The Economist Hearts Obama
Everybody's favorite dry-witted financial mag waited until the week before the election, but The Economist's Presidential endorsement is online today, and it's an unequivocal backing of Barack Obama:
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.
The editors are not without their concerns, namely that "[g]iven 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." Especially given the alternative: The Economist has always been a John McCain fan, but as they've stated time and time again in this campaign, they miss the "real McCain"; y'know, that guy that ran for President eight years ago. The full piece is well worth a read (so says a friend, "I agree with everything in that article."). Plus, thanks to the endorsement, we learned a new word: cack-handed.
Coupled with endorsements by fellow conservative rag, the Financial Times, Stephen Colbert, and at least twenty-six erstwhile Bush-backing papers--including the Chicago Tribune, which has never before endorsed a Democratic candidate for President--Obama's pretty much got the support of the entire media, liberal and conservative. Okay, not the crazies at FOX news, but they don't count.
