Wednesday, October 22, 2008

The Whys of Endorsement

So, shocker of shockers, that pinnacle of the liberal elite media, The New Yorker, endorsed Barack Obama last week.

Like the Colin Powell endorsement, this comes as no surprise. But also like the Powell endorsement, its power resides not in the fact of the endorsement, but in the whys of the endorsement.

The New Yorker delivers 4,201 words on a scathing recap of the Bush presidency and a comprehensive and airtight analysis of where and how Obama is better suited, in policy, persona and image, to lead the country. They cover everything from energy policy to tax policy to foreign policy to integrity to temperament. They end with this:

We cannot expect one man to heal every wound, to solve every major crisis of policy. So much of the Presidency, as they say, is a matter of waking up in the morning and trying to drink from a fire hydrant. In the quiet of the Oval Office, the noise of immediate demands can be deafening. And yet Obama has precisely the temperament to shut out the noise when necessary and concentrate on the essential. The election of Obama—a man of mixed ethnicity, at once comfortable in the world and utterly representative of twenty-first-century America—would, at a stroke, reverse our country’s image abroad and refresh its spirit at home. His ascendance to the Presidency would be a symbolic culmination of the civil- and voting-rights acts of the nineteen-sixties and the century-long struggles for equality that preceded them. It could not help but say something encouraging, even exhilarating, about the country, about its dedication to tolerance and inclusiveness, about its fidelity, after all, to the values it proclaims in its textbooks. At a moment of economic calamity, international perplexity, political failure, and battered morale, America needs both uplift and realism, both change and steadiness. It needs a leader temperamentally, intellectually, and emotionally attuned to the complexities of our troubled globe. That leader’s name is Barack Obama.

If you have the patience to read 4,201 words in a row, it is well worth the time, available here.

So, now I will shock you all, and declare that I am endorsing Barack Obama for President of the United States. My reasons are available at the New Yorker website.


burnett said...

I happened to notice this morning, as I drove by your house, a distinct lack of Obama signs in your front yard, Dan. What's up with that?

Tim said...

And who are you endorsing for Champaign County State's Attorney? (You know, where you actually can make a difference.)

brownie said...

Can I get your endorsement for dog catcher of Allen Co.?

equa yona(Big Bear) said...

So, how was the Powell endorsement NOT a surprise for you?

Dan S said...

Geez, questions, quetions.

I've passed by Obama signs a number of times at the farmer's market, but figure he doesn't need my help in Illinois, so it would just wastes resources. So, you see, I'm too green and therefore moral for that kind of thing.

I'm not endorsing anyone for State's Attorney. There's no Piland this year. AWARE is unhappy with Rietz, but they are always unhappy with everyone, including Obama. I guess I don't know enough about it to endorse anyone. Feel free to make your own endorsement here, so you can make a difference.

I'm endorsing B. Itch for Allen Co. dog catcher. I hear she's ruthless, but consistent.

The Powell endorsement didn't surpise me because they are both black, of course.

Oh wait, no that wasn't it. I guess it was because the media had already announced he was highly likely to support Obama, and that Powell is smart and reasonable and centrist and had been burned and tarred by Republicans for the last 4 years. My good impression of him is why I was so mad at him when he went to the UN - it was such a dissapointment that he had drunk the coolaid. He seems to have recovered now though.

Tim said...

I'm not endorsing anyone for State's Attorney.

You were at the debate and you have inside knowledge of the SA's office. You're better informed than 99% of the people who will vote. Why don't you want to share that knowledge with the masses who read your stuff?