The Palm Beach Post Endorses Barack Obama For President

Palm Beach Post Endorsement

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Barack Obama has set the tone for the presidential campaign, which is why The Post endorses him in the Florida Democratic primary.

One irony is that Sen. Obama has influenced all his major challengers despite his youth (46) and the fact that he was little-known nationally until his riveting address at the 2004 national convention. Another irony is that Sen. Obama is downplaying the state primary because of a fight between the national and state Democratic parties. But all the candidates are on the Jan. 29 ballot, and we hope that voters ignore the sideshows and turn out.

Why vote for Sen. Obama? Because his opponents, Democratic and Republican, now tout the "hope" and "change" on which Sen. Obama has campaigned from the start. No candidate has more directly and correctly addressed the unease that pervades the country after seven years of a terrible presidency.

On most major issues, little separates Sen. Obama from Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. All favor more aggressive health-care reform than any Republican. All favor tax policies that give more help to the middle class and ask more of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans who have benefited so much from the Bush tax cuts.

But for someone who spent eight productive years in the Illinois legislature and has been in the Senate for just three years, Sen. Obama has displayed impressive judgment, consistency and political maturity. Consider his statement opposing the Iraq invasion in 2002, before he even got to Washington:

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world and strengthen the recruiting arm of Al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars; I'm opposed to dumb wars." Sens. Clinton and Edwards voted to authorize the invasion.

The real "hope" behind the Obama candidacy is that this son of a Kenyan father and Kansas mother can transcend not only race but the partisanship, stoked by special-interest money, that has paralyzed Washington and made Congress even less popular than President Bush. As The Almanac of American Politics notes, Sen. Obama worked with some of the most conservative Republicans - Kansas Sam Brownback on the genocide in Darfur and Oklahoman Tom Coburn on no-bid contracts for Katrina relief. With Richard Lugar of Indiana, the GOP's foreign-policy specialist, he secured money to confiscate shoulder-weapons that could be used against airliners.

For Democrats, there are more practical reasons to make Sen. Obama the nominee. Fairly or not, as The New York Times reported last month, many Democrats in swing states and vulnerable districts worry about having Sen. Clinton at the top of the ticket. Claire McCaskill, whose surprising win in Missouri two years ago allowed Democrats to retake the Senate, recently endorsed Sen. Obama.

But the promise of Sen. Obama goes beyond the practical. He has drawn huge crowds of young people and older voters who are suspicious of idealism yet drawn to this idealistic-sounding young man. Jimmy Carter in 1976, Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Bill Clinton in 1992 each tapped into the disillusionment of their time and got to the White House. Not since Bobby Kennedy in 1968, though, has someone caused this sort of hopeful stir.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2008/01/20/a2e_obama_endorse_0120.html

laporte's palm beach support of the bushit boy, republican's betrayal of democracy's one-vote/one-person... get republicans in no matter how ... no wonder they support bush lite obama.

He's not Bush-lite, he is FAR from Bush-lite.

I know. I live there. :puke: Oxi_limbaugh's back yard...

So has the Guardian (I've got the issue after Obama won Iowa, and in it it has a cartoon of Obama portrayed as one of silohettes used at shooting ranges). The Times is a Murdoch owned operation and my partner said the Guardian is pretty Tory . I enjoy reading the different papers but the Obama-as-a-shooting-target cartoon really offended me. Here is a NPR article about the story http://www.npr.org/blogs/bryantpark/2008/01/politically_incorrect.html .

The Independent is generally favourable towards Obama and I've been reading it well before Obama started his run for the presidency. I felt that the Independent really focuses on American politics, and it does usually. I also read the Telegraph sometimes but that's rarely. The Independent gets sold out quite a bit in my part of the UK.

I quite like the Independent's March 2007 Magazine cover of Obama and it extensively covered him very well. I try to buy the saturday issues as much as I can as they have much more information on the politics than the weekday issues. And I don't think they've ever covered Hillary and Edwards like that.

I don't have a problem with Obama appealing to ex-Republicans and centrist Independents, he's going to get those votes when he's the nominee, Hillary's not.

That's not cool! Not for him...but..I don't like that at all! Unfortunately they are all victims of the sort of rubbish.
I disagree on the nom..Hillary will win...Obama has too many problems facing him now..Lots of amo for the REpugs...they ared just waiting...

She's got the Clinton sleaze machine. And we may well be stuck with a fucking soap opera for another 4 to 8 years.

I am secretly hoping for a massive fuck-up by the Clinton campaign but I am afraid that she's careful where she steps. Kind of like when she gives speeches, she won't take questions after... or so that's what I heard... people can prove me wrong.

I really did think people were for "change" but by supporting Hillary? That is not change at all. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? Puhleeeeeeze.

I have to say the same about Hillary. Although quite a lot of people in the pub I work at, who NEVER follow American politics ever (just not interested, only when they ask my opinion), think Hillary will win.

The problem with Hillary is it's not just the ex-Republicans and the Independents, it's the people who loathe her coming out to vote against her or not vote at all. Remember before 2004 (I don't know exactly when) the term The Clenis was made? That was made in response to the Republicans trying to validate Bush's actions (Clinton did it too! Clinton ignored terror threats!). In terms for Hillary, that's not good news (and I'm NOT being sexist, I'm just saying that there's plenty of loathing of the Clintons from the Republicans, just enough to turn people off). If she keeps using Bill in her campaigns, and she gets the nom, expect the Rs to use that against her.

Obama has broad appeal. He can pick up disgusted Republican voters who are willing to change sides for the first time in their lives, centrist Independent voters, and even some Democrats who can't see themselves voting for Clinton. It is the time for a female president, but I can't see it being Clinton, sorry.

full of Democrats (unlike many of the rural areas in Florida). Since the Palm Beach Post is the largest paper, I find it hard to believe that it is a right wing paper.

GObama! GObama!:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

:puke::eyes:

that is what is STILL GREAT IN AMERICA!:patriot:

PBP's a rag.

My glass is always half full... how about your?

I'm so proud.

:party: :toast: :party:

sorry I didn't see a geographical boundary for the OP.

Specifically those old white Jews.