Las Vegas Review-Journal: Obama best choice for Democrats

[ellisonz]

Jan. 16, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Obama best choice for Democrats

Or do they prefer a re-run of 'It came from Little Rock'?
As state Democrats prepare to hold their Saturday caucuses, cynical Republicans might well encourage them to choose Sen. Hillary Clinton, figuring her high "negatives" -- the unusual number of Americans who tell pollsters they'd never vote for her under any circumstances -- would virtually guarantee a GOP victory in the fall.

That's why it's a good thing for Democrats that freshman Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has managed to challenge the perception of Sen. Clinton's "inevitability."

The Clinton campaign cites Sen. Clinton's "experience." In fact, she's a one-term-plus-a-year senator whose lackluster legislative record rivals Sen. Obama's. Other than that, the "experience" in question must surely refer to her presence as a witness and enabler during her husband's presidential terms.

Suffice it to say there are dozens of issues that Americans happily dismissed as "water under the bridge" as the Clinton era came to a close, but which would quickly ensnare Sen. Clinton and her party in a presidential race that would soon look like a struggle to escape the La Brea tar pits.

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/13832767.html

Circulation: 172,366 Daily
204,036 Sunday

The Las Vegas Review-Journal is published in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States. It is the largest circulating daily newspaper in Nevada, and one of two daily newspapers in Las Vegas (the Greenspun Media Group-owned Las Vegas Sun is distributed with it). It is the flagship publication of Stephens Media LLC.

The Review-Journal takes a libertarian editorial stance, particularly compared to the Las Vegas Sun, with which it has a joint operating agreement that runs through 2040. In 2005, the Sun ceased afternoon publication and began distribution as a section of the Review-Journal.
The publisher of the Review-Journal is Sherman Frederick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas_Review-Journal

[LVZ]

1. Review-Journal is right wing - not libertarian n/t

[ellisonz]

2. I assume everybody will take it for what it's worth.

[cali]

5. The only thing that matters is how NV voters take it

[gaiilonfong]

9. They are right wing THEN

they should have endorsed Hillary who looked so Repub lite last night....

[LVZ]

10. I'm a Nevada Obama supporter but R-J motivations are ALWAYS suspect. n/t

[LVZ]

11. Today's R-J cartoon is typical of their RW views

[mnhtnbb]

3. Right now Obama is my last choice.

I'm with Edwards until he says he's out.

I don't think Obama is ready for the job. If Edwards bails, I'll support Hillary to prevent Obama from getting the nomination.

[ellisonz]

4. Thank you for sharing.

:donut:

[cali]

6. yeah, that JE has so much more experience than Obama

NOT. And his record in the Senate? Dubious at best.

[mnhtnbb]

14. It's not about experience...otherwise Hillary would clearly be first choice.

It's about fighting for what I believe are truly progressive ideals. I don't sense that Obama understands he has to articulate his principles and bring people around to his point of view. He impresses me as someone who wants to survey the opinions among people, and then find common ground--whether that matches his principles or not. Edwards is much more clear about what he stands for--and yes,--even though that seems to differ from his past Senate record. I'm willing to believe he has evolved and that he's truly speaking from his gut this time. I imagine facing the mortality of your life's love and partner makes you strip away the crap and go for broke.

Just my opinion.

[Colobo]

17. Obama is ready and he will bring the victory

Hillary can't bring.

[AndyA]

7. Yeah, during the last election they were endorsing Bush because he was such

a great leader, an honest man, blah blah blah.

Las Vegas Journal-Review 2004:

The genius of American democracy has somehow done it again. George Bush is the right president at the right time. The economy is making significant strides post 9-11 and Mr. Bush has sketched out a second-term domestic agenda that would move the nation firmly back toward sound free-market principles. He is far more likely to appoint judges with a crucial respect for freedom, the free market, prosperity and property rights.

At this moment in history, when a cowardly and increasingly desperate enemy that beheads the defenseless and murders innocent women and children is finally on the run -- an enemy allowed to fester and gather strength through eight years of Democratic procrastination -- now is not the time to turn tail and give the gibbering mullahs time to rebuild their strength.

A great man is not a perfect man, but rather a man who finds the strength to overcome his own flaws, and then to lead others to unlikely triumph over great adversity and great odds. There is only one man in this presidential race who holds in his hands a vision and a hope for resurgent American greatness and triumph.

President George W. Bush.

So much for that endorsement. They just want the status quo to stay in place, and Barack is the guy to do it! The corporate Gods have spoken...let's all fall in lock step and elect another corporate puppet to please the CEOs. :eyes:

[indimuse]

8. Obama really

..showed his unpreparedness..on so may levels. I'm sorry...this country needs more than inspiration!

[FrenchieCat]

12. Could you elaborate?

Was it his IWR opposition that bothers you the most? :shrug:

[indimuse]

13. No. Frenchie..

It's how he contradicted himself...by voting for All supplements to Fund the War,while telling the pubic he was against it..and running a campaign with that as his MAIN THEME! .Where is his legislation for pull out why didn't he ever make a floor speech to STOP ALL FUNDING!!!? Dennis and Finegold have been the voice of that issue..voted with Cheyney for the WORST Energy Policy Bill...these are just a few reasons.. you know If he were as wise and as patient as I wish he were and as dedicated to "Changing" America(((don't get me wrong..I DO LIKE OBAMA! ))he would have seen the UNDENIABLE WIN...I will save for another time...I have a head ache.:)

<snip>
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told "the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, 'he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures
nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?'

"He added, 'aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in' given the ongoing war in Iraq. 'On the other hand, having a radical

Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.' Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if 'violent Islamic

extremists' were to 'take over'," Joshua Frank wrote January 22, 2005, for Antiwar.com.<1>







<snip>

“4/21/05: Obama voted for HR 1268, war appropriations in the amount of approximately $81 billion. Much of this funding went to Blackwater USA and Halliburton and disappeared. Roll call 109 (Passed 99-0)

“10/07/05: Obama voted for HR2863, which appropriated $50 billion in new money for war. Roll call 254 (Passed 97-0)

“11/15/05: Obama voted the Defense Authorization Act (S1042) which kept the war and war profiteering alive, restricted the right of habeas corpus and encouraged terrorism. Pursuant to his pattern, Obama voted for this. Roll call 326 (Passed 98-0)

“12/21/05: Obama confirmed his support for war by voting for the Conference Report on the Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2863), which provided more funding to Halliburton and Blackwater. Roll call 366 (Passed 93-0)

“5/4/06: Obama, again, voted to adopt HR4939: emergency funding to war profiteers. Roll call 112 (Passed 77-21, all Democrats voting for it)

“6/13/06: Obama voted to commend the armed services for a bombing that killed innocent people and children and reportedly resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi… Michael Berg, whose son was reportedly killed by al-Zarqawi, condemned the attack and expressed sorrow over the innocent people and children killed in the bombing that Obama commended. Roll call 168 (Passed 97-0)

“6/15/06: Obama voted for the conference report on HR4939, a bill that gave warmongers more money to continue the killing and massacre of innocent people in Iraq and allows profiteers to collect more money for scamming the people of New Orleans. Roll Call 171 (Passed 98-1, with all Democrats voting for it)

“6/22/06: Obama again voted for continued war by voting to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766) for continued war funding. Roll Call 186 (Passed 96-0)

“9/29/06: Obama voted vote for the conference report on more funding for war, HR 5631. Roll Call 261 (Passed 100-0)

“12/06/06: Obama voted to confirm pro-war Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense. Gates is a supporter of Bush's policies of pre-emptive war and conquest of foreign countries. Roll Call 272 (Passed 95-2, with every Democrat voting for it) and On Tuesday, Barack Obama announced his support for President Bush's bid to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement to Peru.

“Obama's voting record in 2007 establishes that he continues to be pro-war. On March 28, 2007 and March 29th, 2007, he voted for cloture and passage of a bill designed to give Bush over $120 billion to continue the occupation for years to come (with a suspendable time table) and inclusive of funding that could be used to launch a war with Iran. Roll calls 117 (Passed 97-0) and 126 (Passed 51-47, with every Democrat voting for it)

[JohnnyLib2]

15. One columnist's response says it all....

"But Barack Obama is at least likeable....."

By Jon Ralston · January 16, 2008 · 5:31 AM

They could have been more patronizing. They could have been more disingenuous. They could have been more cynical (Just read the opening sentence.).

But I don’t see how.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal’s endorsement this morning of Barack Obama is an exemplar of intellectual bankruptcy, designed to be an attack on Hillary Clinton by using a phony embrace of Obama. It is likely to have the opposite effect because Democratic activists loathe the RJ — and they are who will be voting Saturday. And with the RJ’s track record on major endorsements, this could be, as CityLife Editor Steve Sebelius put it, the kiss of death for Obama’s campaign.
Post a comment

[LVZ]

16. here's the Jon Ralston, Las Vegas political columnist, link ...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2008/jan/16/barack-obama-least-likeable/

[Renew Deal]

18. That has got to be one of the worst endorsements I've ever read.

Vote for Barack because Hillary sucks and Barack seems to be a nice guy.

Real moving :evilfrown: