The Seattle Times is one of the two largest newspapers in Seattle. The other is the Post-Intelligencer. Some years ago, they merged for financial purposes but kept their editorial and journalistic staffs separate.
But Sundays, they are merged.
So, the western half of Washington state gets a double Sunday paper if they subscribe. They get double sports. They get double entertainment. And they get double Opinions.
Today, we got the big Democratic endorsement: Barack Obama.
This endorsement surprised me. The Times tends to go with establishment candidates and the P-I tends to go with mavericks or bucks trends in some way.
So, this grabbed my attention this morning straight away.
After seven years of George Bush's failed presidency, after five years of unnecessary war in Iraq, America is ready to write a new narrative. All candidates favor the now-bromidic slogan: change. Only one candidate truly embraces the yearnings this word represents.
The Seattle Times endorses Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for president. He has the grasp, temperament and skills to right our standing in the world. He has broad insight and specific ideas to assuage our own hardworking citizens' fears of an economy turning sour.
So, they like his style, no? They think he's smart and like his style. I was thinking, "Uh oh."
Critics ask a fair question about Obama's experience.
See what I mean? Here we go. This old song and dance.
Judgment is more important. Bush's decision to invade Iraq was the most-wrongheaded decision of our time.
Voters this time have reason to focus on other qualities, such as the courage to tell people things they might not want to hear. Obama, for example, took his pitch for higher fuel-efficiency standards to the most-challenging audience, Detroit.
And in October 2002, when our country was horribly bruised by Sept. 11, he came out against the war in Iraq: "I don't oppose all wars. ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. ... What I am opposed to is a rash war."
Such statements might sound unpatriotic — unless, of course, the speaker turns out to be correct. In an Obama administration, American troops have a chance to start coming home.
Okay. Now we're talking. This is what many of us have been saying over and over and have been called zealots (to put it politely.)
I love this one by the way. This is one of my personal pet issues. This issue is higher than nearly every other one because unless we solve it, our democracy cannot survive and the others we care about will not be solved.
I'm talking about media consolidation people. You Edwards folks should feel what I'm saying here. It is EXACTLY why your candidate is not viable and has no chance at nomination.
I know I'm on a tangent here, but see "Orwell Rolls In His Grave." It'll freak you right out.
Obama speaks eloquently about media issues. His positions encourage a public worried about a consolidated media. He supports network neutrality and laments media consolidation. He co-sponsored a bill to stop recent changes to the cross-ownership rule adopted by the Federal Communications Commission. Obama says he would appoint FCC commissioners who will work in the public's interest and against media concentration.
They discuss other red meat, core democratic issues that Obama is for. See folks, he's not the empty suit many Kossacks would like to paint him as. He's just not.
Here's a link to the entire piece by the way before I close.
The Times recommends ...
They close with this. I liked it so I'll share it with you.
Obama has the smarts, the plans and, yes, the charisma to capably lead and transform a nation that aches for a new direction.