Seattle Times Endorses Obama

11:28 am EST September 24th, 2008 | News | 15 Comments

Seattle Times

An economic Katrina is shattering the confidence of hardworking, middle-class Americans. The war that should never have been in Iraq is dragging on too long. At a time of huge challenge, the candidate with the intelligence, temperament and judgment to lead our nation to a better place is Sen. Barack Obama.

Obama should be the next president of the United States because he is the most qualified change agent. Obama is a little young, but also brilliant. If he sometimes seems brainy and professorial, that’s OK. We need the leader of the free world to think things through, carefully. We have seen the sorry results of shooting from the hip.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

15 Responses to “Seattle Times Endorses Obama”

  1. william says:
    September 24, 2008 at 11:45 am

    We need the leader of the free world to think things through, carefully.”

    Pulling shit out of your ass after saying “um…um…um…” is not thinking things through carefully.

  2. Oliver Willis says:
    September 24, 2008 at 11:56 am

    Yes, because someone saying “um” is far worse than chanting “Bomb Iran”.

  3. ed says:
    September 24, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    I’m sure Obama became head of the Harvard Law Review by being a dumbass.

    I feel for OWill. He’s got some weak-ass trolls, he does.

  4. essrog says:
    September 24, 2008 at 12:16 pm

    Sorry to go off-topic a moment, but on the matter of thinking things through carefully:

    Worth a look: “Virtual JFK”

    http://www.virtualjfk.com/

    This is not quite as great as Errol Morris’ “The Fog of War”, but is still a worthy documentary about leadership on matters of war and peace. It stops just short of spelling out the ramifications to the current election, but it is unlikely that a viewer will consider the history presented in a vacuum.

    Getting back to the endorsement: What lengths do we want a president to go to avoid war? How easily will our next leader be talked into igniting conflict? 2008 is the new 1963

  5. Mylegacy says:
    September 24, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    First of all …William… I want to thank you for your pithy remark above. Too cool.

    It reminds me of why I’m working day and night to see that MORONS like you – including fellow travellers Bush – McSame and Moose NEVER get near an office above dog catcher again!

  6. william says:
    September 24, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    “I’m sure Obama became head of the Harvard Law Review by being a dumbass.”

    Care to link to ANYTHING Barry wrote as head of the law review? He must have published something…

  7. Nimrod Gently says:
    September 24, 2008 at 1:43 pm

    I’m afraid I have misplaced my collection of back issues. You seem so sure of where to look, you find it.

  8. Sean D. Martin says:
    September 24, 2008 at 2:34 pm

    Quickly doing a google only turns up:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12705.html
    As president of the Harvard Law Review and a law professor in Chicago, Senator Barack Obama refined his legal thinking, but left a scant paper trail. His name doesn’t appear on any legal scholarship.

    But an unsigned — and previously unattributed — 1990 article unearthed by Politico offers a glimpse at Obama’s views on abortion policy and the law during his student days, and provides a rare addition to his body of work.

  9. william says:
    September 24, 2008 at 4:21 pm

    A February 6, 1990 New York Times article completely backs up my assertion if you care to look.

    Obviously, Oliver doesn’t think it’s appropriate to pull back the curtain.

  10. Sean D. Martin says:
    September 24, 2008 at 6:08 pm

    william: A February 6, 1990 New York Times article completely backs up my assertion if you care to look.

    And a February 30th, 1985 Washington Post article completely refutes everything you’ve ever said if you care to look.

  11. Nimrod Gently says:
    September 24, 2008 at 6:15 pm

    I just love that somehow it’s not enough that he was head of the Harvard Law Review. As if McCain would get the same treatment.

  12. Phil says:
    September 25, 2008 at 9:29 am

    The Times announcing that they endorsed Obama is about as significant as them announcing that the sun will rise the next day. The only reason they are not considered the most liberal daily in Seattle is because of the Post Intelligencer.

    And I know everyone likes to parade around Smith’s flaky post like Sean did above, but Smith was incorrect: Obama was not a Professor, he was a lecturer. Just a little bit of difference.

  13. Sean D. Martin says:
    September 25, 2008 at 12:15 pm

    Phil: The Times announcing that they endorsed Obama is about as significant as them announcing that the sun will rise the next day. The only reason they are not considered the most liberal daily in Seattle is because of the Post Intelligencer.

    Unless you’re going to count neighborhood-based papers like The University of Washington Daily, Capital Hill Times, Belltown Messenger or Ballard News Tribune which have narrow focus and very limited distribution, Seattle actually has only two daily newspapers of any note. And since you describe the PI as more liberal than the Times, clearly the Seattle Times is the most conservative daily in Seattle.

  14. David says:
    September 25, 2008 at 12:27 pm

    Phil is completely correct. If it weren’t for the PI, the Times would be the most liberal daily in Seattle. And the most conservative. There are only two daily papers in Seattle and the Seattle Times generally leans conservative with endorsements for Republicans more than Democrats, at least in the past. They endorsed Bush in 2000, though they’re calling that a major mistake with their recent endorsement of Obama.

    As for why it’s significant, it’s because they’re one of the first papers in a major metropolitan area to endorse one of the candidates, as noted in
    Editor and Publisher. Not that it matters to those who have already made up their minds.

  15. David says:
    September 25, 2008 at 12:28 pm

    Incidentally, “Professor” is the correct title according to the University of Chicago Law School. In short, “From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”