Our readers' view on our pick for president

• We invited readers to call or e-mail us with their feelings about our endorsement for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for president over Republican Sen. John McCain. This is a sampling of the edited responses.

I could understand your endorsement if you felt that Barack Obama was a slightly stronger of two weak candidates. At least that would give me some sense that there is some substance behind your logic. However, in your paper's explanation you say that you strongly endorse him and your explanation is that he has the talent to inspire and the talent of partnership rather than polarization. I find it easy to challenge you on both of these, but my feelings are stronger in a different direction. That's what I'm going to talk about. First, I'm not enthusiastic about either candidate. I am looking for a candidate that will talk about less government not more government; less government spending not more government spending. Anybody that believes that government is the way has not studied most critical history. It is clear to me that government involvement and interference is a prime reason why we have such strong financial problems in the country today. Obama's history of spending and of government is more government programs and more spending. His current proposals are for more government and more government spending. I want to see our government go in a different direction.

John McCain, on the other hand, also has been in politics for a very long time and says he has a history of moving toward smaller government and less spending. While I take issue with that, he has been a member of the Senate for quite a long time. He is part of the problem also; however, he at least has in some cases shown that he would like to see smaller government and less spending.

As for the war in Iraq, whether you agree or do not agree with the country being at war in Iraq, we are there. The greater harm will be done to the United States, the Middle East and the world if we withdraw with less than full victory. Clearly, Senator Obama does not feel this way. Finally, I am absolutely disgusted with Americans voting for the most attractive suit. Senator Obama is untried. Really, he not much more than a party hack from Chicago politics. When compared to an experienced sitting senator who is a honorable war hero and has had his share of adversity, there is no choice in my mind.

Andy Balafas, Elgin

This is a unique public servant indeed. The issues he speaks of and promises change of such as the failed policies of Washington, when he speaks, I can see that he means what he says. His eyes engage people. He speaks to them, not at them. With six years in Springfield and four in Washington, it is hard to believe that anyone is not somewhat corrupted, but his body language and tone of voice indicates different. And who ever in recent memory wanted their would-be constituents involved in their work? This is an election like no other. One in which a dual effort will be required no matter the outcome. Our public officials must be held accountable and kept informed. It is a partnership. Like it or not. You got it right in my book on Obama and Palin.

Allison M. Kramer, Carpentersville

I disagree with your decision to support Obama. You're going down party lines with all the Illinoisians. He's an empty suit with no experience and that's my feeling on that.

Robert Simon, Huntley

I totally disagree with your endorsement. Yes, you did miss some key issues and your issue did not really make any really good points. Again, I totally disagree with your endorsement of Barack Obama.

Cathy Bradley, West Dundee

I have been a faithful Daily Herald reader for many years. In fact, in 1994 you named me DuPage Business Person of the Year. So we have a long relationship. I really like your editorial page because you take great pains to present both sides by having an equal share of liberal and conservative columnists. However, I completely disagree with your endorsement of Obama. Let me tell you why.

First of all his stance on Iraq. When he voiced his disagreement with the decision to go to Iraq, he was in the Illinois congress. His position was without impact. He was unaware of any of the intelligence and any of the overall issues that were confronted by the U.S. Congress. That is an easy position to take when there is no consequence of your opinion. At the time, do you think that anybody cared what his opinion was?

Regarding his eloquence and talent to inspire the masses, here you have it right. However, in my long business career I learned that it is not what someone says its what someone does. He has no history of bipartisanship. He did not join the bipartisan Senate group that worked to move the stalled Senate on major legislative issues. His deeds do not match his rhetoric. I can see how the press can be impressed by rhetoric since that is your life. But the presidency doesn't have the luxury of just rhetoric. It requires action which has never been evidenced in Obama's background. He has been a community organizer, a lawyer and a professor. How does that qualify you to be an executive?

The war on terror is a good case in point. If Obama had been in power, we would be out of Iraq now. Do you really think that would have been a good idea? If Obama would have been in power, Biden would have pushed for a partition of Iraq between the Sunnis, the Shias and the Kurds. Do you think that would have been a good idea? Here is where action is important. He certainly would not have supported the surge. Now we seem to have a chance to have the beginning of a democracy in the Middle East. That is huge. The Middle East is the center point of the war on terror. If democracy breaks out in the Middle East over the next ten years, Bush will be remembered as one of our greatest presidents.

And the comment "spread the wealth" has been largely ignored by the press. I'm not in favor of more socialism in this country.

On the financial front, I just have one comment. Recently McCain reiterated that we would not increase the capital gains tax since that will discourage investment. Obama countered by saying that is no longer a big issue since there will not be any capital gains. I think he totally misses the point or doesn't get it. The need to keep the capital gains tax low is to encourage future investment.

Paul M. Ingevaldson, St. Charles

Your newspaper made a wise choice in backing Barack Obama. He speaks of a union of states that is not divided just as Abraham Lincoln did. In addition he is intelligent and understands the grave issues and problems facing us... He has kept his honor and his dignity when the other side was throwing some very low punches... he will be respected in the world by other leaders... he is who we need now.

Nancy Kuchvalek, West Dundee

Your choice for president, Obama, is disgraceful. He is the most partisan politician that has ever run for president. He is a liberal through and through. He surrounds himself with people who are evil, like Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright. His economic advisers on the campaign caused or helped cause the mortgage crisis, which has led to our current economics disaster. He is an out-and-out socialist and probably a Marxist. Your endorsement is a disgrace and the reason stated for the endorsement is garbage. God help us if Obama is elected.

Terry Gavin, Elgin

I can understand why your paper would be bias. Like every paper in the state of Illinois, your paper as well as others are afraid of political fallout. If Senator Obama is elected and your paper doesn't endorse one of Illinois' own political sons, the repercussions could be tremendous.

Things in your recent column show the liberal bias that has been in your paper since this election began. You opinion on an unnecessary war in Iraq is just that, an opinion. The war, in my opinion, was necessary. Forget about the weapons of mass destruction, the tyrant Saddam Hussein killed thousands of his own people, and Iraq was home to many terrorist training camps. After 9/11, I can remember President Bush saying he would hunt down the terrorist responsible and any nation that would harbor these terrorists will suffer the consequences. I think people forget that Osama bin Laden could have been eliminated long ago when President Clinton was in office, but that's another story.

The national debt and financial breakdown of this country, in my opinion, didn't occur only from the Bush administration, but from the last two years of a Democratic majority of big spending. Your opinion that Senator McCain has not addressed the challenges with energy and climate control are false. Senator McCain wants to help lower the cost of high gas prices on consumers, by drilling now. He also insists that he will build nuclear power plants and tap into all other forms of energy including clean coal. Senator Obama will not drill right away, is against nuclear power, and coal usage.

You mentioned the ineptitude, corruption and wrong headedness that have poisoned America's ability to address these challenges are not the work of one man, but they add up to one disastrous presidency. Again, this is your opinion, because Senator McCain has said over and over again, he "is not President Bush" and what has happened to this economy and financial crisis can be aimed at both Democrats and Republicans. With this in mind, Senator McCain will shake things up in Washington.

You also mention Senator McCain's choice of Vice President, Sarah Palin, as a person who is disastrously ignorant of national and international issues, if she were to become President by some unfortunate turn of events. First, Senator Obama is running for President and possesses the same disastrous ignorance of national and international issues. This, in my opinion, is an immediate concern because from day one of his presidency, if elected, he would be ignorant to the national and international issues around him. For Senator Obama to rely on his vice presidential pick to come to his aid is questionable to say the least. Senator Biden has made some questionable statements regarding foreign policies during this campaign.

People should be voting with their minds, instead of what their party lines are. There is one fact that cannot be disputed about this election, and that is taxes should not be raised at this time. It could be disastrous. This has been my opinion.

Gary Meyer, Pingree Grove

I read your endorsement of our junior senator this morning and I cannot agree with your choice. I do however thank you for your invitation to respond.

I feel that in the tough times we face, we should be very careful to differentiate what we want to hear from what we should hear. Certainly since Mr. Obama's campaign, flush with cash, has been able to get his message out. For the most part, this message has not been challenged by the media. In that light, I feel you have missed several points.

First, why do we take Mr. Obama's tax plan at face value? His proposed cut of the rate for personal income taxes has been getting plenty of airplay. However, if one takes the larger view, that Mr. Obama looks to vastly increase the amount of government spending - and with the liberal congress behind him he's likely to get it - means that these monies have to come from somewhere. This means ultimately you the taxpayer. His argument of taxing the super-wealthy does not hold up - there aren't enough of them to make the math work. Our corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world - raising it will only serve to accelerate the outsourcing of jobs - cutting someone's income tax only works if they have an income to tax. He could print money - a likely scenario - which is, in fact, a tax on everyone. Keep in mind that the next president will start a half a trillion dollars in the hole. Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, will be in the throes of a recession - never a good time to take money out of the economy.

Secondly, I do not understand why Mr. Obama's associations both past and present are taken as personal attacks rather than as they should be, as insights to his character. Specifically, I refer to Mr. Rezko, the felon whose crimes mind you are not of the domestic abuse/successive DUI category, they are for political corruption. Therefore, any political figure with an association to Mr. Rezko no matter how scant or oblique, should be examined at least as thoroughly as Sarah Palin's State Trooper incident. Sadly, it gets swept aside as does most of Mr. Obama's negative publicity. On another front, if we also examine our State of Illinois, we find that Democrats hold both U.S. Senate seats, the Governor's office, both houses of the State Legislature, the mayor of the state's largest city, president of the Cook County Board. We pay some of the highest taxes in the nation, businesses are leaving the area as fast as they can load up the trucks, and despite all this, our collective governmental bodies still can't make ends meet. Why do we Illinoisans take such perverse pride in such incompetence and/or corruption? Who are the Democrats going to blame as is their trademark? Since Mr. Obama's political career was spawned from this assortment of characters, why do we think things will be any different?

Speaking of "Change", how exactly does someone with the boarding school/Ivy League attorney/ father-in-law got him into politics crowd - set the model for change? Sure Mr. Obama is a great orator and looks great on TV but I prefer my president to actually produce results - off TV. Call me crazy. What track record of results has Mr. Obama produced? So far, he hasn't confronted his party at all. If he has, I haven't heard about it.

I believe that Mr. McCain is a man of substance - a leader - someone who has been able to put aside his personal comfort for his fellow man. Those are the results I'm talking about. I have seen no such sacrifice from Mr. Obama. Maybe as time goes on we will, but from my perspective and as my senator, all I've seen is a professional campaigner.

Greg Grabacki, Carpentersville

You got it all wrong to endorse Barack Obama. He is the most liberal senator and goes for taxing and spending and spreading the wealth. All his ability, as you put it, "is to inspire great masses of people, to stir the imagination and provide a call to action". All that this means is that Obama has a lot of flowery rhetoric with no substance. As his answer to Joe Wurzelbacher, the Ohio plumber, he would add more taxes to Joe's business, if he (Joe) could buy it and he (Obama) would "spread the wealth" to those behind Joe that didn't have as much as Joe. That my friends is socialism. That is exactly what Mr. Obama is all about. One of the meanings of socialism, "wealth and power are distributed more evenly and socialism represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism".

Mr. Obama wants to take this great country down the road of socialism. That scares me to death and I'm a senior citizen so I won"t be around long enough to see how the next generation, my grandchildren and yours, will get us back to where we are today.

Mr. John McCain isn't perfect but he's been around awhile and has a lot more experience then Obama and will not take us down the road to socialism. He even said,"we don't need more taxes" during these hard economic times. Just imagine what a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress behind Obama will bring to us. It will be open season on taxing, spending, bigger government and "spreading the wealth". He's even heading for socialized health care.

I can't change your endorsement for Barack Obama but I hope that maybe I've given you folks something to think about during these last few days before we go to vote. Mr. Obama has some pretty radical ideas and plans that he calls "change."

God Bless America.

Judy Olsen, Elgin

I believe that you gave a thoughtful analysis of why we should vote for Obama.

The reasons stated were certainly well thought out. You accurately highlighted the problems that the new head of state will face and why Barack Obama is best suited to handle the job.

Thank you for your opinion.

Marilyn Foster, Elgin