« Celebrity Grudge Match: Dick Harpootlian vs. Bill Clinton | Main | The 'mystery' of why the press likes McCain »
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
Obama inspires board, offers hope
By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
A remarkable thing happened this week to The State’s editorial board — again. For us, it was the equivalent of lightning striking the same place, twice in the same month.
After difficult, agonizing discussions over presidential primary endorsements in both 2000 and 2004, we arrived at a quick consensus on endorsing Sen. Barack Obama for the S.C. Democratic Primary on Saturday.
We met with Sen. Obama Monday morning, before he and the other candidates spoke at the State House. (Neither Hillary Clinton nor John Edwards ever met with us, despite long-standing invitations — repeated invitations, in Sen. Clinton’s case.)
Our decision was made easier by the departure of Sen. Joe Biden. We might have been torn between his experience and foreign policy vision, and fresh hope for the future offered by Sen. Obama.
As it was, Sen. Obama clearly stood out as the best remaining candidate — and he had always been the most exciting and inspiring in the field.
It’s not just that he might be the first black president — Sen. Clinton would make history, too. It’s that he offers a fresh start for American politics. It is his ambition to be a president for all of us — black and white, male and female, Democrat and Republican. The nomination of Sen. Clinton would by contrast kick off another bitter round of the pointless partisanship that has plagued the nation under presidents named “Bush” and “Clinton.”
As he did before the Republican primary, Associate Editor Mike Fitts framed the discussion of our Democratic endorsement, and did a sufficiently thorough job that the rest of us merely elaborated on his observations.
First, he mentioned the support John Edwards had enjoyed among members of our board in 2004, although he did not get our endorsement then (in a grueling three-hour talkathon, I successfully pressed the board to choose Joe Lieberman instead). This time, he was “a substantially different guy” — an unappealing embodiment of class resentment.
Also, his extreme position on Iraq — wanting to pull all troops out, even those who are training Iraqis — made him a nonstarter.
About Hillary Clinton, Mike said the same thing he said about Mitt Romney 10 days earlier — “Boy, I wish she’d come in to see us, because I have so many questions.” Mike cited her obvious intelligence, and the fact that she “knows where the levers of power are” — especially within the Democratic Party. She’s worked the corridors of Washington since well before her time as first lady.
But she could never have built the kind of coalitions that could break the partisan gridlock inside the Beltway — even if she wanted to, and we’ve seen little indication that she would want to.
And her policy prowess is that of the insider. We saw her failed effort to reform our health care system as emblematic of her style — get a bunch of wonks in a room, close the door, and come up with something too complex and nuanced to sell.
Barack Obama, by contrast, would be oriented toward — and more successful at — bringing the American public into the debate, and persuading us to agree to a solution. He has that leadership ability that she lacks.
Sen. Obama has political gifts that are more reminiscent of former President Clinton. Of Sen. Clinton, Mike said, “She’s sort of caught between Obama and her husband, as two of the most evocative leaders we’ve had in a while.”
While Sen. Obama is completely true to the highest traditions of the Democratic Party, he would have the potential to lead others as well. Sen. Clinton’s main interest in Republicans seems to be beating them, prevailing over them, having things go her way rather than theirs.
“I would really like us to be talking about Joe Biden or Bill Richardson,” said Associate Editor Cindi Scoppe. That leaves her with what she sees as “an emotional decision,” which initially makes her uncomfortable. Cindi usually prefers the wonkiest option, but in the end she’s quite OK with “going for the exciting person who gives us hope.”
“Hillary is very smart,” Associate Editor Warren Bolton agrees. But “I think she thinks she is the only one who has the answers.” Publisher Henry Haitz said the same thing, in almost the same words, a moment later.
In the end, we came to a second quick consensus for much the same reason as the first time: We thought among the Republicans, John McCain had the best chance of uniting the country and leading in a positive direction. On the Democratic side, the one person who offers that same hope is Barack Obama.
(Both photos from the board's meeting are by Chip Oglesby of thestate.com. To read The State's endorsement of Barack Obama, click here. For video about the endorsement, click here.)
Posted by Brad Warthen at 07:34 PM in 2008 Presidential, Barack Obama, Character, Columns, Elections, Endorsement interviews, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Media, Parties, S.C. Democratic Primary, South Carolina, The State, Working
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4ea353ef00e55001addf8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Obama inspires board, offers hope:
Comments
Sen. Obama has shown, as a state senator that he was willing to listen to everyone, then work with whomever he could for positive results. This is the first time I have heard a politician talk about working with others, talk about really listening to others, and talk about reaching a consensus for progress, who had a history of actually doing it. At the same time, Senator Obama has shown he's most interested in helping those who need it. He could have had any job he wanted, but he went to Chicago and began working on helping the unemployed. He talks about, 'got hope?' I think he embodies it as well. I applaud your endorsement.
Posted by: Karen McLeod | Jan 22, 2008 7:59:46 PM
Good decision. John Edwards is a fine man; Hilary a passionate, unrelenting woman.
Obama is the balance.
Posted by: Susan | Jan 22, 2008 8:22:57 PM
I'm happy Brad was beardless so as to not distract Obama.
Hillary is a catalyst for division, rancor and partisanship.
On NPR they had someone from Fact Check level the house of cards that is Billary's distortions about Obama. Sadly, I think Bill's negative attacks have done permanent damage.
Posted by: Randy Ewart | Jan 22, 2008 9:55:53 PM
I'm not looking for hope, I'm looking for someone who is going to fight for the people of this country. John Edwards is that person. You say he embodies class resentment. Well, as someone who is solidly middle class, you better believe I'm resentful as hell about what is going on in this country. I want someone to represent me who is just as angry and resentful, and someone who is going to try and make it right.
Obama knows how to talk a good game, but he's not so different from Hillary. I think we all witnessed that in last night's debate. Perhaps you should have held off on your endorsement until today (you would have had time to rethink it), since your candidate came off looking like a 5 year old fighting over a toy, while my candidate came off looking like a most Presidential adult with a real plan to change America.
Posted by: Stephanie | Jan 22, 2008 10:10:30 PM
I am most disappointed in The State's endorsement of Senator Obama. For starters, I was dumbfounded by your assessment as to how the senator's living overseas enables him to have "world knowledge." Did you not do your research? The man lived in Indonesia only until the age of 10! Secondly, I fail to understand how you can cite your reasons for endorsing John McCain(experience, strength, ability to lead this country); yet endorse a Demoncrat who has none of these qualities. It is clear, as Stephanie states above, that Obama has some maturing to do. He seems totally frustrated over the political attacks thus far and seems reluctant to admit faults. If the man cannot handle attacks during a presidential campaign, how in the world could he lead our country? The "political games" are child's play compared to what he'll be up against if he were to win the election. Editors, you know and I know why you REALLY endorsed this candidate!
Posted by: Kathy | Jan 22, 2008 11:12:42 PM
Barack Hussein, Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan have two things in common, they are all radical racists and they are all best friends.
In fact, the so called church and the Nation of Islam call on their followers to be radical.
How sick is this?
Posted by: Truth | Jan 22, 2008 11:24:39 PM
I want to extend my congratulations and pride in The State for their decision to endorse Sen. Barack Obama in this Saturday's Democratic Primary. Not only does your endorsement refocus on the point that Sen. Obama has been since the onset about unifying our country, it also recognizes his innate qualities of leadership and integrity. America needs a radical transformation and Obama is calling on and depending on all Americans to stand up and work with him. As someone who has observed his campaign closely from the onset, he has already succeeded in inspiring an astonishing groundswell of members of the 'meling pot' of our country to join together in this battle to reclaim our citizenship and engage in the work of repairing our country.
Posted by: Deborah Phelan | Jan 22, 2008 11:25:54 PM
It's absolutely disgusting how a racist radical with racist radical friends could even be taken seriously and not exposed for the racists they are and the hidden agenda they are licking their lips over as they see it coming closer and closer to fruition.
If anyone told me to my face that 9-11 was deserved, I don't quite know what I would do.
Obama's Reverend, mentor and best friend says it was deserved and this guy lives to fight another day in the political arena?
It's the true measuring stick to how low this country has sunk.
Obama should be ashamed of himself for his love of this lune and the Obama supporters should be equally ashamed for standing by while radicals are taking over the country on your vote.
You should really feel stupid. You are kissing this country goodbye with a smile on your face.
Posted by: Truth | Jan 22, 2008 11:51:03 PM
Barack Obama is a transformational figure. It will not change America to go Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.
But it would drastically change America to go from Bush-Clinton-Bush-OBAMA. It sounds simple, but we need this fresh start for our own sanity.
To the editors of The State: Thank you. I believe you've made an excellent endorsement.
Posted by: Steven Guess | Jan 22, 2008 11:54:12 PM
Congratulations to senator Obama for the paper's endorsement. The State made a wise decision considering what lies ahead for this country's future. I also want to add, that i am truly appalled at Sen.Clinton for conceding South Carolina and looking to feb5, she is not giving this state a chance, personally, i find her actions to be disrespectful to the voters of South Carolina. And recently, i learned that sen.Clinton has aligned herself with a bigot reverend by the name of Calvin Butts in New York City. Rev.Butts has been accused of calling white people, "devils." Shame on sen.Clinton-she is a racist herself.
Posted by: Wilk | Jan 23, 2008 12:01:31 AM
This is just the kind of tranformational figure we need to bring us our sanity. His best friend says 9-11 was deserved and we welcome him with a smile. You people really have your heads on straight don't you?
On the Sunday after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Mr. Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later he wrote that the attacks had proved that “people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns.”
While Mr. Obama stated his opposition to the Iraq war in conventional terms, Mr. Wright issued a “War on Iraq I.Q. Test,” with questions like, “Which country do you think poses the greatest threat to global peace: Iraq or the U.S.?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
Posted by: Truth | Jan 23, 2008 12:21:26 AM
I agree with The State that Barack Obama is the best candidate to bring us together and lead our nation to achieve some of the lofty goals set out by his agenda--expanding healthcare, responsibly ending the war in Iraq, and reforming politics as usual. He is the right candidate at this critical moment in time.
Posted by: Angelica | Jan 23, 2008 12:21:27 AM
"It is his ambition to be a president for all of us — black and white, male and female, Democrat and Republican."
That's what he said, Brad, I'm sure. But how do you know it's true? Just because he was the only Democrat to pay his dues by meeting with your editorial board?
Journalism 101 should have taught you better. Don't pay tribute, attribute. Unless you can prove you can read minds.
I'm tempted to offer you some milque to go with your toast. But I think a stiff drink would do your better.
Posted by: weldon VII | Jan 23, 2008 12:32:06 AM
Or you better. Doing your better is a foreign concept.
Posted by: weldon VII | Jan 23, 2008 12:35:13 AM
Barrack Hussein was never for the war like every American was because he is on their side just as is Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan.
Let's see... I can have a POW who suggested the troop surge and served this country his whole life or I can have a radical closet muslim who attends a radical racist church that praises the Nation of Islam and says the 9-11 attacks were our own fault?
Tough choice. I think I'll go with McCain now and Osama Hussein Barack.. NEVER IN A BILLION YEARS.
And, Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan don't stop there. As far as they are concerned, every conflict we have had in the past 30 years has been us picking on the little guy. Guys like Sadaam and Qudaffi.
They also suggest that the only peaceful nation in the middle east is NOT our allie and the guys who were responsible for 9-11 ARE.
You Obama suporters are sick, twisted and totally brain washed. The feeling of lost sanity has nothing to do with the current president and everything to do with your own psychosis. Put down your voter card and go see a professional. Please!!! Do us all a favor.
Posted by: Truth | Jan 23, 2008 12:39:25 AM
Eureka!! Thank you for endorsing Sen. Obama. Finally, people are understanding that what American needs RIGHT NOW is Obama as president. We need to unite, work together, put aside our differences to address the issues that face all of us everyday! We will NOT survive as a divided nation. Obama brings us together better than all the candidates!
Push forward!!
America needs a new direction! We need to leave Bush-Clinton in the past!!
OBAMA AS PRESIDENT 2008- the future of America!
Posted by: Robyn | Jan 23, 2008 1:39:41 AM
Kudos to The State. Obama may never become President, but for The State to endorse an electable minority candidate is leadership of the most important kind. This endorsement tells our nation that we are a tolerant and progressive people who prefer a candidate of vision, who happens to be a man of color. That alone sets apart from the redneck stereotypes we have suffered for too long. ... Or, to put it another way, Who'd of thunk it?
Posted by: Gordon Hirsch | Jan 23, 2008 1:47:26 AM
OBAMA AS PRESIDENT 2008. The future destruction of America.
Push down!!!
Posted by: Truth | Jan 23, 2008 1:49:21 AM
CHANGE WE CAN BE DECEIVED IN
On the Sunday after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Mr. Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later he wrote that the attacks had proved that ?people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ?disappeared? as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns.? While Mr. Obama stated his opposition to the Iraq war in conventional terms, Mr. Wright issued a ?War on Iraq I.Q. Test,? with questions like, ?Which country do you think poses the greatest threat to global peace: Iraq or the U.S.?? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
YES WE CAN! DESTRUCTION 08
Posted by: Truth | Jan 23, 2008 3:37:19 AM
Thank you for endorsing Senator Obama. He will restore honor to the White House!
Posted by: PatriotforObama | Jan 23, 2008 4:57:17 AM
weldon, we believe him when he says that because, when running for the nomination of one of these two political parties, there is a political cost to saying such things. You don't say that unless you mean it.
Stephanie expressed the political cost above, saying "I'm not looking for hope, I'm looking for someone who is going to fight..."
Well, that's why we're endorsing Obama. The other two candidates have made it clear, in their respective ways, that they are about fighting -- to be precise, fighting with other Americans.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jan 23, 2008 7:34:37 AM
I think you made the right decision to endorse Obama. He's the least worst candidate remaining among the Democrats and isn't about cobbling together a nominal 51-49 majority (like Clinton) or running a class-based campaign that will pit one group of Americans against another (like Edwards). The Democrats had some really good choices in Iowa and New Hampshire, but the most qualified, most electible, and least polarizing candidates were all winnowed out.
Obama's a fine candidate, but it seems to me like there's a lot of room for an experienced independent to enter the race.
Posted by: The 7-10: Anthony Palmer | Jan 23, 2008 7:54:13 AM
Truth, you keep emoting the names Farrakhan and Wright like a mantra. I have read as many of Sen. Obama's speeches as I can. I have fact checked repeatedly various allegations, including yours. Does he know these guys? Yes. Does he respect their positions? In the sense of respecting human beings, yes. Does he agree with their extremist viewpoints? Absolutely not. Truth, you are not. Twisted, sick, yes; Truth, no.
Posted by: Karen McLeod | Jan 23, 2008 8:10:53 AM
Truth: 9/11 was about chickens coming home to roost, whether it went down like they claim, or else it was some iteration of inside-job, ie, monstrous, ruinous treason on the part of the Bush crime family and its agents.
Truth indeed. Feh. A pox on your ignorance and radical, warmongering nationalism. We don't need (social) nationalism and endless nation-building and war--we need humanism and vision.
Having said all that, I don't trust Obama either. ;^) Kucinich best represents my worldview, UFOs and all.
Posted by: James D McCallister | Jan 23, 2008 8:41:48 AM
Regardless of Obama's race or vague message of "what you call hope" that he projects, he has no experience, no history of work to judge and like all democrats, plays on the emotions of those who think they have been wronged by those in our society that have worked, risked money and therefore become successful! Same for Clinton and Edwards!This is not the American way! How can you support any of these democrats that spout an agenda of class warfare, populism, socialism and even communism as a means of gaining power?? Their heroes are Lenin, Castro, Mao and even Chavez! THIS IS NOT WHAT AMERICA, THE USA NEEDS! We did not become the greatest, most just country in the history of the world, the envy of every other country, every other people except the radical terrorists, by immulating Russia, China or Cuba. The US is a light to the rest of the world! Everyone is trying to come here, no one except depraved radicals or the "hollywood elite" is trying to get out! There is no democrat candidate worthy of the office, much less as a senator or congressman!!!
If you think their message is of hope, or a more socially acceptable society, compare the message with a slight, A SLIGHT, change to that of pre 1917 Russia, post WWI Germany, 1950's Cuba, 1930's China or currently in Venezuela! THAT SHOULD SCARE YOU TO MAKE A CHANGE IN JUDGEMENT!!
Socialism fails everywhere it is tried. Russia, Cuba, China and even in the Euro socialist countries! Why do democrats think they can make it work here?? Stupidity I guess!
Best possible solution to the needed changes in our country is to get the government back to it's constitutionally mandated obligations. Defense, dealings between the states are the only ones! All this added welfare, education, transportation, federal lands and the constant interference in our lives and businesses is not the duty of the federal government! Get them off the backs of businesses and successful individuals and the country and society will flourish beyond belief. Eliminate income taxes, social security taxes and all the other imbedded taxes in our products, eliminate accomodations, prepared foods, mass transportation subsidies, car rental taxes and all other fluff taxes and implement the FAIR TAX as proposed by Neil Boortz and Rep. John Linder with careful monitoring and adjustments for those at the poverty level, do away with all corporate and business taxes so that our businesse have no reason to seek to move offshore for better places to do business and see how fast we grow as a society! Health care costs will come down! Costs of all products will come down! All will be better off than now!
Posted by: zeke | Jan 23, 2008 8:58:29 AM


