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.
Superbly and eloquently stated. No matter where you stood on the candidates up until now or how you felt about the issues our country and our next president will face, it would be difficult to arrive at any decision other than to elect Barack Obama president. Few men have been elected into such grave and complicated circumstances but few have possessed his unique qualities, of leadership, intellect and calm.
These worshipful comments praising this editorial are nauseating. Clearly someone put the word out to comment on this piece.
I am voting for Obama and came to that decision on my own. Despite the fact that I am in agreement with the PD on who should be president, I still find it insulting that you feel the need to tell your readers what to do because you don’t find them intelligent enough to make an informed decision based on FACTS and ACTUAL NEWS.
The future of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
At some point in the early years of the Obama era, in the new United Socialist States of America, the name of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is changed to the St. Louis Post-Capitalism.
The “platform” of the Post is shortened to a simpler, “Socialism is the answer. Obama is the way.”
There is no “Classified” section. Everybody works for the state.
Circulation of the Post-Capitalism triples that of the old St. Louis Post-Dispatch. It is now required reading, especially in the re-education camps. Even the English language edition is doing well.
The “Education” section is segmented by education levels. Grades K through Eight teach “Dreams of My Father.” Grades nine through twelve teach “The Audacity of Hope.” College level and advanced degrees are based upon more recent books on the life and times of Barack Obama.
The “Entertainment” section covers all of the films of Michael Moore and Oliver Stone, as well as executions of old regime Republicans.
Implementation of “The Fairness Doctrine” has eliminated conservative thought from all media, as decreed by the “Fairness Czar,” Al Franken. 97.1 Talk radio in St. Louis is off the air, replace by “Air Obama.” The “P-C” doesn’t have much competition from magazines. Conservative magazines, such as “The Weekly Standard” are gone. As a matter of fact, the only magazine now printed, is “O.”
Everybody loves the “Change” from the past and they “Hope” we never go back to the old ways. At least that’s way they say in public.
Abbreviated, but timely;
America’s Second Wake-Up Call!
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, October 10, 2008 4:20 PM PT
History is important to study… if you can trust the national media to not withhold key information they don’t want you to see or twist daily news to fit their agenda.
In the last 40 years, there have been nine major surveys of editors and reporters who work for national media. The most they ever voted Republican in a national election was 14%; the more common range has been 4% to 7%.
This is one reason why no matter who wins a political debate, the media almost en masse repeatedly tell you their man won. And most voters who don’t pay close attention will believe them. It’s called coordinated propaganda.
What were the most consistently repeated and strongly asserted slogans you’ve heard over the last few years? “We’re losing in Iraq . . . we must get out . . . it’s costing us $10 billion a month we could use here at home . . . we’re not any safer . . . the surge won’t work.”
A year ago, vice presidential candidate Joe Biden opined that we should get out of Iraq immediately and then divide it into three separate countries. This is the sound, seasoned judgment that’s supposed to compensate for running mate Barack Obama’s youth and complete lack of experience with the military or America’s security in a dangerous world!
Well, the surge in Iraq has worked, we are winning decisively and, as a result, now have a new democracy and strong ally in the Mideast. Meanwhile, seven years have passed since 9/11, and we still haven’t had another major terrorist attack on our soil.
Yet the media give no credit at all to President Bush, the only president to do something about the terrorist attacks that we had suffered repeatedly beginning in 1992.
With the economy slowing and a weak financial market created solely by our subprime mortgage mess, what do we keep hearing now from the media in hopes the majority will believe it and vote accordingly? “The mess is caused by eight years of failed Bush economic policies, including the tax cuts for the rich that should be rescinded.”
This is not the talk of a uniter of people, but rather a separator stirring up class warfare, envy and resentment. It’s a stirring-up of hate in an attempt to endlessly criticize, condemn, demean and destroy every opponent.
Do you know the real cause of the out-of-control subprime loan mess that’s creating so much fear and hurting every American? It’s not something the media or a certain political party wants you to find out. A picture is worth a thousand words, however, and we’ve made notes of key events on the chart above that you can follow as we give you some key facts.
In 1995, President Clinton mandated new regulations that coerced banks to make significantly more subprime loans to inner-city residents previously viewed as unqualified buyers in high-risk areas. Banks were rated on how well they complied and faced big fines if they didn’t do what government regulators wanted.
The government’s worst decision was allowing and encouraging banks, for the first time, to bundle these subprime loans in giant packages with prime loans. These packages were then sold to other investors as safe because they were government-sponsored by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
In short, this was yet another well-intended, Democrat-supported,government-designed and run program that failed miserably and had the usual unintended consequences.
A few more facts:
• April 2001: The Bush administration’s fiscal budget stated that the size of Fannie and Freddie was “potential problem because financial trouble of a large Government-Sponsored Enterprise could cause repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity.”
• September 2003: Treasury Secretary John Snow, in testimony to the House Financial Services Committee, recommended that Congress enact legislation to create new agency to regulate and supervise financial activities of housing-related government entities to set prudent and appropriate minimum capital requirements.
Rep. Frank, the committee’s ranking member, strongly disagreed, saying: “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis . . . . The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we’ll see in terms of affordable housing.”
• February 2004: The president’s new budget again highlighted risks of the explosive growth of these government enterprises and the then-low levels of required capital. It also called for the creation of a world class regulator. The administration determined that housing regulators of government agencies lacked the power and stature to meet their responsibilities and should be replaced with a strong new third regulator.
• April 2004: Rep. Frank ignored warnings, accusing the administration of creating an “artificial issue.” “People pay their mortgages,” he told a group of mortgage bankers. “I don’t think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren’t there.”
From 2004 to 2008 the Bush administration made 12 more attempts to get Congress to pass legislation to have safer, sounder regulatory oversight of Fannie and Freddie and capital rules. You can see them for yourself on the White House Web site. But here are a couple of examples that show how Democrats resisted:
• July 2005: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rejected legislation on reforming Fannie and Freddie. “While I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that would limit Americans from owning homes and harm our economy in the process,” he said.
• August 2007: Sen. Dodd, another Democrat, ignored President Bush’s emphatic calls for Congress to pass Fannie and Freddie reform legislation and called for him to immediately reconsider his ill-advised position.
Democrats have become a far-left propaganda party with the lowest-ranked Congress in history. For six years, they have consistently refused to rein in the monumentally risky subprime loans that Clinton Democrats gave birth to.
Yet, voters are blaming Republicans for this crisis and seem to think that a newcomer they know little about, despite his questionable past associates and mentors, can bring us more huge programs. These include one that would socialize the health care system at a time when government-run systems in Canada and Britain are lower in quality and nearly bankrupt.
Finally, history shows that since World War II, our best results-oriented presidents were Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan. They were much older — in their 60s and 70s — more experienced and made sounder, more productive decisions. The three youngest presidents — Kennedy, Carter and Clinton — all had more problems, particularly with national defense and dealing with dangerous dictators that were threats to America’s security.
I wonder how many of the letter writers sending these glowing reviews of your endorsement glanced just one page to the right and read Charles Krauthammer’s article, which stated that Obama’s past associations are fair game. Now, Mr Krauthammer leans to the right, but the left was very quick to use him as a respected source some two weeks ago when he questioned Sarah Palin’s credentials. The bottom line in Krauthammer’s piece is that, at a minimum, Obama was guilty of “tolerating the obscene” by attending and supporting Rev Wright’s church for years and associating with Bill Ayers. Many of the comments in these posts refer to McCain backers slamming Obama. Believe me, I am a conservative but not a McCain backer. In just the last two weeks he has betrayed us by voting for the bailout, with earmarks and then proposing 300 billion in mortgage buyout spending. It disgusts me that I have to vote for him. But this isn’t a time for a 3rd party protest vote. I feel I have to do everything I can to get McCain elected, only because it will stop Obama from running the country and the free world. In the back of your minds, does it occur to you that you may be inviting the fox into the chicken coop by electing this man? Isn’t there any suspicion that his views may actually be closer to Wright’s and Ayer’s than they are to patriotic Americans?
This must not have been an easy decision for the editors. However, after the reasons have been laid out, I can see how there’s no other choice. Most of my family members reached the same conclusion — the country could use a clean break from the direction we are now going. As much as my family would like to support a republican candidate, these are times that require us to step outside our political affiliations. An apt, prescient, and well-done editorial.
As columnist Michael Barone wrote:
“I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors,” Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. “I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.” Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people’s faces. They seem determined to shut people up. …
Obama fans jammed WGN’s phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest emails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Rosenberg’s example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.
Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Obama that were “false.” I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Obama’s ties to Ayers.
These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the “fairness doctrine” on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can’t abide having citizens hear contrary views.
Obama is hardly a socialist, communist, etc… He may have talked to/supported Bill Ayers at one time yes, but I’d rather have my future president flirting with some misguided hippies from the 60’s who did not kill a single soul except accidentally killing one of their own, then a president who in the past flirted with the Taliban, the Bin Laden family, and multiple right-wing christian organizations who are connected with different white power/homeland terrorist groups who believe that white people are the chosen race, the lost tribe of israel and this U.S. is “God’s chosen land” for us.
The commentator down there wondering about the symbolism in Barrack’s campaign logo? Are you implying that he’s a terrorist? Do you honestly think in this day and age of homeland security that he could exist in the senate with terrorist connections? Do you know how hard it is to get on a plane if you’re a non-anglo with a “foreign” last name…or worse yet, if you have a durag on, or a head wrap? It ain’t gonna happen. Do you really think that Barrack is a Muslim? His father isn’t Arabic, he’s from Kenya, his mom is from Kansas city. Of course Farrakhan said he a messiah and he’ll change the world, by saying this he makes sure that all his people that believe in him as a great minister will vote for him, yeah saying he’s a messiah, maybe a little over board. That’s just Louis’ praising a black man for president just like every other african leader in this country is doing… And the rising sun logo…it’s not even close to the crescent moon, it’s actually kind of the opposite huh?
And to the lady down there talking about abortion and how pro-abortion Obama is. You act like he wants to get your daughter knocked up just so he can personally come to your house and abort the baby. It’s kind of a weird thing to say, but did you know that when Ronnie Raygun banned a lot of types of abortion, the next generation saw a significant rise in crime and crime rights can directly be correlated between how legal or illegal abortion is in a given state….. Read the book Freakonomics, it’s not a politically bent book, it’s a book based on numbers in the economy, facts with no spin, so read it. Also are you pro-war right now? Then how is the killing of innocent children for a war that isn’t really about anything different if not even more un-civil than an abortion? Try and give me an answer I’ve yet one person to satisfy me with a decent answer, besides I’m christian……yeah, well Christians are not warriors, maybe if you believe in the god of the old testament, yeah I get it, but not if you believe Jesus was sent here by God to teach us how to live, so please, start turning the other cheek huh? All you people talking about “bomb Obama” and “he’s gonna have us all killed” and “he’s a terrorist”….
Given the fact that psychotic Democrat hostility toward George W. Bush started eight years ago and has only gotten worse since, given the fact that the Past-Disgust and the rest of the mainstream media has been at the beck and call of the Democrats all during that time and given the fact that the MSM has been Obama’s bitches ever since the start of the campaign, should Obama actually win, he will get no support from me at all. In fact, I will pray that he fails as miserably as he probably will regardless of what it does to me or to the rest of the country.