digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at newyorker.com

The New Yorker Endorses Barack Obama

newyorker.com — A very good piece on why Obama should be elected.

Who dugg this? Made popular Oct 3, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

171 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Echota, on 01/05/2009, -11/+131FTA: At a moment of economic calamity, international perplexity, political failure, and battered morale, America needs both uplift and realism, both change and steadiness. It needs a leader temperamentally, intellectually, and emotionally attuned to the complexities of our troubled globe. That leader’s name is Barack Obama.

    How True!!
    This is a long article but so worth your time to read.

    Obama/Biden 08!
  • avataros, on 10/03/2008, -9/+93Terrorist fist bumps all around!
  • inactive, on 12/08/2008, -16/+64Excellent article. Recommended read.
  • nernie, on 10/02/2008, -12/+40Excellent read. Worth the time.
  • audomatix, on 10/03/2008, -16/+39The new yorker endorsed Obama and not McCain?! Omg that sure is suprising!! .......
  • MrShinra, on 10/03/2008, -3/+25Its a shame what happened to McCain between 8 years ago and today. If my senator was the same as he was back in 2000, this would be a very different kind of race, but it seems his pressure, or desire to pander to the extreme right and the evangelicals has cost him his morality and perhaps even this election.

    I've been going back and forth this last month about if I should vote Obama or not, and while my mind isn't totally made up, McCain's performance these past 2 years has certainly not helped his case.

    Palin seemed like a very... odd choice after I got to learn about some of her beliefs and stance on issues (Which isn't much given her reluctance to do interviews) and I think after seeing the debate tonight that she would do FINE as a Governor of Alaska. She seems capable enough at that level, but as far as being Vice President? Being a heartbeat away from the Oval Office? I disagree completely.

    This article is a little odd for me to see as well, because it comes off as relatively down to earth, but thorough, unbiased in the REASONS why Obama should be leading the country, (But IS Biased in that its supporting one candidate over the other) which I suppose is because I've had the perception that The New Yorker was a magazine for well-to-do rich socialites, and this article doesn't seem tailored to that demographic.
  • Shiftgood, on 10/03/2008, -10/+32Did you guys see the Palin/Biden debate?

    they're trying to spin SP and say she "brought the questions back to her comfort zone"

    wow. She doesnt know the answer to questions, but shes good at diverting questions so she should be president.

    did i say wow?
  • Royish, on 10/03/2008, -15/+36It's 2008, it is time we moved past a 2 party system.
  • cheeseron, on 10/03/2008, -0/+20the new yorker is more a collection of editorials than a newspaper. In fact you might call it a magazine of sorts.
  • Vallenwood, on 10/03/2008, -3/+22Highly recommended for anyone who likes the idea of people having clear reasons for the opinions they hold. If I saw a piece written with such intelligence and clarity on behalf of John McCain, I would consider it carefully and grant it both admiration and contemplation. It is eloquent and comprehensive. Were all political commentary like this, we would have the kinds of campaigns we keep getting promised and never receive. It is not an opinion piece so much as a defense of reason.
  • Olon97, on 10/02/2008, -7/+26I thought Fox News was fair and balanced?
  • panicbombs, on 10/02/2008, -7/+25Is that Putins Ugly Mug again?
  • magus_melchior, on 10/03/2008, -3/+19Sometimes I fancy myself as a writer. Then real writers come along and school me good.

    That was as thorough an analysis of the last 8 years as I've ever read.
  • TurdZilla, on 10/03/2008, -2/+17This is kinda the problem.... most of the people that still need to be converted don't read newyorker!!

    The stuff need to be in a paper that the little people subscribe to......... "The Bum ***** NoWhere Times" would be a good start.
  • DavidGX, on 10/03/2008, -2/+16CRAP, you're right. He's already gotten to you.. you're practically BRAINLESS!

    DAMN YOU OBAMA!!
  • inactive, on 10/03/2008, -15/+28In other news: Sky is blue. Big surprise here.
  • hiriumi, on 10/03/2008, -4/+17Completely different. Fox News is not journalism. Their news is not based on facts.
  • 13373h4X0r, on 10/03/2008, -0/+13Look...Ron Paul has no chance of winning. He had a chance, but there isn't enough time remaining to build a coalition of votes for Ron Paul to defeat McCain *and* Obama. If you're trying to promote third-party candidates, you need to do that at least two years before an election so that you can build the coalition necessary to defeat the other voter groups.

    The cliche is true: A vote for a third-party candidate **at this late date** is consciously "throwing away your vote". Right now the practical options have been reduced to two choices: McCain and Obama. You might be upset that this reduction has taken place, but this is because no third-party candidate has managed to win the hearts and minds of, say, 70 million eligible voters. Sure, the Republicans wouldn't let Ron Paul supporters vote at some caucuses in the primaries, but even if the traditional parties don't show any love or respect for third-party candidates, a true viable third-party candidate has always had the opportunity to win.

    So, if you want to actually make a difference in the outcome of the upcoming election, you will have to choose one of the two final candidates: McCain or Obama. You might think their support of the bailout will lead to a depression, but surely you can choose which candidate would likely be better for the country. Yes, you might regard this as "choosing between the lesser of two evils", and you might decide that it is more idealistic and honest to choose a person you really want instead (e.g., Ron Paul, or Santa Claus, or a supermodel, or Bill Gates, ...; they're all equally unlikely to win at this point). However, I hope that you will choose to make a difference, even if you believe that the difference would be small. I happen to believe that Obama would represent a big positive change for America, and I believe that McCain would be a significant negative change for America. However, I know that it is difficult to not be cynical about the government and the political parties -- especially given how the Republicans, traditionally fiscally conservative and for freedom, have ballooned the debt and expanded government greatly over the past eight years. But I encourage you to study the differences between Obama and McCain, and then vote to make an incremental improvement in the way our country is governed.
  • DonWigler, on 10/03/2008, -11/+23What a shocker.
  • Inaktivist, on 10/03/2008, -3/+15I know everyone is still recovering from the shock that The New Yorker is endorsing Obama... OK, so it's not much of a surprise but it is a damn good article and probably the most articulate, informed, detailed, and glowing endorsement of Obama that I have read and it was definitely worth the read.
  • reno77th, on 10/03/2008, -11/+22ya, that's ***** weird, The New Yorker endorses a liberal candidate. STOP THE PRESSES
  • 13373h4X0r, on 10/03/2008, -1/+12Whoa, dude!

    The only reason this Digg item is on the front page is because many fellow Digg visitors think that this New Yorker article is interesting. All Digg does is highlight what people are currently interested in.

    In any case, even people who currently prefer McCain for president might be interested in a well-written opinion piece about both presidential candidates. The article in The New Yorker contains many objective facts, and contains many descriptions of subjective aspects of the candidates that most people of any political preference would accept as reasonable. The article serves as a basis for more debate about the issues: Can Palin serve as president if the need arises? Does McCain have the demeanor to promote good relations with the other countries of the world -- for both national security and for economic relations? The majority of Americans dislike George W. Bush, and McCain has supported many Bush decisions; so how would a McCain presidency represent a change of ideas, and a reversal of America's decline? Etc.
  • elfuego, on 10/03/2008, -2/+13There's a difference between editorial and the newsroom. That is to say, the latter is focussed on delivering the facts without bias, while editorial takes positions. Now, the New Yorker isn't really a journalistic source, but if we were to look at, say, the NY Times, we could say that their editorial supports Obama, but you'd be hard pressed to find much bias in their news reporting.

    The two can be separate. The two should be separate.
  • cizrage, on 10/03/2008, -4/+13Such great read. I wish Obama is next president.
  • inactive, on 10/03/2008, -2/+11What an excellently-written article. Clearly stated are the strengths and character of Barack Obama and just as clearly stated are the woefully obvious shortcomings of John McCain. One of the greatest endorsements I have ever read.
  • PeTeRZz, on 10/03/2008, -5/+14October 13th 2008?

    ORLY?
  • macaddct1984, on 10/03/2008, -2/+11Would definitely read again. A++++++
  • Shabadoo, on 10/03/2008, -1/+9But unlike Fox News, the arguments for voting for Obama are compelling. Obama is what America needs - deal with it.
  • gabogab, on 10/03/2008, -1/+9you did not read the article, so you are the one who is full of B.S.
  • SoulOne, on 10/03/2008, -8/+16This is surprising given the less-than-supportive article The New Yorker published a few months ago (the one with the infamous cover featuring a Barack and Michelle cartoon). Yes, this magazine is what McCain would call "east coast, Georgetown University cocktail party elitist," but isn't it remarkable, on some level that this election, and Obama in particular, is inspiring publications and personalities (Oprah!) to endorse candidates when they've never thrown their two cents into the political fray before?

    This article nails it: Obama is the best choice for President.
  • Inaktivist, on 10/03/2008, -1/+9I take it you didn't actually read the article.
  • gabogab, on 10/03/2008, -2/+10An excellent article, both thoughtful and incisive. Those who have written that it is a "shocker" should read it carefully and ponder the arguments.
  • civilizedevil, on 10/03/2008, -12/+19The New Yorker? Is this really a surprise to anybody?
  • tbredofsin, on 10/03/2008, -10/+17I for one am very surprised that The New Yorker is endorsing the Democratic candidate for President.
  • apathyam, on 10/03/2008, -0/+7Show me how Obama is a lefty-loon lying liberal nutcase...

    Then show me how McCain isn't a liar...
  • kiley481, on 10/03/2008, -0/+7And because mommy and daddy were Republicans, you are too? Give *me* a ***** break.

    I'm pretty sure the idea is to read the arguments and draw your own conclusions.
  • nightday8, on 10/03/2008, -1/+7Very good read, opinion backed by facts. Good to see something so well written can still be found amoungst our top 10 lists and short blog posts.
  • 13373h4X0r, on 10/03/2008, -1/+7Perhaps you didn't read the article, which mentions some of Obama's shortcomings, and concludes with a paragraph that starts with the following sentence:

    "We cannot expect one man to heal every wound, to solve every major crisis of policy. [...]"

    Here is the full final paragraph:

    "We cannot expect one man to heal every wound, to solve every major crisis of policy. So much of the Presidency, as they say, is a matter of waking up in the morning and trying to drink from a fire hydrant. In the quiet of the Oval Office, the noise of immediate demands can be deafening. And yet Obama has precisely the temperament to shut out the noise when necessary and concentrate on the essential. The election of Obama—a man of mixed ethnicity, at once comfortable in the world and utterly representative of twenty-first-century America—would, at a stroke, reverse our country’s image abroad and refresh its spirit at home. His ascendance to the Presidency would be a symbolic culmination of the civil- and voting-rights acts of the nineteen-sixties and the century-long struggles for equality that preceded them. It could not help but say something encouraging, even exhilarating, about the country, about its dedication to tolerance and inclusiveness, about its fidelity, after all, to the values it proclaims in its textbooks. At a moment of economic calamity, international perplexity, political failure, and battered morale, America needs both uplift and realism, both change and steadiness. It needs a leader temperamentally, intellectually, and emotionally attuned to the complexities of our troubled globe. That leader’s name is Barack Obama."
  • gabogab, on 10/03/2008, -1/+7Maybe that will never happen because it belongs to Murdoch...

    The article is good and thoughtfully written, no matter who wrote it. If Fox news had pieces with this kind of insight, it would not be the joke it has become.
  • ldkronos, on 10/03/2008, -0/+6Perhaps the date on the article reflects the issue it is scheduled to be published in. Just a guess.
  • Omaplatypus, on 10/03/2008, -2/+8As if I need more persuading to vote for Obama/Biden. The NYer nails it. In a tumultuous time, Barack Obama by far the one man of the the two I would have at the helm, not someone reckless like John McCain. Barack Obama truly is, both figuratively and ideologically, the 21st century American. This is why he should be the 44th.
  • inactive, on 10/03/2008, -1/+6Hold onto your hats!
    In other recent news: Clay Aiken is also gay!
  • castleking, on 10/03/2008, -14/+19Am I the only one who has a problem with a newspaper supporting a candidate. Do these people not even TRY to hide bias anymore?
  • kaashar, on 10/03/2008, -0/+5Anymore? This has been around since the inception of this nation. A few notable ones:

    "In August 1862, during the Civil War, Horace Greeley, the abolitionist editor of The New York Tribune, published an open letter chastising Abraham Lincoln for insufficient zeal on emancipation. ''A great proportion of those who triumphed in your election, and of all who desire the unqualified suppression of the rebellion now desolating our country,'' he wrote, ''are sorely disappointed and deeply pained by the policy you seem to be pursuing. . . .''

    "During the 1936 presidential campaign, the Chicago Tribune wholeheartedly endorsed the candidacy of the Republican Alf Landon. The paper was so vehemently anti-F.D.R. that 10 days before the election, switchboard operators at the newspaper answered the phone by saying "Hello. Chicago Tribune. Only 10 days left to save the American way of life."

    "In 1984, The Miami Herald's editorial board voted 9 to 2 to endorse Walter Mondale. But one of the two was the publisher, Richard Capen Jr., who insisted on Ronald Reagan. The Herald printed what its current editorial page editor, Tom Fiedler, called a mixed-message page. ''You had the endorsement and a column right next to it saying, Don't pay any attention to that, the editorial board really wanted Walter Mondale.''"
  • inactive, on 10/03/2008, -0/+5Sure, Royish. For whom would you have people vote? Put aside emotion and be pragmatic: tell us all which 'third party' has a *real* chance of unseating the incumbent admin?

    It's a fine ideal I'll grant you. But, on this occasion, it's like throwing away your vote when the rest of us need your voice so much.
  • laserdog, on 10/03/2008, -0/+5If you want 3rd parties, it is far easier to support instant run off voting, like all the other major democracies in the world do.

    With that in place the 3rd party candidates would be instantaneous far more viable, since people could vote for them without wasting a vote.

    Support it or read more about it here http://www.instantrunoff.com/
  • hockeyplayer66, on 10/03/2008, -0/+5He has business in Washington because he was voted in by the citizens in his congressional district.
    Its called democracy.
    Those are the facts.
  • brettruffenach, on 10/03/2008, -5/+10Really? The New Yorker? No *****.
  • macsox, on 10/03/2008, -0/+4This is only their second Presidential endorsement ever.
  • malex, on 10/03/2008, -1/+5But did you read the article?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 173 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.