Endorsing Obama

As I write this the Obama-Biden ticket has been endorsed by 231 newspapers across the country, the McCain-Palin ticket by only 102 (see here for latest tally). The final Kerry-Bush score was 213 - 205. Most of us don't really care that much about the newspaper endorsement bragging rights and I doubt it makes much difference to voters, either. No one expects the Wall Street Journal to endorse Obama (although the Financial Times did). After all, the WSJ knows that Republicans are much more reliably corporation friendly than Democrats. Along the same lines, I am extremely pleased to announce that the publisher of this blog and all the blogs under the scienceblogs.com umbrella as well as the classy newstand publication, Seed Magazine, yesterday endorsed Barack Obama.

Here's what we take as the crux of the endorsement. The full text can be found here:

Far more important is this: Science is a way of governing, not just something to be governed. Science offers a methodology and philosophy rooted in evidence, kept in check by persistent inquiry, and bounded by the constraints of a self-critical and rigorous method.

[snip]

Sen. Obama's embrace of transparency and evidence-based decision-making, his intelligence and curiosity echo this new way of looking at the world. And that is what we should be weighing in the voting booth. For his positions and, even more, for his way of coming to them, we endorse Barack Obama for President of the United States. (Barack Obama for President)

If you read the entire statement you will see that this is only a fraction of it. What didn't we include? We have left out any references to the United States, America's "soft power," the importance of science in the nation's competitive advantage, the importance of funding research in this country, and a few other things. It is not that we disagree with those things, at least as points pertinent to the difference between the Obama-Biden ticket compared to the McCain-Palin one. It is that we think science transcends national borders. The Editors at Seed clearly recognize this, signaled by the phrase: "Far more important is this: . . . " I agree, so I just quoted "the important stuff."

There are five more days until the most important election in my lifetime. My first was 1964 (18 year olds couldn't vote in 1960), but I think this one is even more important (and I hope will turn out better). Sixty-one Nobelists have endorsed Obama and I am guessing the majority of scientists will vote for his ticket.

And so will I.

More like this

Well, last week I finally did it.  I put up an Obama sign in the yard.  Not that anyone sees my yard. But now that the Editors of Seed magazine have come out with an endorsement, I may as well join the crowd and openly announce my anonymous support, here on the Internet. I don't like his plan for…
It's Nobel Prize time, and once again I didn't get the call. In fairness to the Nobel Committee, I didn't deserve it either, but since Henry Kissinger got a Nobel Prize he didn't deserve, I don't know why this should have been a barrier. I could use the money and the fame wouldn't hurt. Anyway,…
Wow: Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School, has long been one of the most important conservative thinkers in the United States. Under President Reagan, he served, with great distinction, as Solicitor General of the United States. Since then, he has been prominently associated with…
From the University of Pennsylvania's FactCheck.org, (listen to the ad and read the full analysis): An Obama-Biden radio ad hammers McCain for being opposed to stem cell research. Not true. Meanwhile two spots from the McCain-Palin campaign, together with the Republican National Committee, describe…

You can add the Economist to that list.

I wish that life was as uncomplicated as to base it all on evidence and scientific knowledge. It's not. Life is a multitude of causes and effects that have some sort of order and no order at all. Entropy goes forwards and backwards and just doesn't make sense. The whole damn thing is a mystery. That being said, one politician's appreciation of science over another does not the perfect candidate make.

On the other hand, on purely scientific matters Obama is my guy. This is mostly because his age and his background allow for his openness to science and discovery. McCain is too old and set in his ways. He was around to remember the big screw ups in science and to realize what I stated in the opening of this comment. Science does not have all the answers. If it did, it wouldn't be science.

Sometimes you have to go with your gut. And my gut tells me...

And Nature as well.

For the sake of future generations in America, I hope and pray that Obama is the winner-preferably by a landslide.

America is at a critical crossroads; our choice Tuesday picks the path to our future. The choices couldn't possibly be more divergent.

K: He also said "that doesn't mean I'm voting for him."

K: He also said "that doesn't mean I'm voting for him."

Posted by: Lea | October 31, 2008 11:41 AM [kill][hide comment]

Don't tell me you're one of those people who doesn't understand that Colbert is a comedian?

Of course Colbert is a comedian. He is a left leaning comedian who plays the role of a far right comedian to mock out the likes of Bill O'Reilly. It is often subtle and all the more fun for that reason. I posted my post to bring a bit of his delightful comedy to Revere readers. I have absolutely no doubt he is in fact an Obama supporter.