But Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.
१६ ऑक्टोबर, २००८
"We had hoped... to see more evidence that Mr. Obama might stand up to Democratic orthodoxy and end ... 'our chronic avoidance of tough decisions.'"
WaPo endorses Obama.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३७ टिप्पण्या:
WaPo endorses Obama.
Don't members of a political campaign normally endorse their candidate? I don't see what's blogworthy about this.
List of Newspaper Endorsements for Presidential elections
List of Newspaper Endorsements for Presidential elections 2008
WaPo endorsed Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004.
It's the kiss of death.
Cheers,
Victoria
I'm extremely cool myself in real life.
The San Diego Union-Tribune endorsed Bush in 2004, but nobody here noticed until a landfill employee happened upon a discarded paper several years later.
I'm flabbergasted. The Washington Post endorsed a Democrat for President? Who'd a thunk it?
That quoted paragraph was all plausible enough until the last sentence.
Now, I'm not so sure McCain is the "right man" either, but it seems that as a man, he's a better fit for what the moment requires. As an organization, however, Obama may have the better put-together crew behind the curtain. But that too remains to be seen.
And in other news, it is raining in some parts of the country, and clear in others.
I think maybe they endorsed Lincoln in 1864. I hope they didn't have to spend too much time coming up with reasons, in any case eclipsed the time spent thinking it over.
He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.
He knows our anger, he knows our dreams, he's been everything we want to be.
He sells the things we need to be, he's the smiling face on our t.v.
He exploits us, still we love him, he tells us one and one makes three.
We gave him fortune, we gave him fame, we gave him power in our god's name. He's every person we need to be. *
I think maybe they endorsed Lincoln in 1864.
Probably not too enthusiastically, given that DC was pretty much in slaver territory back then. :)
"Mr. Obama's résumé is undoubtedly thin," says the WaPo.
That's reassuring!
"Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building."
Wasn't 'nuance' a Kerry word? And when has Obama ever built a legislative consensus about anything?
The airy, weary, above-it-all tone of the editorial is very much like the recent Saletan piece in Slate on abortion:
"This is the way McCain, Sarah Palin, and George W. Bush talk: There's honor and evil, good guys and bad guys. We fight for the good side. Our opponents don't....
Obama....doesn't like fights....He tries to turn even moral issues into technical issues....He's a technician. So Schieffer pops a question about abortion, probably hoping to start a fight. McCain does his part. What does Obama do? He technifies it....
What disgusts most people about abortion as a political issue is that on that topic, unlike economics or foreign policy, nothing ever seems to be accomplished....He might even make [abortion] boring. Wouldn't that be great?"
If only Lincoln had made slavery boring...
IT GIVES US no pleasure to oppose Mr. McCain.
IT GIVES US no pleasure to gamble, but gamble we must.
Wah! Poo! Who cares?
Who are these people? I want names and faces.
Probably five people sitting around a table. All 40+ years old. Lifelong Democrats. A White woman, two Jewish guys, a black guy and a chubby White guy with a bow tie and glasses.
Wapo says they are willing to gamble on Obama because Obama has inspired people?
At war, in the middle of an economic crisis...
That is very thin.
"preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view."
Because he knows his allies in the media and the rabid lefty blogs will shred those who dare state those points to bloody pieces. He's confident as any other machine politician that knows he's covered.
He is deliberate but not indecisive;
He votes 'Present' everytime - but only after thoughtful consideration! Plus, we can call him if we need him.
eloquent
Um, uh, well, you know - wait a minute, wait a minute - he's uh, very smooth with uh-uh-uh a teleprompter.
but a master of substance and detail;
For example, he knows exactly which committee he's on in the Senate.
preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view.
So that he can denounce them as hate-mongering and just another failed Bush policy.
BAH!
"preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view."
Preter f'in naturally! Come on now. Who the f** talks like that? That sounds like a word Victoria would use.
Confident? These guys sound like girls describing their ideal man.
"Well, I'm not so much into looks but confidence is really a key for me."
Goof balls.
This is the same editorial page that has been in consistently backing Bush in invading and occupying countries, wiretapping and surveilling the American people, torturing whoever, etc, and so on.
It's a remarkable development.
Hey, this is a nice video
Change that almost can make you believe in hope again.
Sorry for the OT.
Well, not really.
But in any case: /OT.
This endorsement was embarrassing to read. I mean, wouldn't you be ashamed to have written that?
Why do newspapers endorse candidates anyway?
Why do newspapers endorse candidates anyway?
Tradition!
I've always disliked that. I purely hated it when I actually worked in a newsroom. Thereafter, I went back to simple dislike.
And now? Numbed to it. Who cares?
The WaPo's kinda schizophrenic. I think there's a clear intent there to do the right thing battling with typical MSM left-wingism.
Why anyone would turn to them for nomination opinion, I don't know.
That's painful to read.
Not because they're talking about Obama... but... but...
It's the "buts".
The conjunctions don't balance with opposing traits (or however grammarians would term it.)
If someone is something *but* not something else... the something else must follow from the first thing... "He is deliberate *but* not plodding" for instance. Or "He is flexible *but* not indecisive."
The pairing of "eloquent" and "substance and detail" would have to imply that "eloquence" is associated with a lack of substance *but* that Obama avoids this fault.
At least some of those "buts" make no sense as anything but "ands."
He is deliberate and decisive; eloquent and a master of substance and detail.
Other than that... if they don't think Obama is divisive... well...
Why do newspapers endorse candidates anyway?
I don't understand this either. They're supposed to be reporting. Endorsements from them seem presumptuous.
Maybe the painful prose from professional writers is akin to a captive in a terrorist video blinking to send a signal of duress.
He is actually very deliberate in his indecisiveness. That's what makes him all gravatistic.
Only one word. BOOOOOOOOO.
Exactly how does voting "Present" translate into ending our chronic avoidance of tough decisions?
Why are newspapers allowed to endorse a candidate while a pastor is not?
What is need for two papers of news?
One Leader, one Party, one nation, one people, one paper!
Liberal newspaper endorses a Democrat. And in other news, the sun rose in the east this morning.
Obama is a political 'mirror of erised'* you look into the mirror and see exactly what you want to. Liberals see "deliberate," "master of substance and detail" and "confident but eager to hear opposing points of view."
Conservatives see something else entirely.
*Ask any 13 year old and they can explain 'erised'.
Pogopossum,
Well said. You and I are obviously more equal and should have a great role in leading these Althousians from their false consciousness.
"...eager to hear opposing points of view"
Not a trait that extends to his supporters, who (for example) will shout down Stanley Kurtz should he dare to try speaking on the public airwaves.
If Mr. Obama is a supporter of the odious "Fairness Doctrine" then he is by definition NOT eager to hear opposing points of view, but rather is eager to silence them.
Throw in Card Check to the "oppossing points of view" equation.
Conservatives see something else entirely.
Conservatives see a possibly Muslim marxist who hates America. How is it any different to romanticize a person as being God vs. being the Devil.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा