The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Obama endorsed by Chicago Sun Times

JackFTwist

no custom user title
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Posts
3,828
Reaction score
3
Points
38
so the TWO home town newspapers for Hillary Clinton, the two papers that know her best and also know Barack Obama, have both endorsed Barack Obama. Last week, the Chicago Tribune, this week the Chicago Sun Times.

for those who have not noted the Tribune's endorsement:
http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=200257


and here is the Sun Times endorsement

http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/771028,CST-EDT-edit01.article

Why Obama gets our vote
A candidate who is right for America

February 1, 2008

On June 5, 1986, the curiously poetic name of Barack Obama appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times for the first time. Obama, new to us but presenting himself as a "community organizer" on the South Side, was quoted in a news story calling on Mayor Harold Washington to get asbestos out of a public housing project.

Obama was right about that one -- the poisonous asbestos had to go -- and perhaps we should have weighed in at the time with a strong editorial. It is the job of a newspaper -- especially this newspaper -- to stand with the powerless against the powerful.

And so today, as we mark the 60th birthday of our newspaper, it is a special pleasure to give Obama this newspaper's endorsement in Tuesday's Illinois Democratic presidential primary. Because we believe he's right again.

Obama is right on the issues, right in daring us to believe in a goodness greater than ourselves, and right in having the confidence to appeal to all of us as one America.

Obama has the power of a celebrity's charisma and the grounding of a common man's birth.

There's been talk of Camelot in the last few days. Back then, that young president said to us:

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

And once, we had another great leader, who said, "I have a dream."

Americans took them at their word. They joined the Peace Corps. They marched on Selma. They protested a pointless war.

We need a president and a leader like that again.

Remember, in 1960, voters chose John F. Kennedy, whose own vision was sketchy yet promising, whose political track record was largely as a senator. The country still mourns that unrealized dream of Camelot.

Significantly, the Kennedy family can see the promise that is Obama:

"I want a president who . . . appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved," said Caroline Kennedy, JFK's 50-year-old daughter.

Call us shameless idealists, but that sounds right on to us.

Obama has been open with us about his flaws -- his youthful drug use, an appetite for danger, insecurities about his absent father. Yet all that seems to play in his favor, to make him a little more like a regular American.

With Obama, though, we are offered the stirrings of possibility, the nearness of greatness. Talk to young people and hear their voices quake with anticipation -- dare we say hope -- that Obama will deliver on the campaign rhetoric about changing the way Washington works. Yes, he's still relatively new to Washington, but that also means he has not accumulated many political debts. He can step on toes to get things done.

The Harvard-educated, street-trained Obama has largely been accepted on his own merit -- his race, rightly, relegated to near afterthought. His biracial heritage is a bonus for a generation that has grown up in integrated schools and fawning over black celebrities and athletes.

Should we elect a man because of how he makes us feel? Of course not. Obama has substance, too.

Obama was right about the asbestos back in 1986. Much later, on the bigger stage, he was right about the Iraq war. He has a workable plan to get our troops out of Iraq without a disastrous retreat, and he's the only candidate who consistently opposed the war. Unlike, we are embarrassed to say, this newspaper.

Before a shot was fired, Obama told a Chicago audience:

"I don't oppose all wars . . . what I am opposed to is a dumb war."

That's not weakness. That's not Obama being soft -- he has also suggested he'd bomb Pakistan if he thought it would kill America's terrorist enemies.

We like the thinking he has put into extending universal health care to the uninsured by working through existing insurance companies. It's a scheme rooted in the doable, not the ideological.

We like that this man of faith believes in something bigger than himself. He told the Sun-Times that he believes all people -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists -- know the same God.

"I am a Christian," he told us. "I have a deep faith. I believe that there are many paths to the same place."

He speaks powerfully of his faith and manages not to alienate nonbelievers. This man can get both votes.

Quite some trick.

Obama's worldview is shaped by his multicultural upbringing. He was born in Hawaii in 1961 to a white mother from a Protestant family and a black father from Kenya. He grew up in Indonesia. This global heritage can go a long way toward repairing our image abroad, particularly in dealing with Islamic terrorism and national safety.

America would instantly gain credibility on the global stage, and that's huge. Even a right-wing thinker like Andrew Sullivan put it this way:

"It's November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man -- Barack Hussein Obama -- is the new face of America. In one simple image, America's soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm . . . a brown-skinned man whose father was an African . . . who attended a majority-Muslim school, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama's face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can."

But Obama is American through his bone marrow, and only this wonderfully multicultural free land could even produce such a man.

And here's where Obama is at his finest: In the soaring inspiration of his words.

Let cynics say his words are empty. Let them swim in the glowering mean-spiritedness of talk radio and the intellectually shameful spin games that pass for serious political discourse on cable news.

Let President Bush continue to falsely link the Iraq war with al-Qaida -- as he did again Monday in his final State of the Union address.

Let Hillary Clinton insist, as she did in last week's debate, that Obama was praising President Ronald Reagan's conservative policies when she knows perfectly well he was speaking of Reagan's political skills.

We expect little better from Bush these days. We do expect more from Sen. Clinton and her husband, Bill. We know politics is a blood sport for this overachieving couple, and the racial rhetoric and negative campaign tactics they've employed bear this out.

Even those of us who liked the idea of a woman in the White House, even if only because it's time, are now demystified about Clinton. Her attempt to cast Obama as the so-called "black candidate" was crude and evoked racial stereotypes we have all grown tired of. Hillary Clinton's reliance on negative campaigning speaks more of her willingness to stick to the old ways of the Establishment and less of her capacity to foment change.

We make this endorsement with our eyes wide open. Obama has limited experience in big-time government. He has never run a business, never met a payroll. Privately, he can be occasionally snippy (he didn't like being asked about his pedicures), and publicly he can be secretive (he refused to divulge all facts and figures on fund-raisers).

Especially troubling is what we don't know about Obama's relationship with indicted Chicago developer Tony Rezko, currently in jail awaiting trial. This newspaper revealed that story, and we will continue to demand a full accounting.

So, yes, this newspaper is endorsing a man because of how he makes us feel, the hope he evokes within us, the patriotism that he inspires in us and, most important, his ability to unite Americans, no matter their color, gender or social background.

Obama is more than an motivational speaker. He represents to us, more than anything, a break from orthodoxy, a break from the Bush- Clinton legacy that is 20 years in the making. Yes, he is a symbol of truth, possibility and that overused word -- change.
 
Well he is from Chicago, what do you really expect. I very much predict an Obama win in Illinois. I wish it weren't so but that's how we Illini roll
 
Well he is from Chicago, what do you really expect. I very much predict an Obama win in Illinois. I wish it weren't so but that's how we Illini roll

he is now from Chicago

she is from Chicago - Park Ridge - Illinois is her home state and she is a Chicagoan

it is not that often the Sun Times and Tribune agree on an endorsement of this magnitude, it is seldom they agree at all - but they both are adamant in their support of Obama and not Clinton - the endorsements have not even been close calls -

prediction of an Obama win? The Trib reports Sunday that Illinois is more than 2-1 for Obama. The choice of two local candidates - and those who know them, 2-1 Obama. And significant in that Illinois voters have been known to be very kind to barrier-breaking politicians such as Carol Mosely Braun, so this is not a state that is not willing to vote for a woman.
 
and Obama is "strongly endorsed" (their term) by the LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-dem3feb02,0,3530861.story

Barack Obama for Democratic nominee

February 3, 2008

Democrats preparing to vote in Tuesday's California primary can mark their ballots with confidence, knowing that either candidate would make a strong nominee and, if elected, a groundbreaking leader and capable president. But just because the ballot features two strong candidates does not mean that it is difficult to choose between them. We urge voters to make the most of this historic moment by choosing the Democrat most focused on steering the nation toward constructive change: We strongly endorse Barack Obama.

The U.S. senator from Illinois distinguishes himself as an inspiring leader who cuts through typical internecine campaign bickering and appeals to Americans long weary of divisive and destructive politics. He electrifies young voters, not because he is young but because he embodies the desire to move to the next chapter of the American story. He brings with him deep knowledge of foreign relations and of this nation's particular struggles with identity and opportunity. His flair for expression, both in print and on the stump, too easily leads observers to forget that Obama is a man not just of style but of substance. He's a thoughtful student of the Constitution and an experienced lawmaker in his home state and, for the last three years, in the Senate.

On policy, Obama and his rival Democratic candidate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, are a hairsbreadth apart. Both vow to pull troops from Iraq. Both are committed to healthcare reform. Both offer candid critiques of the failed George W. Bush presidency, its blustering adventurism, its alienating stance toward other countries and its cavalier disregard for sacred American values such as individual liberty and due process of law.

With two candidates so closely aligned on the issues, we look to their abilities and potential as leaders, and their record of action in service of their stated ideals. Clinton is an accomplished public servant whose election would provide familiarity and, most important, competence in the White House, when for seven years it has been lacking. But experience has value only if it is accompanied by courage and leads to judgment.

Nowhere was that judgment more needed than in 2003, when Congress was called upon to accept or reject the disastrous Iraq invasion. Clinton faced a test and failed, joining the stampede as Congress voted to authorize war. At last week's debate and in previous such sessions, Clinton blamed Bush for abusing the authority she helped to give him, and she has made much of the fact that Obama was not yet in the Senate and didn't face the same test. But Obama was in public life, saw the danger of the invasion and the consequences of occupation, and he said so. He was right.

Obama demonstrates as well that he is open-eyed about the terrorist threat posed to the nation, and would not shrink from military action where it is warranted. He does not oppose all wars, he has famously stated, but rather "dumb wars." He also has the edge in economic policy, less because of particular planks in his platform than because of his understanding that some liberal orthodoxies developed during the last 40 years have been overtaken by history. He offers leadership on education, technology policy and environmental protection unfettered by the positions of previous administrations.

By contrast, Clinton's return to the White House that she occupied for eight years as first lady would resurrect some of the triumph and argument of that era. Yes, Bill Clinton's presidency was a period of growth and opportunity, and Democrats are justly nostalgic for it. But it also was a time of withering political fire, as the former president's recent comments on the campaign trail reminded the nation. Hillary Clinton's election also would drag into a third decade the post-Reagan political duel between two families, the Bushes and the Clintons. Obama is correct: It is time to turn the page.

An Obama presidency would present, as a distinctly American face, a man of African descent, born in the nation's youngest state, with a childhood spent partly in Asia, among Muslims. No public relations campaign could do more than Obama's mere presence in the White House to defuse anti-American passion around the world, nor could any political experience surpass Obama's life story in preparing a president to understand the American character. His candidacy offers Democrats the best hope of leading America into the future, and gives Californians the opportunity to cast their most exciting and consequential ballot in a generation.

In the language of metaphor, Clinton is an essay, solid and reasoned; Obama is a poem, lyric and filled with possibility. Clinton would be a valuable and competent executive, but Obama matches her in substance and adds something that the nation has been missing far too long -- a sense of aspiration.
 
it is amazing how silent some folks get in the face of reality
 
reminder of what the Sun Times said about our noiminee

Should we elect a man because of how he makes us feel? Of course not. Obama has substance, too.

Obama was right about the asbestos back in 1986. Much later, on the bigger stage, he was right about the Iraq war. He has a workable plan to get our troops out of Iraq without a disastrous retreat, and he's the only candidate who consistently opposed the war. Unlike, we are embarrassed to say, this newspaper.

Before a shot was fired, Obama told a Chicago audience:

"I don't oppose all wars . . . what I am opposed to is a dumb war."

That's not weakness. That's not Obama being soft -- he has also suggested he'd bomb Pakistan if he thought it would kill America's terrorist enemies.

We like the thinking he has put into extending universal health care to the uninsured by working through existing insurance companies. It's a scheme rooted in the doable, not the ideological.
 
SHOCKING! Stop the fucking presses.

What has Obama done? You know, I tend to listen to less of what a politician says. Rather follow how he or she lives their real lives. You can learn A LOT. No wonder Obama stepped down from his long life church of hatred. [-X

I wish there was a good reason to actually vote for the guy other than the fact to say, "He's not McBush."
 
Back
Top