LA Times Endorses Obama

In an editorial released today, the Times writes: "As the presidential race draws to its conclusion, it is Obama's character and temperament that come to the fore. It is his steadiness. His maturity. These are qualities American leadership has sorely lacked for close to a decade." Complete endorsement at: 9EC5O/RGGD/NDHWX/QR/t

This is a shocker, the LA Times has not endorsed a Presidential candidate since 1972 and has never endorsed a Democratic Candidate.  Their reasoning is spot on and I believe that more and more people are coming to this realization as the McCain campaign continues to be it's own worst enemy.  Joe the Plumber?

The LA Times is right, we need some calm coming from the top down, not the usual shrillness that we're used to in our politics, from terror alerts to panicked press conferences from the Rose Garden.  It's about time that someone ran the Country the way it deserves to be run, with calm and confidence.  

It is inherent in the American character to aspire to greatness, so it can be disorienting when the nation stumbles or loses confidence in bedrock principles or institutions. That's where the United States is as it prepares to select a new president: We have seen the government take a stake in venerable private financial houses; we have witnessed eight years of executive branch power grabs and erosion of civil liberties; we are still recovering from a murderous attack by terrorists on our own soil and still struggling with how best to prevent a recurrence.

We need a leader who demonstrates thoughtful calm and grace under pressure, one not prone to volatile gesture or capricious pronouncement. We need a leader well-grounded in the intellectual and legal foundations of American freedom. Yet we ask that the same person also possess the spark and passion to inspire the best within us: creativity, generosity and a fierce defense of justice and liberty.

The Times without hesitation endorses Barack Obama for president.

This is significant to me because the The LA Times puts it so perfectly, it's time for a "leader who demonstrates thoughtful calm and grace under pressure, one not prone to volatile gesture or capricious pronouncement."

Our Government should be a calming influence not the source of ignorant panic.  But to say this is an accident on the part of the Bush Administration is something many here know not to be true.  The deliberate and repeated "shocking" of the American people to forward a power grab for just a few has to end and I do believe that the election of Barack Obama could indeed do this exact thing.

Everything Obama is goes in complete opposition to the methods outlined in Naomi Klein's brilliant book, "Shock Doctrine".  It's about time to see the end of Disaster Capitalism and see a new era of job creation to actually react in a calm and moderate manner to the needs of the Country ;rebuilding rather than just keeping things together long enough to get through the next election (Katrina?  Sending Blackwell there to keep the peace and hiring people outside the city to rebuild?).

And it's not just for Obama, there is a sentiment that many here will agree with that McCain picked Palin to throw a wrench in the words, which it did, but it was such a bad choice that whatever he gained by his "maverick" move was erased by her total lack of ability.  It's this panic mode executive decision that is just another reason to not just vote for Obama but against McCain and his bad judgement.

Indeed, the presidential campaign has rendered McCain nearly unrecognizable. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was, as a short-term political tactic, brilliant. It was also irresponsible, as Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory. The decision calls into question just what kind of thinking -- if that's the appropriate word -- would drive the White House in a McCain presidency. Fortunately, the public has shown more discernment, and the early enthusiasm for Palin has given way to national ridicule of her candidacy and McCain's judgment.

UPDATE: Yes, the Times did endorse in the Primaries, but in doing so they ended a 36-year tradition of not endorsing.

The Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times has decided to end a 36-year tradition and resume editorial endorsements of candidates for president, for both parties in the upcoming California primary and a separate choice later for the November general election.

The endorsement selection for each party in the primary races will be published on the editorial page on an as-yet-undetermined date before the Feb. 5 California primary, according to Jim Newton, editorial page editor. on/2008/01/endorse.html

Tags: Barack Obama, Endorsements, LA Times (all tags)



Re: LA Times Endorses Obama

Good news. They are also endorsing "No on 8":

In other words, the very act of denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry -- traditionally the highest legal and societal recognition of a loving commitment -- by definition relegates them and their relationships to second-class status, separate and not all that equal.

To be sure, the court overturned Proposition 22, a vote of the people. That is the court's duty when a law is unconstitutional, even if it is exceedingly popular. Civil rights are commonly hard-won, and not the result of widespread consensus. Whites in the South vehemently rejected the 1954 Supreme Court decision to desegregate schools. For that matter, Californians have accused the state Supreme Court of obstructing the people's will on marriage before -- in 1948, when it struck down a ban on interracial marriages.

Fundamental rights are exactly that. They should neither wait for popular acceptance, nor be revoked because it is lacking.

Nice to see the LA Times editorial board showing some real courage on this issue.

by LakersFan 2008-10-17 11:54AM | 0 recs
No on 8

Thank goodness for some sanity.  But I keep seeing a lot of Yes signs here in the OC.  Tonight I will be demonstrating in Mission Viejo with others to show that No on 8 is alive and well in South County too!

by Ellinorianne 2008-10-17 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: No on 8

After seeing hundreds of No on 8 signs in my neck of the woods, I saw two Yes signs over the last two days. They are really annoying.

by LakersFan 2008-10-17 12:11PM | 0 recs
Yes, they are...

I saw the first one in my neighborhood last weekend. I'm so glad I finally have a No sign in my yard!

by atdleft 2008-10-17 07:37PM | 0 recs
I'm glad they did...

The LA Times sided with us. We'll need as much help as we can get to defeat 8!

by atdleft 2008-10-17 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: LA Times Endorses Obama

Virtual rec!

Indeed, we need a President who acts like an adult, and treats us like one as well.

by username 2008-10-17 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: LA Times Endorses Obama

Good to see some courage from a conservative paper. It's about time!

Nice report on my original home state. The economy definitely trumps most other things (for most voters anyway). Obama needs to continue to drive this home big time.

'Voter Fraud' Is A Fraud

by kjvd00 2008-10-17 10:12PM | 0 recs
Re: LA Times Endorses Obama

We have to remember to give Republicans and those few Independents not yet voting for Democrats a chance to vent their anger and frustration. For the most part, working and middle class families have been suffering for quite some time now. Are they not as furious as we are about what Republicans have done to this country? Yes, they are. In 8 years Republicans in the White House, Senate and House have managed to not only allow, but encouraged the nastiest economic situation this country has faced, possibly ever. Let's not forget there are quite a few very wealthy Republicans who actually aren't suffering economically. Good for the LA Times. Now we all need to keep reaching out to Republicans and Independents and letting them know we hear them and need their votes. Together we have a much better chance of making this crisis last a few less years.

by Jeter 2008-10-18 12:08AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads