虽然在台湾知名度似乎比不上纽约时报,落杉机时报毕竟是全美第三大报,而 且位於初选大票仓加州,其背书也因此有不小的份量.落杉机时报在1972年支持 共和党的Nixon,不过在水门案後他们对这项背书相当後悔.之後有一段时间 他们为了切断和共和党的联结,选择不在选举为候选人背书,不过今年他们打破 沉默.在民主党方面,他们强力支持Obama,共和党方面,则支持McCain(自由派媒 体对支持Clinton或Obama各有看法,不过偏好McCain而非其他共和党参选人这 个立场倒是颇为一致),虽然McCain在不少议题上跟落杉机时报的编辑群不合. 个人在看过前几天民主党在加州的辩论後对Clinton的印象倒是越来越好,想 来世界最强的国家由这样聪明又了不起的女性来领导是一件挺伟大的事. 我个人感觉上是Clinton赢了Healthcare跟Immagration上的辩论, 不过Clinton曾经投票授权Bush侵伊还是为她带来了伤害,也成了洛杉矶时 报批评她在关键时刻判断力不足的理由.同时该报也认为Clinton背负着 Bill Clinton政权的旧包袱,相较之下有多元文化背景的Obama较有潜 力开创新格局. Los Angels Times Editorial Barack Obama for Democratic nominee February 3, 2008 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-dem3feb02,0,3530861.story Democrats preparing to vote in Tuesday's California primary can mark their ballots with confidence, kowing that either candidate would make a strong nominee and, 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 stirring 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 it cavalier disregard for sacred American values such as individual liberty and due process of law. With two candidates so closely aligned on the issue, 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 consequeces of occupation, and he said so. He was right. Obama demonstrates as well that he is open-eyed about the terrorist threat that 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 orthdoxies 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 prevous 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. 本文愿意开放自由转载 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 122.127.67.52 ※ 编辑: swallow73 来自: 122.127.67.52 (02/04 01:19) ※ 编辑: swallow73 来自: 122.127.67.52 (02/04 01:22)