求获09年普利策评论作品奖的文章全文（英文也可）

求获09年普利策评论作品奖的文章全文（英文也可）
求获09年普利策评论作品奖的文章全文（英文也可）

求获09年普利策评论作品奖的文章全文（英文也可）
评论类别奖——《华盛顿邮报》专栏作家Eugene Robinson
Criticism: Holland Cotter of The New York Times for art reviews.
Editorial Writing: Mark Mahoney of The Post-Star, Glens Falls, N.Y., for editorials on local government secrecy.
Editorial Cartooning: Steve Breen of The San Diego Union-Tribune for a style that engages readers.
The 2009 Pulitzer Prize Winners
Commentary
For distinguished commentary, in print or online or both, Ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
Awarded to Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post for his eloquent columns on the 2008 presidential campaign that focus on the election of the first African-American president, showcasing graceful writing and grasp of the larger historic picture.
Finalists
Also nominated as finalists in this category were: Regina Brett of The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, for her range of compelling columns that move the heart, challenge authority and often trigger action while giving readers deeper insight into life’s challenges; and Paul Krugman of The New York Times for his prophetic columns on economic peril during a year of financial calamity, blending the scholarly knowledge of a distinguished economist with the skill of a wordsmith.
works：

In order of appearance in the original entry
January 6, 2008 No Longer Unimaginable January 22, 2008 What's Gotten Into Bill? January 29, 2008 Cards From a Worn-Out Deck February 22, 2008 If Obama Went 0-for-10... February 26, 2008 Geraldo's (Black) Discovery April 4, 2008 Two Black Americas June 6, 2008 What He Overcame July 4, 2008 A Special Brand of Patriotism October 24, 2008 Last Chapter of a Storybook Campaign November 6, 2008 Morning in America
Eugene Robinson
Eugene Robinson is an Associate Editor and twice-weekly columnist for The Washington Post. His column appears on Tuesdays and Fridays.
In a 25-year career at The Post, Robinson has been city hall reporter, city editor, foreign correspondent in Buenos Aires and London, foreign editor, and assistant managing editor in charge of the paper’s award-winning Style section. In 2005, he started writing a column for the Op-Ed page. He is the author of "Coal to Cream: A Black Man’s Journey Beyond Color to an Affirmation of Race" (1999) and "Last Dance in Havana" (2004).
Robinson is a member of the National Association of Black Journalists and has received numerous journalism awards.

Rosemary Goudreau, former editorial page editor, Tampa Tribune, president, ProCitizen Media (chair)
Nancy Barnes, editor and senior vice president, Star Tribune, Minneapolis, MN
Meg Downey, managing editor, The Tennessean, Nashville
Rick Doyle, editor, Walla Walla (WA) Union Bulletin
Karen Brown Dunlap, president, The Poynter Institute, St. Petersburg, FL
David Ledford, executive editor and vice president of news, The News Journal, New Castle, DE
Matthew Winkler, editor-in-chief, Bloomberg News, New York, NY
1
2009 — Commentary
No Longer Unimaginable
By: Eugene Robinson
January 6, 2008; Page B07
index | next
It was one of those moments that give you goose bumps -- the cheering crowd, the waving placards, the candidate and his family looking Kennedyesque on the occasion of a stunning victory. Barack Obama took the stage Thursday night in Des Moines and proclaimed his vindication of hope: "They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high."
Yet there he was, the son of a Kenyan father and a Kansan mother, a man with brown skin, kinky hair and utter command of what he called a "defining moment in history."
Those of us who have struggled to get our minds around the notion that a man who looks like Barack Obama could be the next president of the United States can no longer take easy refuge in the disappointments of history. Obama may not be elected president; he may not even get the Democratic nomination. But at this point, it's impossible to deny that what we are witnessing is something new.
The Iowa caucuses showed us the America we like to believe we live in, a country ready to embrace a man with brown skin as its leader. Is this really a land of such racial harmony and understanding? No, it's not. "We are one nation, we are one people, and our time for change has come," Obama said in his soaring victory speech. But sometimes we see things so differently that it's a wonder we agree on the blueness of the sky.
I spent Thursday evening doing television commentary on the caucus results. During a break, one of my fellow pundits -- Air America radio host Rachel Maddow, who happens to be white -- mused that white Iowans who harbored racist views might be unwilling to put them on display in the caucuses, where participants have to take a public stand. Voters in a secret-ballot primary would have no reason to be so inhibited, she speculated.
But earlier in the day, in an Internet discussion group that I host, a woman identifying herself as African American had written about her concern that the public nature of the Iowa process would sink Obama's chances. White voters, she feared, might be reluctant to reveal to their neighbors that they supported a black man with a Muslim-sounding name -- even if, the writer implied, they might have been willing to vote for him in a secret ballot.
So no, we're not always on the same page. But so what if the America we saw Thursday night is the America we'd like to imagine rather than the one we inhabit? Isn't an America that at least aspires to transcend racism better than one that doesn't?
On black-oriented radio shows Friday, the airwaves crackled with possibility. On his afternoon drive-time show, popular host Michael Baisden asked listeners if they supported Obama because of his race. Most callers said their support was conditioned on his positions on the issues, which shouldn't be surprising; African American voters have never hesitated to reject black candidates -- Republicans, for example -- whose views they do not share. But it was impossible to miss the pride in the callers' voices.
The change that Obama represents is largely generational, and this fact was evident throughout the Iowa campaign. Obama's army of young volunteers used the tools and skills of the Information Age to master the arcane caucus process. The Obama campaign offered a simple, consistent message. By contrast, Hillary Clinton's constantly shifting wardrobe of slogans and John Edwards's class-conscious rhetoric seemed dated.
You could see the contrast as the candidates spoke Thursday night. Clinton was flanked by her husband, Bill, and former secretary of state Madeleine Albright. Obama was surrounded by young faces. Anyone watching could take away but one message: That was then; this is now.
I've never thought the question of whether this country was "ready" for a black president or a female president made any sense. Breakthroughs always depend on the right person and the right moment, and "firsts" never happen -- by definition -- until they happen. All we can know at this point is that as far as Iowa Democrats are concerned, the time is now and the man is Obama. Voters in New Hampshire, South Carolina and other states may disagree.
Nor do I believe that a society magically reaches a point of colorblindness. Diversity is more of a journey than a destination, and we have to keep moving forward.
We do make progress, though. I don't know whether Obama is right that this is a "defining moment." But yes, I do believe a page has been turned.

2
What's Gotten Into Bill?
By: Eugene Robinson
January 22, 2008; Page A19
previous | index | next
Six months ago, Bill Clinton seemed to be settling comfortably into roles befitting a silver-maned former president: statesman, philanthropist, philosopher-king. Now he has put all that high-mindedness on hold -- maybe it was never such a great fit, after all -- to co-star in his wife Hillary's campaign as a coldblooded political hit man.
No, scratch the "coldblooded" part. At times, in his attempt to cut Barack Obama down to size, Bill Clinton has been red-faced with anger; his rhetoric about voter suppression and a great big "fairy tale" has been way over the top. This doesn't look and sound like mere politics. It seems awfully personal.
Obama's candidacy not only threatens to obliterate the dream of a Clinton Restoration. It also fundamentally calls into question Bill Clinton's legacy by making it seem . . . not really such a big deal.
That, I believe, is the unforgivable insult. The Clintons picked up on this slight well before Obama made it explicit with his observation that Ronald Reagan had "changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not."
Let's take a moment to consider that remark. Whether it was advisable for Obama to play the role of presidential historian in the midst of a no-holds-barred contest for the Democratic nomination, it's hard to argue with what he said. I think Bill Clinton was a good president, at times very good. And I wouldn't have voted for Reagan if you'd held a gun to my head. But even I have to recognize that Reagan -- like Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Mikhail Gorbachev in the Soviet Union -- was a transformational figure, for better or worse.
Bill Clinton's brilliance was in the way he surveyed the post-Reagan landscape and figured out how to redefine and reposition the Democratic Party so that it became viable again. All the Democratic candidates who are running this year, including Obama, owe him their gratitude.
But Obama has set his sights higher, and implicit in his campaign is a promise, or a threat, to eclipse Clinton's accomplishments. Obama doesn't just want to piece together a 50-plus-1 coalition; he wants to forge a new post-partisan consensus that includes "Obama Republicans" -- the equivalent of the Gipper's "Reagan Democrats." You can call that overly ambitious or even naive, but you can't call it timid. Or deferential.
Both Clintons have trouble hiding their annoyance at Obama's impertinence. Bill, especially, gives the impression that Obama has gotten under his skin. His frequent allegations of media bias in Obama's favor recall the everybody-against-us feeling of the impeachment drama, when the meaning of the word "is" had to be carefully parsed and the Clinton White House was under siege.
Obama hit back in an interview that aired Monday on "Good Morning America," saying the former president "has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling" and promising to "directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate."
For Obama, it's clearly an added burden to have to fight two Clintons instead of one. But at the same time, there may be benefits in having Bill Clinton take such a high-profile role in his wife's campaign that the missteps and disappointments of the Clinton years are inevitably recalled along with the successes. Whatever the net impact, there appears to be no plan for Bill Clinton to tone it down -- not with the nomination still in doubt. The Clintons don't much like losing.
So forget about the Bill Clinton we've known for the past eight years -- the one who finds friendship and common ground with fellow former president George H.W. Bush (a Republican, last I heard), who dedicates most of his time and energy to the William J. Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative, who speaks eloquently about global citizenship, environmental stewardship and economic empowerment. Forget about the statesman who uses appropriately measured language when talking about transient political events, focusing instead on the broad sweep of human history. Forget about the apostle of brotherhood and understanding whose most recent book is titled, simply, "Giving." That Bill Clinton has left the building.
There's a battle to be fought against an upstart challenger who has the audacity to suggest that maybe the Clinton presidency, successful as it was in many ways, didn't change the world -- and that he, given the office, could do better. Some things, I guess, just can't be allowed. Bill Clinton obviously has decided that history can wait.

3
Cards From a Worn-Out Deck
By: Eugene Robinson
January 29, 2008; Page A19
previous | index | next
Playing the race card against Barack Obama didn't work out quite the way Bill Clinton had hoped. Neither did a reported last-minute personal appeal to keep Ted Kennedy, venerable guardian of the Camelot flame, from joining the Obama crusade. The question now is whether the Clintons understand how the country they seek to lead -- and, regrettably, I do mean "they" -- has changed.
I wonder how all the Clintonistas who protested that Bill and Hillary would never, ever dream of stooping to racial politics must be feeling now, after Bill was videotaped in the act. On Saturday, as Democrats in South Carolina went to the polls, a reporter asked Bill about Obama's boast that it took two Clintons to try to beat him. Bill replied: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."
Now, the question had nothing to do with Jesse Jackson. So why do you suppose such an expert on American politics as Bill Clinton, with no prompting, would bring up contests that took place decades ago -- back when South Carolina picked its convention delegates in caucuses, not primaries? John Edwards's victory four years ago, in a primary, would have been much more relevant; he ran a good campaign, too.
The only possible reason for invoking Jackson's name was to telegraph the following message: Barack Obama is black, so if a lot of black people decide to vote for him -- doubtless out of racial solidarity -- it doesn't really mean squat.
And the reasons to send that message would be to devalue an Obama victory in South Carolina; to inoculate the Clinton campaign against potential losses next Tuesday in Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee -- Southern states with large African American populations; and, most important, to pigeonhole Obama as "a black candidate" as opposed to a candidate who, among other characteristics, is black.
That would help Hillary Clinton in other states, because the more prominent race becomes in this campaign, the more likely it is that she will win the nomination. They don't call us a "minority" for nothing.
But a funny thing happened in South Carolina. Clinton didn't lose by 10 or 12 points, as most polls had predicted; it was a 28-point blowout, with Obama more than doubling her vote. Yes, he took 78 percent of the black vote, according to exit polling, and she beat him among white voters, 36 percent to 24 percent. But if you look more closely, Clinton and Obama were practically tied among white men, 28 percent to 27 percent. Clinton's advantage among whites came from women.
If Obama wanted to take a page from the "identity politics" playbook of the 1990s, he could try to hang the "female candidate" label around Clinton's neck.
He won't, though, because the Obama campaign is well aware that identity politics is a fatal trap. In his victory speech Saturday night, Obama went back to his focus on tearing down barriers rather than reinforcing them. On his way to the rhetorical mountaintop, however, he paused to note that the "status quo is fighting back with everything it's got; with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face."
Oh, and he threw in a line about people who would "say anything and do anything to win an election." No, he didn't mention the Clintons by name.
It pains me to refer to the Clintons in the plural, since Hillary's campaign is indeed a milestone. But after South Carolina, it's hard to claim that this candidacy is entirely about her. At the very least, it's about them-- and if you listen to Bill's speeches, you get the distinct impression that he thinks it's all about him. Does anyone believe his sense of entitlement will somehow dissipate if the Clintons move back into the White House?
The Clintons are a remarkably successful political partnership, and Hillary Clinton still has to be considered the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. Yet they can't have anticipated that Kennedy would defect, or that other Democratic Party grandees would complain so loudly about their tactics -- or that Nobel laureate Toni Morrison, who called Bill the "first black president," would endorse Obama.
The Clintons are running the kind of campaign they know how to run. But there are signs that the country has changed -- that it's less concerned about identity than character, more interested in commonality than difference, hungrier for inspiration than triangulation.
If, as Obama said Saturday night, "this election is about the past versus the future," the Clintons are in for more rude surprises.

5
If Obama Went 0-for-10...
By: Eugene Robinson
February 22, 2008; Page A23
previous | index | next
Humor me while we conduct a little thought experiment. Imagine that Barack Obama had lost 10 contests in a row. Imagine that he now trailed Hillary Clinton substantially in the number of Democratic primaries and caucuses won, in total votes cast, in pledged convention delegates, in the overall delegate count, in fundraising and in the ineffable attribute called mojo. Imagine that Obama was struggling, at this late hour, to come up with the right message. What would the conventional wisdom say?
That it was over, of course. That Obama was toast. That staking everything on the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas was a starry-eyed hope, not a plan, and that it was time to smell the coffee.
Whenever Obama faced reporters, he'd have to answer tough questions. Why was he carrying on, knowing that he'd have to win by unrealistically large margins in all the remaining states to catch up? Didn't it worry him that relying on the superdelegates -- the Democratic establishment, basically -- to hand him the nomination could divide and weaken the party? Wasn't he concerned that Republican John McCain has such a head start in unifying his party and plotting his general election campaign?
The above, you will have noticed, is an accurate description of where Clinton stands right now. Yet nobody is forcing her to respond publicly to those painful questions. The reason is obvious: She's Hillary Clinton, and history suggests it's foolish to count out a Clinton until the last dog dies.
But history can be a deceptive guide -- and the Clinton campaign's failure to recognize that fact may be what finally dooms her candidacy.
From Obama's solid victory in the Iowa caucuses through his blowout victories in Wisconsin and Hawaii, the Clinton campaign has never acted as if its brain trust seriously entertained the notion that she could actually lose. The Clintons and their advisers knew, better than any other Democrats, how to win the presidency: Just consult the history books.
"Listen, Hillary is going to be the nominee," campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe told reporters the day after Iowa, as if the result there were just a clerical error.
By the time the campaign realized that Obama was more than a nuisance, he had become a nemesis. When Obama began mesmerizing voters with his simple but powerful message -- change, hope, empowerment -- Clinton's pollster-guru, Mark Penn, responded with slogan after slogan that sought to marry the words "change" or "hope" with Clinton's basic theme of "experience." Slogans had always worked in the past; surely they would work again.
没写下

Pulitz