Many Democrats have taken to worrying that the protracted and excruciatingly close battle for their party's presidential nomination may divide their ranks and diminish their chances of victory in November. But that's a glass-half-empty view. A more positive outlook is that at a time when the departing administration has steered the nation severely off course, Democrats are blessed with two candidates of intelligence, vision and vigor.
And Americans have responded, with a surge in voting and registration.
Sen. Barack Obama referred to that excitement in a teleconference interview last week with this newspaper's editorial board. "We were always the longshot," he said. "The fact we've done so well speaks to the hunger of the American people for a different message and a different direction."
We agree, and we also believe that Sen. Obama is the Democratic candidate better equipped to restore Americans' hope for the future and to bring change to Washington.For that reason, we endorse Sen. Obama in Tuesday's Indiana primary and in the May 20 contest in Kentucky.
Both Sen. Obama and his rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, offer aggressive, detailed platforms. Many positions are virtually identical, others diverge on some points. But there is no ideological gulf, and both candidates' views down the line are superior to those of the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain.
Each candidate outlines a plan for a gradual, orderly withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq beginning soon after taking office but taking many months to accomplish.
Sen. Obama stresses that such a timetable would give Iraqis ample time to take control of their security and affairs.
Sen. Clinton, who met separately in person with the editorial board, argues persuasively that removal of the American "security blanket" is the only way to compel Iraqis to resolve political differences.
Equally important, Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton make the strong case for a more expansive view of American interests.
Sen. Obama rightly criticizes President Bush's focus on Islamic terrorism as "too cramped a vision." He emphasizes the importance of hunting down and fighting al-Qaida, but he also notes the security dangers of nuclear proliferation, rogue states, energy shortages and a weakening American economy.
Sen. Clinton adds the importance of winning the war in Afghanistan while America ends the war in Iraq.
While both candidates talk of offering encouragement and real aid to working- and middle-class Americans, there are differences in approach.
On health care, for example, we lean toward Sen. Clinton's insistence on mandating universal care. Sen. Obama, who focuses on reducing costs, is right that such a mandate would be costly and difficult to enforce, but too many people inevitably would fall between cracks and wind up uninsured.
On the other hand, we applaud Sen. Obama's opposition to a suspension of the federal gasoline tax, which Sen. Clinton favors. He is right that the move would save consumers little money, might be negated if oil companies raise prices and would encourage gasoline consumption instead of conservation.
Still, the differences are sufficiently minor that the key point becomes one that Sen. Obama stresses: Who is best able to actually accomplish new directions?
Sen. Obama's relentless focus on change, and the hordes of new voters he draws to the polls, would make it hard for his victory to be read as anything other than a mandate for changing how Washington works.
Sen. Clinton actually has engaged in more collaborative efforts with Republicans than she is given credit for. But she is battle-scarred, widely viewed as divisive and, we believe, would face a harder time enacting her program.
It's a difficult choice, but the better pick for Hoosier and Kentucky voters is Sen. Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment