Anchorage Daily News endorses...

[Deidre in GA]

Barack Obama for president of the United States.

 

Anchorage Daily News

 

The current endorsement list of newspapers across the country has Obama far in the lead, 160 - 59. I have only posted threads when I came across one I felt was a significant departure from a major publication's norm. I don't know how the ADN leans politically but I thought it significant in that it is an important publication in Palin's home state.

 

The link for the editorial endorsement list is here:Editorandpublisher.com

 

deidre in ga

Edited October 26, 2008 by Deidre in GA

[Parrothead]

I have a question about endorsements. Why does it matter? Or am I naive in my thinking that people will think for themselves instead of following this newpaper's, that movie star's or this politician's lead?

[Greta]

Or am I naive in my thinking that people will think for themselves instead of following this newpaper's, that movie star's or this politician's lead?

 

I don't know, I think a thoughtful and well-explained endorsement is on an entirely different level than being swayed by 30 second ads (which is what I fear is more often the case).

 

Dislaimer: don't know if this endorsement was particularly thoughtful or well-explained, just speaking in generalities here.

[Plaid Dad]

I also don't put much stock in endorsements. The political views of mainstream journalists are usually miles away from my own, I couldn't care less what some actor or pop star thinks, and I can't help but think about the log-rolling aspect of politicians endorsing each other. At the end of the day, I hope that voters base their decisions on their own reasoned analysis of the issues and the candidates' qualifications for office.

[Deidre in GA]

I also don't put much stock in endorsements. The political views of mainstream journalists are usually miles away from my own, I couldn't care less what some actor or pop star thinks, and I can't help but think about the log-rolling aspect of politicians endorsing each other. At the end of the day, I hope that voters base their decisions on their own reasoned analysis of the issues and the candidates' qualifications for office.

 

i totally agree. and part of my research to develop my reasoned analysis is to gather as much information as possible. reading how someone else views a situation and why assists me in looking at an issue from a variety of angles and subsequently honing my own thoughts on the subject. for this very reason, celebrity endorsements hold zero interest for me as i tend to hear more emotion than well deliniated reasoning. editorial endorsements are a completely different universe; here you do read the reasoning laid out in a comprehensive manner whether you ultimately agree with it or not.

 

OTOH, i did have to restrain myself from posting Obama's endorsement from Opie and DA Fonz. i thought the video was funny, not significant. those of us with fond memories of The Andy Griffith Show and Happy Days would have been amused.

[Tammyla]

:iagree:

 

 

I also don't put much stock in endorsements. The political views of mainstream journalists are usually miles away from my own, I couldn't care less what some actor or pop star thinks, and I can't help but think about the log-rolling aspect of politicians endorsing each other. At the end of the day, I hope that voters base their decisions on their own reasoned analysis of the issues and the candidates' qualifications for office.

[Greta]

reading how someone else views a situation and why assists me in looking at an issue from a variety of angles and subsequently honing my own thoughts on the subject. for this very reason, celebrity endorsements hold zero interest for me as i tend to hear more emotion than well deliniated reasoning. editorial endorsements are a completely different universe; here you do read the reasoning laid out in a comprehensive manner whether you ultimately agree with it or not.

 

Thank you. That's what I was trying to get at, but you said it so much better!!! :001_smile:

[LisaNY]

I also don't put much stock in endorsements. The political views of mainstream journalists are usually miles away from my own, I couldn't care less what some actor or pop star thinks, and I can't help but think about the log-rolling aspect of politicians endorsing each other. At the end of the day, I hope that voters base their decisions on their own reasoned analysis of the issues and the candidates' qualifications for office.

 

Plaid Dad, I just have to say - I like your avatar! :D Braveheart is one of my all-time favorite movies, although I could only watch it once. :crying:

[Hillary in KS]

What? The Anchorage Daily News endorses Obama?

 

Well then. That convinces me. I'm changing my vote!

[kalanamak]

I also don't put much stock in endorsements. The political views of mainstream journalists are usually miles away from my own, I couldn't care less what some actor or pop star thinks, and I can't help but think about the log-rolling aspect of politicians endorsing each other. At the end of the day, I hope that voters base their decisions on their own reasoned analysis of the issues and the candidates' qualifications for office.

 

 

I don't, but many people do have a day to day relationship with their newspaper and its editorial page. I do read the Economist's editorials and do pay attention to their official political choices, even if I don't always agree with them. I'm sure many newspapers are "rags" as my mother called them, and if you feel the one you read regularly is one, mores the pity, but if you spent time with their words and reasoning and thoughts, a newspaper's endorsement is of much more importance, IMO, than a pop star or other public figure.

[Michelle in MO]

I could care less about what candidate celebrities are planning on voting for, and the news media holds little to no sway with me. As far as some of the recent defections from conservatives such as Christopher Buckley, Colin Powell, Scott McClellan, Kathleen Parker, and others---I can't say that I've missed any of them.

[Amy in NY]

I have a question about endorsements. Why does it matter? Or am I naive in my thinking that people will think for themselves instead of following this newpaper's, that movie star's or this politician's lead?

 

This is my thought, too. Endorsements seem to be akin to 'who's most popular' in high school.

[Zelda]

I'm floored. Another mainstream media outlet supports the Democratic candidate? :willy_nilly: Stop the presses.

 

Oh, wait...

 

:001_rolleyes:

[Zelda]

I'm floored. Another mainstream media outlet supports the Democratic candidate? :willy_nilly: Stop the presses.

 

Oh, wait...

 

:001_rolleyes:

 

Actually, I would strongly urge everyone to read the endorsement. The bias is obvious. Its less analysis and more talking points.

[ma23peas]

Barack Obama for president of the United States.

 

Anchorage Daily News

 

The current endorsement list of newspapers across the country has Obama far in the lead, 160 - 59. I have only posted threads when I came across one I felt was a significant departure from a major publication's norm. I don't know how the ADN leans politically but I thought it significant in that it is an important publication in Palin's home state.

 

The link for the editorial endorsement list is here:Editorandpublisher.com

 

deidre in ga

 

Deidre! (We used to live in McDonough and Fayetteville, ds was born at Southern Regional and daughter at Piedmont!! Hello neighbor!:))

 

What this information clearly demonstrates is the liberal leanings of our publications...I am saddened and frustrated at the perpetuation of biased journalism in our country (on both sides)...I would just love for journalists to go back to their roots of reporting the story without bias.

 

There was also a report by a journalistic group that looked at negative articles on McCain or Obama...it was clear that there are many more negative articles on McCain than on Obama..double that for Palin v. Biden. So, here we have proof that the journalists are not 'balanced'...if they represented the citizens in our country it would be 50/50...but to have 2/3 pulling for the left leaning candidate speaks volumes about the imbalance in our journalism sector.

 

I think when I finish my role in homeschooling, I will take up a role in journalism..we all need to balance this out.

 

Tara

[Zelda]

Deidre! (We used to live in McDonough and Fayetteville, ds was born at Southern Regional and daughter at Piedmont!! Hello neighbor!:))

 

What this information clearly demonstrates is the liberal leanings of our publications...I am saddened and frustrated at the perpetuation of biased journalism in our country (on both sides)...I would just love for journalists to go back to their roots of reporting the story without bias.

 

There was also a report by a journalistic group that looked at negative articles on McCain or Obama...it was clear that there are many more negative articles on McCain than on Obama..double that for Palin v. Biden. So, here we have proof that the journalists are not 'balanced'...if they represented the citizens in our country it would be 50/50...but to have 2/3 pulling for the left leaning candidate speaks volumes about the imbalance in our journalism sector.

 

I think when I finish my role in homeschooling, I will take up a role in journalism..we all need to balance this out.

 

Tara

 

Its also worth noting that Anchorage Daily News endorsed Kerry and Gore in their respective elections.

[Deidre in GA]

What this information clearly demonstrates is the liberal leanings of our publications...I am saddened and frustrated at the perpetuation of biased journalism in our country (on both sides)...I would just love for journalists to go back to their roots of reporting the story without bias.

The 'liberal leanings,' as you call it, of the current wave of endorsements is actually unprecedented. The Editor and Publishers site took a look at editorial endorsements historically and actually the GOP has a wide edge.

 

But what about in years past? Have Democrats usually earned the nod from newspapers? Or is Obama just an especially good candidate -- or McCain a poor one -- this year, in the eyes of many newspapers?

 

We have noted previously that in our 2004 count, John Kerry barely edged George Bush 213-205. But what about before then?

 

Well, in 2000 we took a poll of editors and publishers and found that they reported, by a 2-1 margin, that they had favored Bush over Al Gore. This was fairly close to what we found later when we asked papers about their 2000 endorsements and found 137 saying they had backed Bush and only 99 naming Gore.

 

In 1996, by our count, Bob Dole topped Bill Clinton in this area by 122-80, among the editorials identified.

 

And before then? We have located an October 26, 1996, article by Jodi B. Cohen in these pages, summarizing E&P findings going back to 1940. We're not sure exactly how E&P got the word on these endorsements in the days before e-mail, fax, and the Web -- Pony Express? -- but we will let you know about that soon when we find out.

 

But here is that accounting, which shows an extremely wide GOP edge from the so-called "liberal press" going way back, with even JFK and FDR taking it on the chin.

 

Many of the papers in the current election cycle have never endorsed a Democratic candidate in 100+ years of publication. I doubt their editorial offices have been stormed by a liberal coup. Dismiss their viewpoints if you will but to me that's a little like my son standing out on the porch with his fingers in his ears saying "I can't hear you..."

 

there is a scientific axiom that even the act of observation affects the outcome of an experiment. while an article can be balanced, there is no such thing as reporting without a bias. everything has a point of view. the fact that there are more negative articles on the McCain campaign might possibly be because there are more fundamental problems there and that is gravely troubling the traditionally conservative editorial publications.

 

(and you did live nearby - we're in Riverdale. my son has always played soccer in Fayetteville!)

[Parabola]

Liberal leanings, huh? Thats the only POSSIBLE reason a newspaper, or any other instituion may endorse a "liberal" candidate. Does that include the conservatively inclined papers/mags/etc. that have also come out for Obama?

 

How about the conservaties who jumped ship this election because they have serious problems with where their party is going or with this candidate and/or his vp? Does their endorsement of Obama get to be discounted to? Are we only counting people, places, things that endorse McCain? Is that how we're counting?

[elizabeth]

 

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003875230 Apparently there are a plethora of newspaper editorial boards who find themselves supporting Obama-are they therefore all deluded, drinking the proverbial kool aid or just maybe , maybe there is something more??

[Zelda]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003875230 Apparently there are a plethora of newspaper editorial boards who find themselves supporting Obama-are they therefore all deluded, drinking the proverbial kool aid or just maybe , maybe there is something more??

 

Editor and Publisher is hardly a watch dog for the journalism industry. Its a journal for people in the industry. Written by people in the industry. Who are not going to admit bias, if it exists.

 

And do the Democrats like Powell now? I'm just wondering because its been about 5 years of talking about how he lied to the UN and the world about Iraq and then tried to cover it up in a too little, too late fashion.

[Storm Bay]

In my experience, the majority of newspapers slant liberal. Bear in mind that very few people/corporations own almost all the major (and even "minor") newspapers in the country, and even if this is a switch for this paper, I'd like to know why for real, not just what they put in print. I don't give much credence to endorsements like this. I don't like either candidate, but I would like Obama to come out and prove where he was born and to really know why he made that religious faith glitch (where he said "My Muslim faith" and the interviewer corrected him by saying "you mean your Christian faith." Not that the law requires one to be Christian, but it makes me wonder why he would say this if he's been going to a Christian church for x number of years--is he just doing it to get elected?

 

As for McCain & Palin, I have other questions about them, too, and am not impressed by them any more than I am by Obama.

Edited October 26, 2008 by Karin

[Deidre in GA]

And do the Democrats like Powell now? I'm just wondering because its been about 5 years of talking about how he lied to the UN and the world about Iraq and then tried to cover it up in a too little, too late fashion.

 

actually, i've always liked Colin Powell. When he was SOS i thought he was being pretty much groomed by the GOP to be a presidential candidate which would have been a sticky wicket for a lot of us. i guess i don't blame Powell for what happened. i believe he was lied to and when he finally figured it out, he fell on his sword like a good soldier does. and then he walked away from the mess of the Bush administration. given his situation, i think that was the best he could do.

[Dawn E]

Actually, I would strongly urge everyone to read the endorsement. The bias is obvious. Its less analysis and more talking points.

 

:iagree: My thoughts exactly.

 

It boggles my mind that the mainstream news outlets are so biased and then seem genuinely clueless as to why they are tanking.

Edited October 26, 2008 by Dawn E

[Deidre in GA]

:iagree: My thoughts exactly.

 

It boggles my mind that the mainstream news outlets are so biased and then seem genuinely clueless as to why they are tanking. (ETA: referring to network news)

 

print publications are tanking because the rise of the internet and cable television has meant the demise of printed media. this is happening whether a publication is liberal or conservative and has absolutely nothing to do with political slant.

[hsmamainva]

actually, i've always liked Colin Powell. When he was SOS i thought he was being pretty much groomed by the GOP to be a presidential candidate which would have been a sticky wicket for a lot of us. i guess i don't blame Powell for what happened. i believe he was lied to and when he finally figured it out, he fell on his sword like a good soldier does. and then he walked away from the mess of the Bush administration. given his situation, i think that was the best he could do.

 

Oh, I agree completely, Deidre!!!!

 

The Bush Administration threw Colin Powell under the bus. And he was left with no other option.

[Zelda]

Oh, I agree completely, Deidre!!!!

 

The Bush Administration threw Colin Powell under the bus. And he was left with no other option.

 

You'll find a lot of disagreement from liberals at places like Daily Kos and Huff Post and the NYT if you look back at what was written about him pre-endorsement.

[Deidre in GA]

You'll find a lot of disagreement from liberals at places like Daily Kos and Huff Post and the NYT if you look back at what was written about him pre-endorsement.

 

proof positive then that there is no one, liberal mindset just as there is not a single conservative mindset.

[hsmamainva]

You'll find a lot of disagreement from liberals at places like Daily Kos and Huff Post and the NYT if you look back at what was written about him pre-endorsement.

 

Oh I'm sure there are other liberals who'll disagree with me!

 

That would be nothing new! :)

 

Really liked his explanation on Meet the Press about why he was voting for Obama. He expressed a great deal of frustration and disillusionment with the Republican party...and I'm sure that what he went through with the Bush Administration played a large role in it.

[Dawn E]

print publications are tanking because the rise of the internet and cable television has meant the demise of printed media. this is happening whether a publication is liberal or conservative and has absolutely nothing to do with political slant.

 

I had added, redundantly I then supposed and deleted it, that I was referring to mainstream network news--CBS, NBC and ABC. It is the natural progression, I would think, for newspapers to cease to be viable in the technical age. However, a heavy slant towards 1/2 of the population definitely doesn't help them compete.

[lovemyboys]

Really liked his explanation on Meet the Press about why he was voting for Obama. He expressed a great deal of frustration and disillusionment with the Republican party...and I'm sure that what he went through with the Bush Administration played a large role in it.

 

His explanation was interesting to watch. I think he's been favoring Obama for a good while. One of his points that got me though was that it's time for a generational change -- since Bill Clinton and George Bush were in their 40s/50s when elected, similar to Obama's age now, I think we've already experienced "generational change."

 

I've always liked Colin Powell, even when people were really dogging him, from the days when he was senior army, then Joint Chiefs, etc. But I can't say that his endorsement sways me. He's got his views and I've got mine. :)

 

ETA: That goes double for any newspaper endorsement, especially these days. I won't be swayed by them. The silence is deafening with the lack of the tough questions. And now the Bidens have refused reasonable press questions too. :huh?:

Edited October 26, 2008 by lovemyboys

[Michelle in MO]

after an affirmative action court case involving the University of Michigan. The Bush Administration did not fundamentally support affirmative action; Colin Powell did. This created a deep rift between Colin Powell and Bush.

 

I would hardly say Colin Powell fell on his sword. He benefitted greatly from two Republican administrations: Reagan's, during which he was appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Bush's, during which he served as Secretary of State. His personal convictions were probably never really in line with Bush's, and he left the administration. In addition, Colin Powell did recommend the invasion of Iraq. Barack Obama has already promised him a spot in his administration as a "trusted advisor". I'm sure Powell will manage just fine if Obama is elected.

 

As far as the conservatives who are jumping ship because of their disillusionment with the Republican party, I suspect that a self-serving aspect exists in all of this. I find it both ironic and well-timed that both Peggy Noonan (who is not endorsing Obama but has been heavily critical of Palin) and Christopher Buckley (who is endorsing Obama) both have books that have just come out--Noonan with Patriotic Grace (publication date 09/30/08) and Buckley with Supreme Courtship (publication date 09/03/08). It's always nice to be on the "winning" side in an election, isn't it, and to be perceived by the public as making the "right pick"? That certainly remains to be seen, though. This race isn't over until it's over.

 

Here's an excellent article by Charles Krauthammer on some of these desertions.

 

As far as I'm concerned, newspaper endorsements have never swayed me one way or another, and I'm hardly going to count any of them among my advisors when I vote.

[lovemyboys]

Here's an excellent article by Charles Krauthammer on some of these desertions.

 

As far as I'm concerned, newspaper endorsements have never swayed me one way or another, and I'm hardly going to count any of them among my advisors when I vote.

 

Love to read Krauthammer. I don't always agree with him, but he sure makes me think. He's just contrarian enough to be refreshingly unpredictable. I like the line "I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings."

 

Thanks for the link.

[Zelda]

after an affirmative action court case involving the University of Michigan. The Bush Administration did not fundamentally support affirmative action; Colin Powell did. This created a deep rift between Colin Powell and Bush.

 

I would hardly say Colin Powell fell on his sword. He benefitted greatly from two Republican administrations: Reagan's, during which he was appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Bush's, during which he served as Secretary of State. His personal convictions were probably never really in line with Bush's, and he left the administration. In addition, Colin Powell did recommend the invasion of Iraq. Barack Obama has already promised him a spot in his administration as a "trusted advisor". I'm sure Powell will manage just fine if Obama is elected.

 

As far as the conservatives who are jumping ship because of their disillusionment with the Republican party, I suspect that a self-serving aspect exists in all of this. I find it both ironic and well-timed that both Peggy Noonan (who is not endorsing Obama but has been heavily critical of Palin) and Christopher Buckley (who is endorsing Obama) both have books that have just come out--Noonan with Patriotic Grace (publication date 09/30/08) and Buckley with Supreme Courtship (publication date 09/03/08). It's always nice to be on the "winning" side in an election, isn't it, and to be perceived by the public as making the "right pick"? That certainly remains to be seen, though. This race isn't over until it's over.

 

Here's an excellent article by Charles Krauthammer on some of these desertions.

 

As far as I'm concerned, newspaper endorsements have never swayed me one way or another, and I'm hardly going to count any of them among my advisors when I vote.

 

Hey, don't forget all around stand-up guy, Scott McClellan!

 

Yeah, I think the MSM has glommed on to these defections in a really distorted way and far more coverage has been given to them than to Joe Lieberman. Big surprise. Since when has it been unusual to align yourself with the team that seems to be winning at the 11th hour?

 

I don't think the Republicans are shedding a lot of tears over the losses. Maybe a couple for Peggy. There. Done.

[Michelle in MO]

Hey, don't forget all around stand-up guy, Scott McClellan!

 

Yeah, I think the MSM has glommed on to these defections in a really distorted way and far more coverage has been given to them than to Joe Lieberman. Big surprise. Since when has it been unusual to align yourself with the team that seems to be winning at the 11th hour?

 

I don't think the Republicans are shedding a lot of tears over the losses. Maybe a couple for Peggy. There. Done.

 

ITA, Zelda. You've read my mind---completely.

[Zelda]

The thing that cracks me up about Scott McClellan is how the press is acting like endorsements from former press secretaries are a huge deal. Anyone know who Jody Powell endorsed? Jake Siewert?

 

Is there any difference between an endorsement and a plain old vote? Influence with voters? Does McClellan have a lot of that? If you listen to the MSM you'd think he did.

[Surfside Academy]

The Anchorage Daily News & Scott McClellan...I'm just waiting to hear who Paris Hilton endorses and then I can vote fully informed!

[Jumping In Puddles]

The Endorsement From Hell. I remember when there was a discussion here about why it is so bad that China was endorsing Obama :eek:

 

 

John McCain isn’t boasting about a new endorsement, one of the very, very few he has received from overseas. It came a few days ago:

 

“Al Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election,†read a commentary on a password-protected Islamist Web site that is closely linked to Al Qaeda and often disseminates the group’s propaganda.

 

The endorsement left the McCain campaign sputtering, and noting helplessly that Hamas appears to prefer Barack Obama. Al Qaeda’s apparent enthusiasm for Mr. McCain is manifestly not reciprocated.

 

“The transcendent challenge of our time [is] the threat of radical Islamic terrorism,†Senator McCain said in a major foreign policy speech this year, adding, “Any president who does not regard this threat as transcending all others does not deserve to sit in the White House.â€

 

That’s a widespread conservative belief. Mitt Romney compared the threat of militant Islam to that from Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Some conservative groups even marked “Islamofascism Awareness Week†earlier this month.

 

Yet the endorsement of Mr. McCain by a Qaeda-affiliated Web site isn’t a surprise to security specialists. Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism director, and Joseph Nye, the former chairman of the National Intelligence Council, have both suggested that Al Qaeda prefers Mr. McCain and might even try to use terror attacks in the coming days to tip the election to him.

 

“From their perspective, a continuation of Bush policies is best for recruiting,†said Professor Nye, adding that Mr. McCain is far more likely to continue those policies.

 

An American president who keeps troops in Iraq indefinitely, fulminates about Islamic terrorism, inclines toward military solutions and antagonizes other nations is an excellent recruiting tool. In contrast, an African-American president with a Muslim grandfather and a penchant for building bridges rather than blowing them up would give Al Qaeda recruiters fits.

 

During the cold war, the American ideological fear of communism led us to mistake every muddle-headed leftist for a Soviet pawn. Our myopia helped lead to catastrophe in Vietnam.

 

In the same way today, an exaggerated fear of “Islamofascism†elides a complex reality and leads us to overreact and damage our own interests. Perhaps the best example is one of the least-known failures in Bush administration foreign policy: Somalia.

 

Today, Somalia is the world’s greatest humanitarian disaster, worse even than Darfur or Congo. The crisis has complex roots, and Somali warlords bear primary blame. But Bush administration paranoia about Islamic radicals contributed to the disaster.

 

Somalia has been in chaos for many years, but in 2006 an umbrella movement called the Islamic Courts Union seemed close to uniting the country. The movement included both moderates and extremists, but it constituted the best hope for putting Somalia together again. Somalis were ecstatic at the prospect of having a functional government again.

 

Bush administration officials, however, were aghast at the rise of an Islamist movement that they feared would be uncooperative in the war on terror. So they gave Ethiopia, a longtime rival in the region, the green light to invade, and Somalia’s best hope for peace collapsed.

 

“A movement that looked as if it might end this long national nightmare was derailed, in part because of American and Ethiopian actions,†said Ken Menkhaus, a Somalia expert at Davidson College. As a result, Islamic militancy and anti-Americanism have surged, partly because Somalis blame Washington for the brutality of the Ethiopian occupiers.

 

“There’s a level of anti-Americanism in Somalia today like nothing I’ve seen over the last 20 years,†Professor Menkhaus said. “Somalis are furious with us for backing the Ethiopian intervention and occupation, provoking this huge humanitarian crisis.â€

 

Patrick Duplat, an expert on Somalia at Refugees International, the Washington-based advocacy group, says that during his last visit to Somalia, earlier this year, a local mosque was calling for jihad against America — something he had never heard when he lived peacefully in Somalia during the rise of the Islamic Courts Union.

 

“The situation has dramatically taken a turn for the worse,†he said. “The U.S. chose a very confrontational route early on. Who knows what would have happened if the U.S. had reached out to moderates? But that might have averted the disaster we’re in today.â€

 

The greatest catastrophe is the one endured by ordinary Somalis who now must watch their children starve. But America’s own strategic interests have also been gravely damaged.

 

The only winner has been Islamic militancy. That’s probably the core reason why Al Qaeda militants prefer a McCain presidency: four more years of blindness to nuance in the Muslim world would be a tragedy for Americans and virtually everyone else, but a boon for radical groups trying to recruit suicide bombers.

[Zelda]

The Endorsement From Hell. I remember when there was a discussion here about why it is so bad that China was endorsing Obama :eek:

 

What's the name of the group and website?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

In my experience, the majority of newspapers slant liberal. Bear in mind that very few people/corporations own almost all the major (and even "minor") newspapers in the country, and even if this is a switch for this paper, I'd like to know why for real, not just what they put in print. I don't give much credence to endorsements like this. I don't like either candidate, but I would like Obama to come out and prove where he was born and to really know why he made that religious faith glitch (where he said "My Muslim faith" and the interviewer corrected him by saying "you mean your Christian faith." Not that the law requires one to be Christian, but it makes me wonder why he would say this if he's been going to a Christian church for x number of years--is he just doing it to get elected?

 

As for McCain & Palin, I have other questions about them, too, and am not impressed by them any more than I am by Obama.

 

Actually, he meant to say "my Muslim faith" when he used it in context. He didn't misspeak. He didn't mean to speak about his Christian faith at all. But then again, you'd have to read the whole thing to get the context, not just somebody's picking and choosing of a sound bite. Stephanopolous didn't understand what he was trying to say and tried to "correct" him, but he didn't need correction. Only Sen. Obama isn't a big "scare quotes" kinda guy. (I guess some people call them "air quotes.")

 

It's a pretty amazing thing to me that someone can question someone's faith like that. Professing faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ as personally saving when one comes from a mostly atheistic background is a profound statement. Of course, if one lives one's life antagonistically to Christian faith, then I can see judging. But that would have to be pointed out, not simply that the person wondering thinks perhaps the conversion wasn't genuine. I can remember my parents and those in my Christian circles when I was a kid questioning Jimmy Carter's Christianity when he ran. He was, after all, a Democrat. That was enough to bring all that "saved" stuff into suspicion. Never mind his years as a leader (deacon), teacher, and servant in his rather fundamentalist-ish church. His Democratic leanings (big D) left everyone in my life sneering that he must have put all this on and planned it just to look good to get ahead in Southern politics.

 

Of course, he did admit to lustful thoughts. I remember the gleeful field day people had about *that* one, those folks that only thought of God and Country and Mama and possibly apple pie every day, all day. *shrug*

 

I find it bizarre as a person who can "pass" as a Christian without question or second glance is judged so differently from a person who says outright, "This is my commitment. This is my faith. This is how I'm trying to live it out." My silent agnosticism is accepted as Christianity without comment. His explicit profession is questioned and speculated about and deeply doubted, mostly because of how he grew up, who his daddy and step-daddy were, and who led him to Christ. People pay great lip service to the "foolishness of preaching," but when they *really* think the preacher "foolish," they question the conversion. If Jesus isn't really able to save despite an atheistic mama and a culturally Muslim/agnostic pair of daddies and a fiery, controversial preacher,then I'm more right than some of you are willing to admit.

 

As to proving a negative, I'm not sure how he's supposed to do that. I show you my certificate of live birth from the state of TN, with its colorful seal that makes it official, and you say, "Sure, that's nice. But prove you were not born in Arkansas." I'm not sure why I should oblige.

Edited October 27, 2008 by Pam "SFSOM" in TN
subject-verb agreement

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

ETA: That goes double for any newspaper endorsement, especially these days. I won't be swayed by them. The silence is deafening with the lack of the tough questions. And now the Bidens have refused reasonable press questions too. :huh?:

 

You don't think Bill O and Joe Klein asked tough enough questions?

 

Do you mean that woman in Orlando? If that's what you mean by "reasonable," then good for them for canceling interviews. It was rather like when Mrs. Cheney walked off the set rather pointedly when she was interviewed on the Daily Show. Good for her, and good for the Obama campaign for not wanting to give the Limbaugh's and the Savages a forum.

 

We listen to very different news if you think that it is Sen. Biden who won't speak to the press or won't (or can't) answer tough questions.

[Jenny in Atl]

The Anchorage Daily News & Scott McClellan...I'm just waiting to hear who Paris Hilton endorses and then I can vote fully informed!

 

Here are a few who I think are a bit more news worthy than Paris Hilton.

http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/3341

[Michelle in MO]

who have endorsed McCain, including Senator Joseph Lieberman, former Hillary Clinton activists Miguel D. Lausell and Luchy Secaira, Lynn Forester de Rothschild of the DNC Platform Committee, among others. These generally don't get as much press though, do they?

 

The point that some of us are trying to make is that many of these endorsements are meaningless; any intelligent voter should make their decision based upon facts and their own firmly-held values and not on endorsements from newspapers, celebrities, politicians, etc.

Edited October 27, 2008 by Michelle in MO

[Jumping In Puddles]

What's the name of the group and website?

 

The website is al-Hesbah, and I'm not sure if the group has a name... I pulled this from yahoo news just a second ago: "Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group"

 

ETA: I searched for Al-Hesbah and this is what wikepedia says: Al-Hesbah is an Arabic message board and has been called "one of the most widely used jihadist Internet forums".[1] On October 17, 2008, it was reported that four of Al Qaeda's five main websites were dismantled, and that Al Hesbah had become the only major Al Qaeda-linked website still in existance on the web.[2]

 

*further checking, I found that it is alhesbah . net and the posting was by someone from the Taliban or al-Qaeda-allied groups, again taken from the Yahoo news story.

Edited October 27, 2008 by Jumping In Puddles

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

The website is al-Hesbah, and I'm not sure if the group has a name... I pulled this from yahoo news just a second ago: "Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group"

 

You know, I can't imagine giving one ounce of credence to anything those lunatics say. Whether they say it about Palin, or Nader, or Clinton, or Bush, or McCain, or Obama. Whomever. Whatever.

 

You know? Less than a Paris Hilton endorsement. Lower than a Britney Spears endorsement. Just crazy chatter by crazy lunatics. For them to imagine they can influence US politics is beyond ludicrous.

 

When they chatter about who will die next and when, we need to pay attention with a sprinkle of wisdom and discernment and double-checking that we're not being played thrown in. But when they "endorse" someone? Meh. I'm less than impressed, and I hope the general American public feels the same way.

[Jumping In Puddles]

You know, I can't imagine giving one ounce of credence to anything those lunatics say. Whether they say it about Palin, or Nader, or Clinton, or Bush, or McCain, or Obama. Whomever. Whatever.

 

You know? Less than a Paris Hilton endorsement. Lower than a Britney Spears endorsement. Just crazy chatter by crazy lunatics. For them to imagine they can influence US politics is beyond ludicrous.

 

When they chatter about who will die next and when, we need to pay attention with a sprinkle of wisdom and discernment and double-checking that we're not being played thrown in. But when they "endorse" someone? Meh. I'm less than impressed, and I hope the general American public feels the same way.

 

Oh, I totally agree. I remember when China endorsed Obama and I can't remember the thread (probably locked anyway!) but some people here were putting MUCH importance of why our enemies and other nations would want Obama - because they want us weaker! I thought that was lunacy and this too.

 

It does pose a bit of a pr problem for either party when unfriendly nations endorse them! I remember too when Kerry was running and certain republican supporters made a HUGE deal that bin Laden made a video endorsing Kerry and the conservative radio and pundits were all over that!

[Demal]

One of his points that got me though was that it's time for a generational change -- since Bill Clinton and George Bush were in their 40s/50s when elected, similar to Obama's age now, I think we've already experienced "generational change."

 

Powell wasn't referring to Obama's age. Obama would be the first post-Baby Boomer president. Some believe that the Baby Boomers are still fighting the culture wars of the 1960s and even the Vietnam War, to the detriment of us all.

 

Andrew Sullivan:

 

[H]ow do we account for the bitter, brutal tone of American politics? The answer lies mainly with the biggest and most influential generation in America: the Baby Boomers. The divide is still—amazingly—between those who fought in Vietnam and those who didn’t, and between those who fought and dissented and those who fought but never dissented at all. By defining the contours of the Boomer generation, it lasted decades. And with time came a strange intensity.

[Storm Bay]

Actually, he meant to say "my Muslim faith" when he used it in context. (I guess some people call them "air quotes.")

 

It's a pretty amazing thing to me that someone can question someone's faith like that. I find it bizarre as a person who can "pass" as a Christian without question or second glance is judged so differently from a person who says outright, "This is my commitment. This is my faith. This is how I'm trying to live it out."

Actually, I question the faith of all those politicians, not just Obama's. It seems like you have to go to some kind of church in order to be elected President, so they all do.

 

My silent agnosticism is accepted as Christianity without comment.

 

This is something I don't do, but that could be due to the fact that I didn't grow up in any of the Bible belts in areas where people (including my family) have all kinds of beliefs. I hadn't really thought about that assumption until you brought it up.

 

His explicit profession is questioned and speculated about and deeply doubted, mostly because of how he grew up, who his daddy and step-daddy were, and who led him to Christ. People pay great lip service to the "foolishness of preaching," but when they *really* think the preacher "foolish," they question the conversion. If Jesus isn't really able to save despite an atheistic mama and a culturally Muslim/agnostic pair of daddies and a fiery, controversial preacher,then I'm more right than some of you are willing to admit.

 

Since I know people who grew up atheist and/or Muslim who have converted, I don't question that that can be done. But I question his conversion because of his long standing desire to be President. This doesn't mean he didn't fully convert, it just means I question it, just as I question the convictions of other Presidential candidates, Presidents and politicians for the reasons I mentioned already.

 

As to proving a negative, I'm not sure how he's supposed to do that. I show you my certificate of live birth from the state of TN, with its colorful seal that makes it official, and you say, "Sure, that's nice. But prove you were not born in Arkansas." I'm not sure why I should oblige.

 

No, he doesn't have to prove a negative; he simply has to prove he was born in the United States, which so far I've heard he hasn't done. If he indeed has done so, I'd be happy to read about it.

 

The thing is that I dislike McCain and Obama about equally so far and I'm trying to find something really good about one, or really bad about one, that will help me decide who to vote for. I loathe their stances on some pretty major issues (and they have the same stance on certain ones I think are very important). I'm not impressed with Biden or Palin so far, either.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

No, he doesn't have to prove a negative; he simply has to prove he was born in the United States, which so far I've heard he hasn't done. If he indeed has done so, I'd be happy to read about it.

 

The thing is that I dislike McCain and Obama about equally so far and I'm trying to find something really good about one, or really bad about one, that will help me decide who to vote for. I loathe their stances on some pretty major issues (and they have the same stance on certain ones I think are very important). I'm not impressed with Biden or Palin so far, either.

 

Here's a copy of his birth certificate. And here's a discussion about the controversy on Snopes.

 

I do hope you find what you're searching for. I have several good reasons to vote for Sen. McCain. Four reasons not to that are complete deal breakers. Several good reasons (and three very strong for me personally) reasons to vote for Sen. Obama, and no deal breakers. So I understand what you're saying, and I wish you well on your quest.

[Zelda]

You know, I can't imagine giving one ounce of credence to anything those lunatics say. Whether they say it about Palin, or Nader, or Clinton, or Bush, or McCain, or Obama. Whomever. Whatever.

 

You know? Less than a Paris Hilton endorsement. Lower than a Britney Spears endorsement. Just crazy chatter by crazy lunatics. For them to imagine they can influence US politics is beyond ludicrous.

 

When they chatter about who will die next and when, we need to pay attention with a sprinkle of wisdom and discernment and double-checking that we're not being played thrown in. But when they "endorse" someone? Meh. I'm less than impressed, and I hope the general American public feels the same way.

 

Yeah totally, it is a message board. That's like someone lifting a comment from here and disseminating it as an endorsement from "Classical Homeschoolers". I'm not going to sweat it.

[Zelda]

who have endorsed McCain, including Senator Joseph Lieberman, former Hillary Clinton activists Miguel D. Lausell and Luchy Secaira, Lynn Forester de Rothschild of the DNC Platform Committee, among others. These generally don't get as much press though, do they?

 

The point that some of us are trying to make is that many of these endorsements are meaningless; any intelligent voter should make their decision based upon facts and their own firmly-held values and not on endorsements from newspapers, celebrities, politicians, etc.

 

Yes and...

 

I'm not overly impressed with the list which includes things like, "Granddaugher of [prominent Republican]" or "Wife of [prominent Republican]" or the long list of journalists and professors. We already know that both of those cultures lean hard to the left and a lot of the criticism is that the Republican party is getting "too conservative". If they don't like the conservative bend then they should indeed endorse Obama but they should also stop identifying as Republicans. I'm sure there are some who would matter but I don't think its a surprising number at all.