Ten days prior to election day, or more significantly, after nearly four years of Obama’s governance, the New Youk Times looks at his record and has this to say.
President Obama has shown a firm commitment to using government to help foster growth. He has formed sensible budget policies that are not dedicated to protecting the powerful, and has worked to save the social safety net to protect the powerless. Mr. Obama has impressive achievements despite the implacable wall of refusal erected by Congressional Republicans so intent on stopping him
In the Online edition a photograph of Abraham Lincoln appears beside that comment. Subtle, isn’t it. Those “sensible budget policies” were so outrageous that not one single Democrat voted for the his Budget Proposals.
In the poisonous atmosphere of this campaign, it may be easy to overlook Mr. Obama’s many important achievements, including carrying out the economic stimulus, saving the auto industry, improving fuel efficiency standards, and making two very fine Supreme Court appointments.
Sadly the day is past when the New York Times editors had a little class and knew enough to call their own candidate President and not Mr.
Mr. Obama prevented another Great Depression. Mr. Obama championed [programs] like the $840 billion stimulus bill. Republicans say it failed, but it created and preserved 2.5 million jobs and prevented unemployment from reaching 12 percent. Poverty would have been much worse without the billions spent on Medicaid, food stamps and jobless benefits.
Obama “prevented unemployment from reaching 12 percent.” Isn’t that just dandy. Give him another four years and he may do twice as well; he may prevent unemployment from reaching 24 percent.
Foreign Affairs. Mr. Obama and his administration have been resolute in attacking Al Qaeda’s leadership.
Mr. Obama deserves credit for his handling of the Arab Spring.
These statements are understandable if the only news the editors read is what’s printed in their own newspaper.
Civil Rights. The extraordinary fact of Mr. Obama’s 2008 election did not usher in a new post-racial era. In fact, the steady undercurrent of racism in national politics is truly disturbing.
Yes, it’s very disturbing. And as the Times implies, it has worsened over the last four years, yet this is somehow Bush’s fault. The editors must have struggled over this one to no avail if the best excuse they could come up with was to blame Bush again.
For these and many other reasons, we enthusiastically endorse President Barack Obama for a second term, and express the hope that his victory will be accompanied by a new Congress willing to work for policies that Americans need (emphasis ours).
The endorsement of the Democrat was fully expected. The Times endorsed Lincoln and he was probably the only Republican endorsement the paper ever made. Their star correspondent Walter Duranty did give a hearty endorsement of Joseph Stalin but I don’t think Stalin was a Republican and Duranty wasn’t an editor.
RANDOM THOTS 
Pogue, you’re not fooling annoye. You thought that the picture was done in a mocking manner to make fun of Obama and his euphoric fans. That’s why you wrote:So we’ve gone beyond using to humiliate , to using fantasy artwork worthy of romance novels. Nice touch .You were also the kid in class that used other people’s artwork to express yourself.Instead, the picture was created by and displayed along with a newspaper editorial endorsing Obama’s candidacy. This (and ) is what his fans think of him, not me.a0 Holding up someone else’s expressions as self-evidently deserving of ridicule and mockery is quite a common technique of debate.a0 Especially on the internet.a0 In case you’re having trouble following, I’m expressly referring to the type of Obama supporters who find that picture to be s serious expression of his change and hope message.For whatever reason you’re just twisting your panties in a knot trying to take my post as something that it is most obviously isn’t.a0 Feel free but don’t blame me for you’re inability to follow a simple train of thought.