In a piece entitled Inquirer's Democratic endorsement for president: Obama" the endorsement begins like this:Change.Democrats are so sure Americans want a change from the eight years they have endured under President Bush that the party thinks winning back the White House from the Republicans is virtually guaranteed.
But only if the right nominee is chosen for the office.
And also note this:
Given that, BARACK OBAMA is the best Democrat to lead this nation past the nasty, partisan, Washington-as-usual politics that have blocked consensus on Iraq; politics that never blinked at the greedy, subprime mortgage schemes that could spawn a recession; politics that have greatly diminished our country's stature in the world.Obama inspires people to action. And while inspiration alone isn't enough to get a job done, it's a necessary ingredient to begin the hard work.
The entire endorsement is worth reading.
(There is more, since I have updated with another endorsement below the fold).
I want to offer a hat tip to dansac over at dailykos, from whom I got this latest bit. From the Harvard Crimson, entitled OBama for Democratic Nominee we can read the final two paragraphs of a very extensive and detailed endorsement:
Various critics have voiced concerns that Obama is too ambitious and inexperienced to be the next president of the United States. We disagree. Obama's candidacy reflects a lack of political maneuvering and instead is based on a desire to see dramatic change in the political system. And what Sen. Obama might lack in political experience, he makes up with sound judgment, intelligence, charisma, and a personable and bipartisan demeanor. Furthermore, in office he will surround himself with some of the smartest and most experienced advisors in the world.Obama represents an opportunity for a Democratic nominee who represents the value of service, intelligence, and judgment, and, most of all, an opportunity for real change, unburdened by favors owed and ideals lost. He deserves your vote.
Peace.
According to Rasmussen:
As South Carolina voters go to the poll, the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination has gotten much tighter. It's now Hillary Clinton 36%, Barack Obama 33% and John Edwards 18% (see recent daily numbers). Obama is expected to win in South Carolina and Dick Morris believes that Bill Clinton's temper is starting to hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Oh, and remember, while she is an Obama supporter, I have endorsed Edwards.
Peace.
Given that, BARACK OBAMA is the best Democrat to lead this nation past the nasty, partisan, Washington-as-usual politics that have blocked consensus on Iraq; politics that never blinked at the greedy, subprime mortgage schemes that could spawn a recession; politics that have greatly diminished our country's stature in the world.
What hard evidence is there beyond some anecdotes to claim that partisan politics will somehow go the way of the dinosaur should Obama becomes President? Why will the pugs become practitioners on kumbaya for Obama? If anything, it is unfortunately he Democrats who bend over backwards (insert analogy and pun here) in order to work with them, which I submit has been a bad thing!
If anything, last year in DC and this week Richmond should put that idea to bed. We have a strong partisan divide in this country on a whole host of issues and Mconnell, Boehner, Rush, Sean and Bill-o will not roll over and capitulate because Obama becomes President.
As far as the right-wing media goes, I don't see why anyone should base their vote on what the right-wing media may or may not do.
There's a 50-50 chance that the Democrats will have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate in 2008; an increased majority in the House; and there's a chance to pick up the presidency again this year. Who offers the best opportunity to win the presidency even in the face of the all-powerful noise machine? Who did the most visible work in 2006 to help Democratic candidates win in Red and Purple states? Who will do the most for the party down-ticket?