A Most Peculiar Editorial

Lame title, I know... but let's just get down and dirty to one of the more peculiar editorials out there today:

His triumph was decisive and sweeping, because he saw what is wrong with this country: the utter failure of government to protect its citizens. He offered a government that does not try to solve every problem but will do those things beyond the power of individual citizens: to regulate the economy fairly, keep the air clean and the food safe, ensure that the sick have access to health care, and educate children to compete in a globalized world.

This is true, but it reeks of anger and raises a fair question: Did W fail to protect America and American citizens? I think it's a bit harsh. Where many of his policies either misguided or short sided? Yes. Is he—most likely—going to go down as one of the worst Presidents in history? Yes. But Bush did not expose this nation to harm. No a better way to say what he failed to do was that... well he failed to do anything.

Mr. Obama inherits a terrible legacy. The nation is embroiled in two wars — one of necessity in Afghanistan and one of folly in Iraq. Mr. Obama’s challenge will be to manage an orderly withdrawal from Iraq without igniting new conflicts so the Pentagon can focus its resources on the real front in the war on terror, Afghanistan.

Obama was not elected to fix or end Iraq. For Obama's political sake, I hope he realizes this.

The campaign began with the war as its central focus. By Election Day, Americans were deeply anguished about their futures and the government’s failure to prevent an economic collapse fed by greed and an orgy of deregulation. Mr. Obama will have to move quickly to impose control, coherence, transparency and fairness on the Bush administration’s jumbled bailout plan.

A harsh critique of W... but the Times is on the right path here. Obama was elected to fix the economy. But unlike Paul Krugman, the NYT editorial board doesn't totally get it.

Climate change is a global threat, and after years of denial and inaction, this country must take the lead on addressing it. The nation must develop new, cleaner energy technologies, to reduce greenhouse gases and its dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. Obama also will have to rally sensible people to come up with immigration reform consistent with the values of a nation built by immigrants and refugees.

There are many other urgent problems that must be addressed. Tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance...

This editorial is exactly what Obama should not listen to and HAS to avoid when he takes office. Obama needs to realize that he was elected to fix the economy—not Iraq, not immigration, not education, not energy—and to a certain extent health care. So why is the New York Times calling for Obama to leave Iraq, bring about immigration policy changes, fix the environment, and change energy policy?

Because the New York Times doesn't get it. They're too busy believing that Obama has this huge mandate to change everything W has done and fix everything he didn't bother to deal with. This would be a mistake. Those are issues you deal with as time moves on. And these were the issues that prevented John Kerry and Al Gore from being elected.

The New York Times is calling for Obama to be ambitious and to tackle a buch of issues quickly. This would be a mistake. There is a lot to be done, but slow and steady wins the race. If Obama can come in and do something about the economy, then he'll have the political capital to fix everything the New York Times wants. But to waste his political capital on something like, oh, climate change or immigration reform, would be a gigantic mistake since there is a good chance nothing would get done. And as we saw with W; once you burn your political capital, it ain't ever coming back.

So much to blog... editorals first

First congratulations to Barack Obama for yesterday's victory over John McCain to be come the President elect of the United States.

So what does this mean? Where to start? Let's look at editorials first.

What's interesting is that they focus on race... which isn't all that shocking until you realize, they the media ignored race throughout most of this election cycle.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Obama’s victory is one of those events that reveal how far the nation has traveled. When he was born in 1961, African-Americans risked death merely to register to vote in some Southern states. The pivotal civil rights and voting rights laws had yet to be enacted. Yet today, the nation is willing to entrust its future to a man whose father was black. His election is a moving vindication of the ideals on which this nation was founded...

Most Americans are ready to give Obama a chance to show he can deliver needed improvements. The financial crisis has also made them open to ideas they would not have considered before. But their motivation is pragmatic, not ideological, and the new president will be judged on results rather than intentions.

And from the LA Times:

By any measure, this is a monumental day in our nation's history. African Americans are rightly proud. The brutal facts of black existence -- slavery, segregation and the stunting of social and political ambition -- have dashed the hopes of black progress time and again. The election of Barack Obama symbolizes the resurrection of hope and the restoration of belief in a country that has often failed to treat its black citizens as kin. For millions of blacks abandoned to social neglect and cultural isolation, Obama's words and vision have built a bridge back into the American family.

And then the BBC:

Back in June, on the night when he finally saw off the challenge from Hillary Clinton, his celebration speech made no reference to his historic racial first, and noticeably he dedicated his victory to his white grandmother.

Throughout the campaign, Mr Obama has emphasised his whiteness as much as his blackness. The president-elect understood one of the great paradoxes of the civil rights era.

While it helped pave the way for his ultimate success, it also made it more difficult for northern candidates, like him, to win the presidency.

And I leave with one of the most condescending pieces of crap journalism ever written. As only the Brits can do:

They did it. They really did it. So often crudely caricatured by others, the American people yesterday stood in the eye of history and made an emphatic choice for change for themselves and the world. Though bombarded by a blizzard of last-minute negative advertising that should shame the Republican party, American voters held their nerve and elected Barack Obama as their new president to succeed George Bush. Elected him, what is more, by a clearer majority than one of those bitter narrow margins that marked the last two elections.

Thanks but no thanks guys. We did something you guys could only dream about.

Palin and Newspaper editorials

No Con Con talk here... just a few articles that I thought I'd pass along.

Newspapers and policy go hand in hand, mainly because it's historically been the easiest place to start to make a case for a policy. Editorial and Op-Ed pages are filled with policy ideas every day. Therefore, I check out a lot of opinion pages every day.

And in this process I couldn't help but notice the number of newspapers endorsing Obama. But what's truly shocking is that most of these editorials read the same: 'Obama is thoughtful, introspective, and pragmatic. While we liked John McCain, but he's has run as the guy we liked, and nothing proves that more than his decision to take Sarah Palin. And we really don't like Sarah Palin'. In fact, the Chicago Tribune who had never endorsed a Democrat for President choose Obama—in what my opinion was the best written endorsement—in part because of the Palin pick. But for a look at a lot of other papers, I turn it over to the Reader here in Chicago:

Alaska’s largest newspaper, of course, also endorsed the Obama-Biden ticket. “Despite her formidable gifts,” said the Anchorage Daily News of the state’s own Sarah Palin, “few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range.”

Palin was a godsend to editorial writers penning Obama endorsements for Republican papers. The Courant: “Most worrisome, however, is Mr. McCain’s choice of a running mate . . . who is not yet ready for prime time.” The Record: “[McCain’s] selection of Palin as a running mate was appalling.” The Eagle: “She is a candidate of little intellectual curiosity who appears to be hopelessly unready to be president.” The News-Register: “What could McCain have been thinking . . . ?”

Without Palin, some historically Republican editorial pages might have struggled to find words to reject McCain that their readers would accept, and perhaps even endorsed him against their better judgment. But now they can make the argument they believe in, knowing they’ve got Palin to nail it down. She signs, seals, and delivers the case for dumping the GOP. She’s the closer.

Ouch. From a political stand point, assuming that McCain does lose tomorrow, it will be interesting to see how the Palin pick goes down in history. Was it increditably stupid? Short sighted? Obviously transparent? Did it cost him the electin? Or did the Fall 2008 Credit Crisis hurt McCain more than Palin?

No matter what, it should be a fun topic of discussion for years to come at cocktail parties.

Oh, and check out the differences between the Guardian and Economist endorsements of Obama. Oh wait, there isn't one. Weird.