ECONOMIST Endorses Obama

[seneca_roman]

from the ECONOMIST:
"
The presidential election
It's time

Oct 30th 2008
From The Economist print edition
America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free worldIT IS impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government’s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack.

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."

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12516666&source=features_box1


Seneca

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

yawn. Liberal english mag endorses a liberal democrat. Who cares?

 

[stock_trad3r]

Yup this will go nowhere like the Colon Powell endorsement.

 

[oktiri]

Quote from stock_trad3r:

Yup this will go nowhere like the Colon Powell endorsement.

I envy your optimism.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

yawn. Liberal english mag endorses a liberal democrat. Who cares?

Perhaps you recognize a few of the names here:

http://ads.economist.com/the-economist/testimonials/

 

[jonbig04]

wow, thats a good endorsement and a good article.

 

[seneca_roman]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Perhaps you recognize a few of the names here:

http://ads.economist.com/the-economist/testimonials/

I read it and find them all to be socialist redistributors, especially that Ronald Reagan fellow and that known associate of Reagan, Kissinger and that real lowlife socialist, Bill Gates.

I'm not surprised that liberal rag, The Washington Times, had this to say about it:

""The Economist, arguably the world's most prestigious magazine, read by anyone who's anyone in government, business, and the media in both the developed and developing worlds . . "
I did like it that Elle McPherson likes it; she's hot.

And looking at the readership's demographics, one can see with clarity that they are feed at the trough lowlife socialists:

Avg Income: $175000
Avg family income: $243000
Avg net worth: $1.7 million

Just you average low life scumsucking, socialist, left leaning, welfare Moms and Dads. AAA glad you pointed this out to us or I might have taken their endorsement seriously.

Thanks,
Seneca

 

[stock_trad3r]

There are many wealthy liberals, a lot of whom hold socialist or Marxist beliefs.

 

[seneca_roman]

Quote from stock_trad3r:

There are many wealthy liberals, a lot of whom hold socialist or Marxist beliefs.

Does that include Reagan, Kissinger, Bill Gates, etc?

 

[Fractals 'R Us]

Quote from stock_trad3r:

There are many wealthy liberals, a lot of whom hold socialist or Marxist beliefs.

It's true. The majority of people in Richistan [whatever book that was] were to the left. I'm not sure what that reflects, maybe the educational system swerves people to the left and education = money, maybe these people do a lot of business with the public sector..