Boston Globe and LA Times Backed Obama as President

Boston Globe and LA Times Backed Obama as President

 

Read here

The Boston Globe and Los Angeles Times today added to the weight of newspaper opinion favoring Barack Obama.

As of Monday, Obama led in newspaper endorsements 28-11, according to a count by Editor & Publisher magazine

The Globe endorsed the Democrat "with great enthusiasm."

"The charismatic Democrat from Illinois has the ability to channel Americans' hopes and rally the public together, at a time when the winds are picking up and the clouds keep on darkening."

"Unlike many of his rivals this year of either party, Obama isn't refighting the political or cultural battles of the 1960s. Instead, he is asking Americans to take responsibility for the nation's problems now; no one else will take care of them, and the consequences of years of disunity and profligacy should not be visited upon future generations," the editorial continues.

An accompanying editorial expressed profound disappointment in Republican John McCain, whom the Globe endorsed before the New Hampshire GOP primary way back in January:

"We didn't count on the other John McCain - the one who showed up for the general election. Whether in thrall to his handlers or his own ambition, McCain has abandoned respectful discussion of differences for a trough of pandering and invective."

The Times editorial focused on the country's divisions.

"The task of repairing those divisions will fall to one of two men -- or, rather, to one of two tickets. And the question for those who care about such things thus becomes: Will Barack Obama and Joe Biden do more to reconstruct a culture of mutual regard, or will John McCain and Sarah Palin fare better?" the editorial says.

"As is often the case in this election, Obama has a more promising but more limited record. His message is one of unity, and his own life provides evidence that he means it. He is physical testament to the bridging of our ethnic divides, and he gracefully calls on America to heal its wounds.

"On the question of who will best bind up this torn nation, we are far more troubled by what we know about McCain than what we don't know about Obama. It is proper to admire McCain's service to his nation -- as a military man and as a senator -- and he deserves our respect. On the question of who best can reunite us, however, we cannot put our faith in a man who has done so much to drive us apart."

The Editorials:

The Boston-Globe

COME JANUARY, a new president will take charge of a nation diminished, an America that is far shakier economically, less secure militarily, and less respected internationally than it was eight years before.

The nation needs a chief executive who has the temperament and the nerves to shepherd Americans through what promises to be a grueling period - and who has the vision to restore this country to its place of leadership in the world.

Unlike many of his rivals this year of either party, Obama isn't refighting the political or cultural battles of the 1960s. Instead, he is asking Americans to take responsibility for the nation's problems now; no one else will take care of them, and the consequences of years of disunity and profligacy should not be visited upon future generations.

Obama shows great faith in the possibility of persuasion overseas and in the ingenuity of the American economy. While intransigent rogue states can't be finger-wagged into giving up on nuclear weapons, perhaps they can be talked back from the brink. As fossil fuels become scarcer, and the ecological damage more evident, Americans can put up windmills and solar panels and drive more efficient cars.

Encouragingly, Obama has assembled an impressive economic team that understands both the power of the market and the need to discourage recklessness and promote social equity. He would broaden access to health insurance, using a mechanism akin to this state's Commonwealth Connector. And he offers a tax plan that, in offering modest cuts to most taxpayers and taking back some past cuts for the highest earners, acknowledges the widening gap between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else.

The question, of course, is whether Obama can make good on his promises under the circumstances. For George W. Bush will leave a woeful legacy.

The Iraq war, which was sold to Congress and the public on false pretenses, continues to consume billions upon billions of dollars, even as many of the plotters of Sept. 11 are still at large. In his efforts to cultivate democracy abroad, Bush has hacked away at its roots here: due process, the separation of powers, the conviction that there are some things that government must not do. Waterboarding and secret prisons abroad, warrantless wiretapping at home - these acts belie America's image of forthrightness, the nation's greatest asset in world affairs.

Meanwhile, as the planet gets warmer, its top energy consumer has no plan to wean itself from fossil fuels. Healthcare costs are strangling businesses. Real wages have declined for the average worker, even as the cost of food and fuel has skyrocketed. Vague unease about the economy has turned into outright fear as the financial system sank into quicksand and 500-point-plus plunges on the stock market have become a near-daily occurrence.

Obama's opponent, Senator John McCain, would try to solve all these problems by going back to the same Republican set of tools: tough talk abroad, tax cuts for the richest at home.

In contrast, Obama's presidency would benefit from the Illinois senator's formidable political gifts.

A graduate of Harvard Law School and a former community organizer on Chicago's South Side, Obama debuted on the national political scene with a dazzling speech at the Democratic National Convention four years ago. Since then, every word of his books and his speeches has been closely parsed.

Evident from all that scrutiny is a nimble mind, an ever more impressive grasp of policy detail, and an ability to listen to contradictory viewpoints. Obama is clearly a liberal. But when he led the Harvard Law Review, he won praise from conservative thinkers because he genuinely wanted to hear what they had to say.

Obama is hardly immune to political calculation. Though he has positioned himself as a supporter of campaign finance reform, he backed out of the public financing system after his ability to raise jaw-dropping sums over the Internet became apparent. In the general election campaign, he has been slow to admit how much the financial crisis would limit his policy options come January.

Even so, the way Obama has run his campaign has been a marvel of sound management: He laid down principles, put the right people in positions of authority, and spent money strategically.

And he has shown a remarkable steadiness. Whether he was far behind Hillary Clinton before the Iowa caucuses or on the verge of locking up the Democratic nomination, whether he was leading or trailing McCain in the general election contest, Obama made the same forward-looking appeal to voters' best instincts.

As the first black major-party presidential nominee, Obama has strived to make voters comfortable with a "skinny kid with a funny name." And yet the historical significance of his bid is impossible to ignore.

Voters can make no more powerful statement about America's commitment to inclusion and opportunity than to put forward this man - Barack Hussein Obama, son of a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas - as the nation's representative to the world.

An early Obama campaign slogan declared, "We are the ones we've been waiting for." His critics deemed such rhetoric too ethereal.

Now it seems prescient, as the nation confronts a financial crisis of historic proportions, as well as all the other policy failures and debt-fueled excesses of the last eight years.

The United States has to dig itself out. Barack Obama is the one to lead the way.

THE LOS ANGELES TIMES

It is America's great fortune that it fell to Abraham Lincoln to articulate the nation's need for healing after the Civil War. Lincoln gave us our exemplar of principled conciliation, most movingly and memorably expressed in his second inaugural address, properly regarded as among the most important speeches in our history. "Let us strive on to finish the work we are in," Lincoln implored, "to bind up the nation's wounds."

The divisions in our country today are less pronounced than those Lincoln confronted, but they are significant. No longer sectional or blood-soaked, they nevertheless are ideological, partisan and cultural. They reflect an often bitter and surly populace. We encounter that anger in the mean-spirited anonymity of the Internet and the decline in civility in our everyday lives. We reel from it in displays as shocking as the cry from the crowd at a campaign rally demanding the death of a political opponent.

Position papers for the next president.The task of repairing those divisions will fall to one of two men -- or, rather, to one of two tickets.

And the question for those who care about such things thus becomes:

Will Barack Obama and Joe Biden do more to reconstruct a culture of mutual regard, or will John McCain and Sarah Palin fare better?

As is often the case in this election, Obama has a more promising but more limited record. His message is one of unity, and his own life provides evidence that he means it. He is physical testament to the bridging of our ethnic divides, and he gracefully calls on America to heal its wounds.

Addressing the persistent power of race to separate us, he said last spring: "To simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding."

As a young politician in Illinois, Obama won admirers among both Democrats and Republicans, whites and blacks.

His agenda today is far more Democratic than Republican, but he does NOT demonize his opponents.

Even as he has challenged McCain's judgment -- for supporting the war in Iraq or joking about bombing Iran -- he has praised his military service and bravery. "For that," he said in his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, "we owe him our gratitude and respect."

Indeed, it says something troubling about our society that Obama has been widely criticized by Democrats for acknowledging that he occasionally agrees with his opponent.

For McCain, the record is almost exactly the opposite.

He has genuine credentials in bipartisanship. He supported campaign finance reform when his party leaders disparaged it. He defied his party's president in considering whether the United States had any business sanctioning torture. And he broke with the more extreme elements of Republican populism in supporting comprehensive immigration reform. Those positions helped earn him the "maverick" label now central to his candidacy. We have commended him for them.

The problem is that while McCain is still trumpeting those positions, he has abandoned them.

He denounced torture as a senator but equivocated as a candidate, refusing to support legislation that would hold the CIA to the same interrogation guidelines used by the U.S. military. He sponsored immigration reform as a senator, then announced as a candidate that he would no longer support his own bill.

He has studiously avoided eye contact with Obama during their debates, and at one point referred to him not by name but merely as "that one." Whatever else one reads into that remark, it cannot be regarded as respectful.

Political expediency is no substitute for leadership. Certainly, it's not the mark of a maverick.

Then there are the candidates for vice president.

For his choice of running mate, Obama selected a verbose and malapropistic congressional colleague who sometimes trips over himself trying to make a point. And yet Biden is a veteran member of the Senate, respected by both parties. He is honest, steady and a proven leader steeped in foreign affairs. It is terrible to imagine the need for a vice president to step up to the presidency in an emergency, but it is comforting to know that Biden could do so.

By contrast, McCain's choice was cynical and undercuts his own claims to moderation, as even McCain seems to know. Time and again in the second debate, he cited his friendship and cooperation with Sen. Joe Lieberman, the former Democrat who now straddles the parties as an Independent.

But McCain sought to extract advantage from that association even though he passed over Lieberman in favor of Palin.

With that decision, McCain rejected a bipartisan political veteran in favor of an unqualified neophyte -- one prone to divisive rhetoric -- in order to placate his party's right wing.

Palin brought us "drill, baby, drill," this year's polarizing and vulgar bit of political speech. McCain then unleashed Palin to tear down Obama, and she responded by suggesting that Obama liked to "pal around" with terrorists.

Palin's boast that "the heels are on, the gloves are off" is just too embarrassing to warrant response.

McCain since has tried to cool off his supporters, but he lit this fire -- he and no one else is responsible for those who shriek at Palin's rallies, who proclaim that Obama is an Arab and who wish him harm.

This campaign is more crass and more virulent because McCain made it so. That Palin has ended up alienating not only moderates but also conservatives is this race's enduring irony.

On the question of who will best bind up this torn nation, we are far more troubled by what we know about McCain than what we don't know about Obama.

It is proper to admire McCain's service to his nation -- as a military man and as a senator -- and he deserves our respect. On the question of who best can reunite us, however, we CANNOT put our faith in a man who has done so much to drive us APART.

  Go to Latest Posting

---

Comments 1

---