Sunday editorial: Barack Obama for president

Post-Dispatch photo by Robert Cohen
Nine Days before the Feb. 5 presidential primaries in Missouri and Illinois, this editorial page endorsed Barack Obama and John McCain in their respective races.
We did so enthusiastically. We wrote that either Mr. Obama’s message of hope or Mr. McCain’s independence and integrity offered America “the chance to turn the page on 28 years of contentious, greed-driven politics and move into a new era of possibility.”
Over the past nine months, Mr. Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, has emerged as the only truly transformative candidate in the race. In the crucible that is a presidential campaign, his intellect, his temperament and equanimity under pressure consistently have been impressive. He has surrounded himself with smart, capable advisers who have helped him refine thorough, nuanced policy positions.
In a word, Mr. Obama has been presidential.
Meanwhile, Mr. McCain, the senior senator from Arizona, became the incredible shrinking man. He shrank from his principled stands in favor of a humane immigration policy. He shrank from his universal condemnation of torture and his condemnation of the politics of smear.
He even shrank from his own campaign slogan, “Country First,” by selecting the least qualified running mate since the Swedenborgian shipbuilder Arthur Sewall ran as William Jennings Bryan’s No. 2 in 1896.
In making political endorsements, this editorial page is guided first by the principles espoused by Joseph Pulitzer in The Post-Dispatch Platform printed daily at the top of this page. Then we consider questions of character, life experience and intellect, as well as specific policy and issue positions. Each member of the editorial board weighs in.
On all counts, the consensus was clear: Barack Obama of Illinois should be the next president of the United States.
We didn’t know nine months ago that before Election Day, America would face its greatest economic challenge since the Great Depression. The crisis on Wall Street is devastating, but it has offered voters a useful preview of how the two presidential candidates would respond to a crisis.
Very early on, Mr. Obama reached out to his impressive corps of economic advisers and developed a comprehensive set of recommendations for addressing the problems. He set them forth calmly and explained them carefully.
Mr. McCain, a longtime critic of government regulation, was late to recognize the threat. The chief economic adviser of his campaign initially was former Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, who had been one of the architects of banking deregulation. When the credit markets imploded, Mr. McCain lurched from one ineffectual grandstand play to another. He squandered the one clear advantage he had over Mr. Obama: experience.
Mr. McCain first was elected to Congress in 1982 when Mr. Obama was in his senior year at Columbia University. Yet the younger man’s intellectual curiosity and capacity — and, yes, also the skills he developed as a community organizer and his instincts as a political conciliator — more than compensate for his lack of more traditional Washington experience.
A presidency is defined less by what happens in the Oval Office than by what is done by the more than 3,000 men and women the president appoints to government office. Only 600 of them are subject to Senate approval. The rest serve at the pleasure of the president.
We have little doubt that Mr. Obama’s appointees would bring a level of competence, compassion and intellectual achievement to the executive branch that hasn’t been seen since the New Frontier. He has energized a new generation of Americans who would put the concept of service back in “public service.”
Consider that while Mr. McCain selected as his running mate Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, a callow and shrill partisan, Mr. Obama selected Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware. Mr. Biden’s 35-year Senate career has given him encyclopedic expertise on legislative and judicial issues, as well as foreign affairs.
The idea that 3,000 bright, dedicated and accomplished Americans would be joining the Obama administration to serve the public — as opposed to padding their resumés or shilling for the corporate interests they’re sworn to oversee — is reassuring. That they would be serving a president who actually would listen to them is staggering.
And the fact that Mr. Obama can explain his thoughts and policies in language that can instruct and inspire is exciting. Eloquence isn’t everything in a president, but it is not nothing, either.
Experience aside, the 25-year difference in the ages of Mr. McCain, 72, and Mr. Obama, 47, is important largely because Mr. Obama’s election would represent a generational shift. He would be the first chief executive in more than six decades whose worldview was not formed, at least in part, by the Cold War or Vietnam.
He sees the complicated world as it is today, not as a binary division between us and them, but as a kaleidoscope of shifting alliances and interests. As he often notes, he is the son of a Kenyan father and a mother from Kansas, an internationalist who yet acknowledges that America is the only nation in the world in which someone of his distinctly modest background could rise as far as his talent, intellect and hard work would take him.
Given the damage that has been done to America’s moral standing in the world in the last eight years — by a preemptory war, a unilateralist foreign policy and by policies that have treated both the Geneva Conventions and our own Bill of Rights as optional — Mr. Obama’s election would help America reclaim the moral high ground.
It also must be said that Mr. Obama is right on the issues. He was right on the war in Iraq. He is right that all Americans deserve access to health care and right in his pragmatic approach to meeting that goal. He is right on tax policy, infrastructure investment, energy policy and environmental issues. He is right on American ideals.
He was right when he said in his remarkable speech in March in Philadelphia that “In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand: that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.”
John McCain has served his country well, but in the end, he may have wanted the presidency a little too much, so much that he has sacrificed some of the principles that made him a heroic figure in war and in peace. In every way possible, he has earned the right to retire.
Finally, only at this late point do we note that Barack Obama is an African-American. Because of who he is and how he has run his campaign, that fact has become almost incidental to most Americans. Instead, his countrymen are weighing his talents, his values and his beliefs, judging him not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character.
That says something profound and good — about him as a candidate and about us as a nation.


Who is this Farrakahn? And why is it important what he thinks? Why should I base my choice of a President on this person’s views?
All those who oppose this editorial endorsement seem to justify their opposition based on what Farrakahn thinks. Was there something in the endorsement that justifies this? Unless there’s a reasoned, logically cogent counter proposal, I don’t see how one could argue with the editors’ endorsement.
I wish more newspapers gave such clear justifications.
Thank you for such a well-written editorial. Our household decided after the VA primary(in which we voted for Clinton) that Obama is the best choice for these times.
i would like to comment on this article….very well written. i have so many friends that are republican but are voting democratic this year..senator obama has ran a fair campaign while john mccain and his buddy..sarah palin have ran a very dishonest and cruel unamerican race. we must all come together at this time as americans and get to the voting polls and bring barack obama to the white house. joelene smith
Beautiful article. Thank You. You have brought peace to our hearts.
Apparently reformers like Sarah Palin make enemies in both parties. Powerful Republicans in Alaska must be very mad at Sarah for the Troopergate report to come out three weeks before the election. Really, there isn’t much to it. The Palins tried to get a cop fired who had threatened their family and went overboard. No financial gain was involved.
http://www.adn.com/troopergate/story/552799.html
The Obama campaign needs to withdraw the call for posts praising this editorial as well-written. Sure, it’s written just fine. But this is getting out of hand.
experience is worthless without intellect and sound judgement.. McCain has neither of these…. he is a gambler and quick to anger, makes snap decisions without due consideration… he choice of VP is very indicative of what kind of president he would make. Poor…. Frankly WE are in too much trouble for me to endorse someone whos first consideration is and always has been war.. we need help right in the the USA, and we need someone who will make wise and considered decisions… that person CLEARLY is Obama….
We as a group- would like to make a rather forceful comment. So please forgive the rather rude comment.
AYERS - WHY ISN’T EVERYONE WHO POSTS HERE ABOUT THIS GUTTER SMEAR RUN BY MCCAIN - OBAMA WAS ONLY EIGHT YEARS OLD - 8 repeat 8 years old when Ayers was up to something horrible. Please everyone - educate those that do not read.
Can McCain say he was eight - 8 years old when the Keating Five Scandal surfaced - How about his close association with 157 Lobbyists - How about Liddy - who is a very close friend of McCains. What about the Troops who he voted AGAINST 26 times. Poor Senator McCain has totally destroyed every bit of honour he might of had - No Judgement at all. Let us just hear about their platforms. I haven’t heard a complete one from the Rpublicans. Also Note. Palin does not have any deal with Canada for any Pipeline! She simply gave millions to Canadian Pipeline who has not got any government approval. Not a hope ms. palin.
I believe it is safe to say that the “elephant (or more likely “donkey”) in the room, is that this space is more populated with those in agreement with the editorial than those who disagree with it, not because there ARE more people who agree with it, but because this editorial, for the most part is preaching to its target audience choir.
Much of the derision aimed at the “Post-Disgrace” is from conservatives who do not feel that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is not a newspaper for the St. Louis region. It is a newspaper for the St. Louis region’s liberal Democrats. That would be fine if the paper was labeled the St. Louis Democrat, but it is not. It is simply our only major newspaper.
As a conservative, I can’t even have a discussion with most of my like-minded friends about something in the Post, because most of them stopped reading it, long ago. The problem isn’t necessarily that they disagree with the news that is IN the paper, it is that they don’t see the news IN the paper that they have to get elsewhere. It is astounding that a newspaper that carries the proclaimed “Platform” that it will “never belong to any party” ALWAYS belongs to one party. Today’s edition makes this clear. “Barack Obama for president,” is the headline of the editorial. Is there ANYBODY in St. Louis that is surprised? Most of us would have place bets on you endorsing the Democratic nominee four years ago! Basically, you have spent four years, writing this editorial! The Matson cartoon adds to the expected liberal position of the Post. The selection of “Your Views” letters to the editor, reinforces the editorial
The headlines of the articles within the Post come as further reinforcements to the editorial. Republicans are often accused of drumming up votes by instilling “fear” in the populace. Today’s headline below the fold is “FEAR. Worrying about the economy is MAKING THINGS WORSE.” Other headlines include;
“Tim Robbins gets star on Walk of Fame.”
“Did Palin promote religion on state’s dime?”
“Obama gives rival nod, lets optimism show.”
“McCain halts attacks, focuses on policy issues.”
“Todd Palin applied pressure, report says.”
“U.S. influence is declining in Latin America.”
“Worrying about economy makes things worse.”
“Democrats may call back Congress after election.”
This breathless Obama ad, disguised as a story for this headline is that “After consulting with Barack Obama, Democratic leaders are likely to call Congress back to work after the election in hopes of passing legislation that would include extended jobless benefits, money for food stamps and perhaps a tax rebate, officials said Saturday. The bill’s cost could reach $150 billion, these officials said.”
Of course, the issue isn’t simply what the Post DOES say. It is also what it DOESN’T say. In an article last week, the Post did a hit piece on Kit Bond, noting that he ranked 8th in receiving donations from Fannie and Freddie. While it did note that Senator Dodd was #1, it failed to mention that #2 was Barack Obama.
A conservative reader knows that the Post-Dispatch is not going to cover many of the issues about Barack Obama that are of concern to them. We know that you will fully cover his associations with William Ayers, or his radical views on partial birth abortion, or a “post-birth fetus.” We know that you will not allow his Marxist, socialist past to be fully explored, but that’s O.K. We have other places to get that information now.
Meanwhile, your readership keeps going down.
Thank you for the great article. I find it interesting that Americans are very quick to call those of us who are Democrats socialist or even communist. I thought this name calling died in the 60’s. I guess I was wrong. Too bad.