Submitted by David, Sep 7, 2008 16:54

He said "restore our moral standing." This is a reference to our moral standing prior to GW's Presidency, before torture and Abu Ghraib entered the common lexicon. He said nothing about the "high ground." Whether we have that or not isn't at issue; what's important is what we are relative to what we were. References to a 'high ground' are a straw man. It's moral standing is stronger now than it has ever been. Like most statements in this editorial, this one is based on nothing whatsoever. There's nothing wrong with pointing out ways America can be better. It's part of the American way. The argument in the first half of the editorial is, "By saying America can be better, he's implicitly attacking America." Then you've got this line, which says "There's nothing wrong with saying American can be better." Which is it? If you're going to construe an acknowledgment of failings as an attack, you may as well pretend the failings don't exist. We've got serious, legitimate problems, and no amount of cheerleading and sticking one's head in the sand will make them disappear. The heartland is suffering; if your allegiance is to a candidate who can't see that, I fear for the next four years.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.