?

Log in

No account? Create an account

earlier burfling | later burfling

I've been reading The Economist for several years now. I like the fact that they actually cover the entire world. I like the fact that they cover all facets of the world - not just general news, politics and business, but also science and the arts. Naturally, they cover finance and economics, with explanations of the more esoteric bits that an intelligent fellow such as myself can follow without a doctorate in the field. And I especially like the fact that the writing is sharp and witty.

There are a couple of things I don't like about them, alas. They have a policy of never identifying the writers, which makes it difficult to track down anything else their correspondents or columnists write. And their politics - or at least the politics of their US correspondents - tends much more to the Republican side. (There are definite exceptions; I remember several years ago when they called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign over Abu Ghraib.)

So who did The Economist just endorse in the US Presidential race?

Barack Obama, that's who.

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.

My, my, my.

Tags: