To the surprise of exactly nobody, the Boston Globe has endorsed Barack Obama for president.
COME JANUARY, a new president will take charge of a nation diminished, an America that is far shakier economically, less secure militarily, and less respected internationally than it was eight years before. The nation needs a chief executive who has the temperament and the nerves to shepherd Americans through what promises to be a grueling period – and who has the vision to restore this country to its place of leadership in the world.
Such a leader is at hand. With great enthusiasm, the Globe endorses Senator Barack Obama for president. The charismatic Democrat from Illinois has the ability to channel Americans’ hopes and rally the public together, at a time when the winds are picking up and the clouds keep on darkening.
Unlike many of his rivals this year of either party, Obama isn’t refighting the political or cultural battles of the 1960s. Instead, he is asking Americans to take responsibility for the nation’s problems now; no one else will take care of them, and the consequences of years of disunity and profligacy should not be visited upon future generations.
What is, perhaps, a bit more surprising is that the Globe found it necessary also to publish something of an anti-endorsement, essentially rescinding its backing of John McCain in the GOP primary. The bottom line:
Campaigns are crucibles, and this one has revealed McCain to be erratic, out of touch with ordinary Americans, and, with Palin as his shotgun messenger, too quick with the sneer, smear, and division. He has been a profound disappointment, and he is unfit to lead the nation into its perilous future.
A harsh assessment, but also an accurate one. A lot of people from a lot of ideological viewpoints used to like McCain (I crossed over in 2000 to vote for him in the presidential primary). The last eight years have seen, among other things, the almost pitiful — and largely self-inflicted — collapse of McCain’s appeal to independents and to independent-minded Democrats. It’s a shame, really.
Is that a swipe at Bristol Palin’s situation? (Probably not, but the Globe should be careful in light of the “Lipstick on a Pig” episode. The right seems to be crying foul a little to often these days.)
Bill Kristol continues his theme: “Malpractice,” by McCain campaign:
<
p>
<
p>McCain campaign spokeswoman Nancy Pfotenhauer responds on Fox News:
<
p>
<
p>
I know that endorsements really don’t mean a lot in the scheme of things, but there are some interesting trends in which way the newspaper endorsements are going.
<
p>Obama has been endorsed by 25 papers and 4 national magazines, compared to just 7 papers for McCain, with a circulation advantage of 5:1. Several of Obama’s papers had previously endorsed Bush in both ’00 and ’04.
<
p>By comparison, Kerry barely edged Bush in 2004 endorsements and Bush got nearly 60% of the endorsements in 2000.
<
p>For what it’s worth…
As if there were such a thing.
Why are McCain and Palin both in PA today?
<
p>They’re losing the state by 12+ points! Time to give that one up.
<
p>Why aren’t they in Ohio?
<
p>It seems like they’re only chance now is to try to hold onto the Bush 04 states.
I haven’t followed him that closely, so I honestly don’t know the answer to this, but is Christopher Hitchens’ endorsement of Obama a surprise, or just an indication of how many people McCain and Palin have managed to alienate?
He is largely disowned by liberals because he was an advocate of the invasion of Iraq, and remains a defender of the war.
<
p>For this, he deemed a “conservative” much in the same way that conservative opponents of the war were/are deemed “liberal.”
<
p>It would have been more surprising if he went for McCain.