Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Endorses Obama

SHOCKER: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board endorses Barack Obama!

Did you see that one coming?

The Board's case for Obama seems so familiar. Where have I read its arguments?

Oh, yes -- They're the same ones being disseminated by Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and other Leftist outlets like NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.

Today, McCain's maverick image stands badly tarnished. In the 2004 election, they called what McCain has done in this election flip-flopping. Today, we don't know which McCain the country would be getting as president, the maverick of 2000 or the panderer of 2008.

Is he the one who rejected President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy or the one who now embraces them? The one who sponsored comprehensive immigration reform or the one who says he wouldn't vote for that bill today? The one who experienced torture as a POW and pushed back against a president who would allow it or the candidate who voted against interrogations done humanely by the book?

And he also has squandered his claim to one of his supposed assets - his experience, as a military man and member of Congress for 26 years. Simply, he has displayed deplorable judgment in key instances that call into question the value of his overall judgment.

In Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 72-year-old candidate with a history of melanoma picked a woefully unqualified running mate - as she continues to prove day after day. And both he and she have conducted a campaign that has careened from inept to offensive.

In Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, Obama picked a vice president with foreign policy credentials to serve in the event of tragedy, not just a running mate to score political points.

The non-issue of William Ayers has become a centerpiece of McCain's campaign while Palin talks as if the only real Americans live in red-state small towns (something she was forced to apologize for) and falsely smears Obama for "palling around with terrorists."

Obama's campaign has not been above misleading voters - on McCain's stances on Social Security and immigration, for instance. But on this matter of unseemly campaigning, McCain's - starting with the Paris Hilton/Britney Spears ad - is clearly over the top.

Will either candidate be able to afford what he proposes? No. But in their plans, we see their inclinations, and Obama's are better. We are so weary of all this rhetoric about government as Public Enemy No. 1 - until there's a private sector to bail out - and how "spreading the wealth" denotes some sinister socialist agenda.

McCain's political career has been marked by selective instances of bucking partisanship - on campaign finance reform law that bears his name and on comprehensive immigration reform. But these last years also have been consistently marked by political hand-holding with Bush.

It is Obama, in his first term as a U.S. senator, who offers the freshest face of change. He, more than McCain, offers the best chance for instilling in Americans a new sense of unity and purpose and restoring the image abroad of an America as worthy as its ideals.

The Board says the McCain-Palin campaign has careened from inept to offensive in the same paragraph that it blasts McCain as the "72-year-old candidate with a history of melanoma" for choosing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as a "woefully unqualified running mate."

McCain's going to die and Palin is a bubblehead -- nothing offensive about that.

(I think the Board lifted those words from political genius Matt Damon.)

The Board writes, "We are so weary of all this rhetoric about government as Public Enemy No. 1 - until there's a private sector to bail out - and how 'spreading the wealth' denotes some sinister socialist agenda."

Yes, that tired, old rhetoric about capitalism and free enterprise and opportunity and personal freedom is such a pain.

As Ronald Reagan said, "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem." Of course, the Leftists on the Editorial Board don't see it that way. Government is the solution.

Naturally, the Board mocks the notion of Obama's "sinister socialist agenda," because it finds nothing sinister about "spreading the wealth around." Spreading the wealth around is good. Individual achievement is to be punished, not praised.

Another Reagan quote comes to mind: "How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an Anti-communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

Oppression Obama-style is easy for the Board to swallow.

In the end, the Board endorses Obama because it's looking for change. It believes, "It is Obama, in his first term as a U.S. senator, who offers the freshest face of change."

Sure. That's just what we need now -- an inexperienced, untested, teleprompter president.

The Board actually believes that a first term senator is preferable to a man who has spent his life serving his country, in the military and in the U.S. House and Senate.

We want the "freshest face."

Are we choosing a leader or a new leading man for a sappy chick flick?

Why does Obama's fresh face offer the best chance for instilling in Americans a new sense of unity and purpose?

I think the Board really means to say that Obama's fresh face offers the best chance for instilling in Americans a new sense of entitlement and subservience to the state. There's unity in oppression I guess.

Don't worry if the Journal Sentinel's crush on Obama doesn't convince you that he should be the next president.

Ricardo Pimentel, the Editorial Page Editor, grants readers permission to disagree. What a guy!

We know that some of you would prefer we didn't recommend in the presidential race or in any race. Some view it as an unwelcome intrusion in a private decision. Others, we've found, simply want their newspaper's Editorial Board to agree with them on important topics.

But we can't - not all the time and not with everyone. For us, it's about our obligation as an Editorial Board in a free society to encourage community discussion.

And you, of course, are free to disregard our recommendation.

We're free to disregard the recommendation of the Editorial Board?

Really? We aren't obligated to do as the wise Pimentel suggests?

We're allowed to disagree?

Good. Our freedom to openly express a dissenting opinion hasn't been squashed yet, though the wrath of Obama is to be feared.

Ask the well known racists Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro.

Talk to Stanley Kurtz.