Philadelphia Daily News endorses Obama... unique

This is a very interesting editorial, making some points I hadn't quite seen before in this form. For one thing, it argues that part of the rationale for Barack Obama is 9-11:

This is a campaign that really began six years ago, on Sept. 11, 2001. Not only was the U.S. attacked and seriously wounded, it did not bounce back the way "the land of the free and home of the brave" should have. In fact, it still suffers from post-traumatic stress.

That day and its aftermath cried out for a revolution of values: a clear-eyed shared vision, a cooperative effort, a unified purpose. It cried out for a recognition that conventional warfare and conventional responses to domestic challenges in an era of globalization were not enough.

That cry was not answered.

Rather insightful, and unique observation that flies in the face of the (old) conventional wisdom about Democrats and national security.

The other thing that caught my notice was the dig at Bill:

Sure, Clinton has more "experience" of a sort. For one thing, she has 14 more years on earth. How much of this experience is directly applicable to the job of president is, at best, debatable.

We are frankly troubled by her assumption that her husband's administration and accomplishments were her own. And if her equation holds, that the first spouse is an equal partner in the administration, then the reappearance of Bill Clinton in the White House is a prospect we have a hard time reconciling with the work that needs to be done.

That's jujitsu for you - turning the Experience argument into Baggage... with Bill as proof! Its true that many have fond memories of the 90s boom years, but the implicit assumption of Hillary's "experience" mantra, that we all want to go back to the 90s, is simply not true. We want to move forward, not backwards.