Economist magazine says ‘Roll the dice, America: Vote Obama’

The Economist magazine has endorsed 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. [emphasis Murdoc’s]

That’s their definition of a “wholehearted” endorsement? I’d hate to see what they say about halfhearted endorsements.


  1. I’m glad I don’t look to “The Economist” for economic advice. They are openly recommending a risky “investment” during troubled times? I’m no great shakes on financial issues, but it seems wrong to me. All I can think of is recommending that somebody who is deeply in debt should play the lottery because it may be “a risk,” but it’s one you should take “given the steep road ahead.” Yeah, that’ll work.

  2. As a former subscriber to the Economist (eight years!) I could see this coming. Read a bit between the lines and it boils down to their visceral dislike for social conservatives like Palin. They are more comfortable with the “ghastly preacher” Wright because his radicalism is political, not religious – they get that.

    The Economist has this center-right image but it is relentlessly pc, like the left-wing Guardian, edition for businesspeople.

    I wanted to like Barack Obama but it requires disregarding a lot of worrying statements, associations and tactics. You know, stuff used to disqualify a candidate. And then there´s congress.

Comments are closed