Thursday, October 30, 2008

The Economist Endorses Obama

This isn't surprising, but nor was it obvious. As like the NYT, the Economist also supplies a link to their past endorsements; unlike the NYT, they choose their preferences on the merits of the candidates and not according to who the Democratic candidate is. This makes them more credible.

Their reasoning is mostly convincing. Actually, it's quite similar to that of Leon Wieseltier, to whom I linked a few days ago. His language is the more poetic and compelling, they're more fair to John McCain. At the end of the day, after acknowledging that Obama is a gamble that could go wrong, they wholeheartedly support him and hope for the best.

A plausible position. And, given that he's about to win, we should all be hoping he's up to the job. The world needs a strong and confident America.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...


A funny thing about most Americans, they care more for what their neighbors think, than any "endorsement."

And, at one time, when people's cars weren't streaked with key marks for carrying bumper stickers; you could drive along and see candidates being promoted.

Now? You can count yard signs on one hand. With fingers free. And, bumper stickers? I haven't seen any. Really. Maybe, the high price of gas makes a car more of a utility, than an advertising banner?

And, maybe, most people aren't all that excited?

McCain? He has his flaws. And, as everybody knows, a Black man hasn't been elected, yet, into the presidency. Old bigots, however, do die. And, most families feel glad to be rid of them. Since bigotry is just another example of outrageous anger. And, who listens to the old, blustering fools?

Of course, McCain can win! It's a question, though, in how many states? Because the American system works off of Electoral College designated voters. And, each state, I believe, now sends a box. Not just a human. So, there hasn't been any real "hanky-panky."

Except if you count: 1824, when Henry Clay risked his party's existence, by cheating. And, seeing the nomination of the president go to the second place "winnah." The son of John Adams; John Quincy Adams. Last one term.

And, Andrew Jackson blew in for two terms. He was the Ronald Reagan of his time! He started the democratic party. And, he laid down the law that you didn't have to be born inside the political aristocracy to get elected. And, he also proved you didn't have to go to "haarvard." Or any other ivy.

We ran into trouble, again, with Hays/Tilden. And, of course, the infamous 2000 race. Between Dubya and Gore. Where Bush could have ended it choking on a pretzel. Meanwhile, no one asks how come he was watching a serious playoff game all alone?

Now, we have another "manipulated" race. How so? Well, Hillary came into the primaries well stocked with cash. But she didn't win.

Of course, off to the side, Rush Limbaugh was telling millions of bigots to "cross over." It seems McCain was supposed to be "the only republican that could win." As the other GOP hopefuls all had the flaws of catering to the religious right.

If McCain wins? Then the Supreme Court remains in play. Which is where the GOP has done the most damage. (Which seems to get stopped by their own players. Whom, so far, have not tossed women into back alleys, yet.)

If McCain does not win? Then the GOP shrinks. Similar to the way it shrank back in 1932. When FDR won his first election.

It's also possible, with all the bigoted "scare" campaign tactics, employed by the GOP; Obama may yet come in ... ahead ... in a landslide.

It's hard for the opposition party to recover from "those."

While over in Israel, with all the t'zuris Livni has had, she's more ahead with the public now, than ever before. (And, it's Ehud Barak who seems to be heading to the top of a ticket, that gets reduced in size.)

Will Israelis cry if Labor loses its luster? Why?

People shouldn't be born into the presidency.

And, if Obama wins? It will prove that to many AMericans being a White stinker is worse than being a Black man. "Hahle-vi" ...

Oddly enough everything that comes at us from the future, is unknown.

You'd think the Economist would be ashamed to show a face, here; since they missed the bus on the ECONOMY! They didn't even notice that Moody's was corrupt.

Never have so many stinking fishes been caught at the till.

So, what's left? Now, to be sure you're actually seeing a sure thing ... the Economist joins the bandwagon. 5 days "shopping days" left to Christmas. But unlike the real deal, at Christmas. Most people already know what they intend to "buy."

Oh, the other good thing? Livni didn't embarrass herself when Obama came to town. You remember the spectical in Jerusalem? Bunch of bullies. Didn't make such a great impression, after all. Those men have way too much time on their hands!