Been puttering around the internet today trying to think of things to write, and mainly what I see are endorsements for Barack Obama, some explicit, some implicit. Andrew Sullivan, of course, has been beating the Obama drum for some time. Matt Yglesias's vote for the guy won't come as a surprise. James Fallows is
clearly leaning towards Obama, and Chris Hayes left no doubt
where his loyalties lie. Single-payer health care supporter SteveB
comes out strongly for Obama movement, though he's clear-eyed about the candidate's shortcomings. Katha Pollitt
makes the argument for Obama, and Spencer Ackerman
builds a very powerful case against Hillary Clinton on national security grounds, and offers this final, damning, conclusion:
McCain, a war hero, has national-security bona fides that few candidates possess. He will be able to inhabit the space Clinton has carved out for herself over the past two years: sober critic and skeptic of Bush. However, he’ll also be able to pounce on her inconsistency and vacillation, if Thursday’s debate is any indication, in a replay of the "flip-flopper" charge that doomed Kerry four years ago. Unlike Obama, Clinton will have no way of pivoting to a broader indictment of the militarism that McCain cheerfully espouses. It may be that, nearly six years after Clinton thought she had positioned herself to avoid all the pitfalls of the war, her calculation itself was what ultimately sealed the fate of her candidacy.
Some of those endorsements were expected. Some were not. But I really didn't foresee this unanimity. A couple months ago, Hillary Clinton had far more traction among this group, and Obama hadn't come anywhere near assuaging concerns abut his candidacy. I think three things turned the tide decisively against Clinton:
