem. We’d have to cut government spending by about 1/3rd to balance the budget per annum. I doubt anyone could find 1/3 of the federal budget that they would be willing to cut. Again, that would just stop the bleeding, not fix the problem..
How do you propose solving this problem without raising taxes? There are lots of different ideas about how to raise taxes appropriately but saying we have to reduce revenue intake by the federal government is just denial on the face of it. After so many years of Reaganomics experiments, can we now finally call it a failed thesis? And please don’t throw out the meme that revenue went up under Reagan. See: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c.....d-revenue/ Don’t write it off because it’s Paul Krugman. Read it and consider.
As far as giving more to the treasury, I would if I could direct the money. In the meantime I’ll give extra thru charity that does the job my extra tax dollars wouldn’t.
And dude, day trading is not risking capital in an economically stimulating way. It’s gambling and not much else. I have immense appreciation for capital and it’s proper use. Read Ben Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor”. It might help you do a little more than skim. If you truly want to risk capital to create jobs and grow the economy, start a business or join a VC. VC’s in Seattle are looking for money right now so you’ve got your chance.. Also there are a ton of startups that will be unable to secure their next round. Lots of opportunity there. You could also be an Angel since some of those networks are now drying up. All those options are risking capital in an economically stimulative way.
In any event, I have no proof other than your word that you even make those trades.. You could be a homeless guy at a public library who watches bigcharts all day. I doubt it and I’ll take your word for it. I’m happy for you if you make some money. Don’t equate that though with driving the economy.
My religion or lack thereof has a lot to do with what I do with my wealth and the principles by which I build it.. I do not worship my intellect, nor my money.