Newspaper endorsements are dumb. I don't care to elaborate, but the Enquirer is looking ridiculous with the arbitrary nature of their picks. Do people actually decide on who they'll vote for because their newspaper thinks they should? In case you were confused about my election prediction from the other day, the man I believe will win the Presidency in 2008 is Barack Obama. Despite the odd resemblance of his name to one Osama Bin Laden, I think he's golden.
Tim pointed me to this article written by Charles Krauthammer [which I ironically read a few minutes early] saying the Obama should run but claimed "he will not win. The reason is 9/11. The country will simply not elect a novice in wartime."
I think he's dead wrong. Like Colin Powell, it's his if he wants it. You have to examine the full picture.
There's no way in Hades that the Republicans keep the White House. Bush was gifted a second term when the Dems ran a boring Kerry at him; if they even had a decent candidate, it would've been theirs [likewise, if the GOP had ran anyone but Dole against Clinton in '96, they would've ousted him]. People will be ready to switch the Presidency to the other party, so if Obama can run the primaries, he's golden. Since it looks like Hillary will be his main opponent, things look even better. And Barack's religious background will play well enough among the many in the valued conservative Christians demographic that they'll give him their vote.
These are different times. Image is everything and there's such a deficiency of articulate public speakers that Obama is the logical choice.
So does he want it?