Wall Street Journal defends Obama's Reagan comments. Is this a prelude to an endorsement?

[jackson_dem]

If they are so passionate about defending Obama could an endorsement be in the offing? We know it won't endorse Edwards with his anti-corporate message. That leaves Hillary and Obama. The paper may have tipped its hand with this.

-snip-

January 19, 2008; Page A12

No one is surprised when Republican Presidential candidates invoke Ronald Reagan like they're counting prayer beads, but perhaps a better measure of the Gipper's political legacy is the fracas it has kicked up among the Democrats. This week, Barack Obama had the blaspheming temerity to acknowledge that Reagan was a transformational President.

"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America, in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not," the Senator told the Reno Gazette-Journal. "He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. . . . He just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was, 'We want clarity, we want optimism.'"

-snip-

It was less his "optimism" or what the country "felt," as Mr. Obama had it, than it was Reagan's ideas that account for his success. He shifted electoral coalitions and realigned the U.S. political center to the right because he governed with a genuinely new domestic agenda and approach to foreign policy -- and it worked. Still, we suspect Mr. Obama is smarter than his Democratic critics in evoking Reagan as the example he wants to emulate, and it says something about the breadth of his political ambitions that he would do so.

The episode is most telling, though, for what it says about the ancient mariners of the Democratic Party and how little they've changed. Supposedly Mr. Obama committed a grievous blunder by nodding at the achievement of one of the most consequential Presidencies of the 20th century. If the rest of the Democrats can't even recognize the same, it suggests that the change they have in mind is back to the 1960s and '70s.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120070269576401879.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

[sunonmars]

1. They'll sit on the fence until after 05/02

they don't want to piss of HRC nows she's got the mojo back.

[cali]

2. nope. Murdoch owns the WSJ

and anyone paying attention knows that his flagship paper The Times, has been going after Obama hard, as has the NY Post. He's supported Hillary in the past, as well. Anyway, the WSJ will support a repuke unless it's Huckleberry, in the general election.

There. Now you know.

[jackson_dem]

3. What about the primaries? Murdoch just bought it. He hasn't packed the editorial board yet

[MonkeyFunk]

5. The NY Post

has been brutal to Clinton.

[Skittles]

4. when the WSJ editorial board singing your praises

you're either a repuke or you sound like one :puke: