Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The New Yorker endorses Obama

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Hope And Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 01:11 PM
Original message
The New Yorker endorses Obama

The Choice


October 13, 2008

Never in living memory has an election been more critical than the one fast approaching—that’s the quadrennial cliché, as expected as the balloons and the bombast. And yet when has it ever felt so urgently true? When have so many Americans had so clear a sense that a Presidency has—at the levels of competence, vision, and integrity—undermined the country and its ideals?

The incumbent Administration has distinguished itself for the ages. The Presidency of George W. Bush is the worst since Reconstruction, so there is no mystery about why the Republican Party—which has held dominion over the executive branch of the federal government for the past eight years and the legislative branch for most of that time—has little desire to defend its record, domestic or foreign. The only speaker at the Convention in St. Paul who uttered more than a sentence or two in support of the President was his wife, Laura. Meanwhile, the nominee, John McCain, played the part of a vaudeville illusionist, asking to be regarded as an apostle of change after years of embracing the essentials of the Bush agenda with ever-increasing ardor.

The Republican disaster begins at home. Even before taking into account whatever fantastically expensive plan eventually emerges to help rescue the financial system from Wall Street’s long-running pyramid schemes, the economic and fiscal picture is bleak. During the Bush Administration, the national debt, now approaching ten trillion dollars, has nearly doubled. Next year’s federal budget is projected to run a half-trillion-dollar deficit, a precipitous fall from the seven-hundred-billion-dollar surplus that was projected when Bill Clinton left office. Private-sector job creation has been a sixth of what it was under President Clinton. Five million people have fallen into poverty. The number of Americans without health insurance has grown by seven million, while average premiums have nearly doubled. Meanwhile, the principal domestic achievement of the Bush Administration has been to shift the relative burden of taxation from the rich to the rest. For the top one per cent of us, the Bush tax cuts are worth, on average, about a thousand dollars a week; for the bottom fifth, about a dollar and a half. The unfairness will only increase if the painful, yet necessary, effort to rescue the credit markets ends up preventing the rescue of our health-care system, our environment, and our physical, educational, and industrial infrastructure.

At the same time, a hundred and fifty thousand American troops are in Iraq and thirty-three thousand are in Afghanistan. There is still disagreement about the wisdom of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and his horrific regime, but there is no longer the slightest doubt that the Bush Administration manipulated, bullied, and lied the American public into this war and then mismanaged its prosecution in nearly every aspect. The direct costs, besides an expenditure of more than six hundred billion dollars, have included the loss of more than four thousand Americans, the wounding of thirty thousand, the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and the displacement of four and a half million men, women, and children. Only now, after American forces have been fighting for a year longer than they did in the Second World War, is there a glimmer of hope that the conflict in Iraq has entered a stage of fragile stability.

The indirect costs, both of the war in particular and of the Administration’s unilateralist approach to foreign policy in general, have also been immense. The torture of prisoners, authorized at the highest level, has been an ethical and a public-diplomacy catastrophe. At a moment when the global environment, the global economy, and global stability all demand a transition to new sources of energy, the United States has been a global retrograde, wasteful in its consumption and heedless in its policy. Strategically and morally, the Bush Administration has squandered the American capacity to counter the example and the swagger of its rivals. China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other illiberal states have concluded, each in its own way, that democratic principles and human rights need not be components of a stable, prosperous future. At recent meetings of the United Nations, emboldened despots like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran came to town sneering at our predicament and hailing the “end of the American era.”



more...

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/13/081013taco_talk_editors
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
gblady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. I know it's not their style...
but perhaps they could make a nice favorable cover
when they print this endorsement....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ericgtr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Agreed not even an endorsement makes up for that image
It was beyond low.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raffi Ella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. Very informative, in depth endorsement.
a must read - K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last_texas_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. But now I'm so confused...
A bunch of DUers told me that their cover from a couple of months ago *wasn't* satire and was a sign that they were in the tank for the Repugs. This doesn't make sense at all!!!!!1!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demokatgurrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I think it was pretty obviously satire....
or did you forget to turn on your :sarcasm: ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last_texas_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Well, I was being sarcastic about the being confused
that the New Yorker would endorse Obama part, but I wasn't kidding about what a bunch of DUers claimed. It was a pretty surreal couple of days!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. It sure was!
Cerebral doesn't play well in some venues, apparently.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Yeah, it was
Amazingly some people still don't get it either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. OUTSTANDING! Well written. A "must read" endorsement.

Wake Up America!:kick:We Can Do Better!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demokatgurrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
6. do they always endorse?
I've been reading that magazine for years, and I know there are a lot of political columns but I don't recall endorsements.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichardRay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
10. K&R - Read the whole thing
That's about the most well-written and complete endorsement I've ever read for any political candidate; paragraph after paragraph of it.

At most I considered the infamous cover slightly mistimed; I never considered it malacious. To the extent it was damaging its damage didn't occur amongst the magazine's readership. I fear the same may be true of this endorsement - it's effect won't get far beyond the people who normally read the magazine and 'got' the cover drawing. Still, it's quotable, and should be quoted often.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Celebration Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Oh, that cover story debate here was really entertaining
I still think that cover was hysterically funny. But I really did understand people that didn't agree with me.

I've always been attracted to irreverence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-08 07:04 AM
Response to Original message
13. Kick.
The NEW YORKER enters the stream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 05:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC