Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Sportsmen for Obama

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/04/24/opinion/guest/guest48.txt

Obama will protect interests of sportsmen
By STEVE DOHERTY, JIM POSEWITZ, LAND TAWNEY and KENDALL VAN DYK



As Montanans who take advantage of our state’s unique hunting and fishing opportunities, we believe strongly that the next president must respect our right to own and use guns, expand access to public lands, reward private landowners who open their lands to sportsmen and protect the habitats that make our state so rich in wildlife. We believe Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is the leader who will best represent sportsmen on these non-negotiable issues.

While critics try to distort his record, one thing is clear: Obama respects the rights and traditions of Montana’s sportsmen. He has repeatedly and consistently said that he has no intention of taking away our Second Amendment rights. Obama understands that the U.S. Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess and bear arms. And Obama realizes that Montana’s gun laws shouldn’t necessarily be the same as those in Chicago, where he served as a state senator. We all agree that we need to do what we can to prevent criminals from obtaining guns, and Obama will do this by working to ensure that illegal guns do not fall into the wrong hands. However, Montana residents who obtain firearms legally will see no changes in their traditional lifestyles.

And Obama’s record shows that he understands the Second Amendment. As a U.S. Senator, Obama stood up for gun owners by supporting Sen. David Vitter’s (R-La.) bill prohibiting the federal government from confiscating guns during a declared state of emergency. Obama’s opponent, Sen. Hillary Clinton, threatened our gun rights by voting against the amendment.


We agree with Obama’s assertion that we must do more for sportsmen than just protect gun rights. Obama understands that hunters and anglers are losing access to Montana’s wild places. He supports Open Fields Incentives legislation, which provides incentives for landowners who voluntarily open their land to sportsmen. Obama also knows that climate change threatens our fish, wildlife and natural habitats. He supports common sense solutions, endorsed by dozens of America’s premier hunting and angling organizations (including our very own Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation), which will reduce the effects of climate change on wildlife. He will work with state fish and game agencies to aid their conservation efforts and teach our young people about hunting and fishing, hunter safety and the basic principles of fish and wildlife management.

We urge Montanans across the state to join us and over 50 other members of Sportsmen for Obama in supporting Obama in the June 3 primary. You can be confident that you are voting for a leader who understands and respects our rights and traditions as sportsmen. We know that under his leadership, we will be free to maintain our culture and preserve our rights. It is our responsibility to make sure our leaders give us the opportunity to pass down these rich traditions to our children, and that is why we support Sen. Barack Obama.

Steve Doherty is a former Senate Minority Leader and chairman of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission. Jim Posewitz is a lifelong sportsman, member of Helena Hunters and Anglers Association and retired biologist with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Land Tawney is a lifelong, avid sportsman, and Rep. Kendall Van Dyk is Democratic chair of the Montana Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus.

Obama's response to Cheney endorsing McCain





http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/obama_on_cheneys_endorsement_o.php

I'd like to congratulate Senator McCain on this endorsement because he really earned it. That endorsement didn't come easy. Senator McCain had to vote 90 percent of the time with George Bush and Dick Cheney to get it. He served as Washington's biggest cheerleader for going to war in Iraq, and supports economic policies that are no different from the last eight years. So Senator McCain worked hard to get Dick Cheney's support.

But here's my question for you, Colorado: do you think Dick Cheney is delighted to support John McCain because he thinks John McCain's going to bring change? Do you think John McCain and Dick Cheney have been talking about how to shake things up, and get rid of the lobbyists and the old boys club in Washington?

Colorado, we know better. After all, it was just a few days ago that Senator McCain said that he and President Bush share a "common philosophy." And we know that when it comes to foreign policy, John McCain and Dick Cheney share a common philosophy that thinks that empty bluster from Washington will fix all of our problems, and a war without end in Iraq is the way to defeat Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorists who are in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So George Bush may be in an undisclosed location, but Dick Cheney's out there on the campaign trail because he'd be delighted to pass the baton to John McCain. He knows that with John McCain you get a twofer: George Bush's economic policy and Dick Cheney's foreign policy -- but that's a risk we cannot afford to take.

Dennis Hopper

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/04/dennis-hopper-i-voted-for_n_140940.html

Hopper said that he had been a Republican since Reagan, but the choice Sarah Palin pushed him over the edge and he voted for Barack Obama instead. He then told a lovely anecdote of Obama saying kind words to him about his mother's death once.

Video at the link.

Eiffel Tower, Paris

Monday, November 3, 2008

Steven Colbert, Comedy Central

Andrew Sullivan

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/barack-obama-fo.html

03 Nov 2008 12:30 pm

Barack Obama For President

Wtc1chrishondrosgetty

On a spectacular September morning more than seven years ago, our world changed. I remain one of those who believe that that day remains indelible, and its lesson unforgettable. The civilized democratic world came under attack from a small but lethal band of religious fanatics bent on destroying free societies, and, more terrifyingly, eager to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction that could make 9/11 look like a dry run.

We are still under attack.

This confluence of fundamentalism and lethal technology is the greatest danger of our time. And in the last seven years, the threat has not abated. Al Qaeda remains at large, and the very top leadership that planned and executed 9/11 is alive. They have reconstituted a base of sorts in Pakistan. They have scored several major propaganda victories - from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo Bay to trapping most of the US military in an unending counter-insurgency in one country where al Qaeda was weak before 2002, Iraq. Islamist factions in Pakistan's government are horrifyingly close to nuclear technology. Iran has gained in power and influence in the Middle East and its ability to launch and use nuclear weapons is much greater than it was on 9/11. At its best, the Iraq war will lead to a fractured petro-state, closely allied with Iran, beset by constant infighting and terrorism. At its worst, Iraq will keep over 100,000 young Americans trapped there for the rest of our lives. The war in Afghanistan against the Taliban is at a seven year nadir.

Now the really bad news: the view of co-presidents Bush and Cheney is that this is a war that can and should be controlled by only one branch of government and a war in which the job of the citizenry is to shop. It is a global war where force of arms remains too often a first resort and in which talking to our enemies is regarded as "the white flag of surrender," instead of another tool at our disposal. It is a war Cheneywinmcnameegetty where the American government has alienated - in some cases deeply - democratic allies whose police work and intelligence we desperately need. I do not doubt that military force is part of the mix to defeat this threat. (Like everyone else, I'm heartened that general Petraeus has introduced some minimal intelligence into the occupation of Iraq, although I fear it has merely made our presence more protracted and our withdrawal more difficult.) But the crudeness with which military force has been deployed, the absence of strategy or even due diligence in the execution of the long war, and the massive public relations blunders which have led the United States to lose a propaganda war against a bunch of murderous, medieval loons are unforgivable.

These mistakes were compounded - and in large part created - by what I believe will one day be seen as the core event of the last eight years: the collapse of constitutional order and the rule of law fomented in a mixture of hubris and laziness by the president himself. It is now indisputable that the president and vice-president of the United States engineered a de facto coup against the constitution after 9/11, declaring themselves above any law, any treaty, and any basic moral norm in their misguided mission to rid the world of evil. This blog has watched this process with increasing dismay - and watched several attempts to bring the US back to sanity foiled by a relentless and unhinged vice-president's office.

Cheney and Bush, unlike any presidency in American history, have dangerously pushed constitutional government to the brink of collapse. They did not merely assert a unified executive in which actions and regulations reserved to the executive branch were kept free from Congressional and judicial tampering. That is a perfectly defensible position, especially in wartime. They did not merely act in the immediate Agabuse wake of an emergency to protect American citizens swiftly - again a perfectly legitimate use of executive power, unhampered by Congress or courts. They declared such power to be unlimited; they asserted also that it was as permanent as the emergency they declared; they claimed their dictatorial powers were inherent in the presidency itself, and above any legal constraints; they ordered their own lawyers to provide retroactive and laughable legal immunity for their crimes; they by-passed all the usual and necessary checks within the executive branch to ensure prudence and legality and self-doubt in the conduct of a war; they asserted that emergency war powers applied to the territory of the United States itself; they claimed the right to seize anyone - anyone, citizen or not - they deemed an "enemy combatant," to hold them indefinitely with no due process and to torture them until they became incoherent, broken, brutalized shells of human beings, if they survived at all. They did this to the guilty and they did this to the innocent. But they also had no way of reliably knowing which was which and who was who. Never before in wartime has the precious, sacred inheritance of free people been treated with such contempt by the leaders of the democratic West.

They seized countless individuals with no trials and no hearings. They tortured dozens to death. They subjected many more to some of the worst psychological torture techniques devised by Communist totalitarians and the worst physical suffering devised by the Gestapo. They crossed lines no American president had ever crossed before. They withdrew the US from the Geneva Conventions - and did so Padillagoggles secretly. They tapped American's phones without warrants, and forced many of their randomly grabbed prisoners into the black hole of insanity. They set up secret sites in former Soviet gulags to torture their victims. They single-handedly devastated America's reputation for human rights and the rule of law in the minds of the vast majority of people in other Western democracies, let alone the developing world, let alone the millions of Muslims across the Middle East who now suspect that America is not really better than their own thugocracies, that America also tortures when it wants to, that the shining city on a hill is actually a place where men above the law can do anything they want to other human beings in their custody.

No economic mismanagement can compare with this attack on the basic institutions of our democracy and the constitution. No incompetence in conducting an occupation can be deemed comparable with this level of criminality and indecency. No reaction to a natural disaster, however hapless and negligent, is as grave as this crime. No financial crisis eclipses it in gravity. The president's oath is to protect the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. Instead, the president himself became an enemy to the constitution he swore to uphold.

This is the depth of the predicament the United States is in. The Islamist threat remains; but the Constitution is in deep disrepair, the military stretched to breaking point, the national debt doubled, and America's reputation in terrible shape. More important, the president and vice-president deeply damaged the reliability and integrity of America's intelligence services, creating a self-perpetuating loop of phony intelligence procured by torture which then justified more torture which led to worse intelligence. It will be decades before we learn the full extent of the damage Bush and Cheney have done to the country's Baqubaaliyussefafpgetty ability to find out what the enemy is really up to, how much risk these sadists and goons have subjected us to, how much damage to this country they may have facilitated by filling intelligence with the garbage always created by torture. We do know that their policy has led to just one successful prosecution - and that many guilty figures will escape justice because torture has tainted the legal process beyond repair.

My great fear since 2004 is that this could have gotten even worse. Another attack and the abuse of power could have become much worse. A Romney or a Giuliani, empowered by religious fanaticism and a worship of state power, could have taken us down a path much darker than even the Cheney-Addington-Yoo cul-de-sac. Ron Paul emerged as the one Republican prepared to defend the rule of law, the Constitution and habeas corpus in the primaries. But, in the end, McCain emerged by default, a torture victim himself, and a critic of some aspects of the conduct of the war. But we saw in 2006 that, when push came to shove, even McCain acquiesced to the legalization of America's use of the very same torture techniques once used against him. And in this campaign, we have seen how no Republican candidate can escape the logic of bigotry, fanaticism and xenophobia that now grips and motivates the Republican party base. We have also learned, much more importantly, that McCain would appoint Justices to the Supreme Court who would acquiesce to and constitutionally entrench the dictatorial presidency that Bush-Cheney believe in as loyally as Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia. That means we are one vote away from the court ever restraining this unchecked executive. It doesn't matter who that executive is and what party he or she belongs to. What matters is that the controls upon it - controls critical to the endurance of constitutional balance and Baghdadfrancopagettitime individual freedom in America - have been frayed to the breaking point. There is no greater cause right now than repairing that.

If I were to give one reason why I believe electing Barack Obama is essential tomorrow, it would be an end to this dark, lawless period in American constitutional government. The domestic cultural and political reasons for an Obama presidency remain as strong as they were when I wrote "Goodbye To All That" over a year ago. His ability to get us past the culture war has been proven in this campaign, in the generation now coming of age that will elect him if they turn out, in Obama's staggering ability not to take the bait. His fiscal policies are too liberal for me - I don't believe in raising taxes, I believe in cutting entitlements for the middle classes as the way to fiscal balance. I don't believe in "progressive taxation", I support a flat tax. I don't want to give unions any more power. I'm sure there will be moments when a Democratic Congress will make me wince. But I also understand that money has to come from somewhere, and it will not come in any meaningful measure from freezing pork or the other transparent gimmicks advertized in advance by McCain. McCain is not serious on spending. But he is deadly serious in not touching taxes. So, on the core question of debt, on bringing America back to fiscal reason, Obama is still better than McCain. If I have to take an ideological hit to head toward fiscal solvency, I'll put country before ideology.

Rumsfeldjimwatsonafpgetty But none of this compares to the task of restoring the rule of law and Constitutional balance. Unlike McCain, Obama has never wavered on torture or habeas corpus or on keeping the executive branch under the law. His deep understanding and awareness of the Constitution eclipses McCain's. Coming from the opposing party, he will also be able to restore confidence that what lies within America's secret government - the one constructed by Bush and Cheney beyond any accountability, law or morality - will be ended or cleaned up. He can restore critically needed trust again - and force the Democratic party to take responsibility for a war which we all need to own, and take responsibility for, again.

We cannot win this war without regaining our democratic soul, ending torture, and returning to lawful governance. But these things won't win the war either. On that, we have a perilous task ahead. I don't know how Obama will be able to get out of Iraq in his first term. I fear that Bush and Cheney have made withdrawal deliberately difficult if not impossible. I fear the same in Afghanistan. I don't know how Obama will handle Iran, given the power that Bush and Cheney have ceded to the Islamist regime there, and the danger of a pre-emptive strike before Obama even gets inaugurated. But I do know that he will handle these wars with reason, with prudence and with care. Those are three qualities absent from the White House for eight years. And I do know that Obama's very person, and what he symbolizes, will do Addingtonmelissagoldengetty more to restore America's image and repair our global public relations than any single measure any new administration will be able to accomplish.

The truth is: we are in a war for the future of human civilization. We are fighting for a world in which destructive technology need not collide with fierce religious fundamentalism to annihilate us all; for a world in which dialogue across cultures and religions and regions (even within America) is essential if we are to survive. We need to win the argument in the developing world; we need to reach out and persuade the Muslim middle - especially the next generation in Iran and Iraq and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Turkey and Western Europe - about the virtues of democracy and constitutionalism. We cannot do that if we trash our own values ourselves. It is self-defeating. We cannot be a beacon to the world until we have reformed ourselves. In this war, we are also fighting for an America that does not lose its soul in fighting our enemy. Just because we are fighting evil does not mean we cannot ourselves succumb to it. That is what my Christian faith teaches me - that no nation has a monopoly on virtue, and that every generation has to earn its own integrity. I fear and believe we have given away far too much - and that, while this loss is permanent, it can nonetheless be mitigated by a new start, a new direction, a new statement that the America the world once knew and loved is back.

It will not be easy. The world will soon remember why it resents America as well as loves it. But until this unlikely fellow with the funny ears and strange name and exotic biography emerged on the scene, I had begun to wonder if it was possible at all. I had almost given up hope, and he helped restore it. That is what is stirring out there; and although you are welcome to mock me for it, I remain unashamed. As someone once said, in the unlikely story of America, there is never anything false about hope. Obama, moreover, seems to bring out the best in people, and the calmest, and the sanest. He seems to me to have a blend of Midwestern good sense, an intuitive understanding of the developing world that is as much our future now as theirs', an analyst's mind and a poet's tongue. He is human. He is flawed. He will make mistakes. His passivity and ambiguity are sometimes weaknesses as well as strengths.

But there is something about his rise that is also supremely American, a reminder of why so many of us love this country so passionately and are filled with such grief at what has been done to it and in its name. I endorse Barack Obama because I will not give up on America, because I believe in America, and in her constitution and decency and character and strength.

And the world needs that America now as much as it ever has. Can we start that healing, that rebirth, tomorrow?

Yes. We. Can.

Share This

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2224950/35266889

FL, South Florida Times, never endorsed before

http://www.sfltimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2068&Itemid=42


South Florida Times endorses Obama for president

http://www.sfltimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2068&Itemid=42


BY SOUTH FLORIDA TIMES
barack-obama_cc_web.jpgThe South Florida Times has never endorsed a candidate for political office. As the newspaper continues to grow, we aim to establish an editorial board that will craft meaningful, insightful recommendations to help readers make the best choices.

That said, after much internal discussion, we have decided that this year’s presidential election is of such enormous significance that we cannot allow ourselves to sit silently on the sidelines while anticipating our growth into this important role.

The United States is experiencing a devastating economic crisis, is in two wars that have marred its global image, and is under the control of a government system that has failed to protect its citizens from runaway greed.

Considering all of these challenges, the choice of a leader who will usher in needed, fundamental change is clear. The South Florida Times endorses Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for president.

As a premiere media outlet focused on the African-American and Caribbean communities, we are keenly aware of the responsibility – and the risk – of endorsing the first black person who has earned the presidential nomination of a major political party.

The risk for us is that – like Gen. Colin Powell – we are presumed to endorse the candidate who shares our skin color, regardless of our independent ability to reason and decide for ourselves who we think is best.

We accept this risk and responsibility, and invite our readers into the logic behind our position. We would no more endorse a black candidate who is unfit for duty than a large, metropolitan daily newspaper would endorse a candidate solely because he is white.

We believe that Obama’s promise of hope and change, tempered by his ability to calmly exercise sound judgment, and the assemblage of a quality team of advisers on economic and foreign policies, give him the decisive edge over Arizona Sen. John McCain.

While McCain has run a campaign based on historic divisions between political parties, classes and – subtly – between races of Americans, Obama has sought to unify the nation around a singular purpose: That, as Americans, we can build a better future for ourselves.

ECONOMY

Obama has shown a greater grasp of how to fix the nation’s economic woes. He has assembled an impressive team that seeks to foster economic equity. He would expand healthcare to all Americans, and seek better regulation of the financial markets that created the economic crisis in the first place. His plan for modest cuts to most taxpayers, and raising taxes on those with the highest incomes, would shrink the expanding gap between most Americans and the wealthiest one percent.

Obama would also raise the minimum wage, allow workers more opportunity to organize labor unions, and create more opportunities for education.

By contrast, McCain’s biggest proposed reforms to the economy are eliminating pork-barrel spending – a small fraction of the national budget – and cutting taxes. Also, some of McCain’s economic policies appear to have shifted with the political winds: He once opposed President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, and said they could harm the middle class. Now, he proposes tax cuts that would benefit the wealthiest Americans while potentially worsening the nation’s financial crisis.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Bush sold the Iraq war to Congress on false information, continues to spend billions on the war in a country that has an enormous surplus, and has allowed the terrorists who plotted the
Sept. 11 attacks to remain on the loose. McCain would continue to fight the war in Iraq while neglecting the war in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and Al Qaeda reside, and would continue overlooking a potential terrorist threat from Pakistan.

Obama, who has always opposed the Iraq war, has a plan for quickly withdrawing the troops from there, while strengthening the military presence where it is needed on the terrorist front in Afghanistan.

While McCain makes the argument that he has a clear edge in foreign policy experience, his selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has no foreign policy experience at all, diminishes that argument. Palin is not ready to step into the role of commander in chief should serious illness or death befall McCain. By contrast, Obama’s selection of Sen. Joseph Biden, a veteran foreign policy expert, strengthens Obama’s credentials.

The McCain campaign has blasted Sen. Obama for agreeing to meet with leaders who disagree with American foreign policy. Yet we believe that America should improve its image around the world – where possible – with diplomacy instead of discord, with conversation rather than confrontation, and with harmony where there is hostility. Obama already has a large amount of support throughout the world – highlighted by huge rallies around him during his recent travels abroad – that would help remove the blemishes left by the Bush administration.

Obama, as leader of the Harvard Law Review, garnered praise from conservative thinkers for his willingness to listen to what they had to say, and build a consensus, even if he did not necessarily agree with them. Building a greater conversation around critical issues can help the world solve its most pressing problems.

SUPREME COURT

Our next president can either push the U.S. Supreme Court toward the conservative right or guide it to a more balanced leaning in the selection of judges. On the issue of women’s reproductive rights, McCain has said he would never appoint a judge who believes in a woman’s choice concerning abortion. Obama has said it is the woman’s right and responsibility to reach her own moral and ethical conclusion about this important decision.

LEGITIMATE CRITICISM

Obama can be justly criticized for positioning himself as a supporter of campaign finance reform, only to back out of the public financing system when he saw the enormous sums he could raise over the Internet.

Also, he has been not been fully forthcoming about how many of his promises can be fulfilled in a huge national financial crisis.

While these are legitimate areas of policy for which the McCain camp could have rightly assailed Obama, they have instead turned most of their attention to other, frivolous issues that weakened their stance.

NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING

McCain and Palin have attacked Obama using tactics that unfairly sought to alienate this native son from America, cast him as a Muslim-in-hiding though he has always professed his Christianity, and asserted his allegiance to former domestic terrorists who committed their most heinous acts when the candidate was only 8 years old.

The “Swift Boat’’ politics of fear and divisiveness that helped George W. Bush defeat John Kerry in 2004 must not be allowed to influence this enormous moment in history. America has a great opportunity to show that it has evolved beyond its racial and ideological divisions to embrace all people and create a land for everyone, as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.’’

EMBRACING OF HISTORY

Obama embraces his bi-racial family history, having been raised by a white mother from Kansas and his white grandparents. He later bonded with relatives from his father’s side in Kenya, where he is greatly adored. His very life represents the kind of unity that is possible for all of America.

McCain, on the other hand, has refused to fully acknowledge the black relatives who are descended from slaves his ancestors once owned, as first reported in the South Florida Times.

This represents a missed opportunity. McCain should have embraced his family history – and thus a piece of American history – on both sides of the racial divide. He should have highlighted this important part of his family story rather than dodge his biracial family reunions in rural Mississippi. This would have allowed McCain to show true presidential leadership in an America that – while acknowledging its darkest period – can shine the light of hope on a brighter future.

LEGACY OF HOPE

More than 40 years after King was assassinated for his famous dream of hope in a better America, the country now stands poised to realize its full potential.

We urge you to vote for Obama not because he is the first serious black candidate for the Oval Office, but because he is simply the best applicant for the job.

Obama represents the greatest hope for a better America, and the change this country so desperately needs.

Newsday.com

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vppres025907368nov02,0,3064317,print.story


Newsday.com


THE NEWSDAY EDITORIAL BOARD ENDORSES: For president

Barack Obama has the vision and the judgment to lead the country now


November 2, 2008



Leading the nation through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, two wars and excruciating anxiety about what the future holds will demand intellect, judgment, pragmatism and the more intangible ability to nourish the American spirit.

The need to make fundamental changes in how we power our cars, heat our homes, pay our doctors, earn our livings and secure our retirements is unnerving. The times demand a president who can see promise beyond the peril and articulate that vision for the rest of us. We believe this profile best fits one candidate in this race for the White House: Democrat Barack Obama.

In this marathon of a campaign, Obama has shown the discipline and demeanor for the job. He has articulated a more compelling vision and strategy for the nation than has Republican John McCain, at a time when both are desperately needed.

Obama has railed eloquently against the politics of fear and ideological combat, and promoted inclusiveness and cooperation. He has a strong grasp of the nation's economic problems, a more urgent commitment to the green energy revolution and a better plan for expanding access to health care. On issues such as Iraq, taxes and trade, he should practice the bipartisanship he promises, but has yet to demonstrate, by remaining open to alternative views. Still, on balance, Obama offers the better way forward.

When he launched his improbable presidential run, early impressions of the Illinois senator didn't go much beyond a man with limited experience who could deliver a great speech. Critics derided his ability to charge up a crowd with soaring rhetoric, calling it just talk. But it's more than that. Obama has an uncommon ability to explain and inspire. Those are vital components of national leadership as we struggle to understand and tame the complex economic forces eating away at the value of our homes and nest eggs, and making jobs and credit harder to come by.

Obama's relative inexperience was one reason we didn't endorse him in the Democratic primary, and it remains a concern: He's only three years removed from the Illinois State Senate. We are also critical of his decision to abandon a pledge to tap public campaign financing for his presidential run.

But organizing and running a national campaign is a tough test of executive ability - one that Obama has passed impressively. We believe that he will be able to draw from his campaign and professional experience to hone conflicting ideas and philosophies into sharp policy prescriptions on the challenges the next president will face over the coming four years.



Energy

Obama demonstrated a noteworthy, clear-eyed approach to this issue last summer, when gas prices skyrocketed. As McCain and others called for a popular, temporary suspension of the federal gas tax, Obama resisted the urge to pander. His view - that trying to ease the pain of price hikes wouldn't work and would retard efforts to wean the nation off fossil fuels - wasn't popular. But he was right. And he was willing to take the political heat to advance the nation's long-term interest.

Obama understands the urgency of making the country less dependent on foreign oil, for both economic and national security reasons. He supports an all-out effort to develop sustainable, alternative fuels and green technology. He also has acknowledged the need to expand the use of nuclear power, and has reluctantly come to accept the need to drill more for oil here at home.

McCain also supports developing alternative fuels and technology and expanding the use of nuclear power. And he says that the push for energy independence should proceed on all fronts. But he elevated increased domestic drilling to the top of his energy agenda when he made "drill baby drill" a campaign slogan, even though more domestic drilling won't do much to lower gas prices or anything to advance the key goal of energy independence.



Taxes

Given the high-decibel debate over taxes, you'd think there were huge differences between what the candidates offer. There aren't, and in fact, neither plan may be realistic, given the deficit and the economic slowdown. Both Obama and McCain have proposed trillions of dollars in tax cuts over the next decade - both for individuals and, in different ways, for small businesses. They agree on delivering tax relief for the middle class, defined as taxpayers earning less than $250,000 a year. But that's where Obama would draw the line.

McCain would extend the tax rates for everyone, including those earning over a quarter-million a year, and add new corporate tax cuts for good measure.

On Long Island, with our high cost of living, close to 10 percent of households take in $250,000 or more. That's much higher than the national average of 2 percent. So some small business owners would be among those whose taxes Obama would raise. That's of considerable concern locally, because it would hamper their ability to create jobs, thus slowing the Island's economic growth. This is a case where one size doesn't fit all.



Trade

Both Obama and McCain recognize the importance of free trade to the nation's economy. But while McCain's enthusiasm for trade agreements between the United States and other countries is unbridled, Obama seems conflicted. That's troubling.

Obama should reconsider his early campaign pledge to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement in an effort to add stronger worker and environmental protections to that long-settled deal with Mexico and Canada. Free trade is a net plus for the U.S. economy. It would be a mistake to throttle back, particularly now, when the nation is suffering such economic distress. The better approach would be to do more for displaced workers here, such as expanding opportunities for retraining, a worthwhile component of McCain's plan.



Iraq

Both candidates favor a muscular foreign policy, although Obama would be more likely to make the military option a last resort. But on Iraq, they have real differences. Obama has promised to responsibly but quickly withdraw most U.S. troops from the country on a set timetable. McCain resists that plan, which he unambiguously calls surrender.

McCain championed last year's surge - a big, temporary increase in the number of troops in Iraq that has played a significant role in reducing the violence dogging that nation. There's a lesson in that for Obama, who has been reluctant to acknowledge its success. It would be wiser to allow facts on the ground to determine when U.S. troops are withdrawn - although the Iraqi government, which is pressing for a fixed timeline, may have more to say about when the occupation ends than the next American president.



Health care

Here, Obama and McCain offer fundamentally different approaches. Both acknowledge that the employer-based system of health insurance is disappearing. But the alternative McCain favors is a deregulated, individual insurance market in which consumers, armed with a tax credit, buy their own coverage.

Obama wants to give government a bigger role. He would prohibit "cherry picking," so insurers couldn't routinely deny coverage to people who are sick. And he would establish what he calls the National Health Insurance Exchange, a group that would allow individuals and small businesses to select a plan offering a government-negotiated level of coverage, and buy it at the group rate from a participating private insurance company.

Obama's plan, which includes subsidies based on income, would cover millions more of the uninsured than McCain's approach, and cost little more. Unfortunately, neither plan would do enough to control rising costs, an even more difficult problem than the need to expand access.



Moving forward

It won't be easy for Obama to translate his transformative vision of post-partisanship into concrete change in how business is done in Washington. Particularly if Democrats control the House and Senate as well as the White House. The impulse to ride roughshod over a Republican minority may be hard to resist, but Obama must. And he should stand up to his party's congressional leaders to avoid partisan excesses.

A commitment by Obama to do that is a necessary first step toward post-partisan policy-making. The second would be for him to surround himself with top-notch advisers and a cabinet peopled by the best and brightest, from both parties. He should embrace good ideas, no matter which party produced them, and make competence, not party loyalty, the prime criterion for appointments.

For much of his decades-long career in Washington, John McCain exhibited just that kind of principled bipartisanship. For the good of the country, he bucked his party and joined with Democrats to tackle contentious issues such as campaign finance, immigration and taxes. We cited his "courage, integrity and willingness to take principled and consistent stands" when we endorsed McCain in the Republican primary in February.

But that man got lost in the general campaign. Candidate McCain abandoned Senator McCain's support for comprehensive immigration reform, saying he would no longer even vote for the bill he had previously sponsored. As a candidate, he embraced the tax cuts of President George W. Bush that as a senator he had derided as unaffordable.

While insisting he would always put country first, candidate McCain impulsively picked as his running mate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who is not ready to assume the duties of the presidency.

And when the nation was hit by the financial storm, McCain appeared rudderless. He declared the economic fundamentals sound one day and wailed the next that the financial markets were in crisis. Obama didn't have answers, either. But he was calm and deliberative, and helped the process by laying out conditions that an acceptable deal should meet.

McCain has been an outstanding public servant. He responded heroically when held captive in Vietnam. He clearly loves his country. But during this campaign he hasn't given the nation any compelling reason to make him president.

Obama has advanced big themes at a time when the nation faces big challenges. We believe he is ready to be the president of the United States. This editorial board endorses Barack Obama.

McCain Chairman, Florida University

http://www.alligator.org/articles/2008/11/03/news/campus/081102_biden.txt

“I wanted to see the next vice president of the United States,” said Josh Simmons, Gators for McCain chairman.

Simmons said he voted for Obama about two weeks ago.

“I’ve seen a different John McCain than the one I signed up to work for,” he said.

Simmons said he submitted his resignation Sunday night and will no longer be chairman for the group, which has more than 1,000 members.

“I expect them to be incredibly pissed off,” he said.

LA, Shreveport Times

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081026/OPINION03/810250321/1058

October 26, 2008

Barack Obama for President

The average American looks at the national landscape for the next four years and wonders why anyone would want to be president.

A bear of an economic implosion robs Americans of their retirement funds, access to credit and job certainty.

Our national debt and deficit are thus exacerbated at a time when our nation finally seems ready to confront the medical care gap for 47 million Americans without health insurance.

The middle class, any healthy economy's bulwark, continues to lose ground while Americans of all classes have been paying dearly for the lack of a sane and sustainable energy policy.

Overseas, we search for a responsible way out of Iraq without leaving behind a chaotic breeding ground for the very threat we were told our troops were eradicating. Nearby, Osama bin Laden presumably continues to live out his miserable life without facing the justice he deserves while providing an incendiary icon to terrorists everywhere.

Into the breach, our political system has yielded two presidential candidates of vastly different experiences. One is a seasoned lawmaker who unfortunately abandoned his trademark independence for political expediency. The other is a candidate who may have fewer years in the public eye but who offers the best chance for a fresh start for our nation both at home and overseas.

The Times today recommends Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States.

Obama initially made his mark with the American public as an eloquent communicator and gifted politician. For almost two years his campaign has reflected grace and poise, whether inspiring thousands who flock to his rallies or addressing the blistering attacks launched from both inside and outside his party. He is reminiscent of past gifted leaders, whether FDR or Ronald Reagan, who were able to both project calm in uncertain times and to exhort Americans toward our potential to build a better future.

But the presidency demands not just image and rhetoric but substance. We believe Obama can deliver. In his first major decision as the presumptive Democratic nominee, Obama demonstrated more mature judgment than his opponent in choosing a running mate. In selecting a long-time U.S. Senator, foreign policy veteran Joe Biden, Obama answered the experience issue and reassured Americans they would have a vice president on standby who understands the levers of power.

Obama's controlled style also makes him the best choice for succeeding in a new political understanding that our problems can't be solved by distrust and disrespect, but through collaboration and compromise.

Take health care. Obama's plan to insure all children and to expand worker access to employee or employee-supported national health plans seems more workable. His opponent's tax credit approach that would also impose taxes on health benefits is fraught with the potential for unintended consequences. Neither plan likely can pass muster in Congress without adjustments.

Overhauling tax policies also will require tough legislative work and presidential leadership, particularly with the need to pay down our mounting debt while paying for the spending proposals of whichever candidate is elected to the White House. On tax relief, we favor Obama's approach to ease the strain on middle income families and the working poor over his opponent's embrace of permanent tax cuts for the wealthy.

Obama "would cut taxes by greater amounts than McCain for all families earning less than $250,000 a year, or for over 85 percent of the country," writes Dr. Eamon Kelly, a professor and president emeritus of Tulane University. "For Americans making over $250,000, Obama would return their tax rates to the 2000 level, which was less than that under the senior President Bush. In dollar terms, McCain would cut taxes for the top 1 percent of incomes by $125,000, while Obama would raise their taxes by around $19,000."

The next president will inherit a $700 billion bailout plan for financial markets, but adjustments will continue to be needed as the Wall Street meltdown filters down to Main Street, not to mention 70th Street and Airline Drive. Obama already has proposed giving employers a $3,000 tax credit for each new hire to encourage job creation. He earlier proposed spending $50 billion to help states and speed construction of roads and other infrastructure projects that create jobs.

On energy, Obama offers an idealistic approach tempered with pragmatism. Lifting bans on offshore drilling should be paired with commitments to clean energy, greater efficiency and renewable sources.

But while focusing on our huge domestic issues, the next president must repair our damaged international reputation starting with a repudiation of the "you're either with us or against us" approach to foreign affairs. The recent Wall Street meltdown has also shaken financial confidence in the United States as the world's economic driver, putting even more emphasis on the need for diplomacy. Obama has the skills and worldview to accumulate international goodwill rather than to alienate.

As for Iraq, Obama wants to pull out all combat troops in 16 months with some forces left both to protect our embassy and as a counterterrorism measure. Yet he doesn't shrink from aggressive pursuit of terrorists in Afghanistan or pushing Pakistan to eliminate safe havens.

These are all huge issues that require hard choices and inspired leadership. Of the two major candidates remaining, we believe Obama to be the most presidential, the leader with the best chance to discard mistakes of the past and craft a new vision for the future.

US Recall News

http://www.usrecallnews.com/2008/11/we-endorse-barack-obama-for-president-here%E2%80%99s-why.html

We Endorse Barack Obama for President: Here’s Why

November 3, 2008

Don't forget to VOTE!Although our tempers may flare from time to time when the US government doesn’t do their job of keeping dangerous products off the shelves, or when drug companies ignore FDA reports and end up putting thousands of lives at risk - when it comes to choosing a side in the great Republican VS Democrat debate, we like to refrain. We like to think that some of the information found on this website can save lives. And it is therefore important that we do not knowingly alienate any one of our readers. That is why my decision as Editor to endorse Barack Obama on this website was not made lightly. However, this election is too important for us to ignore on this website.

First, I’d like to say that I think John McCain is a genuinely good man who has the best interest of the United States in his heart. I think McCain would make a much better President than George W. Bush. And no, I’m not about to pull a Joe Biden and proceed to slander McCain after commenting on what a great person he is. But I also think Barack Obama would make a better President than John McCain, and here’s why:

The Economy

I run a small business that does pretty well by most standards; and I also have a job that pays pretty well by most standards. When I go to a bipartisan source like The Tax Foundation I can find out that my tax rate would be slightly lower under Obama’s plan than McCain’s. Assuming that both candidates were able to get their budgets passed and tax plans approved as they are presented (doubtful for either of them) it is true that – under Obama’s plan - anyone making under $200,000 would get a tax break, those making between $200,000 and $250,000 would see their taxes unchanged and those making over $250,000 would see a tax increase in that the Bush-implemented tax CUTS they currently enjoy will be taken away. McCain, on the other hand, wants to make those Bush tax cuts permanent. Let’s be clear about this: Those tax cuts go to the richest people in America while the middle class is shrinking, jobs are being lost, CEOs are stealing pensions, homes are being foreclosed and the tax payers are STILL being asked to shell out billions in bailout money because the same people who were given tax breaks were gambling on subprime loans.

It all comes down to the decades-old debate on trickle-down economics VS trickle-up economics. The term “trickle down economics” has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that “money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy.” Isn’t it ironic that he was describing the cause of the Great Depression, yet some politicians continue to tout this economic theory as being something that actually works? And here we are again, after eight years of tax cuts that were given to the richest of Americans in hopes that the money would find its way down to the rest of us… where has it gotten us this time? John McCain wants to make those tax cuts permanent (call his campaign center and ask them if you don’t believe me). Obama wants to take them away and give them to the middle class. Obama’s tax plan is better for our economy, and that is why he wins my vote on the issue. (Not to mention his plans to create a new energy economy and use biofuel, solar and wind energy technology research, production and installation as a means to create new, high-paying US jobs.)

By the way, from current campaign rhetoric you’d think Obama was going to “redistribute” your money to lazy bums who sit around watching Oprah all day. Those people don’t pay federal taxes because they don’t make an income – so to say that the middle class tax cut proposed by Obama would be doing such a thing is ludicrous.

The War

For those of you who are old enough to remember the Vietnam War you may be excused for thinking you have a chronic case of Déjà vu. While it is true that we need to get out of Iraq as soon as we RESPONSIBLY can, it is also true that neither candidate has really given a detailed description of how he plans to do so. That is to be expected, given matters of national security. Yes, John McCain served admirably and we all owe him respect for that. I certainly do respect him for that and many other reasons, but I also know that he – unlike Barack Obama – voted for the war in Iraq. Obama knew the War on Terrorism had nothing to do with Iraq. He knew that not one single, solitary terrorist on any of those planes on 9/11 was from Iraq. Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. Again – none from Iraq.

When it comes to war I care more about a President’s judgment than anything else, even experience. He decides whether we go to war or not. Tactical decisions are certainly discussed with him on a macro scale – being the Commander-in-Chief after all – but day-to-day combat decisions are made by brass on the ground and people like lifelong career generals. In deciding whether we should go to war in Iraq, John McCain said Yes. Barack Obama said No, we should instead be stepping up our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan where Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda hold power, terrorize the people and plot their next attacks. Obama has proved that his judgment during times of crisis is better than John McCain, and that is why I’m voting for him.

Health Care

As you may have guessed from visiting this site, I care about health. It is of my opinion that health care is Right, not a privilege. Having traveled to and lived in other countries like Canada and Australia, I can say from first-hand experience that it took me less time to see a doctor than it does here in the US. That argument against universal health care always gets under my skin when it is used by people who have never experienced it first-hand. That issue aside, however, Barack Obama’s plan for health care does not involve Big Government coming in and taking over the health care industry. There’s nothing wrong with a private health care industry – as long as they are regulated independently. The problem with our health care system is that big insurance and pharmaceutical companies are basically allowed, through lobbyists, to write their own rules. Other problems are the inefficiency of the paper-trail health care system and the inefficiency of a system where you can only see certain doctors after seeing other doctors and getting permission. If you know your foot is broken why should you have to go to your GP in order to get a referral to see an orthopedic doctor? If you make one single mistake in this whole process (and the onus is on you to know all of the rules in that health insurance contract) the insurance company will deny your claim and leave you with all of the bills. God forbid it is something serious like an incurable disease because A: You’re going to owe hundreds-of-thousands in medical bills and B: You’ll never get health insurance again without paying rates that, frankly, if you could afford you wouldn’t need insurance in the first place.

Obama’s plan isn’t for a big, government-run health care system that forces you to wait months to see a doctor. His plan is about optimizing the system, removing the loopholes that insurance and pharmaceutical companies use to screw patients over, and making insurance affordable to those who don’t get it through their jobs, medicaid or medicare. And that is why I’m voting for Barack Obama on Health Care..

Social Issues

Personally, I’m with the Libertarian or Independent voter when it comes to social issues like religion, abortion, gay marriage and the Second Amendment. I’m not going to write an essay on any of these since there is no way to reach consensus on any of them. But I WILL give an outline:

- Religion: Yes, we are a nation of “mostly” Christians but the idea that we were a nation created by Christians for Christians is a misnomer. We came here seeking religious freedom for everyone, no matter what religion, and that is precisely what I believe in. Just keep it out of my government. McCain, Obama and Biden all see eye-to-eye with me on this one, but I’m not so sure about Sarah Palin, and that is another reason I’m voting for Barack Obama.

- Abortion: Yes, I think an unborn baby is still a human being and killing a human being is murder. I have a right to choose a vasectomy, but I do not have a right to choose murder. However, I would NOT ask a victim of rape or incest – or someone who’s own life is on the line – to go through with a pregnancy. Here’s the problem with that: If you make it illegal “except” for those situations, how many innocent men would spend half their lives in prison because a one-night-stand wanted an excuse to have an abortion? NONE of the candidates see eye-to-eye with me on this one, and I don’t expect them to. I don’t expect you to either. But if I can live with a wife who doesn’t agree with me 100% on it, I can live with a President who doesn’t either. This particular decision is not factoring into my vote, but it does certainly make me wish we could vote for Supreme Court Judges.

- Gay Marriage: I’ll keep my view on this one simple: “Who Cares?” If it were up to me I’d let ‘em do it. They couldn’t do any worse harm to the “sanctity” of marriage than us heterosexuals have been doing to it since the dawn of time. For me at least, this is a non-issue. We have more important things to worry about right now.

- Second Amendment: Yes I absolutely believe in our right to bear arms. I do understand where Barack Obama is coming from in regard to his stance that I’ll paraphrase – “You don’t need an AK-47 to shoot a deer or protect your house.” Obama leads me to believe that he thinks semi-automatic handguns and shotguns are OK, but other guns should be illegal. I’m not sure if that is his official stance or not. I don’t think he’s actually given an “official policy” but I can say that I do not agree that protecting ourselves in our own homes and hunting for our own food are the only two reasons to bear arms in the Second Amendment. In-fact, neither of those reasons is there. Instead, a much more important reason was outlined which, in this day in age, would necessitate much more than just pistols and shotguns: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Not that he could even if he wanted to, but Obama is not going to infringe on the second amendment right. It is in the constitution and, yes it was recently challenged, but was upheld by the highest court in the land. Again, this is another non-issue for me because I don’t think the status-quo here is going to change under either of the Presidential nominees.

As you can see, I have thought out my position.
Who hasn’t after two years of campaigning? I’m not a super-liberal Democrat. In-fact, I was a card-carrying independent until I had to register to vote in the Democratic primaries. We ride ATVs; I drive a pick-up; like to shoot guns… But an election for President of the United States isn’t about who you identify with. It’s about who the best person is for what is arguably the most important job in the world.

My mind was made up months ago. For the reasons above, I’ve voting for Barak Obama. I’ve also donated and volunteered for him because it is such an important election that I do not want to wonder Tuesday night if there was something else I could have done. And that is why I have written this; in hopes that maybe I could share my thought process with anyone who was still undecided to help show them how I went about deciding myself.

And for those of you who don’t feel like standing in line on Election Day, I understand. You’re busy; tired; overworked; stressed… But this is only ONE day out of the next four years and – THANK GOD – after Tuesday it will all be over with. I’m as tired of this whole election thing as everyone else is, but I would like to ask my friends, family, subscribers, and just those who happened to stop buy to please VOTE. It really is that important.

This has been an editorial and does not necessarily reflect the views of US Recall News, LLC or any of the regular US Recall News contributors.

Regards,
Editor-in-Chief
Everett Sizemore

Yale Daily News

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/26192

Yale Daily News


Published: Monday, November 3, 2008

News' View: Obama for president




Forty years ago today, the Rev. William Sloane Coffin Jr. ’49 DIV ’56 stood in Battell Chapel to address students about the upcoming presidential election. An unpopular and ill-conceived war raged overseas. Strife and division reigned at home.

“We try to play God in the world,” Coffin told students. “We must accept the guilt and shame of our Vietnam blunder before we can be humanized and act internationally with wisdom.”

The longtime University chaplain was speaking about another war in another era, but his message still resonates today.

We continue to pour billions of dollars each month into an ill-conceived war. The global community’s trust and respect for our country has suffered. We do not see that our nation and the world are any safer today than they were eight years ago. And this year’s financial collapse, topped off by the crash of formerly reliable banks and the stock market in just the past two months, makes the picture at home no more encouraging.

On the eve of that election, Coffin wasn’t pleased enough with any candidate to endorse; all he could say with certainty was that America needed to right itself.

Four decades later, as we head to the polls once again to choose a president — though for many of us, this will be the first time — we have a clear choice to make. We can continue the hubris, greed and intolerance of the last eight years. Or, as Coffin urged, we can choose humility, and the new direction that comes with it.

Barack Obama can lead us there.

* * *

“Change” became a tired cliché nearly a year ago, back when candidates like Hillary Clinton LAW ’73 and Mitt Romney piggybacked on the enthusiasm Obama had generated and also attempted to carry its banner. But, as our predecessors wrote in this space in February when they endorsed him in the Democratic primary, Obama’s promise of change has been unique, and his record has always made it plausible.

Both candidates are good men and great public servants. In John McCain, America can choose a man who has served this country as much as anyone can. His military service, his years spent as a prisoner of war and his distinguished career in Congress have won him the admiration and appreciation of his comrades, colleagues and constituents. He has won friends in both parties, and he has earned the favor of those in our profession who have covered him.

In Obama, we can choose an inspiring scholar and leader. In only two decades of adult life, he has worked as a community organizer, a constitutional law professor and a legislator at both the state and national level. He has been the president of the Harvard Law Review, the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention and the author of two best-selling books. He has shown political courage, personal fortitude and impressive intellect.

The greatest changes to expect from an Obama presidency will come simply from electing a candidate who does not see progressivism as a perversion. On almost every political issue the two parties debate today, it is clear how a Democratic president would break from the policies of the current Republican administration.

On numerous social issues, changes — and progress toward a fairer future — are long overdue. That in the 21st century we still debate whether to expand health care, protect a woman’s right to choose or grant equal rights for gays and lesbians is itself disconcerting. We look forward to the day when these are no longer debatable issues in our elections, or in our country. Obama can move us toward that day.

Similarly, we must now look to a Democrat to fix the financial mess allowed by the Republican mantra of deregulation. We trust a new president from the other party to introduce new policies, inspired by a different economic ideology, to revitalize our economy.

We must also have new leadership at the Pentagon and over military and foreign affairs. On the issue of national security, one party wants to stop fighting a costly war while the other seeks an indefinite occupation.

Given the consequences of eight years of Republican rule, we are naturally inclined to vote a Democrat into the White House this time around. But we are thrilled with the choice the Democrats have given us. We can endorse Barack Obama with enthusiasm and excitement.

Even if he is a Cantab.

* * *

In a different election, we could have supported John McCain. Not too many years ago, McCain ran for the Republican presidential nomination on the platform of a true maverick. He had bucked his party time and time again, he had refused to pander to the extreme wing of his party’s base and he had spoken honestly to the country, even when it was not easy to do so.

Then something changed.

Perhaps McCain believed he could win the presidency by sliding far to the right. And perhaps he believed he could win by exploiting the worst fears and divisions in American society. For whatever reason, McCain has become a politician in the worst sense of the word. Now we do not trust him with the presidency.

Since June, when Obama clinched his party’s nomination, McCain and his eventual running mate, Sarah Palin, have called Obama a celebrity, a socialist, a friend of terrorists and even, in so many words, a traitor. From the ridiculous to the offensive, these attacks have been unfounded.

But the campaign only reached so low when their initial approach — a truthful one — failed. At first they attacked Obama for being an inspiring speechmaker and an elitist.

As if those were bad things.

The president of the United States of America should inspire us. He or she should be elite.

Obama is a politician unlike any other we have seen in our lifetimes. His ability to inspire should not be underappreciated, and it should certainly not be considered a weakness. It rises out of genuine intellect and composure. And it will be necessary to mobilize a country that can no longer ask a president to solve problems alone. Obama offers something no other politician today does: the ability to inspire citizens across the country to work with him to address our greatest challenges.

Obama is not the perfect candidate. It is not lost on us that he has served less than four years at the national level, and that he has been running for president for the last two of those years. He has not governed as an executive, nor has he led a legislature. And since entering the Senate he has cast few controversial votes or spoken out against his party’s leadership.

But we are reassured by those with whom Obama has chosen to surround himself. From his first day in office, Obama will have Joe Biden at his side to provide wise counsel guided by decades in the Senate. He will also have, as he has had throughout the campaign, dozens of advisers with impressive experience in all areas of governance to help him. After an administration dominated by yes-men, it will be refreshing and necessary to have a president who once again invites disagreement.

In his associations, McCain, on the other hand, fails to recommend himself. Most visibly, his vice presidential selection appalls us. As popular as Palin is among her constituents, she has shown herself to be shockingly ignorant on many of the most important issues national leaders confront daily. Watching Palin since her addition to McCain’s ticket, it has become clear to millions of Americans that in the most important decision of his campaign, McCain placed political strategy over qualifications. So much for “Country First.”

Before he selected Palin to join his ticket, McCain asked the country not to choose Obama because he is inexperienced. But experience — or the lack of it — does not wholly define a person. We do not find it an insurmountable weakness that Obama does not have decades of familiarity with Robert’s Rules of Order and the nuances of the Senate Commerce Committee. It will be Congress, not Obama, writing our laws under his administration.

Obama’s inexperience, while not ideal, is hardly a disqualifying factor to his candidacy, at least not after all he has shown throughout the campaign. He has been steady and strong, thoughtful and honest, resolute and restrained. He won his primary and grew his support without tearing down his opponents, and without undermining his reasons for running.

* * *

Two years into this historic campaign, we are comfortable elevating Obama to the White House because of what he has proven himself to be, both as a lawmaker and as a person.

We are encouraged by his positions on issues important to all Americans, notably those listed earlier. But as students, we must think too about each candidate’s stance on education.

Obama’s vision will be felt here at Yale and on college campuses nationwide. To help young people defray the cost of college, he will advance a tax credit in return for community service — a thoughtful and fair idea. McCain has proposed nothing so innovative.

Of course, Obama offers more than policies should he be elected. He promises remarkable judgment and intellect. He has shown eagerness to rise above party lines and to transcend ideological entitlement, ego and special interests. He aspires to govern by cooperation, not by brute force; to treat the world community with tolerance and respect, not aloofness and disregard. And he respects the Constitution.

This is what America needs.

The old John McCain — the one we saw in the 2000 primary, and over many years in the Senate — might have fit that description. But the McCain of this campaign will bring four more years of political strife and closed-mindedness to the White House.

Obama had it right at his party’s convention. “America, we are better than these last eight years,” he said. “We are a better country than this.”

Indeed we are. And though both campaigns have claimed as much, one campaign has shown it to be true. One campaign has appealed to hope and unity, the other to fear and division. One campaign has looked to the future, the other to the past. One campaign has sought to represent the United States of America, the other the select few who live in the so-called “real” America. We can’t allow the latter to reach the White House.

* * *

The Rev. Coffin passed away two years ago, but his wisdom remains with us. “Hope is a state of mind independent of the state of the world,” he once told an interviewer. “If your heart’s full of hope, you can be persistent when you can’t be optimistic. You can keep the faith despite the evidence, knowing that only in so doing has the evidence any chance of changing. So while I’m not optimistic, I’m always very hopeful.”

Obama, too, has spoken about hope. But he has not only spoken about it; he has created it. While we have come to our endorsement by judging the records of the two candidates, it is impossible to overlook the positive power of the Obama campaign — and the negative force of the McCain campaign.

Though once we may have been torn between these two men, over two years of campaigning, the contrast between them has grown increasingly stark. And we have come to support Obama with no hesitation.

In his convention speech, Obama called this election our chance to keep the American promise alive. It is a chance we cannot afford to pass up.

Barack Obama’s message of hope and vision toward the future has lifted us over the course of this campaign. Let him now do the same to the nation.

PA, Daily Pennsylvanian

http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2008/11/03/VotingGuide/Endorsement.Obama.For.President-3520797.shtml

Endorsement | Obama for president

By: Opinion Board

Posted: 11/3/08

Senator Obama is not our savior.

He will not solve all our problems in his first hundred days. He will not restore the economy overnight.

But while Senator McCain is a candidate with a compelling history of public service, Obama offers a compelling vision for the direction of this country. It is for this reason that we endorse him for president.

During this historic election, the Illinois Senator has demonstrated a willingness to build consensus and engage intellectually with people who disagree with him. In the debates, we saw a thoughtful and prudent leader who could back up his policy proposals with hard evidence.

When we endorsed Senator Clinton for the Democratic ticket in April, we expressed concern over Obama's ability to back "Yes we can" with "How we can." In the past few months, he's shown us how.

On major domestic issues, Obama offers substantive reform. His American Opportunity Tax Credit would give students more college options in exchange for public service. His proposals to simplify financial aid forms will make higher education more accessible. And, unlike McCain, Obama views America's cities as economic assets that deserve federal investment, rather than economic liabilities that can be neglected. Philadelphia will benefit from Obama's plan to adequately fund the Community Development Block Grant and federal infrastructure projects.

We still admire McCain's principled leadership on many issues, including earmark-reform, torture and the War in Iraq. But recently, the Arizona senator has pandered to the far-right. In response to the financial crisis, McCain offers tired rhetoric instead of a unified economic plan. Perhaps most worrisome of all, McCain has selected a vice presidential candidate who is singularly unqualified to deal with the challenges of the White House.

This is the first time that a candidate has brought so many into the political process. Obama's intelligence and vision inspire millions. We give him our wholehearted support.

Newsweek

Newsweek
Sponsored By
The Case for Barack Obama

Obama is pushing to change the parameters of the country's comfort zone. That's leadership.

Fareed Zakaria
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Oct 27, 2008

It has become fashionable to lament the state of presidential politics and decry the tenor of campaigns. But in fact, this election has been a pleasant surprise. In the last debate, as the candidates discussed their respective health-care plans in some detail, the danger was that the American people would be turned off not by negativity but by boredom.

Compare this election to the one in 1988—when the Pledge of Allegiance, Willie Horton, flag factories and Belgian endives dominated the campaign. Or contrast the relatively brief appearance of William Ayers with the barrage of Swift-Boat attacks on John Kerry. Some of this is because the American people have clearly tired of slash-and-burn campaigns. But much of it is because the two candidates are men of decency and honor.

John McCain is brave, and this courage has manifested itself not simply in the prisons of Vietnam. Over the past two decades he has broken with his party and president on global warming, campaign finance, government spending and the use of torture. He has chosen, for the most part, to forgo the racial coding that the Republican Party had used for decades in its campaigns. But despite these tremendous strengths, as a candidate for president in 2008, he is the wrong man for the wrong job at the wrong time.

To watch McCain address the current economic crisis is to see a man out of step with his time. His responses have been a recitation of old slogans—cut taxes, limit the government, cut spending—that are largely irrelevant to today's problems. Does anyone really believe that tackling earmarks will get credit markets functioning? In some ways, McCain's intellectual fatigue reflects the exhaustion of the ideological revolution begun by Reagan and Thatcher. The country needs fresh thinking that is ready to accept new facts and new ideas. It's a new world out there.

On foreign policy, John McCain is a fighter. In fact, his bellicosity has increased over the past few years as he has discovered his inner neoconservative. He wants to keep the battle going in Iraq, speaks casually of bombing Iran and is skeptical of the Bush administration's diplomacy with North Korea. He wants to kick Russia out of the G8 and humiliate China by excluding it from that body as well. He sees a "league of democracies" locked in conflict with an alliance of autocracies. This is cold-war nostalgia, not a strategy for the 21st century.

McCain's problem is not only one of substance but perhaps more crucially of temperament. Throughout the campaign, he has been volatile and impulsive. He moves suddenly and unpredictably—one day suspending his campaign, the next urging that the chairman of the SEC be fired, the third blaming Democrats for the economic crisis. He apparently wanted to name as his vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman, a pro-choice semi-Democrat with decades of experience, but then instead picked someone close to the opposite—Sarah Palin, a rabble-rousing ultraconservative with limited experience and knowledge of the issues.

By contrast, Barack Obama has been steady and reasoned throughout his campaign. After careful deliberation, he endorsed the administration's decision to intervene in the financial industry but with caveats—not to score campaign points but to make the program work better. These modifications were adopted by the administration and employed last week by Secretary Paulson.

Obama's broader economic agenda—health-care reform, infrastructure investments and a major push for alternative energy—are large solutions to the growing problems of our times. They are not radical, but neither are they overly constrained by the fear of seeming liberal. Bill and Hillary Clinton were always careful not to stray too far from the country's comfort zone. Obama is pushing to change the parameters of that zone. That's leadership.

On foreign policy, Obama is cool to McCain's hot, discriminating about the fights he wants to pick. He argues for greater international cooperation and the aggressive use of diplomacy. He sees a world in which America doesn't have to get adversarial with everyone and tries instead to work with other countries—of whatever hue—to solve the common problems we face.

Let's be honest: neither candidate has past experience that is relevant to being president, except that they have now both run large, multiyear, multimillion-dollar, 50-state campaigns. By common consent, McCain's has been chaotic and ineffective, while Obama has run a superb operation, and done so with little of the drama and discord that usually plague political machines.

This is the case for Obama on substance, which is the most important criterion. But symbolism is also a powerful force in human affairs. Imagine what people around the world would think if they saw America once again inventing the future. And imagine how Americans would feel if they saw their country once again fulfilling its founding creed of equal opportunity, if they saw that there really were no barriers in their country, not even to the highest office in the land, not even for a man with a brown face and a strange name.

I admit to a personal interest. I have a 9-year-old son named Omar. I firmly believe that he will be able to do absolutely anything he wants in this country when he grows up. But I admit that I will feel more confident about his future if a man named Barack Obama became president of the United States.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/164498

WY, Casper Star Tribune, Cheney's home town

http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/11/03/editorial/editorial/8fb5b809854145d7872574f50026785c.txt




Star-Tribune Editorial Board

It is a foregone conclusion that Wyoming's three electoral votes will go to Sen. John McCain. It would be easy for the Star-Tribune to simply agree with the majority of voters in this red state and endorse the Republican candidate for president.

But this isn't an ordinary election, and Sen. Barack Obama has the potential to be an extraordinary leader at a time we desperately need one. The next occupant of the White House will inherit a national economy that's collapsing and two wars our nation has been fighting for years, depleting valuable resources we need to fix a multitude of domestic problems. Far too many of our nation's citizens live paycheck to paycheck, worried about whether they'll have a job next week or if a medical crisis will bankrupt them.

What America needs most in these troubled times is a president who will move the country in a positive direction. The candidate who is most likely to chart a new course that will lead us to better days is Obama. Moreover, he is the best candidate for Wyoming.

In our state and across the country, Obama has reinvigorated his party and won over independent and even GOP voters. A record 7,000 people participated in Wyoming's Democratic county caucuses, which Obama convincingly won.

Obama earned the endorsement of Gov. Dave Freudenthal, who has an 80 percent approval rating in Wyoming and is probably the least partisan governor in the nation. Cynics may say Freudenthal wants a job in an Obama administration, but it's simply not in the man's character to set aside his Wyoming values for personal gain.

Wyoming's energy-based economy is faring better than the nation's, but there's no guarantee that will last forever. Obama supports the development of clean-coal technology, which could assure a future for our vast coal resources. His focus on energy independence through a major investment in alternative energy research and development could lead to the creation of new industry and jobs in the state, and dovetails nicely with the work being done at the new School of Energy Resources at the University of Wyoming.

On Western issues, Obama seeks the advice of people like Freudenthal and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. McCain showed a surprising lack of understanding of Western issues when he initially called for renegotiation of the Colorado River Compact, before others in the region set him straight.

Two of the best ways to judge presidential candidates is by looking at how they conduct their campaigns and who they select as vice president. On both fronts, Obama wins impressively.

We may not always agree with Sen. Joe Biden's decisions, but Obama tapped him to bring valuable foreign policy experience to the ticket. There is no question that the longtime senator is capable of serving as president if needed.

McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, however, shows extremely poor judgment. She has shown repeatedly that she is simply not ready to fill McCain's shoes.

Obama's advisers are extremely capable leaders. It's good to know that he turns to the likes of Warren Buffett for financial matters and retired Gen. Colin Powell on military issues. With his emphasis on diplomacy along with a commitment to protecting America, Obama gives us our best hope of regaining the respect of other nations.

If the John McCain of 2000 saw today's counterpart, he wouldn't recognize himself. McCain is no longer a GOP maverick, or the war hero whose principles were unwavering. He has flip-flopped on issues ranging from tax cuts to torture in an effort to win over the conservative base of his party. He has waged a dismal campaign based on fear and divisiveness.

We don't agree with Obama on several issues. There is no evidence that raising taxes on any segment of the population has ever stimulated the economy. He should reject this part of his economic plan.

But his campaign has been an honorable one that has focused on inclusiveness and hope. The three presidential debates showed Obama to be a calm, thoughtful leader with a unique vision of the future. The contrast with his opponent, who seemed angry and erratic, could not have been more stark or more telling.

We endorse Barack Obama for president.