Because we’re a liberal newspaper—and damn proud of it—we understandably feel much better about the Democratic contenders, especially after eight years in presidential hell. With any of them, we’d likely have a pro-union president who’d appoint a pro-choice judge to the Supreme Court, favor diplomacy over a rush to war and halt the tax breaks for the country’s wealthiest citizens and focus on the other 90 percent of the citizenry.
All things being equal, we’d be tempted to endorse Dennis Kucinich, as we did four years ago; we agree with just about all of his positions. He’s the only candidate who’s entirely against the death penalty, he’s against the North American Free Trade Agreement, he’s for a single-payer nonprofit healthcare system, he’s against marginalizing immigrants and he’d get out of Iraq immediately. Sadly, though, all things aren’t equal, and Kucinich has no chance of winning. Hell, the gatekeepers won’t even let the man into the debates. That leaves us with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.
Clinton and Edwards are saying all the right things, in our view, as is the custom in presidential primary season, when Democratic candidates try to outflank each other from the left. We especially appreciated Edwards’ “two Americas” theme from the 2004 race, the gist of which he’s continued in the current campaign. Were he to lead with such a populist approach, we’d have ourselves a first-rate president.
But one thing continues to gnaw at us about both Clinton and Edwards: They voted in favor of giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq. While Edwards’ expressed regret for his vote is nice, the fact remains that they knew in 2002 that the case for war was total bullshit. It’s clear to us that their votes were calibrated toward a presidential run; they were unwilling to risk a no vote on what was a foolhardy yet popular invasion. As a result, they’re part of a weak Democratic delegation that is partially responsible for the unnecessary deaths of nearly 4,000 American servicemen and women and the life-changing permanent physical and psychological injuries of tens of thousands more.Obama wasn’t in the Senate when the Iraq vote came up, but, despite what Bill Clinton’s been saying lately,
Obama’s position in 2002 was unambiguous: “I don’t oppose all wars,” he said. “What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”We admit it: We’re taken with Obama’s eloquence and his ability to inspire hope—a product, perhaps, of listening to George W. Mumblemouth for the last eight years.
Obama’s borrowing of the “better nature of our angels” theme from Abraham Lincoln strikes just the right chord. Lincoln uttered those words amid Civil War-era disharmony; Obama has resurrected them in an era when too many politicians act on behalf of party over country. As a recent essay in the Los Angeles Times noted, Obama’s talk of bridging the partisan chasm is rooted in this nation’s earliest documents and in the hearts of its Founding Fathers, who openly worried about the dangers of party politics.
We’re heartened by Obama’s apparent appeal among independent-minded voters, who sense that if anyone can lead us down a path toward common ground—or at least unify lower- and middle-class Americans in a pushback against the wealthy elite—it’s the senator from Illinois.One thing’s certain:
We haven’t felt this good about a presidential candidate in—well, forever. Our enthusiastic endorsement is for Barack Obama.http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/our_endorsements/6577This will probably annoy some of the pro-war people at DU, but it is what it is.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
