My first reaction to this was: well of course the Trib endorsed Obama, he's from Illinois. But then I remembered: so is Hillary Clinton (Park Ridge).
The article is fair, citing Obama's link to Tony Rezko, but also believing that gaff is not a deal breaker. The article also serves as a pithy summary of the two leading Democratic candidates, articulating much of what I have been trying to say about both Clinton and Obama.
Obama inspires people. He can draw from the middle and the right, and seeks to do so. He speaks what is not necessarily politically expedient. He works to form consensus. In an age of skepticism, people tend to disbelieve his charisma. It is as if we have battered wife syndrome, returning to the old political game we know too well. This game is embodied by Clinton who is a lightning rod unifying opponents, working from savvy political acumen to defeat those who oppose her rather than rise victorious for a nation. And her new reliance on her husband is simply uninspiring.
The article also admits that on the issues Clinton and Obama are very similar and so it's less about which one you agree with more, and more about which one can get the country behind their bid for the presidency (and, consequentially, which one will be able to get anything done in the White House).
The candidates' differences on issues are minor and largely irrelevant: Presidents don't dictate laws, they tussle over legislation with Congress. Much of the "experience" Hillary Clinton touts in that realm instead was proximity to power. Bill's power.
To the contrary, the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish Barack Obama. We endorse him convinced that he could lead America in directions that the other Democrats could not.Source: chicagotribune.com via Alarmed