Financial Times endorses Senator Obama

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Democrats must choose Obama

Barack Obama goes into Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primary as strong favourite, whatever happens, to secure the Democratic presidential nomination. Yet the vote could still go either way.

This is a sign of how close this race has been and how deeply it has divided the party.

Mr Obama and Hillary Clinton are both strong candidates and each appeals powerfully to distinct segments of Democratic support. This has heightened the risk of bitter division.

After Tuesday’s vote, the Democrats should move quickly to affirm Mr Obama’s nomination. That is not just because his lead in elected delegates is already unassailable and the contest should be brought to a swift conclusion. It is also because he is, in fact, the better candidate.

The contenders’ differences on policy look small and in reality are even smaller. Their disagreement on healthcare mandates, for instance, frequently emphasised by Mrs Clinton, is of little practical significance. A mandate to obtain insurance, as proposed by Mrs Clinton, does not achieve universal coverage unless enforced with punitive sanctions, which she does not advocate.

Both candidates, in effect, are proposing near-universal coverage. The virtues of their schemes (much improved access, no denial of insurance to those with pre-existing conditions) as well as the defects (weak control of costs) are much the same.

In almost every area of policy, whether their thinking is good (as with improved support for displaced workers), bad (their opposition to liberal trade) or too vague to say (Iraq), there is little to choose between them.

As voters understood all along, this has therefore been a contest of character, temperament and (sadly but inevitably) identity. Mr Obama’s most loyal supporters, once they were persuaded that he might actually succeed, have been black. Mrs Clinton’s, certain at the start she would win, are women.

Mr Obama has fought a brilliant campaign, out-organising his opponent, raising more money, and convincing undecided Democrats as well as the country at large that he was more likeable, more straightforward and more worthy of trust.

On form, he is a spell-binding orator and holds arena-sized audiences in thrall. He is given to airy exhortations, it is true, but genuinely seeks consensus and has cross-party appeal.

Mrs Clinton’s campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.

Her speaking style is pedestrian, when it is not actually grating. Those who dislike her tend to do so with a passion: her disapproval ratings started high and after months of campaigning are climbing still. It is a tribute to her tenacity and to the loyalty she commands in the party that her fate was not sealed weeks ago.

How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate’s fitness to be president is debatable – but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise.

In fact, the campaigns have underlined the contenders’ respective strengths and weaknesses.

Mr Obama’s consistent and relaxed demeanour attested to his coolness (in both senses, his swooning young admirers would add); it seemed to affirm his authenticity. In contrast, Mrs Clinton’s hyperactive advisers dressed her in a new personality each day, sometimes several in the course of an interview. They wheeled out Bill Clinton, to remind people of the 1990s, then reeled him back, to help them forget.

Too many course corrections, not enough course.

Mr Obama has had some travails – over his association with Jeremiah Wright, the ranting demagogue pastor, and most recently over condescending remarks about small-town Democratic politics.

In the first case, he responded with a masterly speech about race that may even have improved his standing. In the second, he was evasive and unconvincing – yet the public seems to have given him the benefit of the doubt.

The US has the urge to be inspired a little. Electing the country’s first woman president ought to be very inspiring. But not this woman – with her dynastic baggage and knack for antagonising the undecided – running against this man.

The Democratic party has waited an awfully long time for a politician like Barack Obama. Enough already.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Democrats must choose Obama

Barack Obama goes into Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primary as strong favourite, whatever happens, to secure the Democratic presidential nomination. Yet the vote could still go either way.

This is a sign of how close this race has been and how deeply it has divided the party.

Mr Obama and Hillary Clinton are both strong candidates and each appeals powerfully to distinct segments of Democratic support. This has heightened the risk of bitter division.

After Tuesday’s vote, the Democrats should move quickly to affirm Mr Obama’s nomination. That is not just because his lead in elected delegates is already unassailable and the contest should be brought to a swift conclusion. It is also because he is, in fact, the better candidate.

The contenders’ differences on policy look small and in reality are even smaller. Their disagreement on healthcare mandates, for instance, frequently emphasised by Mrs Clinton, is of little practical significance. A mandate to obtain insurance, as proposed by Mrs Clinton, does not achieve universal coverage unless enforced with punitive sanctions, which she does not advocate.

Both candidates, in effect, are proposing near-universal coverage. The virtues of their schemes (much improved access, no denial of insurance to those with pre-existing conditions) as well as the defects (weak control of costs) are much the same.

In almost every area of policy, whether their thinking is good (as with improved support for displaced workers), bad (their opposition to liberal trade) or too vague to say (Iraq), there is little to choose between them.

As voters understood all along, this has therefore been a contest of character, temperament and (sadly but inevitably) identity. Mr Obama’s most loyal supporters, once they were persuaded that he might actually succeed, have been black. Mrs Clinton’s, certain at the start she would win, are women.

Mr Obama has fought a brilliant campaign, out-organising his opponent, raising more money, and convincing undecided Democrats as well as the country at large that he was more likeable, more straightforward and more worthy of trust.

On form, he is a spell-binding orator and holds arena-sized audiences in thrall. He is given to airy exhortations, it is true, but genuinely seeks consensus and has cross-party appeal.

Mrs Clinton’s campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.

Her speaking style is pedestrian, when it is not actually grating. Those who dislike her tend to do so with a passion: her disapproval ratings started high and after months of campaigning are climbing still. It is a tribute to her tenacity and to the loyalty she commands in the party that her fate was not sealed weeks ago.

How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate’s fitness to be president is debatable – but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise.

In fact, the campaigns have underlined the contenders’ respective strengths and weaknesses.

Mr Obama’s consistent and relaxed demeanour attested to his coolness (in both senses, his swooning young admirers would add); it seemed to affirm his authenticity. In contrast, Mrs Clinton’s hyperactive advisers dressed her in a new personality each day, sometimes several in the course of an interview. They wheeled out Bill Clinton, to remind people of the 1990s, then reeled him back, to help them forget.

Too many course corrections, not enough course.

Mr Obama has had some travails – over his association with Jeremiah Wright, the ranting demagogue pastor, and most recently over condescending remarks about small-town Democratic politics.

In the first case, he responded with a masterly speech about race that may even have improved his standing. In the second, he was evasive and unconvincing – yet the public seems to have given him the benefit of the doubt.

The US has the urge to be inspired a little. Electing the country’s first woman president ought to be very inspiring. But not this woman – with her dynastic baggage and knack for antagonising the undecided – running against this man.

The Democratic party has waited an awfully long time for a politician like Barack Obama. Enough already.

[GaryC 7]

The Democratic party has waited an awfully long time for a politician like Barack Obama. Enough already.

Like what? A junior Senator with no experience? He has no track record. This is a culture of personality only. I mean really. The dems have so many other people that at least could fill out more than one page on a resume. I don't understand why they would pick an ultra-liberal unknown like this. He is the worst (well, second worst) person they could pick.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Democratic party has waited an awfully long time for a politician like Barack Obama. Enough already.

Like what?

Why don't you read the endorsement?

The US has the urge to be inspired a little.

Amen to that. How tired too many are of the same old, same old that we've been fed for far too long.

[GaryC 7]

The Democratic party has waited an awfully long time for a politician like Barack Obama. Enough already.

Like what?

Why don't you read the endorsement?

I read it. It speaks of style and his organization. Nothing on substance. Obama is just a culture of personality. On that count I would agree. Obama has a better personality. Unfortunately, style and likability are not major reasons to endorse someone for president. The dems want to elect someone that makes them feel good rather than someone that will make a difference for the better.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary's gettin skeered.

[Dan J 277]

Gary's gettin skeered.

Its a bad sign for Republican economic policies when the main financial newspapers don't endorse or are not impressed by Republicans. Even the Wall Street Journal was not impressed by McCain's speech on the economy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary's gettin skeered.

Its a bad sign for Republican economic policies when the main financial newspapers don't endorse or are not impressed by Republicans. Even the Wall Street Journal was not impressed by McCain's speech on the economy.

Yep. As much as it makes Gary wriggle in his shoes....it's the economy that will decide who is the next President.

[no name 1]

Yep. As much as it makes Gary wriggle in his shoes....it's the economy that will decide who is the next President.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24238122/

[Dan J 277]

Yep. As much as it makes Gary wriggle in his shoes....it's the economy that will decide who is the next President.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24238122/

Wait until the nomination is decided. All the top 3 issues named in that article are all economic issues.

The war in Iraq has effect the value of the dollar, which has an impact on imports like oil. Which in turn effects gas prices. That in the war in Iraq has directly affected the supply somewhat from that region.

Iraq is also an economic issue in that it is creating massive amounts of debt that we will one day have to pay off.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yep. As much as it makes Gary wriggle in his shoes....it's the economy that will decide who is the next President.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24238122/

I just looked over that poll and I can't figure out how they are drawing that conclusion. Here's some interesting figures from the poll though...

75% thinks this country is going in the wrong direction....

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of…

...................................................Very favorable....Somewhat favorable....Somewhat unfavorable....Very unfavorable....Refused / Not Answered

The Democratic Party... Wave 1........... 16.......................... 37 ............................26 ................................18 ........................3

The Republican Party... Wave 1 .............9 ...........................31 ............................32 ................................24........................ 5

For each of the following individuals, please select if you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of

that person. If you don’t know enough about the person to have an opinion, you can say that too.........................................................Don't know enough about

Hillary Clinton .............Wave 1............. 17.......................... 29............................. 14............................... 33 ....................... 1............7

Barack Obama ............Wave 1 .............11 ..........................33............................. 18 ...............................15....................... 1............22

(Hilllary's high negatives are more than either McCain or Obama and I have seen that in several other polls as well. That isn't something to easily dismiss either)

[GaryC 7]

Yep. As much as it makes Gary wriggle in his shoes....it's the economy that will decide who is the next President.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24238122/

I just looked over that poll and I can't figure out how they are drawing that conclusion. Here's some interesting figures from the poll though...

75% thinks this country is going in the wrong direction....

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of…

...................................................Very favorable....Somewhat favorable....Somewhat unfavorable....Very unfavorable....Refused / Not Answered

The Democratic Party... Wave 1........... 16.......................... 37 ............................26 ................................18 ........................3

The Republican Party... Wave 1 .............9 ...........................31 ............................32 ................................24........................ 5

For each of the following individuals, please select if you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of

that person. If you don’t know enough about the person to have an opinion, you can say that too.........................................................Don't know enough about

Hillary Clinton .............Wave 1............. 17.......................... 29............................. 14............................... 33 ....................... 1............7

Barack Obama ............Wave 1 .............11 ..........................33............................. 18 ...............................15....................... 1............22

(Hilllary's high negatives are more than either McCain or Obama and I have seen that in several other polls as well. That isn't something to easily dismiss either)

Face it dude, McCain isn't lost like you think he is. The support for Obama is a cult of personality. Those that don't buy it will not vote for him. It's as simple as that. Thats why 20% of Clinton supporters say they will not vote for him if Hillary loses. They didn't drink the kool-aid and see how wrong he is for the country.

Edited April 21, 2008 by GaryC

[mawilson 2,133]

Hillary, Obama, what's the difference? Their policies are very similar.

Hillary has better connections than Obama - therefore a better chance of making things happen.

[GaryC 7]

Hillary, Obama, what's the difference? Their policies are very similar.

Hillary has better connections than Obama - therefore a better chance of making things happen.

If you look at their voting records you will see there is a difference. Obama is much more far left than Hillary. I think he even scares some dems with his ultra-liberal positions.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Face it dude, McCain isn't lost like you think he is. The support for Obama is a cult of personality. Those that don't buy it will not vote for him. It's as simple as that.

Gary, the way it stands and what history is telling us is...McCain could be knight in shining armor, but he represents the Party that has been in power for 8 years and as a result our economy is bad shape...and Americans want change. His only chance of winning the WH for another 4 years is if he can convince voters he's no Bush when it comes to the economy...and he's not doing that. He has publicly endorsed Bush's economic policies. Slice it anyway you want, but I think it's funny coming from you who paid very close attention to Wall Street when supposedly they feared what a Democrat in the WH will do. The Financial Times is no liberal rag here. I wouldn't go dismissing their assessment of McCain and endorsing Obama.

Edited April 21, 2008 by Jabberwocky