January 20, 2009

Photo by Christopher Morris

"With Malice Toward None"

From Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Obama! - Pattern Recognition in Newpapers

Editor & Publisher has a list of the newspapers that have endorsed Barack Obama or John McCain. In 2004 John Kerry had a small edge over George Bush. But in 2008, Obama has the endorsements of 240 papers compared to 114 for John McCain. The difference in circulation is even larger - 21 million for Obama and 7 million for McCain.

In 2004, E&P's Greg Mitchell correctly forecast the winner in 14 of 15 key states simply by looking at the endorsements in those states. So what is he forecasting for tomorrow?

Obama Will Win Easily Tomorrow -- At Least Based on Newspaper Backing in Key Swing States!

By Greg Mitchell

Published: November 03, 2008 12:20

NEW YORK Everyone's making predictions on Tuesday's election with, as usual, the key "swing" or "battleground" or "tossup" states getting the most attention. Experts, or just plain gasbags, can juggle all sorts of information, from reports on the ground to one of seemingly 500 polls. But here at E&P, we do it a little differently on election eve: We predict the winner in key states purely on the basis on newspaper endorsements in that state.

Before you laugh too hard, consider this: In 2004, I did the same thing in this space -- and picked 14 of the 15 tight races correctly. Only missed on Florida (still waiting for that recount).

So, with perhaps undue confidence, allow me to take the plunge once again. We have been tallying endorsements here, with much national attention, for the past weeks, with an Obama landslide in that measure nationally. But what about in the specific states?

Using this strict measure, I predict Obama will take 11 out of 13 battlegrounds, losing in West Virginia and in Virginia (though I expect he will end up winning there).

Here is a rundown, in no particular order. Again, my picks are based purely on newspaper endorsements -- both the number and the size/influence of the papers in each candidate's column.
***

PENNSYLVANIA
Forget McCain "narrowing the gap." He lost both big Philly dailies and split in Pittsburgh--gaining the lesser paper there. Obama has taken the smaller dailies by 2-1 with the papers in York, Easton and Erie, among others, switching from Bush. Winner: OBAMA

OHIO
In 2004, Bush won because he nailed Columbus -- and Cleveland sat it out. This year, Columbus remains in the GOP column but the Plain Dealer went for Obama. The Cincy paper again went Republican. But once again, Obama takes the smaller papers 2-1, with about half dozen switching over from Bush. The Akron, Toledo, Dayton, Canton and Youngstown papers give this state to OBAMA.

WEST VIRGINIA
Papers in our soon-to-be updated list fully back McCAIN.

NORTH CAROLINA
We have to give Obama an upset here since he has in the bag all of the leading papers. A loss here would be embarrassing for...me. OBAMA.

COLORADO
We correctly gave this to Bush in 2004 largely because he won the Denver papers. This time around, the Post backed Obama and the Rocky managed to endorse no one. Obama does well elsewhere here, too, with some Bush flip-floppers. OBAMA.

FLORIDA
Will I blow this one again? Well, I will stick my neck out and give it to Obama, since, like Kerry in 2004, he dominates the editorial picks. But he only picked up one Bush paper that we know of (Naples) while losing one Kerry backer (Bradenton). Still, I have to be faithful to my formula and pick OBAMA.

INDIANA
With the Indy Star begging off the GOP candidate and remaining neutral, the state leans OBAMA.

IOWA
Easy OBAMA win.

MISSOURI
I have to give this to OBAMA, too, as he held the likely papers and picked up a Bush switcher in Joplin.

NEVADA
The candidates split the two Vegas papers but Obama got Reno, so give this to him, too.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Pretty much a toss up, but Obama leads by 5 dailies to 3 in our most recent count, so he can have that one, too.

NEW MEXICO
Ditto.

VIRGINIA
Well, I am probably going to take it on the chin here. The endorsements, big and small, definitely favor McCAIN.

OoooooBAMA!

Tip of the hat to Chris Eaton who sent the link for Yes We Carve!

Obama: One on One

Click to enlarge

I like the counterpoint with my last post. Apparently, Obama can connect with 100,000 people or just one. I think the photo above is also in Missouri but taken yesterday. The photo below was taken in Pittsburg.

Click to enlarge

100,000 Rally In St. Louis for Obama

Click to enlarge

Endorsement Battle: 6,299,363 to 1,502,163

Editor & Publisher is keeping track of newspaper endorsement in the Presidential race. Today was another big day for Barack Obama who picked up both the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune.

NEW YORK The Obama-Biden ticket maintains its strong lead in the race for newspaper endorsements, picking up 12 more papers in the past day, including the giant Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune on Friday afternoon (see separate story). This brings his lead over McCain-Palin by this measure to over 3-1 so far, at 51-16, including most of the major papers that have decided so far. In contrast, John Kerry barely edged George W. Bush in endorsements in 2004, by about 220 to 205.

The readership of the 51 newspapers backing Obama now stands at 6,299,363 daily circulation. He gained two biggies yesterday in The Washington Post and San Francisco Chronicle and today picked up the Modesto Bee in addition to the L.A. Times, plus La Prenza and La Opinion.

The Columbian in Washington was an unexpected win for Obama, since the newspaper endorsed President Bush in the 2004 election. Obama has now picked up at least seven "flip flops" of this type.

The Mountain Valley News in Colorado adds to McCain’s endorsement list, bringing his total to 16 newspapers. The daily circulation of his newspapers now stands at 1,502,163.

Who Do You Want At The Wheel?

Clay Bennett

John McCain - The Incredible Shrinking Man

On a day that saw 17 newspapers endorse Barack Obama for President (just two for McCain), the St. Louis Post Dispatch was pretty damn blunt!

Over the past nine months, Mr. Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, has emerged as the only truly transformative candidate in the race. In the crucible that is a presidential campaign, his intellect, his temperament and equanimity under pressure consistently have been impressive. He has surrounded himself with smart, capable advisers who have helped him refine thorough, nuanced policy positions.

In a word, Mr. Obama has been presidential.

Meanwhile, Mr. McCain, the senior senator from Arizona, became the incredible shrinking man. He shrank from his principled stands in favor of a humane immigration policy. He shrank from his universal condemnation of torture and his condemnation of the politics of smear.

He even shrank from his own campaign slogan, “Country First,” by selecting the least qualified running mate since the Swedenborgian shipbuilder Arthur Sewall ran as William Jennings Bryan’s No. 2 in 1896.

"Be Logical, Captain"

Drew Friedman

Galloping Gallup!

2008 Gallup, Inc.

These results, based on Oct. 5-7 polling, are the best for Obama during the campaign, both in terms of his share of the vote and the size of his lead over McCain. (To view the complete trend since March 7, 2008, click here.)

Nearly all interviews in today's report were conducted before Tuesday night's town hall style debate in Nashville. Any movement in voter preferences as a result of this debate will be apparent in coming days.

Voter preferences seem to have stabilized for the moment, as Obama has held a double-digit lead over McCain in each of the last three individual nights of polling.

The Choice

Illustration by Tom Bachtell

The Editors of The New Yorker have endorsed Barack Obama.

The incumbent Administration has distinguished itself for the ages. The Presidency of George W. Bush is the worst since Reconstruction, so there is no mystery about why the Republican Party—which has held dominion over the executive branch of the federal government for the past eight years and the legislative branch for most of that time—has little desire to defend its record, domestic or foreign. The only speaker at the Convention in St. Paul who uttered more than a sentence or two in support of the President was his wife, Laura. Meanwhile, the nominee, John McCain, played the part of a vaudeville illusionist, asking to be regarded as an apostle of change after years of embracing the essentials of the Bush agenda with ever-increasing ardor.

The Republican disaster begins at home. Even before taking into account whatever fantastically expensive plan eventually emerges to help rescue the financial system from Wall Street’s long-running pyramid schemes, the economic and fiscal picture is bleak. During the Bush Administration, the national debt, now approaching ten trillion dollars, has nearly doubled. Next year’s federal budget is projected to run a half-trillion-dollar deficit, a precipitous fall from the seven-hundred-billion-dollar surplus that was projected when Bill Clinton left office. Private-sector job creation has been a sixth of what it was under President Clinton. Five million people have fallen into poverty. The number of Americans without health insurance has grown by seven million, while average premiums have nearly doubled. Meanwhile, the principal domestic achievement of the Bush Administration has been to shift the relative burden of taxation from the rich to the rest. For the top one per cent of us, the Bush tax cuts are worth, on average, about a thousand dollars a week; for the bottom fifth, about a dollar and a half. The unfairness will only increase if the painful, yet necessary, effort to rescue the credit markets ends up preventing the rescue of our health-care system, our environment, and our physical, educational, and industrial infrastructure.

At the same time, a hundred and fifty thousand American troops are in Iraq and thirty-three thousand are in Afghanistan. There is still disagreement about the wisdom of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and his horrific regime, but there is no longer the slightest doubt that the Bush Administration manipulated, bullied, and lied the American public into this war and then mismanaged its prosecution in nearly every aspect. The direct costs, besides an expenditure of more than six hundred billion dollars, have included the loss of more than four thousand Americans, the wounding of thirty thousand, the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and the displacement of four and a half million men, women, and children. Only now, after American forces have been fighting for a year longer than they did in the Second World War, is there a glimmer of hope that the conflict in Iraq has entered a stage of fragile stability.

The indirect costs, both of the war in particular and of the Administration’s unilateralist approach to foreign policy in general, have also been immense. The torture of prisoners, authorized at the highest level, has been an ethical and a public-diplomacy catastrophe. At a moment when the global environment, the global economy, and global stability all demand a transition to new sources of energy, the United States has been a global retrograde, wasteful in its consumption and heedless in its policy. Strategically and morally, the Bush Administration has squandered the American capacity to counter the example and the swagger of its rivals. China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other illiberal states have concluded, each in its own way, that democratic principles and human rights need not be components of a stable, prosperous future. At recent meetings of the United Nations, emboldened despots like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran came to town sneering at our predicament and hailing the “end of the American era.”

I recommend that you read it all.

History, Hurricanes and Birthdays

Newseum

Last night, Barack Obama made history in Denver. He accepted the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States. Today's front page of The Times-Picayune as featured at the Newseum is shown above - both celebrating Obama's nomination and warning of the approach of Hurricane Gustav.

National Hurricane Center

Today is also John McCain's 72nd birthday. Here is a photo of him celebrating three years ago with George Bush - while New Orleans was drowning.

Firedoglake

Click To Enlarge

Obamacans and Foreign Policy

In tomorrow's Financial Times you can read why some prominent Republicans are endorsing Barack Obama.

Foreign policy lures 'Obamacans'

By Edward Luce in Washington

Published: August 13 2008 03:00 | Last updated: August 13 2008 03:00

Barack Obama yesterday netted the endorsement of three prominent Republicans, including Jim Leach and Lincoln Chafee, both of whom lost their congressional seats to Democratic opponents in the 2006 mid-term elections.

The announcement boosts the ranks of so-called "Obamacans" and is likely to fuel speculation about the possibility of bigger names - such as Colin Powell, former secretary of state, and Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska - also endorsing the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Describing Mr Obama's call for change as "more renewal than departure" and thus in line with traditional conservative principles, Mr Leach said: "This is simply not a time for politics as usual . . . I have no doubt that a lot of Republicans will be attracted to Obama in spite of the flaws in this year's primary process."

The two Republicans, along with Rita Hauser, a former White House intelligence adviser, stressed foreign policy as their principal motivation for endorsing Mr Obama. Ms Hauser described as "bellicose" the response of John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, to Russia's conflict with Georgia.

Most "Obamacans" come from the so-called realist wing of the Republican party which has fallen into deep disenchantment with the -foreign policy of George W. Bush, the president.

Some have stressed their hope that Mr Obama would take a more aggressive approach to solving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis even though the Democrat has taken a strongly pro-Israel line. All said they supported Mr Obama's pledge to talk to US adversaries, including Iran.

"There is a deepening split between the traditional Nixonian realist wing of the Republican party and the neo-conservatives that has become more pronounced with John McCain's hardline anti-Russia rhetoric," said Steve Clemons at the New America Foundation.

"I have good reason to believe that there will be other Republicans, such as James Baker [the former secretary of state], who may withhold endorsement from McCain rather than endorse Obama directly."

Electoral analysts say there is unlikely to be a large switch of Republican voters, although Mr Obama's endorsement by prominent Republicans could help sway independents into the Democratic column or encourage others to stay at home.

Mr McCain is working hard to win over hawkish Democrats to his camp, following his endorsement by Joe Lieberman, the former vice-presidential candidate, this year.

There is a possibility that both Mr McCain and Mr Obama could choose running mates from opposition ranks in a bid for centrist voters. Mr Hagel is thought to be an outside choice for Mr Obama's ticket and Mr Lieberman is on Mr McCain's shortlist. Mr Hagel is leaving the Senate in January.

Obama - A Reminder of Shared Destiny

Click to enlarge

This cover of today's International Herald Tribune published in Paris is from the Newseum.

Click to enlarge

Jonathon Freeland writing in The Guardian (and also appearing on last night's Lehrer report) had this to say:

Taking what he calls his "improbable journey" to the heart of Europe, Barack Obama succeeded in closing down one of Berlin's main thoroughfares last night, luring the city's young in their tens of thousands to stand in the evening sunshine and hear him spin his dreams of hope - not for America this time, but for the whole world.

snip

Poetically, he reminded Berliners of what they would surely regard as their finest hours, their resilience during the blockade some 60 years ago - when the Soviet Union tried "to extinguish the last flame of freedom" - and the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, an event which, he said, opened the "doors of democracy" all over the world.

But the loudest applause came when Obama, however subtly, offered himself as the coming antidote to all that Germans, Europeans - and most non-Americans - have disliked about the Bush era.

After listing a series of global problems, from genocide in Darfur to loose nukes, he declared: "No one nation, no matter how large or how powerful, can defeat such challenges alone." It was a promise to end the unilateralism of the early Bush years and the crowd could not contain their delight. There was no less warmth when Obama explained his belief in "allies who will listen to each other, who will learn from each other, who will, above all, trust each other".

Again and again he uttered sentences that could never have come from the mouth of George Bush. "This is the moment to secure the peace of the world without nuclear weapons," he said. On Iraq, the aim was "to finally bring this war to a close".

He asked if today's generation was ready to seize the moment that was at hand. "Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law?" he asked. "Will we welcome immigrants from different lands?" As for the threat of climate change, he spoke in language that could not have been more sweeping or epic: "This is the moment we must come together to save this planet."

snip

By common consent, last night - and the entire Obama week - has been a huge success, generating priceless images for TV consumption back home and helping the Democrat cross the credibility gap, making it easier for American voters to imagine him as a player on the world stage.

His team believes the notion that the US will regain the world's respect under a President Obama will help persuade many American voters to back him.

Last night's pictures from Berlin will have further discomfited John McCain, who has struggled for media oxygen during a week of near-constant coverage of his opponent's grand tour.

He complained on Fox News on Wednesday that he was barely getting a look in. "All I can do is be amused," he said manfully.

The Right Stuff?

Add your own caption!

Click to enlarge

Hat tip to Ben Smith at Politico.

The Right Time Frame for Withdrawal

The German Magazine Spiegel Online International reports today that:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." He then continued: "US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

snip

"So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat," Maliki told SPIEGEL. "But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias."

He also bemoaned the fact that Baghdad has little control over the US troops in Iraq. "It is a fundamental problem for us that it should not be possible, in my country, to prosecute offences or crimes committed by US soldiers against our population," Maliki said.

Imagine What We Could Have Done

Here is part of the text of Obama's Iraq speech given today in Washington DC. Read it all here.

Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.

We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan.

We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st.

We could have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil.

We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.

We could have called on a new generation to step into the strong currents of history, and to serve their country as troops and teachers, Peace Corps volunteers and police officers.

We could have secured our homeland--investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants.

We could have rebuilt our roads and bridges, laid down new rail and broadband and electricity systems, and made college affordable for every American to strengthen our ability to compete.

We could have done that.

Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats - all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

"America, This Is Our Moment"

Click to enlarge

This headline in today's San Francisco Chronicle speaks for itself. You may want to check out the front pages of papers around the world at Newseum.

Below is a photo I saw on BAGNewsNotes by Scott Olson of Getty Images that really captures a moment.

Scott Olsen/Getty Images

California Consolidates Behind Obama

According to a new survey released by the Public Policy Institute of California, if the election were held today Obama is favored by 17 points over McCain by likely voters. By comparison, Clinton is favored by 12 points.

If the general election were held today, likely voters would favor Obama over McCain by 17 points (54% to 37%), an improvement for Obama since March (49% to 40%). Likely voters favor Clinton over McCain by 12 points (51% to 39%), an improvement for her also since March (46% to 43%).

U.S. News and World report summarizes:

SAN FRANCISCO—A new poll released today in California finds political momentum shifting dramatically toward Barack Obama—and away from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain—in the nation's most populous state. According to a survey conducted over the past 10 days by the Public Policy Institute of California, 59 percent of likely voters here now have a "favorable" impression of Democrat Obama, while a majority view both of the other candidates unfavorably. In a state whose Democratic primary Clinton won in February, 51 percent of voters now say they have an unfavorable opinion of her; 53 percent of voters feel the same way about Republican McCain.

Obama, meanwhile, seems to be making strides across nearly every constituency. If the general election were held today, 54 percent of Californians say they would vote for him, compared with 37 percent for McCain. That gap has widened by 8 points since March. Obama enjoys the support of more than 80 percent of Democrats here, along with over half (55 percent) of independents. He leads McCain among men and women and is viewed favorably by nearly 70 percent of Latinos—a powerful political group, experts note, not just in California but in several other western states, including Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada.