To regular readers, this will come as no real surprise. The Economist is a much misunderstood publication, tainted unfairly by simple definitions of left and right, particularly as defined in the US. As a lifelong lefty from the UK and a 15 year Economist subscriber, there's relatively little in the magazine over the years that I disagree with: the editorial line, for example, is pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights etc. Sure they screwed up on Iraq, as did most. But at least they don't pretend they didn't, and they've been as hard on Bush over the last 6 years as anyone, plus they endorsed Kerry last time round...
Nor is the endorsement mealy-mouthed.
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.
The close...
So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. 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.
Will it make any difference? I wonder...
Barack Obama should be the next president of the US