Balkinization: Wall Street Journal Endorses Obama (Sort of)

Wall Street Journal Endorses Obama (Sort of)

Brian Tamanaha

To the chagrin of the Republican Party, a number of prominent conservatives have in recent weeks announced their support for Obama (or their inability to support McCain-Palin). But this was entirely unexpected: Today the Wall Street Journal endorsed Barack Obama for President.

Every vote for a nonincumbent Presidential candidate is in some sense a risk, given the power and complications of the job. But in both his lack of experience and the contradictions between his rhetoric and his agenda, Barack Obama presents a particular leap of hope. It is a sign of how fed up Americans are with Republicans that millions are ready to take that leap even in dangerous times.
To his supporters, such as Colin Powell, the first-term Senator has the chance to be "transformational," the kind of gauzy concept that testifies to Mr. Obama's unusual appeal. His candidacy is certainly historic, and that isn't simply a reference to his Kenyan father and American mother. One secret to Mr. Obama's success is how little his campaign has been marked by race, at least not by the traditional politics of racial grievance. He has run instead on a rhetorical theme of national unity, a shrewd appeal to voters weary of the polarizing debate over Iraq and the Bush Presidency.

Mr. Obama has also understood the political moment better than his opponents in either party. In the primaries, he used his inexperience to advantage by offering himself as a liberal alternative to what seemed like an inevitable, and dispiriting, Clinton replay. He then turned around in the general election to project sober reassurance amid the financial crisis, which was the moment when his poll numbers began to climb above the margin of error against John McCain. His coolness reflects what seems to be a first-class temperament. And while community organizing may not be much of a credential for the Presidency, Mr. Obama's ability to organize a campaign speaks well of his potential to manage a government.
….
Perhaps this is the kind of leadership the American people want after the Presidential certitudes of the Bush years. Americans certainly are eager for fresh start, and it is typical of periods of economic panic that they may even be willing to reach for the kind of alluring but untested appeal that so marks Mr. Obama. Sometimes these gambles pay off, and sometimes they don't.

Okay, it wasn't quite an endorsement--although surprisingly close to one given the source. They listed a bunch of Obama negatives, to be sure (there are subscribers to please), but it began and ended in a positive fashion. They chose to post a truly spectacular photo of Obama with the essay, which says a lot in itself. And notice how little was said about John McCain as president.

Does this essay reflect resignation at what they consider a likely Obama victory? Or is the WSJ actually suggesting that to vote in the hope of bringing about positive change--what Obama represents--might be the right choice?

Posted 9:08 AM by Brian Tamanaha [link]

Comments:

It has been observed that while Murdoch prefers Republicans to Democrats, he has no loyalties to either that interfere with his business. Just as he has with Tory and Labor governments, he backs a winner.

# posted by

jpk : 10:09 AM

Repetition of the word "maverick" to describe John McCain, whether by himself, pundits, his supporters, etc, dilutes the meaning. Similarly, repetition of "transformational" can result in dilution of meaning. Truly transformational momemts have to run the test of time and the measure of history. I'm think of Morton Horwitz's book on the transformation of common law in America before the Civil War. There have been recent books on Andrew Jackson about how his administration was transformational.

I first voted in 1952, after growing up with FDR and then Truman. Since then, several presidential elections were contemporaneously described as transformational, at least in some sense. Just about every presidential election from 1952 on has been perceived to exceed in importance previous presidential elections. Today, the same claim is being made to the nth degree. Since we live in the present, of course what is happening today has great significance, to us. But years later, history may consider it as a blip. But history is not a science and there are always revisionists.

I remember back in 1968, when Nixon won, a college and law school classmate who was more liberal than me (and that's going far to the left) was most distressed, as we knew his background well back in 1952 and thought that we had helped to do him in in 1960. So I said to my friend, "Don't worry, he won't ruin the country." And Nixon didn't, although he came close. We survived. And we are surviving 8 years of George W. Bush.

I doubt I'll be around when historians get around to considering whether this 2008 election is transformational. So, let's see how Obama - or McCain - governs. Neither will have a magic wand. It took a major war to end the Great Depression. Hopefully not this time.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 10:33 AM

I note that you neglected to include the eight money paragraphs about Obama's vacillation, inexperience, lies and bad policies preceding the resigned conclusion: "Perhaps this is the kind of [uncertain] leadership the American people want after the Presidential certitudes of the Bush years."

This is about the same kind of endorsement Marc Antony provided Brutus at Caesar's funeral.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:21 AM

This is about the same kind of endorsement Marc Antony provided Brutus at Caesar's funeral.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 11:21 AM

What does that tell you about their opinion of McSame, and Bush?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 11:28 AM

at this point, the nature and tone of any endorsement, position paper, stump speech, etc., is not only overly tiring, but completely irrelevant. only somebody with their head in the sand or with absolutely no internal compass one way or the other could not have made up their mind by now.

i suppose it states only the obvious at this point to note that the only poll that counts is the one taking place tomorrow, and that the only opinion that counts is the one you hold when you go into the voting booth tomorrow and pull the lever. all that should be left today is reminding your friends and family that their vote does count one way or the other, and that it is not just a right, but a duty to vote tomorrow, regardless of how you vote. my only hope for tomorrow is that the vote itself is clean, and that there are no shenanigans by either side that will allow the vote, whomever it ultimately is for, to be considered tainted in one form or another.

# posted by

phg : 11:58 AM

DePalma, you are off your rocker my man. Congratulations on still thinking there's an "if" before "Obama wins" at this stage. Let me ask what will become of the evangelical, socially conservative portion of the right wing on Wednesday? "The Base"?

Sarah Palin will inherit them, you know, and where will her "vacillation, inexperience, lies and bad policies" lead them?

I expect they will become even more radical and a fringe group incapable of forming a coalition able to get the presidency again. For that you need a seeming moderate like 2000-Bush or Huckabee (maybe), but Palin is too radical and will never get more support than a few percentage points over "The Base."

They've been sold out by the Rovian Republicans who never really wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade or ban gay marriage or kick out illegals, because then what would get the one-track minded "Base" to the polls every couple years?

So now they learn that what they care about never mattered to the people they elected, and the people who DO care about socially conservative causes - like Tom Tancredo, Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback, and Sarah Palin, are unelectable at the level they'd need to make a change.

So are they gonna get it through their skulls that they gotta live in this Democracy and abide by what other people vote for? Or will the follow their delusional leader, Sarah Palin, and go rogue, too?

If so, I'm glad to cede "The Bases" red states to them, and let them do with them what they want while we keep the rest. Then we can make bets on which winds up looking like Somalia first.

# posted by

Ol Mucky : 1:30 PM

ol mucky:

You may want to consider the new Mason/Dixon and Rasmussen polling the battleground states. The race is a dead heat across the board with the undecided nearly all Reagan/Clinton blue collar Dems and Indis.

You may also want to recall that these pollsters, like nearly all the rest, underestimated Clinton's final vote in these states by around 4 points.

This race has boiled down to whether the Reagan/Clinton Dems (aka PUMAs) show up to the polls and vote for the GOP candidate as they have done since 1980 except when Clinton drew some of them back and whether the rest vote against Obama as they did in the primaries in large numbers.

If the PUMAs go McCain, he will take keep OH and take PA, securing his 270 EVs.

If not, Obama will win a tight election by 2 points or less.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:23 PM

Bart,

I've heard of PUMAs. They grew up on Tatooine alongside the Yeti and Unicorns, right? Anyway, don't bite your nails to the quick prematurely, champ, cuz I'll bet you bear-claws to crullers Obama nets 350+ electoral votes including Georgia and North Carolina.

Note to self: Don't choose brain-damage-amaged wombat as running mate...

You had a good run. And if you can't handle all the competence of the next eight years, just break some stuff along the way. Vases, windows, whatever. We'll understand, we've been there.

# posted by

Ol Mucky : 3:47 PM

mucky:

Even Obama supporter and poll watcher Nate Silver over at www.fivethirtyeight.com is noting that the nonsensical Dem polls predicting an Obama landslide are now falling all over themselves to revise their numbers significantly lower so they can get within the margin of error of the real voting. Unless, one assumes that enormous 5% swaths of the voters are suddenly turning against Obama and supporting McCain, which I do not, then this is prima facie evidence the Dem media polls were cooked from the start with gross over predictions of the Dem vote and under predictions of the GOP voter.

In Newsweek, Silver provided a guide for election watchers with numerous caveats to watch for election results that depart substantially from the Dem media polling as they did during the Dem primaries in NH and elsewhere. Concerned about his own credibility, Silver is apparently hedging his bets as well.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 5:26 PM

Ummm, "Bart":

You may also want to recall that these pollsters, like nearly all the rest, underestimated Clinton's final vote in these states by around 4 points.

Clinton is not McInsane......

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 5:32 PM

The clinical definition of "insanity":

["Bart" DeLuded] "Reagan/Clinton Dems"

No comment is necessary. For what should be obvious reasons....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 5:35 PM

Bart:

To paraphrase the late, great Chick Hearn:

This election, ladies and gentlemen, is in the refrigerator. The door is closed, the lights are out, the butter is getting hard. The eggs are cooling and the jello is jiggling!

# posted by

Dilan : 5:41 PM

arne:

Reagan Dems/Clinton Dems/PUMA's - white blue collar conservatives - are hardly a a figment of my imagination. The research on these voters fills library shelves and dominated the Dem primary discussions when Hillary was proving the pollsters wrong in one blue collar primary state after another.

As a Left Coast resident who probably has never met a Reagan Dem, you amy want to recall the instructions of The One to his San Francisco millionaire and billionaire groupies that Reagan Dems are the bitter folks in places like Pennsylvania who cling to their guns and religion because they do not get enough government money.

With any luck, the Reagan Dems in Pennsylvania still recall The One's instruction, not to mention "Mad" Murtha's further instruction that all of his PA Reagan Dem constituents are racists and rednecks.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 5:48 PM

"Bart":

Newsflash for ya: Silver has Obama as a prohibited favourite. You know, like 98%?!?!?! Anything you see to the contrary is a hallucination, for which you ought to contact the docs to titrate the Haldol up a notch....

I'm going to enjoy this smackdown of RWA ideology (which "Bart" exemplifies) enormously....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 5:55 PM

"Bart":

Reagan Dems/Clinton Dems/PUMA's - white blue collar conservatives - are hardly a a figment of my imagination. The research on these voters fills library shelves and dominated the Dem primary discussions when Hillary was proving the pollsters wrong in one blue collar primary state after another.

I call Bullsh*t. Even if it was true (which it is not), how'd that work for Hillary?

;-)

Keep flailing there, "Bart", it does give it a Palin lip gloss of being "sporting".

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 5:58 PM

"Bart" DeLuded:

As a Left Coast resident who probably has never met a Reagan Dem, you amy want to ....

Drinking early, eh? Can't say I blame you. But why you think that I've never met a "Reagan Dem" is beyond me. And why you think that such people were Hillary voters is out there beyond the orbit of Uranus....

Enjoy, "Bart". This election is for you. You'll have to buy the Coors yourself.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 6:02 PM

arne langsetmo said...

Newsflash for ya: Silver has Obama as a prohibited favourite. You know, like 98%?!?!?!

I know. That is what makes Silver's Newsweek election watcher's guide so amusing. There is no hint at all in the guide that Silver thinks that Obama has this election in the bag. Rather, Silver notes all the states where we would see the first signs that the polls were crap and Obama is heading for a long night.

Indeed, Silver appears to be far more conservative in his election guide projections than the dean of election projections, Michael Barone, is in his US News election guide.

A good example of the difference between Silver and Barone is how thy treat Virginia. Silver treats Virginia as a bell weather tossup whose actual results will tell us how the election will go. In contrast, Barone has already pigeon -holed VA for Obama based on the polling between Octiber 1-27 and instructs us to ignore the far closer polling over the past week.

Indeed, Barone appears to share your obliviousness to the recent election tightening. When I was at the gym during lunch, the Fox News folks were on TV interviewing Barone about the new Fox/Rasmussen polling showing that the battleground states had nearly all closed to tossup status and Barone appeared physically shaken (as in his hands were actually twitching) as he tried to square the new polling with his preconceived notions of how the election would turn out. I think he is scared that the polling he is using is wrong and he will be asked to call states based on this polling before the actual votes are counted.

Election night could be really fun as I watch the talking heads who have been repeatedly burned by exit polling try to make sense of the data they are getting from the pollsters and then jive it with the utterly different election results.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:21 PM

Gee, why would a pollster talk about "what to watch for" and try to make things closer? It wouldn't be to generate traffic to his site would it on election day could it? Nah, couldn't be...

# posted by

Unknown : 6:26 PM

That Bart is only planning to gloat over the inaccuracy of exit polls says a lot. Whatever warms your ego, I guess.

No Reagan Dems in California? That's a funny one, Mr. Ahistorical.

# posted by

Eric : 7:00 PM

arne langsetmo said...

"Bart": Reagan Dems/Clinton Dems/PUMA's - white blue collar conservatives - are hardly a a figment of my imagination. The research on these voters fills library shelves and dominated the Dem primary discussions when Hillary was proving the pollsters wrong in one blue collar primary state after another.

I call Bullsh*t. Even if it was true (which it is not), how'd that work for Hillary?

Actually, very well. Clinton won the open primary votes overall and the Dem (as opposed to Indi) votes in particular. The only reasons Obama won the nomination is that (1) he bused in his supporters into caucuses (2) and Indis could vote in the Dem open primaries.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:39 PM

Bart,

In all seriousness, did that WSJ Op-Ed sound almost like an endorsement, or did I read that wrong?

Brian

# posted by

Brian Tamanaha : 8:51 PM

That is what makes Silver's Newsweek election watcher's guide so amusing. There is no hint at all in the guide that Silver thinks that Obama has this election in the bag. Rather, Silver notes all the states where we would see the first signs that the polls were crap and Obama is heading for a long night.

Numbnuts, he's telling people what to look for if the polls are all wrong, not that he thinks it is likely. In fact, 538 dropped McSames changes below 2% tonight. You are completely delusional.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 9:12 PM

"Bart":

Election night could be really fun as I watch the talking heads who have been repeatedly burned by exit polling try to make sense of the data they are getting from the pollsters and then jive it with the utterly different election results.

They'll have the advantage of having facts to work with, and truth to deal with. That's something that has always eluded you (even here where you prognosticate so freely and so fabulously and even go on to explain the underlying reasons for your "truths") ... and I suspect that it will again in the dismal aftermath (for you) tomorrow....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 12:49 AM

I call "BS" and what does "Bart" do?:

Actually, very well. Clinton won the open primary votes overall and the Dem (as opposed to Indi) votes in particular. The only reasons Obama won the nomination is that (1) he bused in his supporters into caucuses (2) and Indis could vote in the Dem open primaries.

More BS. "Bart" listens to Freepervlle, Limbaugh, InsHannity, and ClownHall and WhirledNutzDaily too much, methinks.

I'd note that nowhere in what "Bart" spouted is there any support for his claim that Hillary's 'base' was the "Reagan Dems". That truly is delusional thinking (and the Sainted Sir Ronnie would prolly kick "Bart"'s keister for such apostasy ... ROFLMAO).

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 12:54 AM