April 19, 2008
Quote for our Politics of Today...
"We will not find answers in old dogmas, or by repeating old slogans, or by fighting on ancient battle grounds, against fading enemies long after the real struggle has moved on." -RFK
Opportunistic and Deceitful Hillary Slams the Democratic Activists in Her Own Party
The Huffington Post has published a scathing article on Hillary attacking faithful members of the Democratic Party. Addressing the same issue, OpEdNews.com stated "the New York Times has absolutely ignored it. By this time last week, the Times had written about 258 stories about Obama’s “elitist” views, as revealed in, like, 16 words in San Francisco."After the shameful debacle of the biased ABC presidential debate this week, it is vital that all Americans look at the not so subtle workings of our media and the continuing despicable campaign tactics of Hillary Clinton.
I strongly urge you to take time to watch the MSNBC report below, and to completely read the article links I have enclosed.
This election is ultimately about the preservation of our democracy.
zjm
April 18, 2008
Hillary Drops Back: A New Newsweek Poll Shows Obama Pulling Away.
By Michael Hirsh | Newsweek Web Exclusive Apr 18, 2008Despite her campaign's relentless attacks on Barack Obama's qualifications and electability, Hillary Clinton has lost a lot of ground with Democratic voters nationwide going into Tuesday's critical primary in Pennsylvania, a new NEWSWEEK poll shows. The survey of 1,209 registered voters found that Obama now leads Clinton by nearly 20 points, or 54 percent to 35 percent, among registered Democrats and those who lean Democratic nationwide.
Former Senators Sam Nunn and David L. Boren Endorse Barack Obama for President
Chicago, IL – Today, Former Senators Sam Nunn and David L. Boren endorsed Barack Obama for president, citing his judgment and vision to be Commander and Chief and his ability to strengthen our national security.
Nunn and Boren have accepted Senator Obama’s invitation to serve as advisers to his National Security Foreign Policy Team. Senator Nunn served for 25 years (1972-1997) in the United States Senate and was Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee from 1987 through 1995. Senator Boren served in the United States Senate from 1979 to 1994 and is the longest-serving Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Between them, the two senators bring nearly 60 years of service and experience in elective office.
Former Senator Sam Nunn said, “America remains the strongest nation in the world, but we can only be successful in tackling our toughest problems if we gain cooperation at home and abroad. Our next president – working across party and economic lines – must restore and strengthen our national purpose, our credibility, our competence and our spirit.
“We need a president who has the temperament of a leader – a sharp, incisive, strategic mind, a rare capacity for self criticism, and a willingness to hear contrary points of view.
“Based on my conversations with Senator Obama, reading his book and his speeches and seeing the kind of campaign he has run, I believe that he is our best choice to lead our nation. Senator Obama, as evidenced by his words and his deeds, recognizes that:
· We have developed a habit of avoiding the tough decisions and seemingly lost our ability to build consensus to tackle head-on our biggest challenges.
· Demonizing the opposition, oversimplifying the issues, and dumbing down the political debate prevent our country from coming together to make tough decisions and tackle our biggest challenges.
· Solving America’s problems will require difficult choices and sacrifices and leaders capable of considering new ideas from both political parties.
· On foreign policy and security policy, we must recognize that we are not limited to a choice between belligerency and isolation and that we must listen to lead successfully on the key issues facing America and the world.
· Our next president must also recognize that the battle against violent terrorists, while requiring a prudent use of military power, is also a long-term contest of psychology and ideas.
“I believe that Senator Obama has a rare ability to restore America’s credibility and moral authority and to get others to join us in tackling serious global problems that will determine our own well being and security. I believe that he will bring to the White House, high principles, clear vision and sound judgment. I believe that he will inspire people to put aside extreme partisanship for the common good. I believe that he will awaken the energy and idealism of people who have never been active in public affairs, particularly our young people. I believe that he will also attract skilled, experienced and energetic people to government and will have the sound judgment to put together an outstanding governing team, bringing people together across old boundaries.
“I believe that Barack Obama is the right choice for our nation. My own role in this campaign will be as an advisor – particularly in the field of national security and foreign policy.”
Former Senator David L. Boren said, “I am joining Senator Barack Obama’s advisory team on foreign policy and national security because I believe it is my duty as a citizen to do all I can to help our country at this critical moment. Our strength is declining. Eighty-one percent of Americans believe we are headed in the wrong direction. We must act quickly to meet and overcome the challenges we face.
“Our most urgent task is to end the divisions in our country, to stop the political bickering, and to unite our talents and efforts. Americans of all persuasions are pleading with our political leaders to bring us together. I believe Senator Obama is sincerely committed to that effort. He has made a non-partisan approach to all issues a top priority.
“Senator Obama is also a person of sound and good judgment. He had the good judgment more than five years ago to warn against our involvement in this tragic and costly war. He also understands the need to repair our partnerships with other nations and to more effectively use diplomacy to serve our national interests.
“It is my hope that in sharing what I have learned during my time in public service, I will be helping my country.”
Senator Barack Obama said, “I am honored to have the support and counsel of two of our nation’s leading voices on national security, and two of our most respected advocates for national unity. Few public servants have done more than Sam Nunn to keep America safe, and I look forward to drawing on his counsel as we work to combat nuclear proliferation and other threats to America’s national security. David Boren is one of our nation’s foremost experts on intelligence, and he has been a powerful and passionate advocate for bipartisanship in Washington. Both of these men will be important sources of advice and counsel for our campaign in the months ahead.”
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich Endorses Obama
The formal act of endorsing a candidate is generally (and properly)limited to editorial pages and elected officials whose constituents might be influenced by their choice. The rest of us shouldn't assume anyone cares. My avoidance of offering a formal endorsement until now has also been affected by the pull of old friendships and my reluctance as a teacher and commentator to be openly partisan. But my conscience won't let me be silent any longer.I believe that Barack Obama should be elected President of the United States.
Although Hillary Clinton has offered solid and sensible policy proposals, Obama's strike me as even more so. His plans for reforming Social Security and health care have a better chance of succeeding. His approaches to the housing crisis and the failures of our financial markets are sounder than hers. His ideas for improving our public schools and confronting the problems of poverty and inequality are more coherent and compelling. He has put forward the more enlightened foreign policy and the more thoughtful plan for controlling global warming.
He also presents the best chance of creating a new politics in which citizens become active participants rather than cynical spectators. He has energized many who had given up on politics. He has engaged young people to an extent not seen in decades. He has spoken about the most difficult problems our society faces, such as race, without spinning or simplifying. He has rightly identified the armies of lawyers and lobbyists that have commandeered our democracy, and pointed the way toward taking it back.
Finally, he offers the best hope of transcending the boundaries of class, race, and nationality that have divided us. His life history exemplifies this, as do his writings and his record of public service. For these same reasons, he offers the best possibility of restoring America's moral authority in the world.
In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC
By Tom Shales | Thursday, April 17, 2008When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.
For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.
The fact is, cable networks CNN and MSNBC both did better jobs with earlier candidate debates. Also, neither of those cable networks, if memory serves, rushed to a commercial break just five minutes into the proceedings, after giving each candidate a tiny, token moment to make an opening statement. Cable news is indeed taking over from network news, and merely by being competent.
Gibson sat there peering down at the candidates over glasses perched on the end of his nose, looking prosecutorial and at times portraying himself as a spokesman for the working class. Blunderingly he addressed an early question, about whether each would be willing to serve as the other's running mate, "to both of you," which is simple ineptitude or bad manners. It was his job to indicate which candidate should answer first. When, understandably, both waited politely for the other to talk, Gibson said snidely, "Don't all speak at once."
For that matter, the running-mate question that Gibson made such a big deal over was decidedly not a big deal -- especially since Wolf Blitzer asked it during a previous debate televised and produced by CNN.
The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation.
Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.
No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.
This is precisely what has happened with widely reported comments that Obama made about working-class people "clinging" to religion and guns during these times of cynicism about their federal government.
"It's not the first time I made a misstatement that was mangled up, and it won't be the last," said Obama, with refreshing candor. But candor is dangerous in a national campaign, what with network newsniks waiting for mistakes or foul-ups like dogs panting for treats after performing a trick. The networks' trick is covering an election with as little emphasis on issues as possible, then blaming everyone else for failing to focus on "the issues."
Some news may have come out of the debate (ABC News will pretend it did a great job on today's edition of its soppy, soap-operatic "Good Morning America"). Asked point-blank if she thought Obama could defeat presumptive Republican contender John McCain in the general election, Clinton said, "Yes, yes, yes," in apparent contrast to previous remarks in which she reportedly told other Democrats that Obama could never win. And in turn, Obama said that Clinton could "absolutely" win against McCain.
To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama. The director cut several times to reaction shots of such Clinton supporters as her daughter, Chelsea, who sat in the audience at the Kimmel Theater in Philly's National Constitution Center. Obama supporters did not get equal screen time, giving the impression that there weren't any in the hall. The director also clumsily chose to pan the audience at the very start of the debate, when the candidates made their opening statements, so Obama and Clinton were barely seen before the first commercial break.
At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates -- or was he really patting himself on the back? -- for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.
Winning Pennsylvania
by Dylan Loewe | Posted April 18, 2008
After what has seemed like an interminable campaign purgatory, the Pennsylvania primary is finally only four days away. Despite suggestion to the contrary, Barack Obama is all but guaranteed a victory.
is unelectable, suggesting he is out-of-touch and elitist, and criticizing him repeatedly for innocent associations with guilty people. The problem of course is that her argument to the superdelegates is not the most advisable to pitch to Democratic primary voters. It is not a coincidence that she sounds awfully similar to John McCain when she speaks. The rationale for her receiving the nomination without earning it is premised on the notion that Obama would not be able to stand up to Republican attacks. As such, she has peppered him with those attacks.
But such attacks are distinctly Republican for a reason, namely that they resonate significantly better with the Republican base than with Democrats. The left is unlikely to be swayed by Reverend Wright or Bill Ayers, and unlikely to find something especially disturbing about comments made at a San Francisco fundraiser. They are, after all, Democrats. It is not surprising, then, that we have seen no decline in Obama's poll numbers among those voters currently in play.
It is not just the attacks themselves that have failed, but also the act and manner in which they have been carried out. For at least a month now, the accepted media narrative is that Hillary's likelihood of winning is incredibly slim and that, absent something unforeseeable, Barack Obama will prevail. Even among those still undecided, watching Hillary Clinton beating up on the likely Democratic nominee is unsettling. Polls have consistently shown her negatives shooting up. More than half of Democrats say they don't trust her.
Of course, despite all of this, Hillary still leads in the state, and may pull off a win. A win for her, however, is still a significant victory for Obama. Despite having broken all campaign spending records in the state and despite having dramatically cut Hillary Clinton's lead, the narrative has yet to change. It is still the case that the Clinton campaign and surrogates are predicting a substantial victory. It is still the case that most pundits and opinion makers have come to expect one, as well. And with Obama's subpar debate performance and two mini-crises boiling to the surface in the final days of the campaign, it would appear expectations for Obama are nearly impossibly low. To meet or exceed those expectations would require almost nothing at all.
But whether those expectations are exceeded with a five point loss or met with a double-digit defeat, that Pennsylvania is over means the clouds of uncertainty that engulf the race will begin to clear. There is, indeed, a new kind of inevitability on the horizon. Whether he wins on Tuesday or not, Barack Obama cannot lose.
Formerly the Executive Director of Ballotground, a multi-state anti-war ballot initiative campaign, Dylan Loewe is the editor of Loewe Political Report and an op-ed contributor for The Guardian. He is currently pursuing a Masters in Public Policy from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and a law degree from Columbia Law School.
Pittsburgh Grandmother Sees Hope in Obama's Candidacy
60-year-old 'idealist' drawn to candidate and his stance on war, global warmingFriday, April 18, 2008 | By Robert Dvorchak, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
STRASBURG, Pa. -- After leaving her day job, Joyce Akins switches gears to volunteer on a political campaign -- knocking on doors, working the phones or pitching in.
No 60-year-old grandmother would make that kind of a commitment unless she was passionate about doing her part. And as an example of her firm beliefs in who would make the better president, she displays a 12-foot-wide banner on her barn in support of Sen. Barack Obama.
The barn sits smack in the middle of the Republican stronghold of Lancaster County. In her mind, a campaign button or a mere bumper sticker just wouldn't do.
"I thought I had to do it," said Mrs. Akins. "The Democratic headquarters here is so far off the beaten path it's called The Underground, so I had to think outside of the box and take a stand. He's the right person. He offers hope that our children and grandchildren can have a better future."
With the redwood barn sitting just off a rural road that routinely produces the clip-clop sound of horses pulling Amish buggies, the blue banner does attract attention. But not all of the reaction is favorable.
"Oh, I knew what was coming," she said. "I've had some yard signs ripped. I've been yelled at, and some people will shout profanity. But some have stopped to say thanks for having the courage of your convictions, and I think, what courage? For exercising my right to state my political preference? What America am I living in?"
Mrs. Akins hasn't just gotten involved in the Pennsylvania primary. She worked previously as an Obama volunteer in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and New Jersey.
"It was so cold in Delaware the ink froze in our pens," she recalled.
After her regular workday as an administrative assistant at a school that helps teach dyslexic children, she starts campaigning on the most elementary of levels. If she's at Obama headquarters, there are usually about 50 fellow volunteers with cell phones and laptops, some of them from out of state and living off late night pizza and donated rooms.
Just last week, Mrs. Akins received a shipment of campaign pins from a woman in Illinois who founded the Sisters of the Buttonhood. Each button she passes out identifies the wearer as "Another Middle-Aged White Woman For Obama."
The roots of her activism go back to the days when John F. Kennedy appealed to a new generation of Americans to ask what they could do for their country.
"I was too young to vote for him, but he called us to get involved, and I heard the call," said Mrs. Akins, who grew up in Latrobe and attended Greensburg Central Catholic High School and Edinboro University of Pennsylvania. "America is an ideal, so I guess that makes me an idealist. I'm a dreamer."
And she developed a rebellious streak early on.
"My father raised me to question authority," she said.
For all of the self-indulgence and wretched excess, the '60s were a time of social and political upheaval, marked by assassinations, race riots, campus unrest, environmental awareness and equal rights. The music of the day carried messages -- We shall overcome. ... The answer is blowin' in the wind. ... Stand. ... We can change the world.
"Music was important to us. It united us in many ways," said Mrs. Akins, who still has vinyl albums by Pete Seeger, Joan Baez and other troubadours in her record collection.
While the message has been adapted to the campaign slogan of "Change We Can Believe In," Mrs. Akins wishes more baby boomers would show some of the old activism.
"A lot of them sold out," she said. "Most of my friends have second homes and drive a Mercedes. They did really well."
Mrs. Akins once marched against the Vietnam War carrying her son in her womb. Now, with the future of her 3-year-old grandson on her mind, she marches with Cindy Sheehan against the war without end in Iraq.
She also participated in the first Earth Day in 1970. Now she supports Mr. Obama in part because of his views on global warming. She once drove a Volkswagen. Now she has a Toyota Prius hybrid.
"I can remember being told on that first Earth Day that we'd be doing the same work at the turn of the century, and my heart sank. But here it is 2008 and we're still working to respect the environment," she said.
In many ways, Mrs. Akins still marches to the beat of a different drummer.
"I would love to be able to vote for a woman, but I don't think you should vote because of someone's gender. That's not the way to choose a president," she said. "I don't trust Hillary. I think it would be Bush Lite. I can't vote for her. She voted for the war in Iraq. We need a change. We need someone who can unite us and bring people together."
Barack Obama wasn't her first choice. She liked the candor of Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, but when his campaign ended, she was drawn to the message of change delivered with inspirational oratory.
"He empowers people," Mrs. Akins said. "He's inspired a new generation. I have a good life, but what about people who aren't as fortunate? There's so much hope, but there's also a great deal of fear."
She's not alone in her volunteer efforts. Her husband switched his voter registration from Republican to Democrat to vote in Tuesday's primary. Her son changed from independent to do the same thing. And her daughter does volunteer work with her.
But there are sacrifices, such as those times when she comes home late at night to hear a voice message left by her grandson: "Oh, you must be at Obama's."
"I know the country is at the precipice," Mrs. Akins said. "Change is not going to come easily, and we're all going to have to bite the bullet. But nothing is more important. Our grandchildren's future depends on it."
April 17, 2008
Mayor Richard Daley (the younger) comes to Barack Obama's defense
April 17, 2008AyersChicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, whose father and namesake was famously not so sympathetic to antiwar protesters, is coming to the defense of Barack Obama for his link to former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers. Daley accused Hillary Clinton and other critics of Obama's association with Ayers of "re-fighting 40-year-old battles." And the mayor noted that he also knows Ayers and has "worked with" him on city education reforms.
The mayor released the following statement:
"There are a lot of reasons that Americans are angry about Washington politics. And one more example is the way Senator Obama's opponents are playing guilt-by-association, tarring him because he happens to know Bill Ayers.I also know Bill Ayers. He worked with me in shaping our now nationally-renowned school reform program. He is a nationally-recognized distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois/Chicago and a valued member of the Chicago community.
I don't condone what he did 40 years ago but I remember that period well. It was a difficult time, but those days are long over. I believe we have too many challenges in Chicago and our country to keep re-fighting 40 year old battles."
He’s No Journalist
By Al GiordanoWhen George Stephanopoulos left the Clinton White House and went straight to ABC News, he had never worked as a reporter - not in newspapers, nor on radio, nor on television. His only career experience was as a political hack, whose job in politics was to manipulate the media, hide the facts, and spin, spin, spin.
He was hired to be an on-air bimbo; a pretty face, and for his “access” and rolodex to other political celebrities and figures. And in his years at ABC, an army of producers, reporters and interns have done all the heavy lifting for him.
Had he any experience or background in journalism, he would have been familiar with the basic tenets of ethics codes that major media purport to follow. Every single news organization insists that conflicts-of-interest and even “the appearance of conflict-of-interest” must be openly disclosed by a reporter on a story. Take the Associated Press Managing Editors Association Statement of Ethical Principles, for example:
“The newspaper and its staff should be free of obligations to news sources and newsmakers. Even the appearance of obligation or conflict of interest should be avoided.”
At times there are conflicts presented by previous employment - in this case, Stephanopoulos’ high-level role in the Clinton Administration of the 1990s. In those cases, a simple disclosure during a broadcast or a news story is necessary. But we didn’t hear that from Stephanopoulos or anyone else at ABC last night, as he steered the first 50 minutes of the debate away from policy issues (Iraq, health care, “free trade,” jobs, the environment, etcetera) and into what everybody today knows was a transparent attempt to give oxygen to the spouse of his former employer and to trash her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.
As a journalist, a professor of journalism, and the president of an international journalism school, I look at this guy and understand exactly why so many people have grown to distrust our profession. A lot of people obsess and fret about Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh, or others that at least don’t pretend to be “objective” and “unbiased” (or even journalists!) but the real cancer on journalism today is in the mainstream and its lackeys that claim that they are: in this case ABC and its resident political airhead George Stephanopoulos, who deserves all the blowback and more that is heading back at him today.
Oklahoma Superdelegate Endorses Obama
Chicago, IL - Today, Oklahoma Superdelegate Reggie Whitten endorsed Barack Obama, citing his ability to unite Americans for change and his proven track record of standing up for middle class families and workers. His statement regarding the endorsement is below:
"I have decided to endorse Senator Barack Obama and will work wholeheartedly to see him become the next President of the United States. Some say there is no particular need to endorse at the present time. However, I believe this is a defining moment, not only for our Party, but also more importantly for our country. Therefore, I made the decision to commit now.
“While deciding to support Senator Obama, I thought of my history and my future. I'm from the small town of Seminole, Oklahoma: a city that is predominantly hard-working middle class citizens. It is important that our next President keep small towns like Seminole in mind when he talks about our economy. I am very sincere in my belief that Senator Obama will do just that. When I talk about my future, I, like most people, think of my children. The next administration will have a great deal to say about their future and the world they inherit. As a parent, I am confident Senator Obama has the courage, skill, and experience necessary to lead America forward.
“Whether it is his willingness to tell corporate America what it needs to hear instead of what it wants to hear, restoring America's standing abroad, or inspiring young Americans to commit themselves to public service, Senator Obama's message is equally refreshing and inspiring. It is no coincidence that voters, especially young voters, are turning out to vote in record numbers.
“As we move closer to the convention and, from there, to the general election in November, I am certain Senator Obama will continue to build a broad coalition of Democrats, Independents, and yes, even Republicans. He unites us in the belief that without change in Washington, we as a nation cannot begin to address the challenges and opportunities of our future.
“In conclusion, for these reasons and many more, I'm proud today to stand with Barack Obama and his growing movement for change."
Superdelegate Harry Thomas Jr. Switches From Hil to Obama
April 17, 2008From the Washington Post ...
Washington D.C. Council member and newly elected superdelegate Harry Thomas Jr., initially a supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, is announcing in minutes that he will cast his vote at the Democratic National Convention in Denver for Sen. Barack Obama.
Thomas received more than 100 phone calls and e-mails from constituents who feared that he would use his power as a superdelegate to vote for Clinton despite the city's overwhelming support of Obama in the Potomac Primary.
"After meeting with the candidates and listening to my constituents, I have to honor the 83 percent who support Barack Obama," he said in an interview, referring to the results of the Democratic primary...
Pennsylvania Voters Reject Hillary’s Old-Politics Attacks, Switch to Obama
Susan Petro was joined by other Pennsylvanians from around the state who shared the following stories:
Victoria King, Johnstown:
You know, sometimes it’s not what you say; it’s how you say it. Barack Obama is focused on the issues that matter to people. Hillary Clinton just exploits them. Barack Obama is the right type of leader to bring our country together and that’s what we need right now.
Cindy Scales, Johnstown:
Hillary Clinton’s negative campaigning really turned me off. Her negativity is not doing anything but separating Democrats at a time when we need to come together. People don’t need that message. What they need is financial security, good jobs, faith in this country and a hopeful future.
Dar Thomas, Pittsburgh:
I really wanted to vote for a woman, but what really changed my mind is how divisive she is. The more I watched her, the more I saw how her campaign uses cheap shots to attack Barack Obama. She has employed these win-at-any-cost tactics. That shows she really knows political gaming, but she doesn’t really know that Americans just want someone to help them solve their problems.
Dawn Moyer, Collegeville:
The negative campaigning had a lot to do with why I no longer support Hillary Clinton. She is the old Washington politics. We absolutely need a change. I believe in Barack Obama and I believe he is what our nation needs.
Elizabeth Harrison, Glenside:
The policy of personal attacks is one that for years have made me view Washington in a very bad light. Why can't we act like grown ups? I began this race as a Hillary supporter but when the kitchen sink mess began, I began to get discouraged. The sad part of all of this is that Mr. Obama has not once attempted to make personal attacks against her even when it could have sincerely been to his advantage to do so. I want something different for my children from Washington…from America. I think deep down inside, we are all ready.
June Esser, Creighton:
You can make a difference in your community by signing up to Get Out the VoteI was really confused about whether I wanted Hillary or Barack. But I have decided I am voting for Barack. Each time he is hit with mud he comes back with a sincere and reasonable response. Enough of these political games.
Philadelphia Daily News Endorses Barack Obama
Posted on Thu, Apr. 17, 2008THE CHOICE in Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary is not only the one between a white woman and a black man. It's a choice between the past and the future.
More specifically, the nation must decide how to face the future racing toward us in the form of slumping home sales, unstable financial markets and increased joblessness - and staring at us from the Green Zone in Iraq and the beds at veterans hospitals.
Should Democrats choose someone who will employ hard-won - even bitter - experiences gained in a past Democratic administration, or reach beyond political truisms toward a new (and untried) model of governing?
Neither choice is obvious. Perhaps that's why the race has gone on for so long.
But the long slog through 44 primaries and caucuses has confirmed for us that Sen. Barack Obama's vision of change - and the way he plans to pursue it - is what we need right now. Badly.
This is a campaign that really began six years ago, on Sept. 11, 2001. Not only was the U.S. attacked and seriously wounded, it did not bounce back the way "the land of the free and home of the brave" should have. In fact, it still suffers from post-traumatic stress.
That day and its aftermath cried out for a revolution of values: a clear-eyed shared vision, a cooperative effort, a unified purpose. It cried out for a recognition that conventional warfare and conventional responses to domestic challenges in an era of globalization were not enough.
That cry was not answered.
Instead, the Bush administration embarked on an unconscionable plan to exploit the fear we all felt that day for political gain. It lied us into a disastrous war in Iraq, a staggering, record deficit at home, a weakening of the constitutional structure on which the country rests, and poisonous lines of division among Americans. It led us to a place where 81 percent of Americans say we're on the wrong track.
Contrary to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign slogan, we believe Barack Obama is more likely to be "ready on Day One" to lead us in a new direction. Because of his experience.
Sure, Clinton has more "experience" of a sort. For one thing, she has 14 more years on earth. How much of this experience is directly applicable to the job of president is, at best, debatable.
We are frankly troubled by her assumption that her husband's administration and accomplishments were her own. And if her equation holds, that the first spouse is an equal partner in the administration, then the reappearance of Bill Clinton in the White House is a prospect we have a hard time reconciling with the work that needs to be done.
THERE IS a way to match Clinton's and Obama's performances on a relatively equal playing field: their campaigns.
A candidate's campaign may be the best indicator of how she or he will govern. If so, an Obama administration would be well-managed, inclusive and astonishingly broad-based. It would make good use of technology and communicate a message of unity and, yes, hope.
It would not be content with eking out slim victories by playing to the narrow interests of the swing voters of the moment while leaving the rest of the country as deeply divided as ever. Instead, an Obama administration would seek to expand the number of Americans who believe that they have a personal stake in our collective future - and that they have the power to change things.
It would motivate them to hold their representatives accountable for making it happen. That is, after all, the only way to get us out of Iraq, to address global warming, to make us energy-independent. It's the only way to resist the forces arrayed against providing universal health care, rebuilding our infrastructure and returning our schools to world-class status. It's the only way to give our children the means to compete with children in other parts of the world who are healthier, better-educated and have more opportunities than many of our own.
An Obama administration would be freer of the the corrupting influence of big-money donors and corporate interests. Obama has raised $240 million overall, with half coming in contributions of less than $200. People who contribute to political campaigns can feel they "own" a candidate and so Obama would owe allegiance to the wide swath of America that has financed his campaign.
Based on his experience in running a quarter-billion-dollar enterprise with thousands upon thousands of volunteers, we could expect an Obama administration to be well-managed and cost-effective, with the president choosing forward-thinking advisers committed to his program, demanding that they work as a team and pay attention to details.
He would be steady and calm, given neither to irrational exuberance or outbursts of anger. He would make mistakes, that's for sure, but he could be expected to recognize them, adjust, and move forward.
He would adjust his views to reality rather than trying to adjust reality to his views.
Obama's unprecedented appeal to younger voters is significant not only because it expands the electorate, which is vital. It's also a validation of his promise as a president to be free of the baby-boomer/Vietnam/segregation-era hangups.
Younger people are more egalitarian, more accepting of diversity, and more comfortable with rapid change. They also are less confined by old resentments or regrets.
AND AN OBAMA administration would lower the tone of the rhetoric that separates us.
As New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has said, Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who has the skill and eloquence to help us raise our eyes and our aspirations beyond individual, personal concerns, beyond religion or region or race or gender, beyond our well-founded fears to a shared destiny.
Most candidates claim that they will change the way business is done in Washington. Barack Obama has made us believe that, yes, he can.ABC Presidential Debate: Tabloid America
When I was a kid many of us from the neighborhood would band together and play the kids from the school basketball team in a game of horse, or one-on-one. Occasionally the star of the team would show up and it soon would become a game of one-on five.Just like last night's debate sponsored by that bastion of journalism, ABC.
A few questions to consider:
1. How do you allow George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton administration staffer now masquerading as a journalist, anywhere near a debate that includes Hillary Clinton?
2. How was it that ABC camera operators did nearly a dozen close-up shots of Chelsea and other Clinton supporters during statements by Hillary? (note that ABC even lit Chelsea's row with soft yellow light) How was it that there were no shots of Obama family or supporters during the event?
3. How can you moderate the first fifty minutes of a debate with no questions of policy and issues? How is it that the majority of those questions were directed at Senator Obama concerning his past associations and statements - save one question for Hillary on Bosnia?
4. How is it that Hillary admits she has lied about Bosnia and there is not one follow-up question from Charlie or George?
5. How are there no questions during the entire debate about Mark Penn, Columbia, the Clinton income taxes, or any exploration of Bill's relationship to Columbia?
I could go on and on - but what's the point? ABC conducted a hatchet job of a debate and should lose their license to broadcast anything.
Charlie Gibson should be ashamed of himself, as he knows better.
All in all, Obama, playing against a stacked deck of Clinton, Stephanopoulos, Gibson, McCain, and the phantoms of tabloid innuendo - did a fine and noble job.
One might say, he looked Presidential.
zjm
P.S. The good, just, and bemusing news - American Idol drew millions more viewers than ABC'S bad popcorn show -
April 16, 2008
Debate Moment of Truth
After expending an extraordinary amount of time, money, and effort trashing Obama's ability to win a general election against John McCain - both on the campaign trail and in her unsuccessful attempts to woo superdelegates like Bill Richardson, Hillary was finally pushed to declare the truth in tonight's debate:"Hey Hil, you're last argument is gone..." zjm
Can Obama win?
‘Yes, yes, yes,’ says Clinton
25 Of 35 South Dakota Democratic State Legislators Endorse Obama
SIOUX FALLS, SD – Today, twenty-five of the thirty-five South Dakota Democratic State Legislators endorsed Barack Obama, citing him as the only candidate who can unite Americans for change that matters in the lives of working families in South Dakota. South Dakota Senate Democratic Leader Scott Heidepriem said, "Senator Obama inspires all Americans, regardless of party, race or economic circumstance. He is the best chance we have had in years to lift the spirit and lead the way."
South Dakota House Democratic Leader Dale Hargens said, "Senator Obama has given us a reason to believe that we can change the way things are done in Washington. He will be able to bring an end to the bitter divisions in our nation's capital that hinder good decision making and prevent implementation of sound solutions."
Senator Obama said, “I’m proud to receive the backing of these legislators today. We are working hard to strengthen our growing grassroots movement for change in South Dakota before the primary on June 3, and we’re grateful that these leaders will help build our support throughout the state.”
Obama has the support of Former Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and has been endorsed by Senator Tim Johnson and Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. Last week, six Tribal Leaders from South Dakota endorsed Barack Obama.
Below is the list of South Dakota State Legislators Endorsing Barack Obama today:
Senator Julie Bartling
Senator Gary Hanson
Senator Scott Heidepriem
Senator Alan Hoerth
Senator Jim Hundstad
Senator Sandy Jerstad
Senator Tom Katus
Senator Frank Kloucek
Senator Ryan Maher
Senator Ben Nesselhuf
Senator Jim Peterson
Senator Nancy Turbak Berry
Senator Theresa Two Bulls
Representative Jim Bradford
Representative Quinten Burg
Representative H. Paul Dennert
Representative Richard Engels
Representative David Gassman
Representative Clayton Halverson
Representative Dale Hargens
Representative Larry Lucus
Representative Garry Moore
Representative Eldon Nygaard
Representative Bill Thompson
Representative Tom Van Norman
North Carolina Superdelegates Watt, Price Endorse Obama
LISA ZAGAROLI and DAVID INGRAMTwo N.C. superdelegates endorsed U.S. Sen. Barack Obama for president Wednesday.
U.S. Reps. Mel Watt and David Price held a conference call to announce their decision to endorse Obama over Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.
“Only one candidate in this election has captured this spirit of change and excitement,” Watt, a Charlotte Democrat, told reporters. “Only one candidate has marshaled this spirit of change into a movement that is completely inclusive, uniquely democratic and uniquely American. That candidate is Barack Obama.”
Price, a Chapel Hill Democrat, said Obama would be competitive in North
Carolina with expected Republican nominee John McCain in November.
“He can change the equation in North Carolina,” Price said, “and I look forward to helping him do so.”
The endorsements mean Obama has the public support of six N.C. superdelegates compared to Clinton’s one - Charlotte City Council member Susan Burgess - according to the Democratic Convention Watch blog.
All the Democrats in the N.C. congressional delegation had endorsed former U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, and until now only one had announced an endorsement of either of the two remaining candidates. U.S. Rep. G.K. Butterfield also endorsed Obama.
Watt said undecided members of the delegation are looking at how Clinton and Obama would fare here in November. “They are talking to their constituents and seeing which candidate will take North Carolina most seriously and is likely to have the prospect of winning North Carolina,” Watt said.
Price and Watt are two of the state’s most influential representatives in Washington.
Price, a former Duke political scientist, was first elected to Congress in 1986. He is the most senior Democratic congressman from North Carolina and he chairs an appropriations subcommittee.
Watt, a lawyer, was first elected in 1992. He is chair of a financial services subcommittee - a key post for his hometown - and is a past chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.
While supporting Edwards, Watt told the Observer in January that he was concerned about “whether the electorate would support an African American candidate or a female candidate for president.”
He said race is still a factor any time a black candidate is running for office, but that the country has made progress in recent years.
“I’d have to say I’m surprised - and pleasantly surprised - that Barack’s campaign has continued to build momentum, because I saw at the end of Harvey Gantt’s campaign in 1990 some movement away from Harvey,” said Watt, who managed Gantt’s Democratic campaign for U.S. Senate against Republican incumbent Jesse Helms.
“But, as I say, that was 18 years ago and this is a new day in America and I expect this to be a new outcome in North Carolina,” Watt said.
Obama Surges on Electability, Challenges Clinton on Leadership
ANALYSIS by GARY LANGER
April 16, 2008 —
Barack Obama has knocked down one of the three tent poles of Hillary Clinton's campaign for president, surging ahead of her as the candidate Democrats see as most likely to win in November. He's challenging her on leadership as well, leaving only experience as a clear Clinton advantage in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.
On the eve of their debate before the Pennsylvania primary next week, Democrats by a 2-1 margin, 62-31 percent, now see Obama as better able to win in November -- a dramatic turn from February, when Clinton held a scant 5-point edge on this measure, and more so from last fall, when she crushed her opponents on electability.
Confessions of an Elitist
by Sherman Yellen | from the Huffington PostI'm an unrepentant elitist. I must report that I even read the New York Review of Books and the London Times Literary Supplement. No kidding. I enjoy them. Not bragging, just confessing. I should have been out more playing in the fresh air when I was a kid. And most of all I deeply admire literacy and rationality in others. See, I have enough guts to start a sentence with an and? Only an elitist would do that. It's the confidence that allows us (or is it we?) elitists to toss out the rules and live by our own notion of what makes a good life or a good sentence. But what I don't have this week is patience with those who have come down hard on Barack Obama by calling him an elitist (read: snob) for making a clumsy but rational and compassionate statement about those people who cannot escape the crushing misfortune of unemployment with its debt and despair; a statement of concern for people who lack health care, and who are forced to live by the first rule of George Bush's America which states, "get rich quick or get out of sight and die quietly."
If you don't believe that small-town America is suffering from despair take a drive through some of those quaint old New England villages with their iconic white churches and their moribund Main Streets that were killed years ago by some massive Kmart mall a few miles away, a mall in which almost nothing is sold with a "made in the USA" label. It's hard to find a town without a storefront that carries the ubiquitous sign "Drug Rehab Center." It's a sign more frequently seen than "Fresh Apple Cider and Maple Syrup sold here." Small-town America is hurting. And when Obama pointed that out it was a humane judgment about the cramped and desperate lives of so many people who live far from the more prosperous cities and their opportunities. His rivals, Clinton and McCain, have tried to turn his somewhat awkward observation into a fatal political blunder. And they are doing a good job of it, word twisting is a highly competitive Olympic sport in which Republicans excel, but a gal like Hillary can easily compete. The rip snortin' gun totin', beer guzzlin' Hillary Hell Raiser, trained to shoot straight during her heroic counter-insurgency exploits in Bosnia, also knows best what the poor feel and need. Didn't she go to Wellesley College and take Miss Witherspoon's Compassion 101 course? This elitist charge about Obama has been picked up and treated with the usual intellectual shabbiness by a mainstream press, and its right wing pundits. The conservative press really wants us to believe that the world is made up of the caring rich (Bush, and McCain) and the happy poor, so that nobody does anything to alter the way things are.
John McCain -- no elitist he -- but a world class opportunist -- has picked up Hillary's song and is singing it loud for all the world to hear. He once did a lousy imitation of Barbra Streisand, but his attempt to impersonate Hillary is far better, he gets the scolding, self-congratulating tone just right. Listen to his new commercial which attacks Obama for his elitism, so filled with the glee of gotcha politics, with the bully boy chuckle scarcely concealed underneath. McCain, who succeeded in financing his ambitions by divorcing one wife and marrying upwards to his rich Cindy doesn't think that Obama has a clue about the white, rural poor. After all, how can a poor black kid ever know what poor white people feel? Hunger, fear, and desperation obviously have different DNA in black and white folks.
Yes, I've had my own problem with Obama's cool demeanor in the past but I see it now for what it is; the careful manner of a man who occasionally puts up a protective shield between himself and the world. And well he should. Let's cut to the chase, as they used to say in Hollywood. What the elite-mongers are actually doing is calling Obama an uppity ni**er and he knows it. What they are saying is "How dare this black man who was raised by a single mother on food stamps and managed to make his way through Harvard pass judgment on those poor whites who didn't have his good fortune in being born black and poor?" Why can't he be more like that decent Colin Powell who took his orders from Bush and spread his lies before the United Nations and then went home to choke on them? Or more like Condi who does a little tap dance with the truth every time she is called before Congress to testify about her egregious failures of judgment? That's the way decent black folks are supposed to behave in government these days.
If elitist means that you were against the Iraq war from the start because you were informed enough to see the horror ahead, then I am an elitist, as were so many in this country, particularly Barack Obama. For me being elitist means making intelligent judgments and rational distinctions and trying to understand the dilemma and the concerns of those who haven't gotten the breaks. Okay, I'm an elitist. But I'll sock anyone in the nose who dares to call me a snob.
Poll: Obama And Clinton Tied In PA
The Raleigh Chronicle | 16.APR.08PENNSYLVANIA - According to a North Carolina polling firm, a recent poll shows Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in a statistical dead heat in Pennsylvania.
"This race could go either way depending on how the campaign unfolds over the last week," says Public Policy Polling (PPP), a Raleigh polling firm about the race in the Keystone State.
The company has been fairly accurate in previous voting predictions.
PPP said that for third week in a row, Barack Obama leads the race with 45% of likely primary voters incdicating that they would vote for him, while Hillary Clinton was listed at 42%. With an error margin of +-3%, the race is now a statistical dead heat, says PPP. The polling firm said it conducted the most recent poll on Monday and Tuesday.
Recent controversial comments by Obama about the "bitterness" of small town voters did not seem to hurt him, said PPP.
"It seems more clear with each passing day that Hillary Clinton's efforts to hurt Barack Obama for his 'bitter' remarks are not working," said PPP in a released statement.
According to the polling firm, Obama seems to be maintaining his substantial lead in North Carolina as well.
"Earlier this week PPP showed Obama maintaining a 20 point lead in North Carolina," said the firm.
The Boss Backs Obama
Dear Friends and Fans: LIke most of you, I've been following the campaign and I have now seen and heard enough to know where I stand. Senator Obama, in my view, is head and shoulders above the rest.
He has the depth, the reflectiveness, and the resilience to be our next President. He speaks to the America I've envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that's interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit. A place where "...nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone."
At the moment, critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships. While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man's life and vision, so well described in his excellent book, Dreams of My Father, often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of our environment.
After the terrible damage done over the past eight years, a great American reclamation project needs to be undertaken. I believe that Senator Obama is the best candidate to lead that project and to lead us into the 21st Century with a renewed sense of moral purpose and of ourselves as Americans.
Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President.
Indiana Congressman and Superdelegate Endorses Obama
Carson Endorses Obama For PresidentDecision Adds To Obama Delegate Count
INDIANAPOLIS -- Indiana U.S. Rep. and Democratic superdelegate Andre Carson endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president on Wednesday. In a written statement, Carson said Obama "represents the kind of bold leadership and change that our country desperately needs." Carson is the first of Indiana's five U.S. House Democrats to announce support for a presidential candidate. Superdelegates could determine who gets the nomination in the tight race between Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Three More Key Pennsylvania Newspapers Endorse Obama!
Barack Obama: Democrats Deserve a Nominee for ChangeWednesday, April 16, 2008 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
On Tuesday, Pennsylvanians will have the unusual luxury of voting in a Democratic presidential primary that promises to be truly relevant. Like two opposing armies marching to a new Gettysburg, the forces of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton come to this latest battlefield symbolizing two views of America -- one of the past, one of the future. Pennsylvania Democrats need to rise to the historic moment.
For us it is the candidates' vision and character that loom as the decisive factors in this race. For as dissimilar as they are, the two share much in common. It starts with their mold-breaking candidacies. Whoever wins the nomination will vie for a special place in U.S. history -- to be either the first African-American or the first female commander in chief.
Although their backgrounds are different, they have come to the same conclusion, one now shared by many Americans, that the Bush administration has taken the nation on a profoundly wrong course both at home and abroad. The excitement that has animated this primary season -- the surge of new voters, the change of party registrations -- is an expression of the nation's hunger for change.
For as hard as they have run against each other, both candidates are united in running vehemently against President Bush and all his works -- another common theme that came out in their visits to the Post-Gazette editorial board on successive days this week. Sen. Clinton was the more explicit in her disdain: George W. Bush "is one of the worst, if not the worst, president we have ever had."
Not surprisingly, the policies they advocate have much in common and are generally the polar opposites of those espoused by the current administration.
On the domestic front, the prescriptions they offer on issues such as health care, the environment and education declare that government must be an agent of change to benefit the lives of ordinary Americans, not a power that shrinks from regulating or directing for fear of offending a core ideology.
In their expansive plans, Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton do have their own emphases and differences -- Sen. Clinton's health-care plan, for example, would cover more Americans than Sen. Obama's, but both would be a vast improvement on the status quo that leaves 47 million Americans uninsured and continues to soar in expense.
On foreign policy, both are united in their desire to bring the troops home from Iraq while improving the strategic situation in Afghanistan, the place of unfinished business where the al-Qaida spiders first spun their deadly web for 9/11 and are coming back thanks to the Iraq diversion.
On Iraq, for those inclined to remember, Sen. Clinton carries more baggage, for she voted to approve the war in the first place. For those inclined to forgive, she would seek to repair relations with allies strained by the Iraq misadventure, as Sen. Obama also would.
There is one last common ground for these candidates: They are both uncommonly smart, thoughtful and very well-versed in the issues. They care about people and they care about the workings of government. They are prepared.
Their strengths promise, in short, the one thing that the Bush administration has so shockingly lacked: competency. There will be no intellectually lazy president in the White House if either succeeded to it, no outsourced thinking to the vice president or the secretary of defense, no cheerfully shallow praise for unqualified political appointments, no enduring cause for embarrassment by the American people.
So forget all the primary skirmishing. Sen. Obama is every bit as prepared to answer the ring of the 3 a.m. phone as Sen. Clinton. Forget this idea that Sen. Obama is all inspiration and no substance. He has detailed positions on the major issues. When the occasion demands it, he can marshal eloquence in the service of making challenging arguments, which he did to great effect in his now-famous speech putting his pastor's remarks in the greater context of race relations in America.
Nor is he any sort of elitist. As he said yesterday in effectively refuting this ridiculous charge in a meeting with Post-Gazette editors, "my life's work has been to get everybody a fair shake."
This editorial began by observing that one candidate is of the past and one of the future. The litany of criticisms heaped on Sen. Obama by the Clinton camp, simultaneously doing the work of the Republicans, is as illustrative as anything of which one is which. These are the cynical responses of the old politics to the new.
Sen. Obama has captured much of the nation's imagination for a reason. He offers real change, a vision of an America that can move past not only racial tensions but also the political partisanship that has so bedeviled it.
To be sure, Sen. Clinton carries the aspirations of women in particular, but even in this she is something of a throwback, a woman whose identity and public position are indelibly linked to her husband, her own considerable talents notwithstanding. It does not help that the Clinton brand is seen by many in the country as suspect and shifty, bearing the grimy stamp of political calculation counting as much as principle.
Pennsylvania -- this encrusted, change-averse commonwealth where a state liquor monopoly holds on against all reason and where municipal fiefdoms shrink from sensible consolidation -- needs to take a strong look at the new face and the new hope in this race. Because political business-as-usual is more likely to bring the usual disappointment for the Democrats this fall, the Post-Gazette endorses the nomination of Barack Obama, who has brought an excitement and an electricity to American politics not seen since the days of John F. Kennedy.
Illinois Senator Projects Sense of Leadership the Nation NeedsAny election, almost by definition, is about the fu ture. That's true even as, all too often, the discussion gets bogged down in the past, the present and politics.
The next president will preside over the next four or eight years, a period that promises to be as transformative -- even as traumatic -- as any we've known in our history. There are forces in play, from economics to the environment, from terrorism to energy, that are beyond the capacity of any single individual, no matter how powerful, to control.
But make no mistake, whom America elects as its next president will make a big difference in how we as a nation engage the future and confront a long menu of challenges. Whom Democrats select as their nominee to face Republi can Sen. John McCain is critical in es tablishing the nature of the choice Amer icans will confront in the General Election. And how Pennsyl vania votes in the April 22 Democratic primary may well prove to be the decisive milestone in an exciting political contest between two exceptional candidates.
It is one of those strange, unpredictable flukes of politics that Pennsylvania even matters. Virtually everyone expected the contests in both parties to have been settled several weeks and primaries ago. That was not to be for the Democrats, and we in Pennsylvania are the richer -- and perhaps wiser -- for having Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama working their hearts out to win votes in their quest for the nation's highest office.We salute the efforts of both candidates and their success in energizing the electorate.
Amid the political sparing that has seemingly grown more testy as the campaign has gone on, it would be easy to lose sight of the fact that the positions of the two Democrats on most issues are quite similar. Much of the debate has been about nuance more than major substantive differences.
But there are differences, major differences reflected in style, attitude and personal history. These differences are seen most strikingly in Obama, who comes across as very much the candidate of the future, while Clinton comes across as the candidate of the past. Obama offers real change in the White House, while Clinton offers more of what Americans are tired of in Washington. Obama offers the prospect of cooperation, while Clinton offers the virtual certainty of more confrontation and political gridlock.
Clinton, as the first female candidate to have a serious chance to win the presidency, has her share of enthusiastic supporters. But Obama has managed to transcend politics in a way that has attracted interest and enthusiasm from people across the political spectrum. And perhaps most impressive of all, he has won over young people and brought them into the discussion on a scale that may be unprecedented. It is amazing how many adults have said it was their kids who got them to take a deeper look at the Illinois senator.
That is a hopeful development. But it also is instructive. Young people are the future. And they see and sense something in Obama that coincides with their hopes and aspirations for themselves and for the kind of world they want to live in.
Running in 1992, presidential candidate Bill Clinton was fond of referring to himself as "the candidate from Hope," a reference to his hometown in Arkansas. In Obama, the Democrats have "the candidate of hope," and their best prospect of running a competitive and uplifting campaign against McCain this fall.
The Patriot-News editorial board endorses Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Obama Inspires
We can't remember the last time a presidential election generated so much excitement. And by excitement we mean people who've been inspired to act, folks who've sat out past elections but have been driven to get involved this time.
And so we find ourselves part of that bunch.
While the Courier Times Editorial Board usually sits out primary elections, we're motivated to get involved this year and offer an endorsement.
One big reason is that Pennsylvania matters for a change. The state's late primary date has rendered its election results meaningless in most presidential election years. The races are usually decided by now. Not this year. This year we have an opportunity to make a difference.
While Sen. John McCain has emerged as the GOP standard-bearer, giving Republicans no choice on Election Day, the Democrats are still fighting it out — and fighting hard. Indeed, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have spent plenty of time in our state and each has made repeat visits to Bucks County, a telling gauge perhaps of how much the candidates value our county — and our votes.
Historic race
Another reason we chose to get involved is the historic nature of the Democratic race. For the first time a major political party will nominate either a woman or an African American as its presidential candidate. And neither would be a sacrificial lamb.
Both are strong candidates and talented individuals with accomplished records, clear leadership ability and thoughtful agendas speaking to their viability and readiness. And national polls strongly suggest that either candidate would pose a strong challenge to McCain; indeed, both appear to have the edge on the Republican at his early stage.
While we hate to oversimplify and characterize the Democrats as in agreement on the major issues, they do hold similar views. Both oppose the war in Iraq, for example, support some form of national health insurance, would end or reform No Child Left Behind and oppose the Bush tax cuts.
There are differences, of course. And we encourage readers to review our Voters Guide, which will arrive with Thursday's newspaper, for an issue-by-issue comparison.
While we believe the candidates' views on the issues are important — in fact, they provide the foundation for our recommendation today — we have been moved by other factors to offer a recommendation.
New perspective
Chief among them is motivation. Like many of you, we're excited. We've been inspired by candidates who not only promise change, but who embody change. By virtue of who they are they would, we believe, bring a new and refreshing perspective to the Oval Office. We also believe both candidates are committed to replacing the old politics of confrontation with a new era of cooperation — in Washington and around the world.
We look forward, as millions of Americans do, to that change.
But between these two agents of change, one stands out. Barack Obama inspires like no other candidate; indeed, like no other individual on the national stage. He has mobilized new voters and young people in general to get involved in the political process for the first time. And his themes of hope and change, which ring so authentic, have likewise invigorated many who otherwise might have sat out the election.
High character
Obama is intelligent, articulate and has demonstrated a strong ability to understand the issues. He's also shown character under fire. And he's run an incredibly savvy campaign for a first-time presidential candidate.
In fact, the professional way he's conducted his campaign and the deft organization he's put together, which has outmaneuvered Clinton, is impressive. We believe Obama would bring the same professionalism to the executive branch of government since he isn't tied into lobbyists and special interests.
Perhaps most importantly, Obama is more likely to get us out of Iraq since, unlike Clinton, he didn't vote for the war in the first place and has been a constant critic of the war. And, more so than Clinton, we believe he'd be successful in spearheading a diplomatic solution to the war by drawing friends and enemies into the discussions, something he has openly advocated. Finally, we believe Obama's gift for oratory would inspire unity in a nation that is now — and too often in the past has been — divided.
For these reasons we are inspired to endorse Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee for president.
