The Star-Ledger, New Jersey's leading newspaper, endorses Obama

[gasoline highway]

http://www.nj.com/opinion/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1202016924159760.xml&coll=1

The inspired choice
Sunday, February 03, 2008

After eight years of a flat-footed administration that booted just about every foreign and domestic issue, the nation needs a sure-footed president who can repair the considerable damage wreaked at home and abroad. America -- and the world -- are thirsting for someone who can be a true leader.

We firmly believe this is a moment in the nation's history unlike any other, one that re quires a president who is not just competent but who can in spire. That is why we endorse Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for president.


We say that while acknowledging the exemplary qualities of Hillary Clinton, who has clearly demonstrated her mas tery of policy details during her seven years in the U.S. Senate. Nor do we quibble with her stands on the issues, which to a great extent mirror Obama's.

Both favor a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. Clinton, who has had a tough time explaining her initial vote in favor of the war, promises to begin bringing troops home within 60 days and hopes to have all troops out within a year.

Obama, who opposed the war from the beginning, says he wants just about all American servicemen and women out of Iraq within 16 months. Both say they'd make sure such a withdrawal did not endanger our embassy people or the thousands of Iraqis who have helped us during the war.

Both talk tough about Iran, not ruling out military action but allowing for direct diplomacy. On the economy, both would repeal the Bush tax cuts and both would extend help to those caught in the mortgage crisis. Clinton leans toward more government meddling with financial markets, while Obama favors a lighter government touch on the markets.

On health care, their differences are more pronounced. Clinton would require coverage, while Obama would do so for children but concentrate more on attacking what's wrong with the health care delivery system so coverage becomes more affordable.

To parse their policy differences is to smack into the mountain while stumbling over molehills. Democratic voters face a decision between a more known commodity, a careful pragmatist, and a less seasoned politician who has sounded a call to change unlike any heard in decades, one that has the ability to echo among young and old, black and white.

A Clinton presidency would not be a disaster. Far from it. But it would be a lot more of what we've had in the past.

An Obama presidency has the potential of restoring the world's faith in America. Some say faith is the problem, that voting for Obama requires a leap of faith that he indeed can deliver. We believe a vote for Obama is an affirmation of one's faith in an America that brings out the best in all of its people.

[gasoline highway]

1. smack this to the top

[gasoline highway]

2. The Bergen Record did too (ANOTHER NJ POSTER)

http://www.northjersey.com/opinion/editorials/Endorsements_for_presidential_nominations.html

Endorsements for presidential nominations
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Comment on this story Email this story Printer friendly version
IT IS EXTRAORDINARY: For the first time in decades, voters are not rubber-stamping anointed presidential candidates on either side. The race for the Democratic and Republican nominations could run straight to the floor of their respective conventions. We believe its important to endorse in both races. We recognize it may appear contradictory to endorse both a Republican and Democrat. How can this page consistently advocate for a woman's right to choose and then endorse a Republican? Or question the courting of special-interest labor organizations and back a Democrat?

In a primary, two blocs of voters are choosing from two disparate groups. And in New Jersey, independent voters may declare a party affiliation on Tuesday and vote in either primary.

Our choices are not a final endorsement for president. This page does not have a Democratic or Republican agenda; there are issues important to us that transcend party affiliation. However, on Tuesday, New Jersey voters will choose a Republican and a Democratic nominee. And so must we.

For Democrats: Obama

The Democratic field has been winnowed down to two: Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama. This is not, nor should it be, a campaign about race or gender. But it is exciting to see both a black man and a woman vie for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Both candidates advocate for health care for all Americans. Their plans differ in methods, but not in intent. Clinton, who has served longer in the Senate, was an early supporter of a U.S. troop presence in Iraq. Obama has been consistently against the Iraq war. Yet it is unfair to Clinton to use hindsight on Iraq to determine the best presidential nominee.

We do not dismiss Clinton's years in the Senate or her years as first lady. But she has served as an elected official for only seven years. And she comes with baggage; most troubling, her husband, former President Bill Clinton. So far, she has been either incapable or unwilling to rein him in. And it was Bill Clinton who injected ugly matters of race into the campaign.

We also are chilled at the prospect of two families - Bush and Clinton - governing this great democracy for more than two decades. We cannot move forward if we continue to embrace leadership mired in the past and personal visions of dynasty.

Obama's rise in popularity is worth noting. The power of the Obama candidacy has been in style and tone. When both Democratic candidates espouse similar views on domestic policy, the ability to deliver becomes the deciding factor. Obama may have less time in the Senate than Clinton, but he is a skilled state and federal legislator. And his experience as an advocate in Chicago gives him firsthand knowledge of the challenges facing America's urban centers. Cities have been given short shrift by both Democrats and Republicans in this campaign.

Candidate Obama is labeled a change agent in this election. Yet exactly what does "change" mean? It is naïve to believe that a candidate for "change" equates to a president who can effect "transformative change." It is easier to promise than to deliver. However, Obama is the better choice to bring a new tone to Washington and the nation. Obama can reach beyond the partisan trenches.

Democrats will make history either way: A black man or a woman will be their presidential nominee. But the stakes are higher than making history. Democrats have to choose the candidate qualified to lead a nation and win an election. That candidate is Obama.

For Republicans: McCain

The Republican field remains competitive. Ron Paul offers a libertarian perspective to the policy debate. He has raised a significant amount of money and retains a small, passionate following, but he is not a viable candidate.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is the most plainspoken of the Republican candidates. Evangelical Christians are drawn to his core Christian values. Fiscal conservatives have problems with his tax-raising history in Arkansas. Huckabee speaks of amending the Constitution to reflect the Bible. We respect an honest opinion; we respect the Constitution more.

With the economy teetering, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is appealing given his background as a successful businessman. If the economy were the only issue facing the nation, he would be the best-qualified Republican. But Romney's positions keep changing.

He was a moderate Republican when elected governor of Massachusetts. As he turned his gaze on the White House, he began moving further to the right. And we question whether his lack of experience on the federal level makes him the best Republican choice to lead a nation at war or forge a bipartisan agreement on immigration reform.

This brings us to Sen. John McCain. We do not agree with McCain's support of continued U.S. presence in Iraq. But we respect his consistent opinion. And McCain's military record is a source of inspiration.

Our social views are more progressive, but in a Republican primary, McCain is the only logical choice. His independence on campaign finance reform and immigration has rankled conservatives, but it has been right. On the campaign trail, McCain has put more emphasis on border security, in an attempt to appease conservative Republicans. But he has not backed away from his support of an immigration policy that offers some road to citizenship for many of the millions of undocumented immigrants already in the United States.

McCain is not a strident voice of the religious right. Presidents nominate Supreme Court justices. Given the field of Republicans, we are more comfortable with McCain making those choices than with Romney or Huckabee. We choose McCain.

IT IS EXTRAORDINARY: For the first time in decades, voters are not rubber-stamping anointed presidential candidates on either side. The race for the Democratic and Republican nominations could run straight to the floor of their respective conventions. We believe its important to endorse in both races. We recognize it may appear contradictory to endorse both a Republican and Democrat. How can this page consistently advocate for a woman's right to choose and then endorse a Republican? Or question the courting of special-interest labor organizations and back a Democrat?

In a primary, two blocs of voters are choosing from two disparate groups. And in New Jersey, independent voters may declare a party affiliation on Tuesday and vote in either primary.

Our choices are not a final endorsement for president. This page does not have a Democratic or Republican agenda; there are issues important to us that transcend party affiliation. However, on Tuesday, New Jersey voters will choose a Republican and a Democratic nominee. And so must we.

For Democrats: Obama

The Democratic field has been winnowed down to two: Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama. This is not, nor should it be, a campaign about race or gender. But it is exciting to see both a black man and a woman vie for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Both candidates advocate for health care for all Americans. Their plans differ in methods, but not in intent. Clinton, who has served longer in the Senate, was an early supporter of a U.S. troop presence in Iraq. Obama has been consistently against the Iraq war. Yet it is unfair to Clinton to use hindsight on Iraq to determine the best presidential nominee.

We do not dismiss Clinton's years in the Senate or her years as first lady. But she has served as an elected official for only seven years. And she comes with baggage; most troubling, her husband, former President Bill Clinton. So far, she has been either incapable or unwilling to rein him in. And it was Bill Clinton who injected ugly matters of race into the campaign.

We also are chilled at the prospect of two families - Bush and Clinton - governing this great democracy for more than two decades. We cannot move forward if we continue to embrace leadership mired in the past and personal visions of dynasty.

Obama's rise in popularity is worth noting. The power of the Obama candidacy has been in style and tone. When both Democratic candidates espouse similar views on domestic policy, the ability to deliver becomes the deciding factor. Obama may have less time in the Senate than Clinton, but he is a skilled state and federal legislator. And his experience as an advocate in Chicago gives him firsthand knowledge of the challenges facing America's urban centers. Cities have been given short shrift by both Democrats and Republicans in this campaign.

Candidate Obama is labeled a change agent in this election. Yet exactly what does "change" mean? It is naïve to believe that a candidate for "change" equates to a president who can effect "transformative change." It is easier to promise than to deliver. However, Obama is the better choice to bring a new tone to Washington and the nation. Obama can reach beyond the partisan trenches.

Democrats will make history either way: A black man or a woman will be their presidential nominee. But the stakes are higher than making history. Democrats have to choose the candidate qualified to lead a nation and win an election. That candidate is Obama.

For Republicans: McCain

The Republican field remains competitive. Ron Paul offers a libertarian perspective to the policy debate. He has raised a significant amount of money and retains a small, passionate following, but he is not a viable candidate.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is the most plainspoken of the Republican candidates. Evangelical Christians are drawn to his core Christian values. Fiscal conservatives have problems with his tax-raising history in Arkansas. Huckabee speaks of amending the Constitution to reflect the Bible. We respect an honest opinion; we respect the Constitution more.

With the economy teetering, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is appealing given his background as a successful businessman. If the economy were the only issue facing the nation, he would be the best-qualified Republican. But Romney's positions keep changing.

He was a moderate Republican when elected governor of Massachusetts. As he turned his gaze on the White House, he began moving further to the right. And we question whether his lack of experience on the federal level makes him the best Republican choice to lead a nation at war or forge a bipartisan agreement on immigration reform.

This brings us to Sen. John McCain. We do not agree with McCain's support of continued U.S. presence in Iraq. But we respect his consistent opinion. And McCain's military record is a source of inspiration.

Our social views are more progressive, but in a Republican primary, McCain is the only logical choice. His independence on campaign finance reform and immigration has rankled conservatives, but it has been right. On the campaign trail, McCain has put more emphasis on border security, in an attempt to appease conservative Republicans. But he has not backed away from his support of an immigration policy that offers some road to citizenship for many of the millions of undocumented immigrants already in the United States.

McCain is not a strident voice of the religious right. Presidents nominate Supreme Court justices. Given the field of Republicans, we are more comfortable with McCain making those choices than with Romney or Huckabee. We choose McCain.