PDA

View Full Version : Alaska's Largest Newspaper Endorses......Barack Obama!



Mr. Peabody
10-26-2008, 07:34 AM
Alaska's largest newspaper endorsed Barack Obama today. It's interesting that they cite Colin Powell's endorsement as a factor in their decision. I thought Powell's endorsement was actually going to hurt Obama's candidacy. At least, that's what Rush and Mike Gallagher were saying.


http://www.adn.com/widgets/adnlogobl.gif
Anchorage Daily News

Obama for president
Palin's rise captivates us but nation needs a steady hand

(10/25/08 19:37:58)

Alaska enters its 50th-anniversary year in the glow of an improbable and highly memorable event: the nomination of Gov. Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential candidate. For the first time ever, an Alaskan is making a serious bid for national office, and in doing so she brings broad attention and recognition not only to herself, but also to the state she leads.

Alaska's founders were optimistic people, but even the most farsighted might have been stretched to imagine this scenario. No matter the outcome in November, this election will mark a signal moment in the history of the 49th state. Many Alaskans are proud to see their governor, and their state, so prominent on the national stage.

Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency -- but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation.

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.

Since his early acknowledgement that economic policy is not his strong suit, Sen. McCain has stumbled and fumbled badly in dealing with the accelerating crisis as it emerged. He declared that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" at 9 a.m. one day and by 11 a.m. was describing an economy in crisis. He is both a longtime advocate of less market regulation and a supporter of the huge taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailout. His behavior in this crisis -- erratic is a kind description -- shows him to be ill-equipped to lead the essential effort of reining in a runaway financial system and setting an anxious nation on course to economic recovery.

Sen. Obama warned regulators and the nation 19 months ago that the subprime lending crisis was a disaster in the making. Sen. McCain backed tighter rules for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but didn't do much to advance that legislation. Of the two candidates, Sen. Obama better understands the mortgage meltdown's root causes and has the judgment and intelligence to shape a solution, as well as the leadership to rally the country behind it. It is easy to look at Sen. Obama and see a return to the smart, bipartisan economic policies of the last Democratic administration in Washington, which left the country with the momentum of growth and a budget surplus that President George Bush has squandered.

On the most important issue of the day, Sen. Obama is a clear choice.

Sen. McCain describes himself as a maverick, by which he seems to mean that he spent 25 years trying unsuccessfully to persuade his own party to follow his bipartisan, centrist lead. Sadly, maverick John McCain didn't show up for the campaign. Instead we have candidate McCain, who embraces the extreme Republican orthodoxy he once resisted and cynically asks Americans to buy for another four years.

It is Sen. Obama who truly promises fundamental change in Washington. You need look no further than the guilt-by-association lies and sound-bite distortions of the degenerating McCain campaign to see how readily he embraces the divisive, fear-mongering tactics of Karl Rove. And while Sen. McCain points to the fragile success of the troop surge in stabilizing conditions in Iraq, it is also plain that he was fundamentally wrong about the more crucial early decisions. Contrary to his assurances, we were not greeted as liberators; it was not a short, easy war; and Americans -- not Iraqi oil -- have had to pay for it. It was Sen. Obama who more clearly saw the danger ahead.

The unqualified endorsement of Sen. Obama by a seasoned, respected soldier and diplomat like Gen. Colin Powell, a Republican icon, should reassure all Americans that the Democratic candidate will pass muster as commander in chief.

On a matter of parochial interest, Sen. Obama opposes the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but so does Sen. McCain. We think both are wrong, and hope a President Obama can be convinced to support environmentally responsible development of that resource.

Gov. Palin has shown the country why she has been so successful in her young political career. Passionate, charismatic and indefatigable, she draws huge crowds and sows excitement in her wake. She has made it clear she's a force to be reckoned with, and you can be sure politicians and political professionals across the country have taken note. Her future, in Alaska and on the national stage, seems certain to be played out in the limelight.

Yet despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.

boutons_
10-26-2008, 07:42 AM
Not really surprising. ADN has been all along exposing pitbull bitch's shenanigans.

Mr. Peabody
10-26-2008, 07:45 AM
You also have to admire their editorial board for going with the candidate they felt would be best for this country, even though it is likely to upset their subscriber base.

Maybe in a few days, whott can tell us just how many subscriptions they lost and why that's a good thing.

boutons_
10-26-2008, 11:26 AM
Anchorage Paper Endorses Obama--He Now Leads in Newspaper Support 160-59 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/alaskas-largest-paper-end_b_137896.html)

"My magazine, Editor & Publisher, has been charting all of the editorial endorsements around the country and Obama now leads by a whopping 160 to 59.

Bush and Kerry split the newspaper endorsements in 2004.

More than 35 papers have switched from Bush to Obama.

The latest major papers to switch: The Proviidence Journal and

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram today in Texas.

That, amazingly, gives Obama three of the five major papers in that state, with the Houston and Austin papers earlier flipping their support from Bush to Obama.

Just today Obama picked up the backing of (besides the papers listed above) the Baltimore Sun, St. Petersburg Times, Des Moines Register, Charlotte Observer, Hartford Courant, Rochester Democrat & Chronicle and many others. McCain held on to his home state Arizona Republic."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/alaskas-largest-paper-end_b_137896.html?view=print

Wild Cobra
10-26-2008, 09:48 PM
It's not surprising. The Anchorage Daily News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchorage_Daily_News) is one of dozens of publications ownd by a California based medis compant, The McClatchy Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_McClatchy_Company). I wonder if they have the same endorcement in their other publications throughout the US?

I wonder how many people in Alaska will now drop their subcriptions? I wonder how many of the 450 employees will now lose their jobs as circulation declines?

BushDynasty
10-26-2008, 09:52 PM
It's not surprising. The Anchorage Daily News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchorage_Daily_News) is one of dozens of publications ownd by a California based medis compant, The McClatchy Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_McClatchy_Company). I wonder if they have the same endorcement in their other publications throughout the US?

I wonder how many people in Alaska will now drop their subcriptions? I wonder how many of the 450 employees will now lose their jobs as circulation declines?

That's what Dick always told me ... if someone writes sumtin you don't agree with, ignore it and hope it will go away. Or was it throw the editor in jail on a trumped up charge? Kinda hard to keep track of all that stuff.

boutons_
10-27-2008, 09:06 AM
Financial Times: Obama is the better choice

Published: October 26 2008 19:31

US presidential elections involve a fabulous expense of time, effort and money. Doubtless it is all too much – but, by the end, nobody can complain that the candidates have been too little scrutinised. We have learnt a lot about Barack Obama and John McCain during this campaign. In our view, it is enough to be confident that Mr Obama is the right choice.

At the outset, we were not so confident. Mr Obama is inexperienced. His policies are a blend of good, not so good and downright bad. Since the election will strengthen Democratic control of Congress, a case can be made for returning a Republican to the White House: divided government has a better record in the United States than government united under either party.

So this ought to have been a close call. With a week remaining before the election, we cannot feel that it is.

Mr Obama fought a much better campaign. Campaigning is not the same as governing, and the presidency should not be a prize for giving the best speeches, devising the best television advertisements, shaking the most hands and kissing the most babies.

Nonetheless, a campaign is a test of leadership. Mr Obama ran his superbly; Mr McCain’s has often looked a shambles. After eight years of George W. Bush, the steady competence of the Obama operation commands respect.

Nor should one disdain Mr Obama’s way with a crowd. Good presidents engage the country’s attention; great ones inspire. Mr McCain, on form, is an adequate speaker but no more. Mr Obama, on form, is as fine a political orator as the country has heard in decades. Put to the right purposes, this is no mere decoration but a priceless asset.

Mr Obama’s purposes do seem mostly right, though in saying this we give him the benefit of the doubt. Above all, he prizes consensus and genuinely seeks to unite the country, something it wants. His call for change struck a mighty chord in a tired and demoralised nation – and who could promise real change more credibly than Mr Obama, a black man, whose very nomination was a historic advance in US politics?

We applaud his main domestic proposal: comprehensive health-care reform (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bcf74b62-31d3-11dd-b77c-0000779fd2ac.html). This plan would achieve nearly universal insurance without the mandates of rival schemes: characteristically, it combines a far-sighted goal with moderation in the method. Mr McCain’s plan, based on extending tax relief beyond employer-provided insurance, also has merit – it would contain costs better – but is too timid and would widen coverage much less.

Mr Obama is most disappointing on trade. He pandered to protectionists during the primaries, and has not rowed back. He may be sincere, which is troubling. Should he win the election, a Democratic Congress will expect him to keep those trade-thumping promises. Mr McCain has been bravely and consistently pro-trade, much to his credit.

In responding to the economic emergency, Mr Obama has again impressed – not by advancing solutions of his own, but in displaying a calm and methodical disposition, and in seeking the best advice. Mr McCain’s hasty half-baked interventions were unnerving when they were not beside the point.

On foreign policy, where the candidates have often conspired to exaggerate their differences, this contrast in temperaments seems crucial. For all his experience, Mr McCain has seemed too much guided by an instinct for peremptory action, an exaggerated sense of certainty, and a reluctance to see shades of grey.

He has offered risk-taking almost as his chief qualification, but gambles do not always pay off. His choice of Sarah Palin as running mate, widely acknowledged to have been a mistake, is an obtrusive case in point. Rashness is not a virtue in a president. The cautious and deliberate Mr Obama is altogether a less alarming prospect.

Rest assured that, should he win, Mr Obama is bound to disappoint. How could he not? He is expected to heal the country’s racial divisions, reverse the trend of rising inequality, improve middle-class living standards, cut almost everybody’s taxes, transform the image of the United States abroad, end the losses in Iraq, deal with the mess in Afghanistan and much more besides.

Succeeding in those endeavours would require more than uplifting oratory and presidential deportment even if the economy were growing rapidly, which it will not be.

The challenges facing the next president will be extraordinary. We hesitate to wish it on anyone, but we hope that Mr Obama gets the job.

www.ft.com/uselections (http://www.ft.com/uselections)


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1d0b127c-a380-11dd-942c-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1 (http://www.ft.com/uselections)



Copyright (http://www.ft.com/servicestools/help/copyright) The Financial Times Limited 2008

JoeChalupa
10-27-2008, 09:08 AM
That damn liberal media!!

implacable44
10-27-2008, 02:28 PM
*Yawn* and in other breaking news.. Hollywood supports Obama too. and so does the UN -- and Chavez and France and Great Britain .. Yawn **

This from a guy who said - when asked about the civil rights movement in a radio interview "... the supreme court never venntured into redistribution of wealth - ..... the warren court wasn't that radical it didnt break free from the essential constraits that were placed by the founding fathers in the constitution at least as its been interpreted and the warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the constitution is a charter of negative liberties; says what the sates cant do to you - what the federal government cant do to you but it doesnt say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf .. and that hasnt shifted.. one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the movemement was more focused on the courts than on the ground level with community activating and organizing. "