The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama.
The magazine's editorial reads in part "We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence."
It also uniquivocally bashed the Republican nominee John McCain for "sloppiness" and being "particularly uninterested in economics", portraying him as unfit for office.
The magazine also took issue with Mccain's choice of advisors and the choice of sarah Palin as his running mate.
"Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers..... The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice"
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
"At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency......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?)"
Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well - he deserves the presidency.
No comments:
Post a Comment