Only those awakening from a deep coma could be unfamiliar with the qualifications claimed by each candidate. But, here are a few common characterizations of their strengths and vulnerabilities:
Obama: Smart, young (47) and articulate, but relatively inexperienced. Opposed the Iraq war, but has not bucked his party's leadership. Offers tax cuts for the middle-class and below, while defining America's wealthy — and more taxable — as earning $250,000 and up per household. Consensus winner of all three TV debates with McCain, but hasn't been able to shake "elitist" and, more recently, "socialist" labels stemming from his comments and his policy proposals. Pro choice, married to first wife, two kids.
McCain: An American hero, wounded in Vietnam, spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war. Twenty-six years in Congress. Backed the Iraq war and the troop surge; advocates staying until victory is achieved. At 72, would be the oldest first-term president. Bucks his party's conservative base, but voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time. Occasionally demonstrates a short temper and short attention span. Palin veep selection raised questions about judgment. Anti-abortion, married to second wife, seven kids.
From our perspective, each is qualified to lead our nation. We trust you to cast an informed ballot on the basis of shared national values and your personal interests. The winner inherits a political challenge on the scale faced by few of their predecessors — Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the post 9-11 George W. Bush come to mind.
Of those, two are rated among history's best. That's what we need now.
_____
Oshkosh Northwestern has about the best editorial out there regarding our candidates:
Sens. McCain and Obama are intelligent men who have unfortunately allowed themselves to be over managed and advertised as disparate characters. Both presidential campaigns have been run marketing pitchmen, not the candidates.
Sen. McCain dashed off to Washington D.C. during assemblage of the massive economic bailout package to make something happen. It was contrived theatrics. His rush to rescue did nothing. In fact, fellow Republicans in the House of Representatives helped derail Bailout 1.0.
Sen. Obama has purposely averted tough decisions in the U.S. Senate and as a state senator he strategically avoided voting on controversial bills so as not to build a record to target. He used his election to the U.S. Senate as a launching pad for his presidential run. Former Democratic leaders and party staff have frankly admitted this was their aim in propelling a charismatic, rookie Senator to the limelight. It leaves us wondering, "How would he govern?"
McCain once was novel in his legislative bipartianship and political philosophy of "Straight Talk." He has given up on it, less available to press and, thus, public. He is now surrounded by some of the very Bush agents who destroyed his 2000 bid for president.
Obama, who originally supported public financing of his campaign, tossed that ethic aside, pouring mammoth gobs of cash into political ads at the direction of handlers. He refuses to release personal documents that would fully illuminate his background.
And Gov. Sarah Palin? Her emergence was the calculated political gambit that it would appear "maverick." Again: Marketing over leadership.
If Sens. McCain and Obama were truly change agents, they would have commanded their think tanks and spent more time developing real blueprints for the country, not allowing others to package their personal stories as platforms and sound bites as policy.
We have been victimized by a broken, cynical political system that exploits each man's origin and style and have been denied the substance of two true, competing visions for America's future.
It's worse than that; we were denied a choice, especially on the Democratic Party side because of constant propaganda, manipulation, and fraud.
_____
Fond du Lac Reporter:
Either a President McCain or a President Obama will confront a nation culturally divided on a magnitude arguably unseen since the Civil War. In essence, the Blue and the Grey have been replaced by the Blue and the Red. Both candidates have stumped as self-styled "uniters" and, Lord knows, our country needs to recapture a sense of greater camaraderie and shared destiny.
This election has gone on for so long — a full two years — that it's sometimes hard to remember what our days were like without blanket coverage of stump speeches, barrages of political punditry, waves of push polling and endless streams of nauseating attack ads (from both sides). It's easy to forget that, at its peak, this campaign season boasted more than 20 candidates from the two major parties alone. Choice was not an issue in this election cycle.
So now we're down to just two principal contenders and — pending no major plot twists (think Bush vs. Gore in 2000) — we'll have selected our next chief executive by this time next week.
_____
Appleton Post-Crescent says many will be upset when their candidate loses, but we better make the best of it.:
t's been a long haul. We should breathe a collective sigh of relief that it's over. While some will celebrate, others will curse voters who elected a) John McCain, or b) Barack Obama.
It's OK to mourn the loss of your candidate — initially. But sooner rather than later, we need to do something few people have done over the last 18 months — work together for the common good.
I saw no non-endorsement editorial.
_____
The Rocky Mount Telegram notes it does not endorse candidates:
The Rocky Mount Telegram doesn’t regularly endorse political candidates, but today we’re going to make a suggestion on how everyone should vote anyway.
Here’s our endorsement: If you’re going to vote straight-party, make sure you vote for a presidential candidate first.
No comments:
Post a Comment