For Obama:

Barack Obama: Democrats deserve a nominee for change

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

On Tuesday, Pennsylvanians will have the unusual luxury of voting in a Democratic presidential primary that promises to be truly relevant. Like two opposing armies marching to a new Gettysburg, the forces of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton come to this latest battlefield symbolizing two views of America -- one of the past, one of the future. Pennsylvania Democrats need to rise to the historic moment.

For us it is the candidates' vision and character that loom as the decisive factors in this race. For as dissimilar as they are, the two share much in common. It starts with their mold-breaking candidacies. Whoever wins the nomination will vie for a special place in U.S. history -- to be either the first African-American or the first female commander in chief.

•

Although their backgrounds are different, they have come to the same conclusion, one now shared by many Americans, that the Bush administration has taken the nation on a profoundly wrong course both at home and abroad. The excitement that has animated this primary season -- the surge of new voters, the change of party registrations -- is an expression of the nation's hunger for change.

For as hard as they have run against each other, both candidates are united in running vehemently against President Bush and all his works -- another common theme that came out in their visits to the Post-Gazette editorial board on successive days this week. Sen. Clinton was the more explicit in her disdain: George W. Bush "is one of the worst, if not the worst, president we have ever had."

Not surprisingly, the policies they advocate have much in common and are generally the polar opposites of those espoused by the current administration.

On the domestic front, the prescriptions they offer on issues such as health care, the environment and education declare that government must be an agent of change to benefit the lives of ordinary Americans, not a power that shrinks from regulating or directing for fear of offending a core ideology.

In their expansive plans, Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton do have their own emphases and differences -- Sen. Clinton's health-care plan, for example, would cover more Americans than Sen. Obama's, but both would be a vast improvement on the status quo that leaves 47 million Americans uninsured and continues to soar in expense.

On foreign policy, both are united in their desire to bring the troops home from Iraq while improving the strategic situation in Afghanistan, the place of unfinished business where the al-Qaida spiders first spun their deadly web for 9/11 and are coming back thanks to the Iraq diversion.

On Iraq, for those inclined to remember, Sen. Clinton carries more baggage, for she voted to approve the war in the first place. For those inclined to forgive, she would seek to repair relations with allies strained by the Iraq misadventure, as Sen. Obama also would.

There is one last common ground for these candidates: They are both uncommonly smart, thoughtful and very well-versed in the issues. They care about people and they care about the workings of government. They are prepared.

Their strengths promise, in short, the one thing that the Bush administration has so shockingly lacked: competency. There will be no intellectually lazy president in the White House if either succeeded to it, no outsourced thinking to the vice president or the secretary of defense, no cheerfully shallow praise for unqualified political appointments, no enduring cause for embarrassment by the American people.

So forget all the primary skirmishing. Sen. Obama is every bit as prepared to answer the ring of the 3 a.m. phone as Sen. Clinton. Forget this idea that Sen. Obama is all inspiration and no substance. He has detailed positions on the major issues. When the occasion demands it, he can marshal eloquence in the service of making challenging arguments, which he did to great effect in his now-famous speech putting his pastor's remarks in the greater context of race relations in America.

Nor is he any sort of elitist. As he said yesterday in effectively refuting this ridiculous charge in a meeting with Post-Gazette editors, "my life's work has been to get everybody a fair shake."

This editorial began by observing that one candidate is of the past and one of the future. The litany of criticisms heaped on Sen. Obama by the Clinton camp, simultaneously doing the work of the Republicans, is as illustrative as anything of which one is which. These are the cynical responses of the old politics to the new.

Sen. Obama has captured much of the nation's imagination for a reason. He offers real change, a vision of an America that can move past not only racial tensions but also the political partisanship that has so bedeviled it.

•

To be sure, Sen. Clinton carries the aspirations of women in particular, but even in this she is something of a throwback, a woman whose identity and public position are indelibly linked to her husband, her own considerable talents notwithstanding. It does not help that the Clinton brand is seen by many in the country as suspect and shifty, bearing the grimy stamp of political calculation counting as much as principle.

Pennsylvania -- this encrusted, change-averse commonwealth where a state liquor monopoly holds on against all reason and where municipal fiefdoms shrink from sensible consolidation -- needs to take a strong look at the new face and the new hope in this race. Because political business-as-usual is more likely to bring the usual disappointment for the Democrats this fall, the Post-Gazette endorses the nomination of Barack Obama, who has brought an excitement and an electricity to American politics not seen since the days of John F. Kennedy.

I can't wait to see who the Trib (Scaife's paper) endorses.

We can look back at the past and argue about whether we should have gone to war or not, whether we should have invaded or not, and that's a good academic argument.

John McCain, April 15, 2008.

George Washington retired here upon leaving the Presidency, building one of the largest distilleries in the nation on the property upon his retirement.  Thomas Jefferson spoke French and Italian and read in seven languages.  FDR was born into an incredibly wealthy and prominent family, studied at Harvard and began law school at Columbia, and worked on Wall Street in corporate law.  His distant cousin, Teddy Roosevelt, also born into the wealthy Roosevelt family, wrote over 35 books, graduated magna cum laude from Harvard and studied law at Columbia, played polo and spoke French and German.  He was also 42 when he took office.  This is a pretty interesting little piece on him.  Woodrow Wilson served as President of Princeton, went on "cycyling" vacations in Britain, and got a Ph.D from Johns Hopkins.  Reagan, though not raised wealthy, was an actor, and was making what would be a million dollars a year today before he entered politics.  

These are six of the Presidents that consistently appear on the top ten lists ranking all the United States Presidents.  There are of course, high-ranked Presidents who did not come from prominent backgrounds: Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, Andrew Jackson, and Eisenhower.  

I think we can probably agree that the first six would probably be considered "elite."  And apparently, by today's standards, they would not be elected.  What a shame.  They did some pretty decent things.  

I still don't buy the claim that Obama is any more "elite" than the other two candidates, or any of the candidates we've seen in recent years from both parties.  George Bush, the son of a former President?  Can you get any more elite than that?  Obama, Clinton and McCain are a bunch of millionaires throwing around elitist charges.  No absurdity there.  

If we, as a country, choose to again elect someone based on the I-want-to-drink-a-beer-with-you threshold, I will just sit here and bang my head off the wall for four years.  

As usual, Jon Stewart put it better than I can. 

Doesn’t elite mean good? Is that not something we’re looking for in a president anymore?…The job you’re applying for - if you get it, and it goes well, they might carve your head into a mountain.If you don’t actually think you are better than us, then what the f@*k are you doing?…In fact not only do I want an elite president, I want someone who is embarassingly superior to me. I want someone who speaks sixteen languages and sleeps two hours a night hanging upside down in a chamber they themselves designed.

 Of course, he's just another member of the elite celebrity class.

So, can we see McCain's tax returns now?

Some random thoughts.

Bill, supposed master of campaigning:

 "Everywhere I go there are all these people with signs, saying I'm not bitter - I'm not bitter."

But...ABC News reports: 

The strong sentiments were appreciated by the crowd, but were not entirely accurate.  During Clinton's seven stops in North Carolina on Saturday there were no "I'm not bitter" signs.  There was a small assortment of people at his later events wearing stickers with the slogan, but many of those sporting the stickers weren't even sure what they meant. 

And wasn't the campaign passing out the stickers themselves?  I was too young in the 90s to see Bill Clinton's "masterful campaigning" in action.  I have yet to see it in action on this campaign.

Can you really throw around charges of elitism next to a photo of you wearing a bow-tie?

I already tire of Bitter/Cling/Bullshit-gate.  The airways and blogosphere is alit with outrage over these comments.  That's fine, and certainly within people's rights.  But where is the outrage over the fact that we've just learned that our President approved the worst kinds of torture?  That he lied about Abu Ghraib, when he pretended that was some outlier, blamed it on the troops there?  That our country has become one run by those who could be tried for war crimes?  

I have not had to re-login at all today.  

And, On Sunday, Politico helps out the Clinton campaign by telling us all what they really want us to know, about why Obama doesn't stand a shot against those mean-ol' Republicans.  Well, I for one, am sick and tired of worrying about how we're going to take the next beating from the GOP attack machine.  Not this time.  This time, the Democrats should be the ones doing the beating.  We have to stop thinking about how many punches we can take from the bully and instead, do what always needs to be done at one point or another in every bully story: Stand Up To The Bully.  

Gotta love the internet.
http://www.bittervoters.org/