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.