WaPo Endorses Obama, Cites Palin as a Reason

Tomorrow the Washington Post will endorse Barack Obama. The editorial is already posted here.

....[I]t is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president. The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama's relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.

....we find no way to square his professed passion for America's national security with his choice of a running mate who, no matter what her other strengths, is not prepared to be commander in chief.[Emphasis supplied.]

It's not that flattering an editorial. It disagrees that McCain equals four more years of Bush and criticizes Obama's Iraq position. It makes me wonder, had McCain not picked Palin, would the Post still have endorsed Obama?

Update: The San Francisco Chronicle also endorses Obama.

< Imagining Palin as President | Fact-Check: At Most, 2% of Small Businesses Would Pay More Taxes Under Obama's Plan >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Considering that the choice of Palin (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 08:05:41 PM EST
     pushed me firmly into the Obama column, I agree with the Washington Post's conclusion.  

    No. They would have supported McCain. (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by EddieInCA on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 09:04:57 PM EST
    McCain is a Washington institution, until recently loved by all.

    Unfortunately, for him, he put his lot in with the Rove team when the country has moved on. Schmidt is fighting on the turf of 2000 and 2004, and the landscape has drastically changed.

    Hell, look at the latest polls, North Dakota and Georgia MIGHT be in play, and even if they're not, Obama is putting resources there, which will force McCain to play even more defense there.

    The Village Is Never Wrong. (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 09:05:52 PM EST
    The WaPo Is The Voice of The Village.
    Therefore, The WaPo is Never Wrong.

    Even when they write this:

    Not even his fiercest critics would blame President Bush for all of these problems, and we are far from being his fiercest critic.

    Though, had it been absolute accuracy they desired, that howler would have read:

    Not even his fiercest critics would blame President Bush for all of these problems; we have been his fiercest fellators and fellatrices.

    More seriously, this editorial is The Village attempting to set the stage to co-opt the change that is coming.  They want a continuance of the existing system, in which plebs outside the Village tug their forelock and bow to their betters, the money continues to roll in to the pockets of the members of the Village, and long, languid cocktail parties where the beauty of bipartisanship and maintenance of the status quo remains in place.  They know that, had McCain been electable (and with Palin he is not), his surround of reliable Establishment lackeys and toadies would have enabled maintenance of the status quo.  They expect to be able to bend enough Democrats (calling Steny and the Blue Dogs) to do the bidding of the Village and get the same result for themselves.  And they are laying down a marker that that is what they intend to do, and that they expect their usual assistance.

    The editorial is a masterpiece of finding the middle and plopping it in oatmeal.  Bland, undistinguished and indistinguishable.

    Moreover, and more risible, is their insistence on both McSame's opposition to torture, and on their worries about detention policy and torture.  I think a very old lesson is starting to dawn on them, and they do not like the picture they see.  That lesson?  

    When a government sets aside the bounds of civilization - law, manners, precedent, experience - and allows the baser side of human nature to take over, torture, unlawful abuse, extrajudicial expediency and plain unbridled thuggery become the norm.  That slide often begins with dipping a toe in that nasty, filthy pool.  And it works quite well so long as your side is in control.  But, the minute the other side is in control, it becomes the worst thing in the world.*  But the other lesson elites forget, invariably until it is too late, is that once they loose the thugs, the thugs are smart enough to know that they can take over, because the very elites who loosed them are not themselves thuggish enough to keep them in line any more.  And it is the very elites who turned the thugs loose who suffer the worst fates at the thugs hands.

    Just ask all the Communist Party members who made the 1917 Revolution, only to die in Stalin's work camps for ... well, whatever reason.  Among other things, they might have had sufficient rations supplied them, save for the fact that the thugs in their midst took their lunch.  And their blankets. And their warm clothes.  And made them do the thugs' work quota.

    I think that realization is starting to dawn on the Village, and they are not happy about it.

    • So, look for Obama The Torturer to be a theme coming up say, January 21.  He'll be blamed for all the crimes of the Bush Administration, just as Clinton was and still is.  

    i agree that palin is (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by sancho on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 09:31:21 PM EST
    not a good choice as vp or as president. but that's because she is a republican. would she be worse than bush? than reagan? it seems to me there is a lot of displacement going on in the left's sometimes hysterical rejection of her. she's a republican--though more talented as a politician than many--and bad for that reason.

    i'm glad that obama is likley going to win. but let's not kid ourselves that we are voting for him based on his experience or his qualifications. it so happens that his greatest proved talent so far is getting elected despite his lack of experience. nd he has many legitimate virtues that we can vote for.

    does this mean he wont be a good president? no.

    palin would be a bad president b/c she's a certain kind of republican. and if her presence on the ticket is destroying mccain, then we should be glad we didnt run her off when she was nominated. and we should be careful of making a martyr of her.

    remember, the idea that reagan would one day be president used to be a joke too.

    yeah, me too. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by cpinva on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 01:47:14 AM EST
    It makes me wonder, had McCain not picked Palin, would the Post still have endorsed Obama?

    scribe and bob somerby pretty much nail the wp
    (and the nyt's, for that matter): the "village" can admit no wrong.

    unlike the wp, i do blame bush for the problems the country is currently facing. pres. bush is a deeply flawed man, his presidency deeply flawed as well; a man who truly believed that god wanted him to be president. maybe this was god's idea of a joke, and he is aghast that we took him seriously?

    hysterical laughter, or deep sobbing seem the only reasonable responses to the complete, utter disaster that the bush presidency has been.

    i watched a repeat of a history channel program on pres. lincoln today. the difference between him and bush is just staggering. upon election, lincoln publicly expressed his concerns about being up to the task before him, and hoped that a higher power would see fit to help him.

    bush, on the other hand, assumed god wanted him, and he expressed no reservations whatever about being capable of performing the job.

    the difference between a smart person, who recognizes his weaknesses, and a profoundly delusional one who doesn't.

    i seriously doubt george bush ever woke up at night, literally physically ill, with the thought of those who died in afghanistan or iraq, as a consequence of his policies.

    I think you expected too much. (none / 0) (#1)
    by steviez314 on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 07:58:02 PM EST
    WaPo has been carrying Bush/Repub water for quite a while.  I frankly didn't expect them to endorse Obama.

    I actually think it was a more effective endorsement given that they DO disagree with Obama on some issues.  (For the same reason I didn't mind when Obama said he agreed with McCain sometimes--it made his criticism of McCain seem truer when he did that.)

    I think the WaPo finally lifted the curtain over their eyes and saw McCain's real temperament.  But I agree with you, they certainly didn't like the Palin pick.

    Yes. Vote for Biden! (none / 0) (#2)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 07:59:33 PM EST
    is pretty tepid, but it still counts in the Dem column, doesn't it?  At least in most states? :-)

    the phrase is pulled the veil (none / 0) (#10)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 09:28:40 PM EST

    I don't see how after 20 of the last (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpa1 on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 08:12:46 PM EST
    28 years infiltrated with Trickle-Downers, the Washington Post being that stupid on picking another one.  Unfortunately, Obama has not linked the failure in our economy to giving huge tax gifts to the wealthy, redistributing the wealth to those already wealthy.  He also didn't explain clearly enough that the increased taxes would only effect that portion of the income that is over $250,000.

    Bill Maher just said Joe doesn't even have a plumber's license and he said that Joe said today that Obama danced around the issues like Sammy Davis, Jr.  I didn't know that Obama is Jewish!

    I've been told. . . (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 08:17:40 PM EST
    (no joke) that Obama actually does have a Rabbi in the family -- on his wife's side.

    And Barack is a Hebrew name as well as an Arabic one.


    I looked it up (none / 0) (#6)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 08:51:26 PM EST
    on the second cousin once removed or something -- and what were 12 tribes now must be innumerable.  Yikes.  His congregation describes itself as Ethiopian Hebrew, although they're not Ethiopian, and that's not the same as the (fascinating, if ever you've seen the documentary) Ethopian Jews . . . and that's the simple part.  The next paragraph might as well have been in Yiddish, for all I could follow it (although, of course, it's not a congregation that would speak East European Yiddish!).

    And yes, Barack is the Arab form (he is from Arabs who came to Kenya -- not at all to be confused with Ethiopia:-) of Baruch in the Hebrew, both Semitic.

    Last time I got this confused, it was trying to get along with the ex's in-laws who were split between Missouri Synod Lutherans and Wisconsin Synod Lutherans.  I finally figured out that it didn't matter how many of either or both you could fit on the head of a pin, because each side still would figure that half of the head of the pin was vacant, as the others just don't count.


    "Barack" or "Barak". . . (none / 0) (#7)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 09:01:13 PM EST
    also used in Hebrew -- I give you the former Labor Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

    And now we know that Barack's real (none / 0) (#15)
    by andrys on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:27:28 AM EST
    middle name is 'Steve' !

      :-)  Did anyone else watch the Al Smith charity dinner that both McCain and Obama did comedy routines for, with Hillary doubling up in the audience over Bill's 'subtle' all-out support for Obama?

      Both Obama and McCain were hilarious and Really Good in their delivery of lines.  And I liked both of them while watching.  So good to see them w/o the tensions of political warfare.



    Baruch is the Hebrew name (none / 0) (#12)
    by shoephone on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 12:11:59 AM EST
    Barack is likely the Arab equivalent of it. The two languages have similarities (no surprise), the most obvious being shalom and salaam.

    Although (none / 0) (#16)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 06:18:53 AM EST
    Baruch is, in fact, the Hebrew cognate of Barack (they both mean "blessed"), Barack (or Barak -- the roman transliterations, of course, are irrelevant) is also a name in Hebrew.

    I think you're right in wondering... (none / 0) (#14)
    by andrys on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:23:32 AM EST
    but I must say that Palin's possibly becoming President is just not something they can ignore...  Obama lucked out here.

    ~~~SOS~~~MayDay*** (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptainChurch on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 01:23:20 PM EST