Wednesday editorial: An end…and a beginning
And so it ends, with a soaring call for change from the first African-American ever chosen as his party’s presumptive presidential nominee, and with a not-quite-concession speech from the candidate who almost became the first woman to claim that honor.
And so it begins, with a call for the “right kind of change” and persistence in Iraq from Republican John McCain of Arizona, who now knows that Barack Hussein Obama of Illinois and not Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York will be his opponent in November.
On this historic night, the prologue ended. The race for president now is joined. It took until June 3, until South Dakota and Montana, of all places, the last two states to hold primaries. But on Tuesday, Mr. Obama, 46, four years out of the Illinois state senate, claimed enough delegates to pull him past the 2,118 he will need for nomination at Democratic convention in Denver on Aug. 27.
Mr. Obama, speaking at the arena in St. Paul, Minn., where Mr. McCain will be nominated in September, said nice things about Mrs. Clinton, who dogged him sharply during the campaign. He said nothing about the vice presidency (possibly the only person in America who hasn’t) but did say that “when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country — and we will win that fight — she will be central to that victory.”
Meanwhile, in New Orleans, Mr. McCain, unwilling to concede the news cycle to the Democrats, unveiled a new grinning-and-smiling stump style in suburban New Orleans. “No matter who wins this election, the direction of this country is going to change dramatically,” Mr. McCain said, pausing to grin as if prompted by his speech text. “But the choice is between the right change and the wrong change, between going forward and going backward.”
Mr. Obama gave it right back, “There are many words to describe John McCain’s attempt to pass off his embrace of George Bush’s policies as bipartisan and new. But change is not one of them.”
Indeed, Mr. Obama’s eloquence in claiming his victory must have given pause to Mr. McCain and his strategists: “If we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.”
The night belonged to the victors, but Mrs. Clinton served notice that she won’t go away entirely graciously. Echoing Mary Martin in the long-ago TV version of “Peter Pan,” who urged children to clap if they wanted Tinker Bell to live, Mrs. Clinton urged her supporters to visit her website to tell her what they wanted to do.
It was typical of her cynical end game, reminding us of what bothered us about her candidacy from the beginning: the coyness, the parsing of political language, the sense of entitlement, the never-ending “triangulation” between tough issues.
It wasn’t that she refused to concede the field to Mr. Obama after the delegate math became obvious; she had that right. Rather, it was her desperate willingness to pander, to abandon principle in pursuit of political gain.
And then there was Bill. Always, there was Bill. The former president possesses an unmatched set of political skills, but also an unmatched collection of personal and political baggage. From playing the race card in South Carolina to his final days “scumbag” remark on a rope line in South Dakota, he brought on wave after wave of Clinton fatigue.
Ultimately, though, Mrs. Clinton, the first serious female candidate, lost the nomination the same way generations of serious male candidates have lost it: She was out-strategized, out-organized and out-worked. In that, in having made it OK for a woman to run for president, she made it OK for a woman to lose.
There were a few ugly incidents of sexism along the way, but her sex wasn’t the reason she lost the race. She emphasized her experience, underestimating the urgency in the Democratic electorate for change. Mr. Obama capitalized on that urgency in Iowa and rode it to a series of victories — including one in Missouri and another in his home state — on Super Tuesday on Feb. 5.
Mr. Obama’s staff had a better grasp of the arcane party rules in the primary and caucus states. The Clinton campaign didn’t make large mistakes — the “misstatements” about sniper fire in Bosnia and Robert Kennedy’s assassination came close — but a series of small miscalculations that allowed Mr. Obama to roll up his delegate lead.
She tried everything to overcome it. Let’s re-do Michigan and Florida, she said. Let’s let the super-delegates decide it, she said. Let’s focus on the swing states and the popular vote, she said, and she repeated it Tuesday night: “We won the swing states necessary to get to 270 electoral votes!”
Their race energized the Democratic Party, bringing out record numbers of voters and introducing a new generation to politics. We can only hope Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain do as well.
“Indeed, Mr. Obama’s eloquence in claiming his victory must have given pause to Mr. McCain and his strategists: “If we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.”
The Editorial Board has been caught in mid swoon. With palms pressed together beside their left leaning cheeks, the audible sighs of frenzied, pre-pubescent true love are expressed for their very own rock star. It must be the showy lighting.
First. Univeral health care for all…and Hellary will have a big par of it. Haven’t the Bemocrats been down that path before? As I remember, Hellary made a fool out of herself and the Democcratic Party.
If Hussein Obama hitches his wagon to a fa11ing Star, Hellary, he will wish he hadn’t.
A bad idea expressed eloquently is still a bad idea.
Why doesn’t the PD just have the courage to endorse Obama now. So much for impartial reporting. And way to stick that Iraq reference next to McCain, like the majority of congress in this country didn’t vote for this mistake of a war. And why is it that McCain now is nothing more than a surrogate of W? It wasn’t long ago editorial pages like the PD were calling him a “maverick” because he didn’t vote for W in lockstep — see tax cuts, which by the way have produced record income for the IRS.
And what do you think would have happened if McCain was associated with a church like Obama is/was — yes he quit, but a 20 year relationship can’t be forgotten overnight. The PD would be calling for his head on a platter.
It’s okay that the PD is left-of-center, but the lack of courage the editorial board shows by not endorsing Obama now — and pretending to hold off on a decision until later this year — is an example of why revenues and circulation are trending down. Call it the evil market forces at work.
Congratulations to the PD editorial page for avoiding the elephant in the room and not mentioning Obama’s not disowning Black Liberation Theology. I suggest readers check this out: http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66167
The really sad part of all of this is that Obama may actually set back race relations in this country and the real possiblity of an African America such as Michael Steele or Ken Blackwell ever becoming POTUS in my lifetime because of the Obamas’ dubious associations ignored by the media. He will most likely win in November regardless of any of this along with Democrat control of the Congress. I predict his presidency will be the end of the Democrat Party for a very long time because the White House will be taken over by the far-left loons and the Nation of Islam. People can only bury their heads for so long.
The PD is correct about one thing, however, that Mrs. Clinton didn’t lose just because she is a woman, it was because she is a Clinton. But, of course, they also forgot to mention that Obama wallowed in the full backing of the media.
Hillary’s campaign didn’t make large mistakes? Are you serious???
How about positioning her as “the experience candidate” in a change-driven election? How about failing to grasp the importance of competing seriously in EVERY state - including the caucus states? How about arrogantly assuming they would have the nomination sewn up by Super Tuesday - with absolutely no Plan B in case it didn’t go down that way? How about failing to grasp the enormous fundraising and organizing potential of the Internet?
Didn’t make large mistakes? Huh???
We can talk about Obama and McCain all we want but the question is, where is all the money going to come from to support change?
The census bureau reported on April 24 that in 2006 the federal governmentspent$2.45 trillion domestically a 7.5% increase.
The biggest entitlements, social security, medicare and medicaid accounted for 1.16 trillion. The one year increase for the three programs was nearly$170 for every person living in the US.
Financially I don’t see much difference between the candidates, both appear anxious to open the financial spigots without telling anyone where the money is coming from.
Without raining on mr Obamas parade lets look at his heavy supporters during the campaign. The young people will be hit heavy with payroll taxes and inflation. The blacks will benefit from expanding government programs and the intelligentsia will celibrate the decline of america.
It is time for the country to have a third party led by individuals who will tell americans not what they want to hear from an emotional perspective but what we can afford while still offering a chance to live the american dream.
It is nice to se that Karl Rove’s talking points are finally out in the open — even if every one of them is a blatant lie.
But this is the strategy isn’t, repeat the lies frequently with passion and outrage and quite possibly they will overwhelm the truth.
Go fear-mongerers.
Now for those who haven’t completely lost their sense of what constitutes a fact try this on for size:
1. Nowhere, except in the minds of Karl Roves/Roger Ailes lackeys, is there any connection between Senator Barack Obama and the Nation of Islam. In fact he has rejected any such connection.
I realize for some, if someone from the Nation of Islam happen to be a supporter of Senator Obama, then that is all the proof they need. However, does it also hold true then that if Senator McCain has a supporter who also belongs to the KKK and the Neo-Nazis that he also must belong to them?
2. Taxes are what you owe in addition to service to your country so that your contry can survive. The shape and amount of that in this country is determined, not by the Executive Branch, but by Congress. It’s in the Constitution, read up on it.
So, while letter to the President might give you pleasure, make sure you go after your local Congressman/woman, they are the one’s who have that responsiblity. Of course you migh be trampled by all of the “Avenue K” lobbyists who have grown so powerful over the past 7 years.
3. Lastly, my pet peeve is the use of perjorative names, “Hellary”, “McBush”, “Obamamessiah”, etc.
Senators Clinton and McCain represent the last of the generation that came of age during VietNam. They also represent those who lived through the Civil Rights struggles and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. In other words, my generation. While I might disagree with them, I respect them.
Senator Obama was born towards the end of these struggles and grew up in a world that had changed because of them. His assumptions are different in many respects because of these changes. His generation is the one poised to take over from this point forward. Her is from my children’s generation.
This coming election will be as much about this generational shift as it will be about the issues. It is my fervent hope that these three people can help maintain their personal integrity during this process and put the cheap shot artists on the back burner. (I know this may be unrealistic, but I can dream, can’t I.)
Oops, missed the “typo”, “her is” instead of “he is”. No, there is not any hidden desire in that, just sloppy typing.
Obama seems like a nice person, but America’s in deep trouble if he’s the best we can find for the presidency. If he wins, he won’t be running the country anyway. it will still be the likes of Pelosi, Schumer, Kennedy and Feinstein. God help us.