THE CHOICE in Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary is not only the one between a white woman and a black man. It's a choice between the past and the future.
The paper notes that the choice is not obvious, which is why this contest has been so extended. Then it offers its answer:
But the long slog through 44 primaries and caucuses has confirmed for us that Sen. Barack Obama's vision of change - and the way he plans to pursue it - is what we need right now. Badly.
Let me repeat the key part, that Obama's vision of change - and the way he plans to pursue it - is what we need right now. Badly.
The paper offers its editorial as based on the needs of this nation after the attacks in 2001, noting that the nation is still suffering from PTSD:
That day and its aftermath cried out for a revolution of values: a clear-eyed shared vision, a cooperative effort, a unified purpose. It cried out for a recognition that conventional warfare and conventional responses to domestic challenges in an era of globalization were not enough.That cry was not answered.
And how do they view the candidates with respect to the nation's needs?
Contrary to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign slogan, we believe Barack Obama is more likely to be "ready on Day One" to lead us in a new direction. Because of his experience.They are somewhat dismissive of Clinton's claim of more "experience", noting that it is largely a product of simply aving lived 14 years longer. And they are also bothered by the possible role of her husband. But they bring it down to something quite basic:
THERE IS a way to match Clinton's and Obama's performances on a relatively equal playing field: their campaigns.A candidate's campaign may be the best indicator of how she or he will govern. If so, an Obama administration would be well-managed, inclusive and astonishingly broad-based. It would make good use of technology and communicate a message of unity and, yes, hope.
It would not be content with eking out slim victories by playing to the narrow interests of the swing voters of the moment while leaving the rest of the country as deeply divided as ever. Instead, an Obama administration would seek to expand the number of Americans who believe that they have a personal stake in our collective future - and that they have the power to change things.
When I read what I have just quoted, I felt is if someone in the media had finally had the appropriate epiphany. The Daily News has recognized the importance of the 50 state strategy, that it is representational of the ideal of the Obama campaign of reaching out across traditional political and culture divides, and that it is the only way we can truly bring the nation together. And - yes - expanding those tied to a belief in our collective future will be the way we make the significant change this nation needs, and it will be driven much less top down and much more bottom up.
The editorial goes on to hit other key points:
... the approach would motivate the people to hold their representatives accountable, which is how we will get the meaningful change we need in things like health care, energy and education
... an Obama administration would be far more free of the influence of big money interests (and here they note the huge number of small donors funding the campaign)
... appropriately describing the campaign as a quarter-billion dollar enterprise, the paper concludes Obama would have a well-organized administration that works together as a team.
He would be steady and calm, given neither to irrational exuberance or outbursts of anger. He would make mistakes, that's for sure, but he could be expected to recognize them, adjust, and move forward.He would adjust his views to reality rather than trying to adjust reality to his views.
Oh, how much the nation needs what that sentence says, in contrast to what we have received from the Bush administration: Obama would adjust his views to reality rather than trying to adjust reality to his views. Imagine, policy making based on reality rather than wishful interpretation of ideology.
The praise Obama for his inspiring of young people, noting his willingness to be free from being dominated by the views of my generation, the baby boomers - and yes, there are many of us even here and we have our needs, but our voices should not drown out those of others with concerns different than ours (sorry, Meteor Blades, Jim Webb and all of us who are fellow '46ers - and this is NOT a callout, since the other two offer much in accord with this).
The editorial notes something quite clear from the event in Philadelphia last night, that Obama would
lower the tone of the rhetoric that separates us.Then after quoting with admiration Bill Richardon's description of Obama as a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who can take us beyond the normal ways in which we are divided to a shared destiny, even despite our "well-founded fears" the editorial concludes very simply:
Most candidates claim that they will change the way business is done in Washington. Barack Obama has made us believe that, yes, he can.
I read the editorial. It so "gets" the Obama campaign, and the response to those willing to go beyond the traditional ways of looking at politics. It perhaps grasps in a way I had not yet seen how effectively Obama has addressed the mood of the nation.
I have no idea what influence this editorial will have, how many points difference in the margins on Tuesday. But the editorial board has been watching and listening closely for the past five weeks. If they can offer this, I have to believe that there may indeed be something going on that is not reflected in polling data, and the normal political analysis.
I think it is a superb editorial. I urge you to read the entire thing, then pass it on to any undecided and wavering voters you know, not only in Pennsylvania, but in Indiana and North Carolina, and to any uncommitted super delegates with which you have a connection.
The Daily News nailed it.
Most candidates claim that they will change the way business is done in Washington. Barack Obama has made us believe that, yes, he can.
Peace.
peace
The survey, which was conducted April 15-16, 2008 and came out of the field midway through Wednesday's contentious debate between the two candidates in Philadelphia, shows Clinton at 45% and Obama at 44%, with 12% either wanting someone else or left undecided.[...]
Pollster John Zogby-"This is not a year for negative campaigning and Clinton's pounding of Obama on his controversial description of small town voters in Pennsylvania does not seem to be working. Obama leads in the Philadelphia and eastern part of the Commonwealth, among African Americans, and Very Liberal Pennsylvanians. He also has a slight lead among voters in union households and has an 18 point margin over those who have lost a job. Clinton maintains her lead among whites, Catholics, Liberals, and Hispanics.
If Obama pulls out a huge upset and wins Pennsylvania after having trailed by 20 points or more a couple months ago, this race should be officially over (it's unofficially over now).
The Obama campaign tells Stephanopoulos that "prominent Pennsylvania supporters" will switch their support from Clinton to Obama Thursday morning due to Clinton's negativity.
But he did pick up two supers today 1) Harry Thomas, Jr. from DC, who was an uncommitted add-on who was thought to be leaning Clinton; 2) someone from Oklahoma. Add them to the three yesterday: Reps. Andre Carson of IN, and Mel Watts and David Price of NC.
I know of one more Member who has now made up her/his mind, and is trying to figure out how to go about it in a way the benefits both Obama and the Member. I know of another Member who is leaning strongly, but for now is going to hold off, but if push came to shove would come down for Obama.