politix
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/13/081013taco_talk_editors?printable=true
The New Yorker's editorial endorsement of Obama. Surprise, no? However, it is a salient analysis of why Obama is the man for the job (despite his inexperience) and why McCain isn't (because of his, esp. in the past 4 years.)
I'll be the first to admit that part of why I stomach-knottingly want Obama to win is because I want McCain to lose. McCain would be a disaster for this country. But I also believe in Obama, and not only because of his much-vaunted eloquence and charisma. Those wouldn't have lasted as winning chracteristics as long as this presidential battle has been. But because this arduous road through primaries and towards the 11/04 polls demonstrate an exceptionally well run campaign. This may not be the best indicator of how a President will govern, but to me it says a lot (esp. when compared to John and HIlliary's.)
But the New Yorker speaks to more of this mo' better than I can. Follow the link above or read a taste below:
"It is perfectly legitimate to call attention, as McCain has done, to Obama’s lack of conventional national and international policymaking experience. We, too, wish he had more of it. But office-holding is not the only kind of experience relevant to the task of leading a wildly variegated nation. Obama’s immersion in diverse human environments (Hawaii’s racial rainbow, Chicago’s racial cauldron, countercultural New York, middle-class Kansas, predominantly Muslim Indonesia), his years of organizing among the poor, his taste of corporate law and his grounding in public-interest and constitutional law-these, too, are experiences. And his books show that he has wrung from them every drop of insight and breadth of perspective they contained.
The exhaustingly, sometimes infuriatingly long campaign of 2008 (and 2007) has had at least one virtue: it has demonstrated that Obama’s intelligence and steady temperament are not just figments of the writer’s craft. He has made mistakes, to be sure. (His failure to accept McCain’s imaginative proposal for a series of unmediated joint appearances was among them.) But, on the whole, his campaign has been marked by patience, planning, discipline, organization, technological proficiency, and strategic astuteness. Obama has often looked two or three moves ahead, relatively impervious to the permanent hysteria of the hourly news cycle and the cable-news shouters. And when crisis has struck, as it did when the divisive antics of his ex-pastor threatened to bring down his campaign, he has proved equal to the moment, rescuing himself with a speech that not only drew the poison but also demonstrated a profound respect for the electorate. Although his opponents have tried to attack him as a man of “mere” words, Obama has returned eloquence to its essential place in American politics. The choice between experience and eloquence is a false one--something that Lincoln, out of office after a single term in Congress, proved in his own campaign of political and national renewal. Obama’s “mere” speeches on everything from the economy and foreign affairs to race have been at the center of his campaign and its success; if he wins, his eloquence will be central to his ability to govern."
The New Yorker's editorial endorsement of Obama. Surprise, no? However, it is a salient analysis of why Obama is the man for the job (despite his inexperience) and why McCain isn't (because of his, esp. in the past 4 years.)
I'll be the first to admit that part of why I stomach-knottingly want Obama to win is because I want McCain to lose. McCain would be a disaster for this country. But I also believe in Obama, and not only because of his much-vaunted eloquence and charisma. Those wouldn't have lasted as winning chracteristics as long as this presidential battle has been. But because this arduous road through primaries and towards the 11/04 polls demonstrate an exceptionally well run campaign. This may not be the best indicator of how a President will govern, but to me it says a lot (esp. when compared to John and HIlliary's.)
But the New Yorker speaks to more of this mo' better than I can. Follow the link above or read a taste below:
"It is perfectly legitimate to call attention, as McCain has done, to Obama’s lack of conventional national and international policymaking experience. We, too, wish he had more of it. But office-holding is not the only kind of experience relevant to the task of leading a wildly variegated nation. Obama’s immersion in diverse human environments (Hawaii’s racial rainbow, Chicago’s racial cauldron, countercultural New York, middle-class Kansas, predominantly Muslim Indonesia), his years of organizing among the poor, his taste of corporate law and his grounding in public-interest and constitutional law-these, too, are experiences. And his books show that he has wrung from them every drop of insight and breadth of perspective they contained.
The exhaustingly, sometimes infuriatingly long campaign of 2008 (and 2007) has had at least one virtue: it has demonstrated that Obama’s intelligence and steady temperament are not just figments of the writer’s craft. He has made mistakes, to be sure. (His failure to accept McCain’s imaginative proposal for a series of unmediated joint appearances was among them.) But, on the whole, his campaign has been marked by patience, planning, discipline, organization, technological proficiency, and strategic astuteness. Obama has often looked two or three moves ahead, relatively impervious to the permanent hysteria of the hourly news cycle and the cable-news shouters. And when crisis has struck, as it did when the divisive antics of his ex-pastor threatened to bring down his campaign, he has proved equal to the moment, rescuing himself with a speech that not only drew the poison but also demonstrated a profound respect for the electorate. Although his opponents have tried to attack him as a man of “mere” words, Obama has returned eloquence to its essential place in American politics. The choice between experience and eloquence is a false one--something that Lincoln, out of office after a single term in Congress, proved in his own campaign of political and national renewal. Obama’s “mere” speeches on everything from the economy and foreign affairs to race have been at the center of his campaign and its success; if he wins, his eloquence will be central to his ability to govern."