http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtYhy_qqykM

The Los Angeles Times today endorsed Barack Obama!

Writing in part:

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 on foreign relations and on 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.

I’m delighted the audience at the Kodak turned on him and showered him with boos and heckles when he tried to turn the debate into a UFC octagon.

Overall, I think both candidates informed and avoided the bait Blitzer kept tossing their way.

Obama might gain some points as a tremendous number of voters will look back and realize that they have never had an election where there wasn’t a Bush or Clinton on the ballot, especially if you include Bush I as VP.

Clinton’s argument on the war doesn’t hold up because she didn’t protest the war until after it started. If you are arguing that Bush misused the authorization as Kerry did then you would be expected to protest the war before it started, as Kerry also did. Even with a considerable track record of opposing the war before it started Kerry was at a disadvantage on the war issue. Clinton will be even weaker in not having opposed the war until it was the politically safe position.

I thought both candidates did well, but Obama did better overall. Plus, I think for weeks now, I’ve thought he was the weaker debater–but this was a huge step forward compared to past performances.

There were three questionable moments for me, with regard to Hillary Clinton, two of which you address here. First on the immigration question–I’ll have to go back to re-read the transcript, but my first reaction was “I can’t believe she said that.” Glad to see I wasn’t the only one who caught that. To his credit, I think Obama framed it strongly when he called it scapegoating and anything she said, after that, would looked bad.

Second, on the Iraq question, I thought Obama mopped the floor with her. He took a lighter hand in the debate than I hope he does on the road prior to Super Tuesday. I mean, does anyone buy the “no one could have anticipated that…” line? I hope over the next few days Obama takes issue with that forcefully…because 23 members of the Senate, 133 members of the House, Al Gore and, if you believe him, her husband, did anticipate that.

And lastly, the question of a Bush/Clinton being on the ballot every year since 1980…her response ended up being funny and she benefited from a commercial break immediately thereafter, but all in all, I don’t think it addresses a very real concern about the concentration of American political power within these two families. It’s not something you can just brush off, as Clinton did tonight.