La Opinion endorsed Obama Saturday morning, at one minute after midnight.
The LA Times has endorsed Obama too. Although I don’t believe it’s been formally announced. , news has been leaking. The Times endorsement will appear in the paper Sunday. Both the Times and La Opinion talk about historic moments. I think that’s precisely what we have. Here’s hoping we don’t blow it.
Here’s the opening of the Times editorial…..and the closing.
Democrats preparing to vote in Tuesday’s California primary can mark their ballots with confidence, knowing that either candidate would make a strong nominee and, if elected, a groundbreaking leader and capable president. But just because the ballot features two strong candidates does not mean that it is difficult to choose between them. We urge voters to make the most of this historic moment by choosing the Democrat most focused on steering the nation toward constructive change: We strongly endorse Barack Obama.
The U.S. senator from Illinois distinguishes himself as an inspiring leader who cuts through typical internecine campaign bickering and appeals to Americans long weary of divisive and destructive politics. He electrifies young voters, not because he is young but because he embodies the desire to move to the next chapter of the American story. He brings with him deep knowledge of foreign relations and of this nation’s particular struggles with identity and opportunity. His flair for expression, both in print and on the stump, too easily leads observers to forget that Obama is a man not just of style but of substance. He’s a thoughtful student of the Constitution and an experienced lawmaker in his home state and, for the last three years, in the Senate…….
[snip]…His candidacy offers Democrats the best hope of leading America into the future, and gives Californians the opportunity to cast their most exciting and consequential ballot in a generation.
In the language of metaphor, Clinton is an essay, solid and reasoned; Obama is a poem, lyric and filled with possibility. Clinton would be a valuable and competent executive, but Obama matches her in substance and adds something that the nation has been missing for far too long — a sense of aspiration.
(Oh, damn, getting teary again…..)
UPDATE: Commenters have rightly pointed out that I didn’t post clips from the La Opinion endorsement, while I did from the Times. My bad. I meant to but ran out of time on an otherswise overloaded day. (That’s why there was no scribbled photo either.) But belatedly, here are some of those clips. The editors talk about the differences in the candidate’s stands on immigration, specifically the “commitment to the immigration issue which drove Obama to condemn the malicious lies made during the immigration debate, to understand the need for driver’s licenses, and to defend the rights of undocumented students by co-authoring the DREAM Act….” But as with the Time’s endorsement editorial, the La Opinion team talks most about the unencumbered kind of vision needed in this historic and risky moment in our nation’s history:
The Democratic Party arrives at the California primary with a historic choice between two extraordinary candidates. We believe that of the two, Senator Barack Obama represents fundamental change in a campaign in which “change” has become a central theme. Obama’s approach to immigration and his inspiring vision are what the country need to break through the current feeling of political malaise.There is no doubt that Senator Hillary Clinton would be an excellent president if elected. She is capable, competent, disciplined, and hard working. She has shown herself to be a talented legislator and is on the right side of the major issues. Her plan for universal health care is one example of the courageous initiatives she has proposed as a candidate. And it would be wonderful to elect the country’s first woman president.
[SNIP]
[snip]
Yet, this is a historic moment and tremendous skills and experience are not enough to inspire a feeling of renewal in our country after eight long years of George W. Bush.At the same time, there are not huge differences between the two Democratic candidates on most of the major issues. Thus, vision makes the difference! Obama offers an inclusive message of hope that addresses our country’s historic moment. He has a conciliatory style that can reverse the vicious cycle of rancor which has dominated Washington over these past decades and has paralyzed its ability to come together on major decisions.
We need a leader today that can inspire and unite America again around its greatest possibilities. Barack Obama is the right leader for the time. We know that he is not as well known among our community and while he has the support of Maria Elena Durazo, Senator Gil Cedillo and others he comes to the Latino community with less name recognition. Nevertheless, it is Obama who deserves our support.
By deciding between a woman or an African American as their presidencial nominee, the Democrats are making history. Barack Obama has the sensibilities of a man from humble beginnings raised in a multicultural home. He is the best option for a truly visionary change.
Stephen King enodorses Obama…and will write a novel about a monster resembling Hillary Clinton.
I’m with you Celeste. damn.
When I was a young teen I was an afficiando of science fiction and one of my favorite authors was C. M. Kornbluth. Cyril Kornbluth was a dour chap who believed (long before DEVO) that we were getting dumber – evolving in reverse. One of his stories was entitled “The Marching Morons.”
Anyway in the late fifties/early sixties he wrote a series of stories set around 2000 in which the president of the US was a grinning clown of a cowboy from Texas who couln’t utter a grammatical sentence if he tried.
Kornbluth died young (around 1962 I believe) but those stories stayed with me. Specially the idea we’d elect such a moron President! Boy that guy had real imagination!
I agree we’re getting dumber, because we’re becoming more socialistic.
When will someone discuss whether or not Hillary Rodham-Clinton is stable enough to be President?
LINK: When Hillary “Channeled†Eleanor Roosevelt
She’s nuts. I’d rather have Nancy Reagan as President.
Check out the “Yes We Can” music video – I love this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LOvWoK_8f8&eurl
I agree we’re getting dumber
Speak for yourself.
Yes Woody, because astrology is much more based in reality than ‘channeling’.
Kornbluth died young (around 1962 I believe) but those stories stayed with me. Specially the idea we’d elect such a moron President! Boy that guy had real imagination!
Can you imagine a really dumb society which would elect such a clown twice.
Celeste, you cut out the specifics of the Opinion endorsement, their specifying why they chose Obama over Hillary: her not wanting to give illegals drivers licenses was their big issue, as was Obama’s promise to push for immigration reform, i.e., legalization, within his first year in office, while Hillary wants to make it concurrent with pushing through a national “comprehensive immigration policy.” All that ethereal stuff sounds very catchy, but is as silly as the LA Times choosing Obama because he’s more “poetic” while she’s like a well-reasoned essay.
La Opinion makes it very explicit that it’s her more conservative approach to illegal immigration reform (refusal to pander, some would say) that was a deal breaker for them.
Again, a case where Hillary is more attuned to “the politics of the possible,” having seen the backlash in NY State when the Gov. proposed giving illegals drivers licenses. She’s already running in the general election, not just getting the support of the left wing of the Dem. party.
(One of her objections to the licenses for illegals is that it could hurt them, too, by admitting: “Yes, I’m illegal,” if it’s a separate kind of license. If it’s the same as for the rest of us, it would make all our licenses less useful or even useless. She wants to give them some sort of temp legal papers instead: this makes a lot more sense, and is closer to what the Republicans want to do.)
Curiously, Romney’s ads are already featuring him vs. her: assumes Obama will be knocked out. And by implication, she’s running against him, too, against his saying that the American people want the borders secured before they move towards easing legalization for those who already jumped the fence. Romney says Hillary AND Obama wanting to put illegals on the track to legalization just by paying a $3000 fine is way too lenient, and would penalize would-be immigrants from other countries. He’s right when it comes to most of the country, so she’s trying to walk a fine line.
Her camp is very smart here: willing to give him some of the liberal endorsements in exchange for keeping the middle.
Here’s the La Opinion link (first in Spanish, second in English), just so folks can judge the basis for the endorsement for themselves rather than be limited to tendentious “analysis”:
http://www.laopinion.com/editorial/
http://laopinion.com/editorial/index_en.html
As usual Woody got his “Facts” wrong. But why correct him. He knows it all anyway and I might as well “Correct” those poor souls in the Ypsilanti State Hospital who all thought they were Jesus Christ. See “The Three Christs of Ypsilanti”.
Alright, pupils, let’s read slowly and carefully:
After praising Hillary as “excellent President” material, “capable, competent, disciplined, and hard working…a talented legislator… on the right side of the major issues…” La Opinion adds: “She has worked tirelessly over many years to represent the best interests of Latinos.”
But, “we were disappointed with her calculated opposition to driver’s licenses for the undocumented which contrasts markedly from the forceful argument in support made by Obama…we believe there is only one right position and it is that of the Senator from Illinois.”
“And, while both Senators support comprehensive immigration reform, only Obama has committed to bringing forward new legislation during his first year in office. It is this commitment to the immigration issue which drove Obama to condemn the malicious lies (! note strong use of words here to depict those who see the issue differently) made during the immigration debate, to understand the need for driver’s licenses, and to defend the rights of undocumented students by co-authoring the DREAM Act. At the same time, there are not huge differences between the two…on most of the major issues. Thus, vision makes the difference.”
Except to the reg’s, it couldn’t be any clearer how they define “vision” and why they’ve chosen Obama. (I’d like to think Celeste didn’t make a calculated choice to exclude the specific reasons La Opinion chose Obama over Hillary.)
Their reasons for endorsing Obama could easily be flipped by the Hillary campaign to appeal to the McCain voters. Of course, to Romney’s voters, McCain is also anathema, but by positioning herself as virtually identical to McCain on immigration (unless he keeps moving to the right to get more Romney voters), she’s moved herself into the national middle on this issue, while Obama marginalized himself (some say blatantly pandered) to get endorsements like this one. This calculated choice may be helping Obama narrow the gap in Cal but will backfire in favor of Hillary in the general election.
“(I’d like to think Celeste didn’t make a calculated choice to exclude the specific reasons La Opinion chose Obama over Hillary.)”
Nope. No calculations. I meant to do it, but was in a hurry and never went back. I’ve belatedly fixed it.
The day you teach “reading comprehension” pigs will fly, lady.
“One of her objections to the licenses for illegals is that it could hurt them, too, by admitting: “Yes, I’m illegal,†if it’s a separate kind of license. If it’s the same as for the rest of us, it would make all our licenses less useful or even useless.”
It doesn’t get any dumber or more disingenuous than this…