The Economist Endorses Obama

It’s summed up quite nicely in these two paragraphs from their editorial:

For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.

…

So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

The Ecomomist’s editorial board has the same opinion of John McCain that I do: “if only the real John McCain had been running”. I liked the John McCain of the 2000 election; the 2008 edition is a sad, desperate, funhouse-mirror version.

Joey deVilla

Next A Dump with a Future (or: My Review of the Cecil Hotel, Los Angeles) »

Previous « Slice of Life from PDC, Part 3: The Simpsons Ride

View Comments

Scott Forbes says:

November 2, 2008 at 4:13 pm

The 2008 version of McCain is what Luke Skywalker would have become if he had answered "yes" when Vader offered to make him co-emperor -- and then the rebels went ahead and defeated the empire without his help.