Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
10.10.2008 9:00 pm

Sunday editorial: Barack Obama for president

  • Email this
  • Print this
Post-Dispatch photo by Robert Cohen

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.

199 comments

Comments are closed.

The world is watching this election very closely. They have already weighted in to state that they (the entire world) prefers Barack Obama to become the next President, according to all polls done on the question in just about every country.

And although Americans are generally ornery about outside countries having anything to say about our elections, this is one time that Americans may just want to listen up, as our very economic survival may depend on it.

It is a fact that there is a real lack of confidence in the American Financial Markets, and due to it, the world’s financial systems are collapsing. The world is looking towards the United States to see if we will have the guts to elect an innovative leader with eyes toward the future, or a limited older mindset with eyes towards the past.

Electing John McCain would send a signal to the global community that the United States of America is out to lunch. That the United States is too bigoted to move forward into the future. This is a message that would end up in a vote of Non confidence against the United States and all that it stands for, including its financial markets.

The awful truth is that electing John McCain as president would finish the United States as a world power….because as it has been said by many sources; a country that loses its economic might cannot maintain its military might. What Electing John McCain would result in is not an imaginative theory; it is a glimpse into a future that the world does not want to see, and the reasons are very real.

— Catherine Mc.
12:19 pm October 11th, 2008

Youngharry,

You do not see the hand writing in the walls.

When you wake up of your ‘change’ dream you will find yourself where you would not want to be.

Would you associate with somebody that curse your country like Rev. Wright did?

Would you associate with somebody who bombed your house and is unrepentant like Ayers is?

Juan

— Juan
12:20 pm October 11th, 2008

Your eloquence is equal to that of Obama’s. I was very moved by your words, by your analysis - and needless to say I agree wholeheartedly with your choice of Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States. Thank you.

— Natalie Roth
12:26 pm October 11th, 2008

K. Garth,
“vitriolic ranting of a small group of voters who have little interest in accuracy and fairness, and exploit their ignorance”

You can’t possibly be suggesting that it is only the McCain side doing this?

Both sides have supporters who resort to juvenile name calling, ignorant propaganda and downright unsubstantiated nastiness, and that includes some of the PD editorial writers and Matson the cartoonist.

— jmas
12:46 pm October 11th, 2008

Juan,

I suggest that you go read the definition related to the word “association” in a dictionary. Your comments and arguments made me laugh out loud. I also recommend that you look in your own backyard about an associative relationship, aka being married to, related to someone who was a member of an Alaskan political party (you now which one I am talking about), whose founder, J. Vogler, was willing to spit on the U.S. flag and bear arms to defend the independence of Alaska. This party was no less supported by the Iranian government when Vogler went in front of the UN in 1993 to demand Alaska’s freedom from the United States. I assume this is what we call maverick these days.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/10/07/palins_unamerican/index.html

— yulyyz
12:47 pm October 11th, 2008

Juan–

How do you know you don’t associate with people who have sorted pasts or have unsavory views about the US? Do you perform a background check on everyone with whom you may have casual or professional relationship? There are probably many of your associates who have done bad things in their past or have spouted racist and inflammatory words with which you disagree.

By the way, Michelle Obama said it was the first time she was REALLY proud of her country. She has always been proud, but her husband’s ascendancy to the Democratic candidacy made her even prouder. Duh. Amazing how Obama bashers love to omit that word, which completely changes the meaning of her quote.

In addition, many prominent Republicans are on the same boards as Obama and Ayers. Ayers was appointed by a staunch Republican who supports McCain–I guess, according to your logic, that makes both Annenburg and McCain terrorist sympathizers, too! Oh my!!

Tell me how you don’t like Obama’s plan in terms of turning the economy around, or give me valid criticism about his education plan. Tell me why, in rational, reasoned terms, why McCain’s plan for the economy and education are better. But stop the meaningless drivel. It’s just plain annoying, and only weakens your position, as well as McCain’s.

— loyola
12:54 pm October 11th, 2008

Just a quick Post Dispatch staffer note on a factual matter:

These claims that Obama could not receive a security clearance are false.

According to Steven Aftergood, who directs the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, Obama already HAS a security clearance by virtue of his being a sitting U.S. Senator.

In addition, the Bush administration has been working with BOTH the McCain and the Obama teams since last summer regarding an efficient transition to a new administration, regardless of which candidate wins. This takes on even more importance with U.S. forces engaged in military actions overseas and American intelligence services intensely monitoring potential terrorist activities.

As a consequence of this planning President Bush has authorized security clearances for additional members of the McCain and Obama staffs.

— Eric Mink
12:56 pm October 11th, 2008

To Bill Hannegan: Barack Obama wants to get beyond the verbal sparing of past elections on the abortion issue. I totally agree with protecting a woman’s right to choose. We must move beyond the legal/illegal discussion and talk about how we can reduce the number performed.

Whether abortions are legal or illegal, they will still be performed. Women with money and their own doctor will not have a problem. Poor women will be forced to return to the back alley and have to put their lives at risk.

If you really want to end abortions, we need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. If a woman does get pregnant, we as a society need to provide alternatives. Jimmy Carter was morally opposed to abortion when he was president. That is why he established the WIC program. It provided what he felt was an viable alternative, choice, for women.

Religious conservatives need to move beyond the rancor and decide whether they really want to end abortions or continue to use the issue as a wedge during elections.

— Tahoe Progressive
1:15 pm October 11th, 2008

Good for the Post Dispatch!

— Ed Szewczyk
1:27 pm October 11th, 2008

If Character matters as some try to claim, then McCain ties to real terrorists dwarf Obama’s alleged ties to someone who has never been convicted.

McCain addressed a conference of the far right Oregon Citizens Alliance in the early 90s. Where the speaker right before him praised a convicted domestic terrorist who attempted to murder a doctor. And who praised a bomber and arsonist.

McCain is also on the record praising a felon, who not only planned to assassinate a journalist; but is on the record advocating domestic terrorism against law enforcement officials.

McCain gushed the following to G. Gordon Liddy, who advocated domestic terrorism: “I’m proud of you, I’m proud of your family, It’s always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great.”

One “American Value” is “Innocent till proven guilty” and there is no statute of limitations on murder. Old DNA that exists on the stored evidence could be used to convict Ayers if he is in fact guilty of anything other that his admitted exaggerations in his book.

And then we have the The Palins’ un-American activities: Where her husband was a 7 year member of the Alaska Independence Party; and her many positive and uplifting messages to the AIP. Just wait till when the Media starts finally doing its job and starts to air the clips of the various video greetings she sent the AIP. And starts reporting on the fact that the AIP got Iran to support the AIP’s founder giving a speech at the U.N.

Imagine if the Obama’s had hooked up with a violently anti-American group in league with Iran like the AIP.

And let’s not forget McCain trying to defend bin Laden back in 1998. Back then when Clinton was warning people about bin Laden McCain was trying to defend bin Laden and said the following:

Look, is this guy, Laden, really the bad guy that’s depicted? Most of us have never heard of him before.

— Kuni
1:34 pm October 11th, 2008

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 1120 » Show All