The Chicago Tribune has officially endorsed Barack Obama as the presidential candidate most suited to lead this country during these times of uncertainty. After reading their endorsement, I felt hopeful that there are still people in this country that are able to exercise logic.

Though I don’t base my vote on newspaper or media endorsements, I do find it interesting that this is the first time in the history of newspaper that the editorial board has ever backed a Democratic Presidential candidate. What I find fascinating and amazing is their reason for not backing the Republican Presidential nominee. They compare it to their decision to back Progressive Party nominee Theodore Roosevelt over the Republican nominee William Taft in the 1912. At the time, their decision was “driven by outrage at inept and corrupt business and political leaders.” (If you have the time I would recommend reading the whole article.)

In reference to McCain and the Republican Party, the Chicago Tribune writes…

The Republican Party, the party of limited government, has lost its way. The government ran a $237 billion surplus in 2000, the year before Bush took office — and recorded a $455 billion deficit in 2008. The Republicans lost control of the U.S. House and Senate in 2006 because, as we said at the time, they gave the nation rampant spending and Capitol Hill corruption. They abandoned their principles. They paid the price.

We might have counted on John McCain to correct his party’s course. We like McCain. We endorsed him in the Republican primary in Illinois. In part because of his persuasion and resolve, the U.S. stands to win an unconditional victory in Iraq.

It is, though, hard to figure John McCain these days. He argued that President Bush’s tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, but he now supports them. He promises a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but his tax cut plan would add an estimated $4.2 trillion in debt over 10 years. He has responded to the economic crisis with an angry, populist message and a misguided, $300 billion proposal to buy up bad mortgages.

McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate–but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin’s exposure to the public. But it’s clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment’s notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country.

In reference to Barack Obama, they clearly state that they don’t agree with all his policies, but they feel he is the best candidate to run the country. And this is where logic instead of simple blind support comes in. Of Obama and his candidatecy the Chicago Tribune writes…

[...] We know first-hand that Obama seeks out and listens carefully and respectfully to people who disagree with him. He builds consensus. He was most effective in the Illinois legislature when he worked with Republicans on welfare, ethics and criminal justice reform.

He worked to expand the number of charter schools in Illinois–not popular with some Democratic constituencies.

He took up ethics reform in the U.S. Senate–not popular with Washington politicians.

His economic policy team is peppered with advisers who support free trade. He has been called a “University of Chicago Democrat”–a reference to the famed free-market Chicago school of economics, which puts faith in markets.

———————–

Obama is deeply grounded in the best aspirations of this country, and we need to return to those aspirations. He has had the character and the will to achieve great things despite the obstacles that he faced as an unprivileged black man in the U.S.

He has risen with his honor, grace and civility intact. He has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions.

…It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation’s most powerful office, he will prove it wasn’t so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama’s name to Lincoln’s in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.

Source: ChicagoTribune.com

After having ditched his appearance on David Letterman’s show back in September, John McCain finally showed up. Originally, he ditched Dave because he said that he had to get back to Washington to help solve the economic crisis—he even suggested they postpone the first presidential debate until the infamous $700 billion bailout package was signed. The funny thing was, McCain took the time to give an interview with Katie Couric before he actually left for Washington. Dave did not take too kindly to being stood up. In case you missed Dave’s rant, you can check it out here.

Dave should have been the moderator during one of the debates. He asked some questions we really wanted to know about—especially about McCain’s selection of his running mate. What was he thinking when he selected Palin? Was she his first choice? Inquiring minds want to know. McCain was still whining about Obama not “repudiating” (a word I’m tired of hearing) John Lewis’ words against the racist stirrings at some of McCain’s rallies. And yes, Obama did express disapproval of Lewis comparing McCain and Palin to George C. Wallace. Obama’s disapproval of Lewis is more than McCain offered in reference to the tone at his rallies. During the debate, he even said he was proud of the people who attend his rallies. There is nothing wrong with that, but what McCain failed to do was “repudiate” the racism that was loudly expressed at his rallies. When Dave asks McCain if he was aware of the things that Palin was saying to incite those on the “fringe,” he was about to say no. And let me add, it was nice of McCain to correct the elderly woman who called Obama “an Arab,” but he did this after a whole week had gone by with Palin and Cindy aligning Obama with “terrorists” which was their subtle way of trying to say he was one also. Because post Sept 11, 2001, you don’t use that word “terrorist” casually—unless you are trying to incite fear/hate/anger.

I really digressed a bit here, but if you missed the interview, here it is in its entirety, thanks to CBS (unfortunately you have to watch a commercial first.)

(Added note: You can disagree with me about what I’ve said about John McCain or my support for Barack Obama, and that is perfectly fine. But if you leave a rude comment, it will not be posted, so don’t waste your time typing it here.)

So, the McCain campaign, in their sleazy, nasty way, want to accuse Barack Obama of guilt by association and label him a terrorist. They have been doing this—mainly through Sarah Palin and Cindy McCain—and stirring up fear and hatred among their crowds. Well, let’s turn that mirror on the accusers and see what we find.

Thanks to Keith Olbermann for taking on the task…

Can McCain think clearly? He is letting his “Rove” campaign leaders drag him around so bad he doesn’t know if he’s coming or going. He used to be a likable guy—before he sold his soul to the devil to win this election (at any cost). He needs to slow down. Really. While speaking at a rally in Pennsylvania, he referred to the crowd as, “my fellow prisoners.” If he’s elected president, will he have a “flashback” and have us in another war? This is the person I DON’T TRUST to lead.

I’m not a Paris Hilton fan or anything, but I couldn’t pass this up. She has made an ad to respond to John McCain’s ad that compares Barack Obama to her and Britney Spears. BTW, Paris’ mom was a bit ticked off about McCain’s ad. I guess she would be after her family had donate over $4000 to his campaign. The YouTube video below is as it appeared on MSNBC.

Also see Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad

The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart has awarded the “Dick Move of the Week to John McCain for his “grumpy old man” ad that compares Barack Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.

Click the link and get your week going with a little chuckle.
The Daily Show, Dick Move of the Week.

For the past few weeks now the Republican party has been doing what it does best. When all else fails, they simply play the sleaze card.

I came across a very “in your face” op-ed from NYTimes.com entitled Running While Black.

Over the weekend on Reliable Source, which airs on CNN on Sunday mornings, the question was whether or not the media favored Barack Obama over John McCain. Barack made a trip to Iraq and a media entourage followed him. When McCain went to Iraq, his trip did not garner the same attention.

Then the discussion moved on to the difficulty of trying to find things to make fun of about Obama. I suppose this was in light of the New Yorker magazine’s failed attempt at satire with the Obama cover. The obvious thing about McCain to poke fun at is his age, and what about that Viagra question he was blind-sided with? Someone on the show stated that Barack is not bungling when he speaks or walks, but rather comes off so eloquently that he seems “perfect.” Saturday Night Live seemed to find their little niche for making fun of Obama. There was even an article in The New York Times on the topic.

Now The New York Times has rejected a draft of John McCain’s op-ed that was to be a response to the one published by Barack Obama last week. McCain was told to do a rewrite. So what was the problem with McCain’s draft? According to the story on cnn.com…

[...] Opinion Page Editor David Shipley said he could not accept the piece as written, but would be “pleased, though, to look at another draft.”

“Let me suggest an approach,” he wrote Friday. “The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans. It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece.”

I read the draft of McCain’s op-ed that was submitted, and then the one published by Obama. The difference? McCain spends the majority of his piece criticizing Obama’s Iraq policy. Though Obama offers criticism of McCain and the Bush administration, he offers details about his plan. So, the fair question would be, does that make one piece better than the other? I don’t think so. But from working in publishing, I have learned that you have to please the editor. And it seems the editor wants McCain to add some detail about his Iraq policy along with his criticism of Obama. Well, I can see the point. I know how insulting it can be to have something returned for a rewrite, but the changes would make it easier for the reader to compare the two policies.

I suppose this story will probably ride out the rest of the week. But I would suggest that the McCain camp stop pouting and get to writing.

John McCain’s rejected op-ed draft
Barack Obama’s published op-ed

There are many ways to show support for your favorite presidential candidate—donating money, volunteering time, wearing buttons and other paraphernalia, etc. But now a NYC company has up with another way to show your support—condoms. Yes, condoms. While you do the right thing and practice safe sex, you can show off your favorite presidential candidate in a whole new way. I wonder if the condoms have photo of the candidates on them?

NYC Company Markets Obama, McCain-Labeled Condoms

The presidential race is in full swing—in more ways than you might imagine. A young New York City entrepreneur has decided to “have fun” with the campaign by marketing condoms featuring images of Barack Obama and John McCain.

Benjamin Sherman, who created the company Practice Safe Policy, says the Obama condom carries the slogan “Use With Good Judgment.” The McCain version says “OLD BUT Not Expired.”

According to the Web site, McCain condoms “are battle tested, strong and durable, for those occasions when you just need to switch your position!”

While the company can’t guarantee the condoms are 100 percent effective, it says it’s certain “that without wearing one, there’s likely to be an Obama-Mama in your future.”

(Source: msnbc.com)

I endorse him and throw my full support behind him. And I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me. –Hillary R. Clinton, June 7, 2008

Hillary definitely fought a good fight—you gotta give her that. A year ago, I was a Hillary supporter. When she first ran for NY Senator, I volunteered and made phone calls on her behalf. However, former President Bill Clinton got involved and began to stir things up in the wrong direction. That is when I switched my vote.

Her concession speech (finally) was, I think, as gracious as could be expected by someone who initially seemed to have this nomination locked up. I think she did a great job of getting her position across to her supporters. There were a few boos when she initially mentioned her support for Barack Obama, but they soon fell silent.

It is unfortunate that there are some Democrats that will opt to vote for John McCain, (and that is their prerogative as citizens of the USA) or, they will choose not to vote at all. But, this country can’t take another four years of Bush politics—a war that we shouldn’t have started; gas prices out of control; and an economy that is in the pits. Yes, I think McCain will only bring us more of the mess we have had to deal with in the last eight years. Let’s just hope that we can finally have some positive change that will move this country in the right direction.

It is wonderful to live in a country where an African American man and a woman can both throw their hats in the ring and conduct strong campaigns for the highest elected office. But we still have a long way to go. It will be a great day when a person’s skin color or gender won’t be a big deal. Until that day comes and in the meantime, God Bless America.