You Call This An Endorsement?!? The NY Post Goes For Obama.

RBS · January-31st-2008, 06:50 PM

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01312008...ats_261880.htm

jesus marion joseph · January-31st-2008, 07:20 PM

I think that's what they call a backhanded endorsement.

Scott Dolan · January-31st-2008, 08:41 PM

Is that a real newspaper?

Sounds like something Mo Dowd or Ann Coulter would have come up with.

Jeffrey Wozniak · January-31st-2008, 10:12 PM

As funny as the NYT endorsing McCain.

Like any of the editors there would vote for him.

Darryl G. Thomas · February-1st-2008, 01:46 PM

Wait a minute. Isn't the Post owned by Murdock? And isn't he best buddies with Clinton?

RBS · February-1st-2008, 06:29 PM

Yeah, it's a real newspaper. New York's favorite rag.

Owned by Murdoch.

Go figure.

If you read the endorsement, it basically says:

"Yeah, Obama's better than that witch Clinton. But he doesn't all that much so forget about it."

Scott Dolan · February-1st-2008, 06:32 PM

Doesn't what all that much?

And you're telling me the Post is more popular than the Times in NYC? Or are you talking the rest of state?

Monte Smith · February-1st-2008, 07:05 PM

The Post is a very popular paper, seen far more often on the bus and subway than the Times. This is a good endorsement for Obama. He can't embrace it--shudder it is Murdoch--but he can welcome it quietly. There is Business, Big Media, and Republican enthusiasm for Obama. The only bad news I have seen for the guy is a headline on my homepage that says "anti-war group endorses Obama." Didn't click to see which shitheads are meant. I think if B.O. (not Olewnick) gets the nod, he's unstoppable. I think Mrs Former President Cumstain is very stoppable.

Brian Olewnick · February-1st-2008, 07:11 PM

Hey, I didn't realize I will potentially share embarrassing initials with a US president! All the more reason to support him, arm in arm commiserating with a fellow sufferer of decades of snide name-calling from the Monte's of the world!

Jon Abbey · February-1st-2008, 07:17 PM

the Post is third in sales in NYC, fourth if you count the WSJ, behind the Times and the Daily News, and that's even with their price drop to 25 cents (the NYT is $1.25, not sure about the Daily Snooze as I find it totally worthless).

that being said, of the three papers I buy every day (the NYT, Post and USA Today), if I was forced to drop two, I'd stick with the Post. their editorials are worthless, but whose aren't?

Monte Smith · February-1st-2008, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Abbey

that being said, of the three papers I buy every day (the NYT, Post and USA Today), if I was forced to drop two, I'd stick with the Post. their editorials are worthless, but whose aren't?

What do you read USA Today for? I'm really curious. Do you have parrots?

Jon Abbey · February-1st-2008, 07:26 PM

the sports section mostly, the arts and money occasionally have interesting stories. the front section is usually worthless, but I pretty much never care about the front section of the NYT either. I almost always go through the three non-sports sections in less than five minutes combined, if that makes you feel better.

Monte Smith · February-1st-2008, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Abbey

I almost always go through the three non-sports sections in less than five minutes combined, if that makes you feel better.

I'm still discomfitted. But you're talking to a guy who reads the Times of India for sports.

rollhead · February-1st-2008, 07:55 PM

Abbey wouldn't give up the Post because he's sure he'll find himself on Page Six.

Scott Dolan · February-1st-2008, 09:19 PM

USA Today has such pretty colors. I like it, it's nice.

bluenoter · February-1st-2008, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

The only bad news I have seen for the guy is a headline on my homepage that says "anti-war group endorses Obama." Didn't click to see which shitheads are meant.

MoveOn is meant--I clicked--and no, MoveOn isn't best described as an "anti-war group," and yes, whoever wrote that AP headline is either a moron or a disinformation artist.

Here's MoveOn's press release.

bluenoter · February-2nd-2008, 01:41 AM

Artwork, ticket details, and working links: http://www.phillesh.net/

bluenoter · February-2nd-2008, 02:53 AM

Why I'm Backing Obama

By Susan Eisenhower

Saturday, February 2, 2008
Washington Post, p. A15

Forty-seven years ago, my grandfather Dwight D. Eisenhower bid farewell to a nation he had served for more than five decades. In his televised address, Ike famously coined the term "military-industrial complex," and he offered advice that is still relevant today. "As we peer into society's future," he said, we "must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."

Today we are engaged in a debate about these very issues. Deep in America's heart, I believe, is the nagging fear that our best years as a nation may be over. We are disliked overseas and feel insecure at home. We watch as our federal budget hemorrhages red ink and our civil liberties are eroded. Crises in energy, health care and education threaten our way of life and our ability to compete internationally. There are also the issues of a costly, unpopular war; a long-neglected infrastructure; and an aging and increasingly needy population.

I am not alone in worrying that my generation will fail to do what my grandfather's did so well: Leave America a better, stronger place than the one it found.

Given the magnitude of these issues and the cost of addressing them, our next president must be able to bring about a sense of national unity and change. As we no longer have the financial resources to address all these problems comprehensively and simultaneously, setting priorities will be essential. With hard work, much can be done.

The biggest barrier to rolling up our sleeves and preparing for a better future is our own apathy, fear or immobility. We have been living in a zero-sum political environment where all heads have been lowered to avert being lopped off by angry, noisy extremists. I am convinced that Barack Obama is the one presidential candidate today who can encourage ordinary Americans to stand straight again; he is a man who can salve our national wounds and both inspire and pursue genuine bipartisan cooperation. Just as important, Obama can assure the world and Americans that this great nation's impulses are still free, open, fair and broad-minded.

No measures to avert the serious, looming consequences can be taken without this sense of renewal. Uncommon political courage will be required. Yet this courage can be summoned only if something profoundly different transpires. Putting America first -- ahead of our own selfish interests -- must be our national priority if we are to retain our capacity to lead.

The last time the United States had an open election was 1952. My grandfather was pursued by both political parties and eventually became the Republican nominee. Despite being a charismatic war hero, he did not have an easy ride to the nomination. He went on to win the presidency -- with the indispensable help of a "Democrats for Eisenhower" movement. These crossover voters were attracted by his pledge to bring change to Washington and by the prospect that he would unify the nation.

It is in this great tradition of crossover voters that I support Barack Obama's candidacy for president. If the Democratic Party chooses Obama as its candidate, this lifelong Republican will work to get him elected and encourage him to seek strategic solutions to meet America's greatest challenges. To be successful, our president will need bipartisan help.

Given Obama's support among young people, I believe that he will be most invested in defending the interests of these rising generations and, therefore, the long-term interests of this nation as a whole. Without his leadership, our children and grandchildren are at risk of growing older in a marginalized country that is left to its anger and divisions. Such an outcome would be an unacceptable legacy for any great nation.

Susan Eisenhower, a business consultant, is the author of four books, most recently "Partners in Space: US-Russian Cooperation After the Cold War."

jesus marion joseph · February-2nd-2008, 07:51 AM

I'm torn as to how to vote on Tuesday. On the one hand, I'm considering taking a Democrat ballot and voting for Obama. OTOH, I'm considering taking a Republican ballot and voting for Romney, who surely could not win a general election, even if he manages to outlast McCain and get the nomination.

Gary Sisco · February-2nd-2008, 11:50 AM

That the dem party can and has told states that their delegates wouldn't be accepted at the convention because of their having changed their primary dates reinforces my position that primaries are party functions, not public functions. I can't for the life of me understand why the public has to pay for what is clearly an internal party function.

Otherwise I have to conclude that the dem party has the power to disenfranchise citizens, since their votes won't gain them representation at the convention, even.

LennyH · February-2nd-2008, 12:25 PM

It's a shame that the voters got punished but they should blame their state party reps for knowingly breaking the rules. I don't blame the parties for doling out punishments, but I think the Republican punishment of half the delegates is a lot more fair than total elimination. The Dem's could have certainly sent their message to the states by doing that and wouldn't have made the people totally irrelevant.

I'm sure that the states that lost half their delegates got the message.

Scott Dolan · February-2nd-2008, 12:30 PM

And I say too fucking bad. Those states were warned ahead of time not to move their primaries up or they would be pay a hefty penalty.

No need for half stepping when it comes to that. A slap in the face will be forgotten much quicker than a baseball bat to the head.

Gary Sisco · February-2nd-2008, 02:40 PM

Again, it doesn't bother me. The primaries are party functions, so the parties set the rules. It merely makes my point that primaries are internal party functions. It's illegal to disenfranchise citizens in the US. Parties can do as they like, however, obviously.

My objection is to the public having to pay for party functions. Internal party matters should be paid for by the party itself and decided by the party itself. That's why real parties have dues-paying members, elected leadership, conventions and congresses that actually decide things (as opposed to show biz spectacles that decide nothing, which is the case now), and so forth.

I think the current system of primaries is stupid and has long outlived its original rationale, which was to take things out of the hands of corrupt "machines." But of course there is more money creating more political corruption than ever before, no comparison.

They're relics of the past.

LennyH · February-2nd-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

And I say too fucking bad. Those states were warned ahead of time not to move their primaries up or they would be pay a hefty penalty.

No need for half stepping when it comes to that. A slap in the face will be forgotten much quicker than a baseball bat to the head.

You'll be proved right if Wyoming, Michigan or Florida repeats the mistake on the Republican side. I suspect both parties will be good boys and girls for the foreseeable future.

The stupidity of the offending states is staggering, though.

They should just move to some kind of lottery so they can eliminate the bickering already.

Tom Storer · February-2nd-2008, 04:47 PM

The view of the Electoral Vote Predictor site is that when it comes to convention time, the Florida and Michigan delegates will be there petitioning to be seated, no matter what the DNC sternly ruled. Clinton won both of those non-primaries, so if at that point she needs those delegates, her camp will fight to get them seated and the Obama camp will fight to keep them out. Right now there's no real way of knowing whether the delegates will be allowed or not.

The Democratic Party of those states must have known that they still had a chance of seating their delegates or they wouldn't have gone ahead with the earlier dates.

RBS · February-2nd-2008, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Doesn't what all that much?

And you're telling me the Post is more popular than the Times in NYC? Or are you talking the rest of state?

Oops. Doesn't KNOW all that much.

jazzgirl · February-3rd-2008, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

I'm torn as to how to vote on Tuesday. On the one hand, I'm considering taking a Democrat ballot and voting for Obama. OTOH, I'm considering taking a Republican ballot and voting for Romney, who surely could not win a general election, even if he manages to outlast McCain and get the nomination.

i feel the same exact way.

bluenoter · February-3rd-2008, 10:49 PM

Letters to the Editor / Sunday, February 3, 2008

bluenoter · February-3rd-2008, 11:10 PM

Pete C · February-3rd-2008, 11:16 PM

I'll vote for him despite the Joan Baez letter. Nice opening for her to remind people how wonderful she was. Just don't make me listen to that voice.