Most surprisingly - to me - anyway, comes the endorsement of the Chicago Tribune:
"On Nov. 4 we're going to elect a president to lead us through a perilous time and restore in us a common sense of national purpose."The strongest candidate to do that is Sen. Barack Obama. The Tribune is proud to endorse him today for president of the United States."
This from the newspaper that has NEVER endorsed a Democrat for president.
Here, however, is the most damning part:
"McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate--but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin's exposure to the public. But it's clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment's notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country."
The Los Angeles Times endorsed Obama "without hesitation" after not endorsing ANYONE in 72 years.
"But for all the excitement of his own candidacy, Obama has offered more competence than drama."He is no lone rider. He is a consensus builder, a leader. As a constitutional scholar, he has articulated a respect for the rule of law and the limited power of the executive that make him the best hope of restoring balance and process to the Justice Department. He is a Democrat, leaning further left than right, and that should be reflected in his nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a good thing; the court operates best when it is ideologically balanced. With its present alignment at seven justices named by Republicans and two by Democrats, it is due for a tug from the left."
From the Washington Post endorsement:
"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."
And, simply, from the San Francisco Chronicle endorsement.
"Barack Obama is the right president for these troubled times."
David Brooks will never be confused for a liberal, but even he is amazed by the steadiness of Obama, and the lack of stability in McCain.
Young voters of faith are trending Obama's way. Is there a hope that our future evangelicals will be more Christian than Taliban?
And a glimmer of hope in West Virginia, though still an uphill climb for Obama:
"I'm 84 years old. I had a lot of good colored people. They didn't bother me. I didn't bother me. They was good to me; I was good to them. That's all I can say."- Steve Nagy, retired miner, Logan, WV
You take what you can get I suppose.
Besides, who would you rather be on the side of? Obama backers Al Bundy (Ed O'Neill) and former Bush supporter Dennis Hopper...or Stephen Baldwin?
Come on people!
Comments