Barack Obama for President

by:   |  The Washington Post | Editorial

Barack Obama for President
The Washington Post endorses Senator Barack Obama. (Photo: Bill Pugliano / Getty Images)

    The Nominating process this year produced two unusually talented and qualified presidential candidates. There are few public figures we have respected more over the years than Sen. John McCain. Yet 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.

    The first question, in fact, might be why either man wants the job. Start with two ongoing wars, both far from being won; an unstable, nuclear-armed Pakistan; a resurgent Russia menacing its neighbors; a terrorist-supporting Iran racing toward nuclear status; a roiling Middle East; a rising China seeking its place in the world. Stir in the threat of nuclear or biological terrorism, the burdens of global poverty and disease, and accelerating climate change. Domestically, wages have stagnated while public education is failing a generation of urban, mostly minority children. Now add the possibility of the deepest economic trough since the Great Depression.

    Not even his fiercest critics would blame President Bush for all of these problems, and we are far from being his fiercest critic. But for the past eight years, his administration, while pursuing some worthy policies (accountability in education, homeland security, the promotion of freedom abroad), has also championed some stunningly wrongheaded ones (fiscal recklessness, torture, utter disregard for the planet's ecological health) and has acted too often with incompetence, arrogance or both. A McCain presidency would not equal four more years, but outside of his inner circle, Mr. McCain would draw on many of the same policymakers who have brought us to our current state. We believe they have richly earned, and might even benefit from, some years in the political wilderness.

    Of Course, Mr. Obama offers a great deal more than being not a Republican. There are two sets of issues that matter most in judging these candidacies. The first has to do with restoring and promoting prosperity and sharing its fruits more evenly in a globalizing era that has suppressed wages and heightened inequality. Here the choice is not a close call. Mr. McCain has little interest in economics and no apparent feel for the topic. His principal proposal, doubling down on the Bush tax cuts, would exacerbate the fiscal wreckage and the inequality simultaneously. Mr. Obama's economic plan contains its share of unaffordable promises, but it pushes more in the direction of fairness and fiscal health. Both men have pledged to tackle climate change.

    Mr. Obama also understands that the most important single counter to inequality, and the best way to maintain American competitiveness, is improved education, another subject of only modest interest to Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama would focus attention on early education and on helping families so that another generation of poor children doesn't lose out. His budgets would be less likely to squeeze out important programs such as Head Start and Pell grants. Though he has been less definitive than we would like, he supports accountability measures for public schools and providing parents choices by means of charter schools.

    A better health-care system also is crucial to bolstering U.S. competitiveness and relieving worker insecurity. Mr. McCain is right to advocate an end to the tax favoritism showed to employer plans. This system works against lower-income people, and Mr. Obama has disparaged the McCain proposal in deceptive ways. But Mr. McCain's health plan doesn't do enough to protect those who cannot afford health insurance. Mr. Obama hopes to steer the country toward universal coverage by charting a course between government mandates and individual choice, though we question whether his plan is affordable or does enough to contain costs.

    The next president is apt to have the chance to nominate one or more Supreme Court justices. Given the court's current precarious balance, we think Obama appointees could have a positive impact on issues from detention policy and executive power to privacy protections and civil rights.

    Overshadowing all of these policy choices may be the financial crisis and the recession it is likely to spawn. It is almost impossible to predict what policies will be called for by January, but certainly the country will want in its president a combination of nimbleness and steadfastness -- precisely the qualities Mr. Obama has displayed during the past few weeks. When he might have been scoring political points against the incumbent, he instead responsibly urged fellow Democrats in Congress to back Mr. Bush's financial rescue plan. He has surrounded himself with top-notch, experienced, centrist economic advisers -- perhaps the best warranty that, unlike some past presidents of modest experience, Mr. Obama will not ride into town determined to reinvent every policy wheel. Some have disparaged Mr. Obama as too cool, but his unflappability over the past few weeks -- indeed, over two years of campaigning -- strikes us as exactly what Americans might want in their president at a time of great uncertainty.

    On The Second set of issues, having to do with keeping America safe in a dangerous world, it is a closer call. Mr. McCain has deep knowledge and a longstanding commitment to promoting U.S. leadership and values.

    But Mr. Obama, as anyone who reads his books can tell, also has a sophisticated understanding of the world and America's place in it. He, too, is committed to maintaining U.S. leadership and sticking up for democratic values, as his recent defense of tiny Georgia makes clear. We hope he would navigate between the amoral realism of some in his party and the counterproductive cocksureness of the current administration, especially in its first term. On most policies, such as the need to go after al-Qaeda, check Iran's nuclear ambitions and fight HIV/AIDS abroad, he differs little from Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain. But he promises defter diplomacy and greater commitment to allies. His team overstates the likelihood that either of those can produce dramatically better results, but both are certainly worth trying.

    Mr. Obama's greatest deviation from current policy is also our biggest worry: his insistence on withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq on a fixed timeline. Thanks to the surge that Mr. Obama opposed, it may be feasible to withdraw many troops during his first two years in office. But if it isn't -- and U.S. generals have warned that the hard-won gains of the past 18 months could be lost by a precipitous withdrawal -- we can only hope and assume that Mr. Obama would recognize the strategic importance of success in Iraq and adjust his plans.

    We also can only hope that the alarming anti-trade rhetoric we have heard from Mr. Obama during the campaign would give way to the understanding of the benefits of trade reflected in his writings. A silver lining of the financial crisis may be the flexibility it gives Mr. Obama to override some of the interest groups and members of Congress in his own party who oppose open trade, as well as to pursue the entitlement reform that he surely understands is needed.

    It Gives Us no pleasure to oppose Mr. McCain. Over the years, he has been a force for principle and bipartisanship. He fought to recognize Vietnam, though some of his fellow ex-POWs vilified him for it. He stood up for humane immigration reform, though he knew Republican primary voters would punish him for it. He opposed torture and promoted campaign finance reform, a cause that Mr. Obama injured when he broke his promise to accept public financing in the general election campaign. Mr. McCain staked his career on finding a strategy for success in Iraq when just about everyone else in Washington was ready to give up. We think that he, too, might make a pretty good president.

    But the stress of a campaign can reveal some essential truths, and the picture of Mr. McCain that emerged this year is far from reassuring. To pass his party's tax-cut litmus test, he jettisoned his commitment to balanced budgets. He hasn't come up with a coherent agenda, and at times he has seemed rash and impulsive. 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.

    Any Presidential vote is a gamble, and Mr. Obama's resume is undoubtedly thin. We had hoped, throughout this long campaign, to see more evidence that Mr. Obama might stand up to Democratic orthodoxy and end, as he said in his announcement speech, "our chronic avoidance of tough decisions."

    But Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.





     



Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



Took them a while, but the

Took them a while, but the WaPo finally got it. There's no real choice this year: not after Palin, "suspending" the race to save the world and three almost pity-inducing debate performances. Obama's the right man for the time, Biden complements him perfectly. Both are highly intelligent, truthful and compassionate leaders. As for the citizens: it's ok to think in America again.


Bravo! You have made a wise

Bravo! You have made a wise choice and succinctly defended it. Obama will bring many long needed positives to the presidency. His campaign has proved he is a tough fighter and he is able to make rational decisions. His campaign was not hellbent on negativity, and he stood up to all the negativity thrown at him. It is clear that his policies will be worked with a new approach. The middle class has been ignored and he promises to defend us. Thank you for endorsing Obama.


bravo indeed! Every American

bravo indeed! Every American should read this carefully considered opinion, and should have had it available months ago! Even though the prospects for Obama look good now, we can't give up working until the very last vote is cast. Send this to as many people as you can think of!


What, no mention of McNasty

What, no mention of McNasty and the Barracuda's overwhelmingly negative and dishonest campaign? And, they take Obama to task for reneging on his promise of public financing but make no mention of McLame's BLATANT violation. As Markos on DailyKos and Jame Hamsher at Firedoglake said when they filed a complaint with the FEC, “John McCain has officially blown past campaign spending limits mandated by his original acceptance of public campaign funding. While he has signaled his intent to withdraw from such financing, that has been hindered by the fact that he used the promise of public funding to secure a campaign loan.” This is par for the course for WaPo. But,at least they finally got something right when they endorsed Obama.


WOW...the Washington Post

WOW...the Washington Post endorsing Obama...hell is freezing over! Of course he is truly the only choice.


What a well thought out

What a well thought out analysis. I appreciate the stating of the pros and cons for both McCain and Obama. Personally,I think the job will be difficult and be unappreciated by many when tough decisions have to be made. I agree with your conclusion. The mind and temperament should make Obama our next president. God help him.


Good choice! McCain,

Good choice! McCain, responding to David Letterman on Thursday, said, "I screwed up!" What he didn't say is, this was not an isolated incident. McCain screwed up when he nearly got thrown out of the US Naval Academy for bad behavior. He screwed up when he graduated near the bottom of his class. He screwed up when he accidentally destroyed two Navy planes before he screwed up by ignoring an alarm and not taking evasive action when a North Vietnamese antiaircraft missile locked its radar on his plane over Hanoi. He screwed up when he screwed around dumped his loyal first wife. (Although it didn't hurt him financially, even though it destroyed his friendship with Nancy and Ronald Reagan.) He screwed up when he attempted to intervene with federal regulators in favor of family friend, campaign contributor, and criminal savings and loan fraud Charles Keating. He screwed up when he uttered tasteless remarks and jokes within earshot of reporters. And he screwed up when he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. Even screw-ups can have admirable qualities, I suppose. But America has had one screw-up as President for the past seven years and nine months. We can not afford to have another screw-up, and a self-described one to boot, as our next President, especially in this time of many crises.


but, but Biden? whom

but, but Biden? whom advocated war crimes in Iraq, wanted to divide Iraq? Surge Afganistan, and invade Pakistan? now the empire has a brown face? 750 bases wordwide, no speak of defending the Constitution, nor Geneva Convention?When will we stop the madness... no third party debates... Hope huh, well better than McMean I spose, but what a horrible thing to have to vote for lesser evil,rather than for good.


The Washington Post invokes

The Washington Post invokes an assumption that will not stand up to the test of time. That assumption is that the United States will emerge from the current crisis as the dominant economic and military force in the globe. Just in case you missed it, we ain't what we used to be and it is not likely that such a disparity of wealth and power will ever be able to be achieved by this country again. Those good ol' days are gone for good. An Obama Administration will need to guide this Nation through that adjustment. We are going to be living in a more equal world with much less disparity of power and wealth. That is going to be a hard pill for the citizens of this country to swallow, but swallow it they must. Best regards, Econolicious


A beautiful editorial.

A beautiful editorial. Perfectly illustrating why Obama should be the next president of the United States. I sincerely hope that this election is not stolen like the last two. It would be a undeniable catastrophe, and one that this country may never recover from.


Tyler, if you really want a

Tyler, if you really want a viable third-party candidate, instead of just an excuse to whine, let me offer an idea: get to work! Yapping here and elsewhere on the net may make you feel grand, but it isn't doing a THING to change how things are. Show me one serious third-party candidate with some level of governmental experience. Jeez, even Palin was governor of a low-population state for a couple of years. Here's a thought -- instead of the usual BS grandstanding of Nader (and others) in presidential elections, build a viable third-party from the ground up. Instead of focusing on the big prize of the presidency -- which you'll never get the way things are going, leaving a third-party candidate to hope of being a "spoiler" and screwing it up for everyone -- focus on loval and state races for the next ten or more years. BUILD a viable party beginning with the FOUNDATION. As you gain local and state seats, you can begin to target congressional seats, then Senate seats. And the next thing you know, there will be THREE viable parties. Who knows? We may even get to see run-off elections between the top two when no one gains a clear majority. THAT, sir, is one way of gaining serious traction. It's certainly not the only way, but it sure is better than the strategies I've seen over the last thirty years. So... do you want to succeed, or just have an excuse to complain? If the former, it's time to shut up and get to work. Words mean nothing. Only action counts. And good luck to you!! I'd love to see it happen.


MSM is in dire need of

MSM is in dire need of redemption with its heavy coverage of Ayers and Acorn and silence on Phil Gramm, midnight deregulation, lobbying, and the Keating 5 scandal. WaPo gets points for this endorsement, but there is so much that it and other media outlets have done to harm journalism, investigative reporting (down 90% in recent years due to "no return on it!") and the country in general. But, they'll continue to get away with it unless we unleash our schools from the NCLB strangulation that deposits illiterate and incurious voters into our increasingly stupid society. Schools--Industrial style. That's the factory for GOP supporters. This needs to stop. I hope for a new day in America when Obama is President. First, I just hope we have an election...


There are times when I clear

There are times when I clear misunderstand and have wrong-headed expectation from Truthout. Why is this an important editorial endorsement for the readers of Truthout? Perhaps only in the sense that it might help those with misunderstandings and wrong-headed expectations about where the Washington Post really lies in the scheme of things. Check out just these two statements by the Post in this endorsement -- 1) (quote) The nominating process this year produced two unusually talented and qualified presidential candidates. There are few public figures we have respected more over the years than Sen. John McCain. (end quote) 2) (quote) Not even his fiercest critics would blame President Bush for all of these problems, and we are far from being his fiercest critic. (end quote) The Washington Post -- which highly respects John McCain and is not a fierce critic of President Bush -- supports Barack Obama. Is that an endorsement?


The Washington Post calls

The Washington Post calls the game at the bottom of the 9th inning, and we're supposed to cheer? Obama is only slightly better than McCain, folks. He voted for the bailout, supports continued war, and offers no substantive change to the status quo, which is precisely why the WaPo, a full-fledged member of the corporate press, supports him. What a joke!


It's about time. It should

It's about time. It should have been an easy choice after the Appalling Palin pick. I don't understand why people question the pick of Biden, he is the perfect experienced advisor even if he has voted not always the way we would have preferred. Is there anyone that would have been perfect? NO. But Palin is beyond UNQUALIFIED and dangerous. OBAMA/BIDEN.


The Post is a rag and with

The Post is a rag and with the exception of a few good op ed writers like E.J. or Eugene is no longer worth the paper it's printed on. They might as well just put on a cheerleading uniform for the military industrial complex and every other scumbag special interest lobbyists that has ripped us off over the last 40 years. With friends like this Obama won’t need enemies. Thank the lord for the internet and the advent of real free speech. These guys are disgrace to the forth estate and there editorial page would make our founders want to look for a place to puke.


Thanks for this editorial

Thanks for this editorial — but why did it take you so long? The Boston Globe had you beat by weeks.