The Economist's: foolish Endorsement of Barack Obama

If you are looking for great entertainment you need the editorial of the Economist titled "It's Time"

The subtitle is already pretty good:

"America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world."

Hey risk it, it's only going to be 8 years. You didn't like the last eight years, well replace them with something unknown. What a wise outlook on life.

"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."

Sounds very encouraging.

" ...the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was."

Not as much I can tell. Europe has a history of not liking the US - even under Clinton. The terrorists don't seem to be any better of than 8 years ago - we haven't had a terror attack on US soil for 7 years (but I guess this is not an achievement)

Then the writer tells us about McCain's shortcomings:

"Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?)."

It's funny because I see many of these as a plus. Being instinctive is not wrong per se, quick to judge can help in decisions of national security and age can be equaled as experience (if I remember Reagan correctly).

And it goes from there to:

"Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies."

So first I said: What's the beef? Well the experience and the record are obviously not important to the Economist.

"If only the real John McCain had been running"

The Econimist believes that McCain subscribes to Conservatism on social issues, he was right on the Georgia issue, wrong on the Economy and wrong on the Palin pick.

I think without Palin McCain would not where he is right now.

And what about this one:

"Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them."

Another reason to not vote for JohnMcCain, right?

But not the true entertaining part starts: I call it the magic wand of Barack Obama

"Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein;"

Great line. SNL could have not put any better.

"So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left."

So he doesn't have the qualities, but he is still better?

And the climax of the article:

"But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right."

like the old proverb: "He who campaigns the best, will be the best president."

Is this really from on of the leading economy magazines. I just can't believe it.

"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."

To summarize the Economist's outlook on life in the US:

Hey America, risky speculation has cost you Billions of Dollars in the stock market, you just smashed your face a month ago, so let's go out and vote based on our speculation, because risk is what America is all about. Just close your eyes and hope the best!

Bravo Economist. a 5th grader couldn't have said it any better!

The Alien Patriot

Comments :

2 comments to “The Economist's: foolish Endorsement of Barack Obama”
Anonymous said...

At least the fifth grader in this case checked their grammar.

"I think without Palin McCain would not where he is right now."

Would not what? Be so badly off? Be such a failure? You should clarify.

Anonymous said...

Interesting blog as for me. It would be great to read a bit more concerning that topic. Thank you for posting that material.
The only thing this blog miss is such photo or even two :)
Sexy Lady
Female escort