PDA

View Full Version : Washington Post endorses Obama



Chuck Bao
10/17/2008, 04:27 PM
This editorial pretty much clinches it for me.

Not really, I already voted absentee ballot for Marshall Co., but I like their points.

Fear mongering is backfiring. Calling people names and labels is backfiring.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603436.html?hpid=opinionsbox1


THE NOMINATING process this year produced two unusually talented and qualified presidential candidates. There are few public figures we have respected more over the years than Sen. John McCain. Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president.

The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama's relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.

Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building. At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation. Abroad, the best evidence suggests that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good...(read the whole article from the link)

Frozen Sooner
10/17/2008, 04:29 PM
In other unsurprising news, I ate a bunch of Chinese food for lunch and took a big ol' dump about an hour later.

KC//CRIMSON
10/17/2008, 04:32 PM
In other unsurprising news, I ate a bunch of Chinese food for lunch and took a big ol' dump about an hour later.


This is why I never order the #3 at Panda Express.

Tulsa_Fireman
10/17/2008, 04:37 PM
*clutches chest in absolute shock*

NOT THE WASHINGTON POST! OMG LOL BBQ MVP VIP DOO DOO

Frozen Sooner
10/17/2008, 04:39 PM
This is why I never order the #3 at Panda Express.

See, I LIKE taking a big ol' work grumper. I'm the only guy here, so it's like I have a private bathroom.

Chuck Bao
10/17/2008, 04:50 PM
In other unsurprising news, I ate a bunch of Chinese food for lunch and took a big ol' dump about an hour later.

Heh!

Oh, come on guys. It wasn't the fact that the Washington Post endorsed Obama. It was the reasons for the endorsement.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I like to read these newspaper endorsements.

And like it or not, the Washington Post is respected around the world.

Even CNBC thought it was newsworthy enough to read the first three paragraphs of the endorsement.

These newspaper endorsements should be coming out now.

Please post those or links to your regional papers. I would like reading them.

Thanks.

Frozen Sooner
10/17/2008, 04:54 PM
I didn't say I disagreed with their endorsement or that it didn't raise valid points. It just wasn't a big temblor on the Richter Scale.

Now if the Washington Times were to follow suit, that'd be a big deal. :D

The Anchorage Daily News is a McClatchy paper, so I'm sure they've already endorsed Obama.

Frozen Sooner
10/17/2008, 08:26 PM
A bit more surprising: The Chicago Tribune just endorsed Obama. Now, of course, it's his "home town" newspaper, but considering they've NEVER endorsed a Democrat in 160+ years of publishing, that's pretty unexpected.

GottaHavePride
10/17/2008, 08:53 PM
LA Times endorses Obama: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-dem3feb02,0,3530861.story

They haven't endorsed ANY presidential candidates since Nixon in 72, and it's their first-ever endorsement of a Democrat.

GottaHavePride
10/17/2008, 08:55 PM
And a whole bunch of others: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/17/obama-pulling-away-newspaper-endorsement-race/

King Crimson
10/17/2008, 08:59 PM
liberal media bias.

LosAngelesSooner
10/17/2008, 10:47 PM
liberal media bias.Really?

The Chicago Tribune and the L.A. Times both have never endorsed a Democratic candidate, to my knowledge.

Also the Chicago Tribune was founded by some of the founding members of the Republican Party and has always been a Republican stronghold...

Hardly a "liberal media bias." More like a bad turn of events for McCain. (though, ultimately, I don't think it'll make much of a difference)

tommieharris91
10/17/2008, 11:40 PM
Really?

The Chicago Tribune and the L.A. Times both have never endorsed a Democratic candidate, to my knowledge.

Also the Chicago Tribune was founded by some of the founding members of the Republican Party and has always been a Republican stronghold...

Hardly a "liberal media bias." More like a bad turn of events for McCain. (though, ultimately, I don't think it'll make much of a difference)

Your sarcasm detector is broken.

LosAngelesSooner
10/17/2008, 11:45 PM
Your sarcasm detector is broken.Drat. Drat and double drat!!!!
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39066000/jpg/_39066919_dick_270.jpg

Okla-homey
10/18/2008, 06:41 AM
Heh!

Oh, come on guys. It wasn't the fact that the Washington Post endorsed Obama. It was the reasons for the endorsement.



Anyone can pen an editorial calling a pig a Tennessee Walking Horse, but that doesn't make it practical to saddle it up and ride it in a parade. Carter was conciliatory and remarkably bright too, and we all know how his presidency turned out. The fact is, whether its admitted in polite company or not; no white person could be seriously considered for the job of President of the United States with BHO's resume.

King Crimson
10/18/2008, 06:51 AM
Anyone can pen an editorial calling a pig a Tennessee Walking Horse, but that doesn't make it practical to saddle it up and ride it in a parade. Carter was conciliatory and remarkably bright too, and we all know how his presidency turned out. The fact is, whether its admitted in polite company or not; no white person could be seriously considered for the job of President of the United States with BHO's resume.

an amazingly stupid statement based in the racism you think you disclaim. you, yourself, have said (trying to sound "hip") that the GOP "brand" was in the tank...now you argue it's just some reverse racism that makes for an Obama win.

Of course, if i'd posted as many hundred times couched in fake political theory and "common sense" about how Obama can't win....i might be back peddling too.

Turd_Ferguson
10/18/2008, 06:57 AM
an amazingly stupid statement based in the racism you think you disclaim. you, yourself, have said (trying to sound "hip") that the GOP "brand" was in the tank...now you argue it's just some reverse racism that makes for an Obama win.

Of course, if i'd posted as many hundred times couched in fake political theory and "common sense" about how Obama can't win....i might be back peddling too.Two words: A. CORN.:D

Turd_Ferguson
10/18/2008, 07:00 AM
an amazingly stupid statement based in the racism you think you disclaim. you, yourself, have said (trying to sound "hip") that the GOP "brand" was in the tank...now you argue it's just some reverse racism that makes for an Obama win.

Of course, if i'd posted as many hundred times couched in fake political theory and "common sense" about how Obama can't win....i might be back peddling too.Also, what percentage of voters for Obama, do you think, are voting simply because he's black?

Okla-homey
10/18/2008, 07:01 AM
an amazingly stupid statement based in the racism you think you disclaim. you, yourself, have said (trying to sound "hip") that the GOP "brand" was in the tank...now you argue it's just some reverse racism that makes for an Obama win.



The races of the respective candidates are undeniably a significant factor in this race. It is simply absurd to assert otherwise. Acknowledging that fact doesn't mean the person doing so is "racist."

Search American history and find a candidate who won a major party's nomination for the top job with a thinner resume than BHO and get back to us.

SoonerStormchaser
10/18/2008, 07:33 AM
Fear mongering is backfiring. Calling people names and labels is backfiring.


Yah, BHO scaring people into thinking that electing JSM means four more years of President Bush is really backfiring.

Come off it already, Chuck!

King Crimson
10/18/2008, 08:44 AM
Search American history and find a candidate who won a major party's nomination for the top job with a thinner resume than BHO and get back to us.

this is one issue. the one you are arguing is another.

it's not me, you've been saying the guy "can't win" for 6-8 months. the "thin resume" is only the latest of your reasoning.

leavingthezoo
10/18/2008, 08:50 AM
The fact is, whether its admitted in polite company or not; no white person could be seriously considered for the job of President of the United States with BHO's resume.

Didn't you say the same thing about a black man when you called it for McCain? Or are you just subtly being the devil's advocate, pretending BHO stands a glimmer of a chance to take the White House? I'm confused as to where you stand now. Are you still calling it for McCain?

On the other side of your theory is the belief a white man in BHO's position would have long shut the door on McCain because he wouldn't have his mad crazy blackness as a hindrance.

Theories. They're... theories.

soonerhubs
10/18/2008, 09:26 AM
Why don't the pubs admit that they screwed up way back in the spring when all the morons voted against Romney and then continued in their quest for failure by selecting an individual who obviously was not prepared for the national spotlight?

McCain alienates the fiscal conservative base, and that's a fact. The fact that he tried to play the "we're progressive and we'll take Hillary's votes" card backfired.

Finally the media will make every effort nonstop to get a democrat in office whether it's Hillary, Obama, or someone else, and if you do not know the mainstream media's hatred for the current Republican Party by now, you most certainly live in a cave and come out only to post on SF.com.

I'm still voting McCain/Palin, but it's the Republican Party that dropped the ball here.

OklahomaTuba
10/18/2008, 09:47 AM
Its cause we are all racists. Just ask King Crimson.

soonerhubs
10/18/2008, 09:51 AM
Its cause we are all racists. Just ask King Crimson.

I'm against government growth, and McCain seems like my best option for that. Obama could be Brigham Young's grandson and I still wouldn't vote for him. Just ask Harry Reid.

OklahomaTuba
10/18/2008, 09:52 AM
above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president.

Now this is funny.

Palin has just as much experience, if not more, than The One.

And she has way more than John Edwards had when he was running with John F. Kerry.

Liberal Media Bias at its finest.

OklahomaTuba
10/18/2008, 09:54 AM
I'm against government growth, and McCain seems like my best option for that. Obama could be Brigham Young's grandson and I still wouldn't vote for him. Just ask Harry Reid.

Well, if you think gubment growth was bad the last 8 years (and it was), just wait until Senator Government gets in the White House with the libz in charge of the entire congress.

Spread the wealth baby!

soonerhubs
10/18/2008, 10:07 AM
Well, if you think gubment growth was bad the last 8 years (and it was), just wait until Senator Government gets in the White House with the libz in charge of the entire congress.

Spread the wealth baby!

That's why I'm voting for the M/P ticket.

The Spread the Wealth theory is going to be the nail in the coffin for this economy.

Sooner Born Sooner Bred
10/18/2008, 10:08 AM
Two words: A. CORN.:DTwo words: Keating. Five.

SoonerStormchaser
10/18/2008, 10:54 AM
Two words: Keating. Five.

And just how many Dems were implicated in that scandal? And which was more recent (ACORN vs. Keating) and more indicative of the person's character (since the other has expressed remorse while the other decries it as a hatchet job)?

King Crimson
10/18/2008, 11:02 AM
And just how many Dems were implicated in that scandal? And which was more recent (ACORN vs. Keating) and more indicative of the person's character (since the other has expressed remorse while the other decries it as a hatchet job)?

you are the worst kind of apologist ssc. your own affiliation is excused because you can throw blame?

frankly, everything you post is shameless wonkism. you've said more than once that you care about your own $$$ future in the military and vote that way...and yet bitch endlessly about teachers being a pox on "big government" and "taxes".

to me, i take nothing you say seriously.