The Washington Post has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Read the entire editorial here, but for now check out this excerpt:
...it 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.
Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building. At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation. Abroad, the best evidence suggests that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.
Now, I could do without the Washington Post's praise for John McCain and their nonsense about "alarming anti-trade rhetoric" - the same thing it claimed about Jim Webb - supposedly coming from the Obama campaign. In fact, I wasn't sure the Washington Post, which has made some bizarre endorsements in recent years (Jeannemarie Devolites Davis? Jill Holtzman Vogel? Tom Davis? Frank Wolf?), would actually figure this one out. But, in the end, this is such a "no-brainer" that really anyone can figure this one out. I mean, how could any thinking person go with the angry, hotheaded old man who brags about how tight he is with the Worst President in American History, plus a completely unqualified running mate with an incredibly nasty streak and an utter ignorance of pretty much everything? Especially when we have an extraordinarily inspiring leader in Barack Obama, and a running mate in Joe Biden who is one of the most knowledgeable people on foreign policy - and many other things - in America.
No, this was not a hard choice to make. Still, let's give credit where credit is due: thank you to the Washington Post for this strong endorsement of Barack Obama. I hope you guys will now follow up by endorsing Judy Feder over Frank Wolf, then my life will be complete! Ha. :)
And 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.
Thank you.
As far as Wolf goes, my sense is that the Post editorial board may feel obliged to throw something to Republican readers in Virginia given the presidential and Senate nods.
And I know, Lowell, Wolf "isn't that moderate." But compared to somebody like Thelma Drake, my Congresswoman, he's a damned centrist.
I would guess that Feder will probably get some favorable comments, but my sense is that the balance probably tilts in Wolf's direction.
As you say Connolly and Moran are likely going to get the nods too, given that they're running against far-right opponents, and given that they're incumbents so, in the spirit of "balance" they will probably feel compelled to go with Wolf.
The Post's attitude towards incumbents seems to be that they need to do something truly disqualifying in order to lose an endorsement -- e.g. ethical impropriety, or ill-advised remarks on favored economic or foreign policy issues. Hopefully Feder can catch the Democratic tide anyways -- last election cycle she got pretty close.