NationStates Jolt Archive

So The Economist has decided to cast its vote for Obama. The article that follows states their vote for him but not without giving him their criticism. Remember, The Economist is a right-wing magazine. I feel that they do give some good reasons to vote for him, but they are doing so more so because (and this is my opinion) McCain is honestly awful.

If you read one [more] article about this election, read this one. It was honestly one of the most thought provoking articles I've read and is quite fair.

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 world
http://media.economist.com/images/na/2008w44/ObamaEn.jpg

IT 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.

Thinking about 2009 and 2017
The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting enough: repairing America’s economy and its international reputation. The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is needed, though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was.

Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to 2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A combination of demography and the rising costs of America’s huge entitlement programmes—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—will be starting to bankrupt the country. Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.

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. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.

The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. 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?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.

If only the real John McCain had been running
That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.

Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. 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 (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).

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.

Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. 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.

Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.

So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.

There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.

Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.

It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies. Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.

Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.

He has earned it
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.

I want to hear opinions of agreement and disagreement. The Economist is Right wing and British (so not American is my point), has obvioulsy more than a few problems with Obama (do you guys believe they are legit problems?) but would still vote for Obama.

What do you think about this article? I hope you read it.

So TAI, you will be voting for O-man now, yes ;)?

Where's the Joke Option?

Were is the poll option "Pro-Obama: I think a lot of their critism is BS"?


So TAI, you will be voting for O-man now, yes ;)?

That could be too harsh....if they are just pounding him for (what you believe) is BS.

But actually, I am interested....of the faults The Economist has found in Obama, which do you think are BS?

It's between McOld (because I want a moderate, hypothetical checked relationship between the republicans controlling the presidency and democrats controlling congress) and not voting. McCain/Palin is fucking killing me and it's literally gonna take all of my strength to vote for him if I end up doing it, and I'll have to kill a bottle of vodka after so that I don't feel so bad.

I hate this election. :mad:

That could be too harsh....if they are just pounding him for (what you believe) is BS.

But actually, I am interested....of the faults The Economist has found in Obama, which do you think are BS?

Ive actually since edited my post. I think their fear of big government is absurd, but I acknowledge this is their position. I also disagree with the assertion that John McCain has a better handle on foreign policy and that his reaction to the Georgia issue was the right one, but these are minor disagreemnts. I voted that I think the article is pretty fair.

It's between McOld (because I want a moderate, checked relationship between the republicans controlling the presidency and congress) and not voting. McCain/Palin is fucking killing me and it's literally gonna take all of my strenght to vote for him if I end up doing it, and I'll have to kill a bottle of vodka after so that I don't feel so bad.

I hate this election. :mad:

But...but...you worship The Economist:p

"Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government"... haha.

"Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government"... haha.

Limited government in the sense that we limit the government and choice of latin america, silly.

Ive actually since edited my post. I think their fear of big government is absurd, but I acknowledge this is their position. I also disagree with the assertion that John McCain has a better handle on foreign policy and that his reaction to the Georgia issue was the right one, but these are minor disagreemnts. I voted that I think the article is pretty fair.
Fair enough, then.

Though there is nothing absurd with wanting limited government.....Indeed it was the track the American nation was heading until baby Bush 180'd the fucking place. That was the track from Reagan through daddy Bush until Clinton, when Clinton bodly declared "The era of big government is over."


But...but...you worship The Economist:p
I do, indeed. But I think that they have the luxury of not being an American citizen so not having to directly worry about the consequences of an unchecked Democrat government. Keep in mind that one of the reasons many political scientists give to things getting so fucked up these last couple years is because in the beginning Bush had zero checks on his power and was free to do whatever he liked (thanks T.I., now you got me posting on NSG in the tune of your song). I don't want to see the same power given to Obama or his Democrats (who he never stands up to, unlike McCain to the Republicans) and simply go to a different, unchecked extreme.

Agree or not, you must admit that's fair.

I agree that John McCain was pulled all over the place, he may still have lost the election if he'd firmly stuck to his guns but at least he'd have some honour, the choice of Sarah Palin was the epitome of his gut feeling being overridden by the Republican machine,

Yet, to me, that bodes ill for his hypothetical presidency, that he'd be continuously torn.

I don't know if there's a right plan or a wrong plan for America right now, I would prefer someone who had a plan and believed in it.

A lot of the non-discussed aspect of this election is the collapse of the Nixon philosophy, a party can no longer tie the religious right to fiscal economic policies, I'm not sure how the Republicans can fix this but I expect a swerve to hard right for the coming future.

Even so, with all the endorsements, the polls, everything, I'm still nervous on this election.

EDIT: In terms of the criticism of Barack Obama in the article, I'm fine with it inasmuch as they qualify that criticism.

I suspect Barack Obama will keep the Democrats firmly in check, and I suspect he'll have to.

Though there is nothing absurd with wanting limited government.....Indeed it was the track the American nation was heading until baby Bush 180'd the fucking place. That was the track from Reagan through daddy Bush until Clinton, when Clinton bodly declared "The era of big government is over."




I wasnt clear I guess. I didnt mean that wanting limited government is abusrd (though I disagree with it), I think a fear of big government that keeps one up in the night, a fear that the big bad nanny state will come and get you, a fear that many conservatives seem to buy into, is absurd.

A lot of the non-discussed aspect of this election is the collapse of the Nixon philosophy, a party can no longer tie the religious right to fiscal economic policies, I'm not sure how the Republicans can fix this but I expect a swerve to hard right for the coming future.


I hope the Republicans get stuffed so hard they split, and a sensible alternative can rise from the ashes.

Really I'd like to see more parties. At least the UK has the threat of the liberals. Even if they never use it. (Which they should at this point in time in my opinion).

I hope the Republicans get stuffed so hard they split, and a sensible alternative can rise from the ashes.

A split in the Republican party, I think, would really benefit the country. A split that would lead to the fiscal conservatives and economically liberal forming their own party. Hell we might see a real libertarian party.

Of course, the religious right would be terrified of this, because a party that runs soley on limiting social freedoms would never win.

I hope the Republicans get stuffed so hard they split, and a sensible alternative can rise from the ashes.

Really I'd like to see more parties. At least the UK has the threat of the liberals. Even if they never use it. (Which they should at this point in time in my opinion).

I think it's a real possibility, certainly in form if not in name. The polls look crushing and it's not just because of Barack Obama - I quite like TAI's sentence on what it would take for him to vote for McCain/Palin, I think that goes for a lot of intelligent Republicans.

In fact, John McCain and Sarah Palin pretty much is the split personified.

I think it's a real possibility, certainly in form if not in name. The polls look crushing and it's not just because of Barack Obama - I quite like TAI's sentence on what it would take for him to vote for McCain/Palin, I think that goes for a lot of intelligent Republicans.

In fact, John McCain and Sarah Palin pretty much is the split personified.

I wont be suprised if we see a lot of Republicans staying home on November 4th.

I wont be suprised if we see a lot of Republicans staying home on November 4th.

Clearly a good time to buy vodka/whiskey stocks.

Back to the article, if anything won me over to Barack Obama, and I preferred Hillary Clinton, it was the way in which he managed the entire campaign, I agree with that in the article. It allows overcoming both the experience issue as well as the leaning to the left.

He was just smart.

Of course, come January 20th, I still think it would be epic if he opened his speech with 'Praise be to Allah'.

Oh lord I'd laugh, for a bit...

Clearly a good time to buy vodka/whiskey stocks.

Back to the article, if anything won me over to Barack Obama, and I preferred Hillary Clinton, it was the way in which he managed the entire campaign, I agree with that in the article. It allows overcoming both the experience issue as well as the leaning to the left.

He was just smart.

Of course, come January 20th, I still think it would be epic if he opened his speech with 'Praise be to Allah'.

Oh lord I'd laugh, for a bit...


Or got up there and blasted Public Enemy and said "All ya crackas be screwed, yo!"

I wont be suprised if we see a lot of Republicans staying home on November 4th.

Oh, I think that is highly likely. Not to mention that the economically liberal wing of the party is livid at the way the House and Senate handled the banking bailout and are talking about crossing party lines just to punish the GOP. (The logic being, if I am going to be fucked in both eyeholes anyway, at least don't lie to me about it).

Clearly a good time to buy vodka/whiskey stocks.

Back to the article, if anything won me over to Barack Obama, and I preferred Hillary Clinton, it was the way in which he managed the entire campaign, I agree with that in the article. It allows overcoming both the experience issue as well as the leaning to the left.

He was just smart.

Of course, come January 20th, I still think it would be epic if he opened his speech with 'Praise be to Allah'.

Oh lord I'd laugh, for a bit...Or got up there and blasted Public Enemy and said "All ya crackas be screwed, yo!""The president has been shot!"
That's the line I fear hearing the most on January 20th. :(
Of course, being undeniably a "cracker", I think the second one would make me rather...cautious. :p

I wont be suprised if we see a lot of Republicans staying home on November 4th.
I may be one of them....it's killing me inside to vote for an angry uneducated old man with no economic understanding a religious hick with no experience....:mad:
I wasnt clear I guess. I didnt mean that wanting limited government is abusrd (though I disagree with it), I think a fear of big government that keeps one up in the night, a fear that the big bad nanny state will come and get you, a fear that many conservatives seem to buy into, is absurd.
We can't really argue on this...it's just a total difference in fundemental politic beliefs and values of how government should be.

A split in the Republican party, I think, would really benefit the country. A split that would lead to the fiscal conservatives and economically liberal forming their own party. Hell we might see a real libertarian party.
You mean Fiscal Conservatives and socially liberal. And by that you mean socially libertarian. You won't find many Republicans who will be crusading for 'gay rights', for example, but you will find many (myself included) who don't really care and see it as a non-issue in comparison to foreign policy, immigration and economics, what many of us view as real issues.

Anyway, I'd support a new right wing party. It would most likely be nationalistic (in the sense of immigration), capitalistic (in the sense of pro-business and free trade) and probably would be similar (in terms of foreign policy) to the general foreign policy we've had for a while now. I mean, our foreign policy hasn't changed THAT much from Reagan to Bush to Clinton and has only got much more extreme under Bush II. I can't really see American foreign policy radically changing, just not being as extreme as under Bush, whether under Obama or McCain or anyone else I can think of (who isn't some fringe extremist or long shot candidate).
Of course, the religious right would be terrified of this, because a party that runs soley on limiting social freedoms would never win.
Fuck 'em. Religion is about personal viewsand faith. Politics is about public policy and political science grounded in reality. Never the two shall meet.

I think it's a real possibility, certainly in form if not in name. The polls look crushing and it's not just because of Barack Obama - I quite like TAI's sentence on what it would take for him to vote for McCain/Palin, I think that goes for a lot of intelligent Republicans.
Indeed. Personally, last year (during the primaries) many of the Republicans I knew were between Ron Paul and Romney (for various reasons...as those candidates were obviously very different... but both held attractive unique points)

Or got up there and blasted Public Enemy and said "All ya crackas be screwed, yo!"

I think this would be the appropriate song...

What more can I say (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=O3VVykEt37c)

There's never been a nigga this good for this long..

Indeed. Personally, last year (during the primaries) many of the Republicans I knew were between Ron Paul and Romney (for various reasons...as those candidates were obviously very different... but both held attractive unique points)

Yes, I though Mitt Romney was the best choice for the Republicans, I just don't think he had televisual character.

I think this would be the appropriate song...

What more can I say (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=O3VVykEt37c)

There's never been a nigga this good for this long..
Nice. ;)
I love Jay-Z....though I prefer the original of that song which is actually on The Black Album. :p

Nice. ;)
I love Jay-Z....though I prefer the original of that song which is actually on The Black Album. :p

Sure, I have personal pride invested in the Grey Album since I caught it early on and pushed it among skeptical friends, until the Gnarls Barkley Crazy song came out and I was fully vindicated.

Just like I was with cardigans.

I think it's a real possibility, certainly in form if not in name. The polls look crushing and it's not just because of Barack Obama - I quite like TAI's sentence on what it would take for him to vote for McCain/Palin, I think that goes for a lot of intelligent Republicans.

In fact, John McCain and Sarah Palin pretty much is the split personified.

I wont be suprised if we see a lot of Republicans staying home on November 4th.

I was about to go to bed but remembered that I had written this the other day and I think it applies. It shows just how diverse the Republican Party is and why it may not be able to hold together (in it's current form) for much longer:

Now, bed.
I would say that, in general it goes like this:

Republicans:

Realists:The ones who see the world as it is, with the faults in the system but who try to capitalize (no pun intended) off it anyway. They work with what we have to produce real results, instead of what we may have in the future. They realize that this is the best system created, and for all it's faults, it's the best to keep what we have because under it we have progressed recently as a society in ways that are historically, very fast. They look at situations as win-lose and strive for that win...usually compromise is undesirable because they feel that they cannot get enough sucess out meeting half way. It's usually us vs. them in the sense that if we don't put the 100% in, another nation/group/rival will and outcompete us. Life is constant competition. (I'm thinking alot about the way they see the world, capitalism and foreign policy here). They vote on economics (low taxes) and foreign policy (hawkish) and make up a large portion of our business (management) and or military voters and people who are pro-business pro-military.

Religous: Believe we must protect the moral compass of the nation and keep it unchanged (or with minor updates) in response to the percieved "culture war" being waged internally in our nation. They vote on social issues (abortion, prayer, religious display and gay marriage).

Nationalist: Believe that this nation has, over the course of it's history, grown up into something unique. Taking the most progressive ideas of the European Enlightenment and forming them into a government and nation, our national-style has influenced the world and has provided the foundation for the most powerful, sucessful and free nation in the world. Literally, the land of the opportunity. Nationalists believe that other nations, people and cultures don't share the same ideas and feel that our national culture is threatend by these people when they come in the form of a wave of mass-immigration that is very difficult to integrate or in the form of illegal immigration who are impossible to integrate. Nationalists usually are not for closed borders but rather reduced immigration to a controlable steam that can be integrated and for no illegal immigration. They vote on cultural issues (Immigration, Language, Flag Burning, Illegal Immigration).

Granted, Republicans can be members of 1 of these groups or all of these groups.

Naturally, there are other minor groups (Cubans opposing Castro, for example) but I felt these were the largest and best examples.

Democrats:


Union members: Union members and Unions in general vote democrat and are democrat institutions because the democrat party (in line with the views of union members) is the party of the worker. The Democrat party stands up for the laborer, teacher, driver, ect at the expense of the employer. The Democrat party apeals to these groups because they strive for effectual change in these people's lives, through better working hours, wage increase or by demanding more benefits.
They vote on localish to national economic issues (taxes, salaries, workers rights) that are directed towards them as individual workers, laborers and union members.

Socialistic People: Those who wish for the enlargement of the government to cover what they feel are people's needs and the (minimal to extreme) ridistribution of wealth to (minimally or greatly) reduce income inequality. Whether that would be enlarging government to cover healthcare, voting in more taxes to expand the powers of government or simply taxing the wealthier to support their socially minded causes. These people generally like government and belive it to be a machine of good that should work for the general betterment of it's people by covering their human needs and helping them. (Some people simply in terms of great need while others believe in constant help and welfare-security).
These people vote on economic issues that effect the community and the nation. (Welfare/ Wealth Redistribution/ Creating Government Services/ Funding Existing Government Services/ Taxes / Healthcare/ Education)

Minorities: Minorities are difficult to sumarize because they can make up any of these various groups and thus, have their own agendas. However, it is still factual that minorities hugely vote Democrat due to their (recent) historical relationship with the Democrat Party ("Clinton was the first Black President") and their (recent) distrust of the Republican Party, whom they see as doing nothing to represent their needs and agendas. The Democrat Party largely domiantes the inner cities where much of 'Minority-America' lives and has virtually no competition with the Republican Party. They tend to vote on civil rights issues, wealth redistribution and for the enlargement and funding of government services.

Granted, Democrats can be either 1 of these groups or all 3 of these groups. Also, there are naturally other smaller groups (enviornmentalists, for example) but I felt these were the largest and best examples.

I think their fear of big government is absurd

Why? Generally, what an economist calls a big government, is slightly different to what a normal person calls it.

A year ago I could have voted for McCain. It's virtually unthinkable today.

limited government in the sense that we limit the government and choice of latin america, silly.

qft

That could be too harsh....if they are just pounding him for (what you believe) is BS.

But actually, I am interested....of the faults The Economist has found in Obama, which do you think are BS?

It's between McOld (because I want a moderate, hypothetical checked relationship between the republicans controlling the presidency and democrats controlling congress) and not voting. McCain/Palin is fucking killing me and it's literally gonna take all of my strength to vote for him if I end up doing it, and I'll have to kill a bottle of vodka after so that I don't feel so bad.

I hate this election. :mad:
why didnt anyone mention this in the election thread??


anyway. this is a very hard election for thinking republicans. my husband doesnt know what to do, my brother in law is not even going to vote--and at 75 years old it will be the first time in many decades.

you can always vote for bob barr. he wouldnt make a good president but he has a kick ass moustache and its good to put the fear of god into the idiots in the republican party that decided that sarah palin was a good choice.

Yes, I though Mitt Romney was the best choice for the Republicans, I just don't think he had televisual character.

Romney would have also utterly fracture the party between the fiscal conservatives and the religious right, being a mormon and all.

... you can always vote for bob barr. he wouldnt make a good president but he has a kick ass moustache ...
I've often wondered just what proportion of the electorate cast their votes based on things like this. For example, I have an aunt who voted Labour in '97 because Tony Blair had "a lovely smile", having previously voted Tory because Margaret Thatcher "was a woman".

I'm sure that studies have been done and there'll be data available to have a look at... anyone got any links?

Sure, I have personal pride invested in the Grey Album since I caught it early on and pushed it among skeptical friends, until the Gnarls Barkley Crazy song came out and I was fully vindicated.

Just like I was with cardigans.
I hate that song. I'm much more into Rap than that kind of R&B.
qft
Now, now...let's not bring in Reagan's foreign policy when it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand....
why didnt anyone mention this in the election thread??


anyway. this is a very hard election for thinking republicans. my husband doesnt know what to do, my brother in law is not even going to vote--and at 75 years old it will be the first time in many decades.
Indeed. It's quite enfuriating.
Romney would have also utterly fracture the party between the fiscal conservatives and the religious right, being a mormon and all.
I doubt it. I don't think it would have mattered as much had he won the primaries..it was only an 'issue' during the primaries....plus we've had in the past Presidents who have been different kinds of Christian. Hell, we even had a Jehova's Witness.
I've often wondered just what proportion of the electorate cast their votes based on things like this. For example, I have an aunt who voted Labour in '97 because Tony Blair had "a lovely smile", having previously voted Tory because Margaret Thatcher "was a woman".
It's same as many people voted for Kerry because 'he had good hair', many people voted for Clinton because 'she was a woman' and many people will vote for Obama because 'he's Black'. It's so much easier to vote on the person than on the issues, and most of the voting population is ignorant and lazy, so they choose the easy way out.
I'm sure that studies have been done and there'll be data available to have a look at... anyone got any links?
No idea. Can't be bothered to go find some. :p

Hell, we even had a Jehova's Witness.

Who?

Who?
Eisenhower.

My point was that some people might think it's weird (and I do think Mormoms are a bit weird, as are Jehovah's Witnesses) but these 'issues' pale in comparison to the candidates' political economic and sociali stances, notably when it's such a crucial election or when they clearly outshine other awful members of their party.

Eisenhower.

Huh. Learn something new every day.

My point was that some people might think it's weird (and I do think Mormoms are a bit weird, as are Jehovah's Witnesses) but these 'issues' pale in comparison to the candidates' political economic and sociali stances, notably when it's such a crucial election or when they clearly outshine other awful members of their party.

Really? You think the real issues dwarf the candidates religion? Have you been paying attention to this election?:p

Really? You think the real issues dwarf the candidates religion? Have you been paying attention to this election?:p
Bah, touché:(

Wow. Thats a surprising endorsement. Wonder how long it is before they rename themselves "The Mujahideen" or "The E-Communist" :p

Bah, touché:(

For what its worth, I wish you were right:(

Running through the article, and I have to call rubbish on that bit about McCain. If he ran as the real McCain, he would DEFINITELY LOSE, as opposed to just almost definitely losing like he is now.

Personally, I don't really care about the economist's view on politics, I care much more about their economic analysis, which has been consistently shown to be rigorous, objective and unbiased, which is why I respect them.

Running through the article, and I have to call rubbish on that bit about McCain. If he ran as the real McCain, he would DEFINITELY LOSE, as opposed to just almost definitely losing like he is now.



How out of touch you are.


The real McCain was greatly respected by moderates and independents. The majority of America.

I've read an article somewhere in which a conservative was talking strictly about Obama's intellect. He made it clear in the article that he was not a fan of Obama's from a policy standpoint, but he praised his ability to grasp certain nuances of policy and discussion.

He also recalled writing a piece in which he inserted criticism of Obama or the Democratic party "to make [himself] feel better," though he obviously didn't state in the piece that was why he did it. He said Obama called him on leveling that criticism solely because he did it to make himself feel better.

Obama's obvious intellect, his willingness to surround himself with people who won't be yes men or women, his charisma and his preternatural calm all suggest to me that he has the potential to be a very good president. Whether an Obama administration turns out that way may be something we'd have to see. But the signs are there that he could make a very good president.

How out of touch you are.


The real McCain was greatly respected by moderates and independents. The majority of America.

Except that Democrats would have voted for Obama, while Republicans would have not voted for McCain. He'd get, what, 3%?

Except that Democrats would have voted for Obama, while Republicans would have not voted for McCain. He'd get, what, 3%?

Considering many moderate republicans would have voted for him, many moderate democrats might have gone to McCain, as well as independents, widely believes to be 1/3 of the country...


It would have been a closer race than it is now. Only the extreme left and the extreme right would have not considered McCain.

You consistantly show how out of touch you are with US politics. Considering you dont live here, I dont see why you feel the need to prove otherwise.

Huh. Learn something new every day.


Seemingly Ike was never particularly tied to Jehovah's Witness(ism?) as he converted to Presbyterianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower#Religion

Considering many moderate republicans would have voted for him, many moderate democrats might have gone to McCain, as well as independents, widely believes to be 1/3 of the country...


It would have been a closer race than it is now. Only the extreme left and the extreme right would have not considered McCain.

You consistantly show how out of touch you are with US politics. Considering you dont live here, I dont see why you feel the need to prove otherwise.

Democrats voting for McCain, hehehehe. Good one.

Running through the article, and I have to call rubbish on that bit about McCain. If he ran as the real McCain, he would DEFINITELY LOSE, as opposed to just almost definitely losing like he is now.

The real McCain was greatly respected by moderates and independents. The majority of America.

The 'real' McCain, the one who ran against Bush in 2000, could not have been elected as a moderate. He had to run to the right to have any chance at all. "The majority of America" would have split, with Obama getting 100% of the left and 50% of the middle, while McCain would have gotten 20% of the right and 50% of the middle. Those numbers wouldn't have cut it.

As for that 'great respect', I believe that it was born out of ignorance of who McCain actually is. In 2000 and earlier, he had a public persona of 'maverick' who worked both sides of the aisle. Having had a chance to examine him much closer during this election, I think that side of McCain was the fictional one, and the current impulsive panderer is in fact the 'true' McCain.

He's spent his whole life saying whatever he needed to say to make people think he was as good a man as his pappy and grandpappy. Fact is, he's not. Now that I've seen that side of him, I'm amazed I ever had any respect for him in the past.

Democrats voting for McCain, hehehehe. Good one.

It would have happened. In fact, some will maybe even vote for him this time. Theyre called "blue collar" democrats


But you know, you must know more about the political climate of the US than I do, with me being in the US and you being on the other side of the world....:rolleyes:

But you know, you must know more about the political climate of the US than I do, with me being in the US and you being on the other side of the world....:rolleyes:

My current attitude towards the US is "it's so gratifying to see you wallowing in the mess you've made. You're screwed, thank you, bye."

It's a good thing you elected Obama, I wanted an excuse to hate the US for the next eight years. If there's one thing my life needs, it's more hate. Much more.

Democrats voting for McCain, hehehehe. Good one.

8 years ago, McCain was the Democrats favorite Republican. 8 years ago, there would have been plenty of center Democrats who would have rather voted for a moderate Republican like McCain than a strongly liberal Democrat like Gore. Unfortunately, McCain has embraced neoconservativism in a proverbial deal with the devil after neoconservatives buried him in the 2000 primaries.

My current attitude towards the US is "it's so gratifying to see you wallowing in the mess you've made. You're screwed, thank you, bye."

It's a good thing you elected Obama, I wanted an excuse to hate the US for the next eight years. If there's one thing my life needs, it's more hate. Much more.Are you from the future? I wasn't aware we had elected anyone yet. Hell, I haven't even voted yet.

Furthermore, no one should want to see the U.S. go through an economic crisis as it usually doesn't bode well for the rest of the world.

Are you from the future? I wasn't aware we had elected anyone yet. Hell, I haven't even voted yet.

Furthermore, no one should want to see the U.S. go through an economic crisis as it usually doesn't bode well for the rest of the world.

Rusty doesnt know anything, dont confuse him with facts.

It would have happened. In fact, some will maybe even vote for him this time. Theyre called "blue collar" democrats


But you know, you must know more about the political climate of the US than I do, with me being in the US and you being on the other side of the world....:rolleyes:

pft, please, he knows far more about US politics than you do. After all, he quite clearly pointed out what a sham this election was, and not nearly as important as elections of the house, which won't happen for years.

It's a good thing you elected Obama

elected?

elected?

The elections already happened. Didnt you know?


They werent talked about much though, because the presidential election isnt important.

Rusty doesnt know anything, dont confuse him with facts.Those pesky things are bothersome, always getting in the way. Although he's not as bad as a guy who told me that Obama was a socialist, fascist, and a communist. It amazes me when people throw around words without understanding them.

elected?

Oh please, like he's going to lose.

Oh please, like he's going to lose.

backpeddle as much as you want, I think you didn't know it hadn't happened yet.

backpeddle as much as you want, I think you didn't know it hadn't happened yet.

Of course I know it hasn't happened yet. I don't live in a cave. It's just that it's a forgone conclusion, Obama might as well already have been sworn in.

If I was McCain, I'd concede right now and get it over with.

Of course I know it hasn't happened yet. I don't live in a cave. It's just that it's a forgone conclusion, Obama might as well already have been sworn in.

If I was McCain, I'd concede right now and get it over with.

See, I dont believe it either. I think you think it already happened. You show consistantly you dont know whats going on over here or how it works over here, why should I assume this is any different.

It's a good thing you elected Obama, I wanted an excuse to hate the US for the next eight years. If there's one thing my life needs, it's more hate. Much more.
backpeddle as much as you want, I think you didn't know it hadn't happened yet.Not only did Obama already get elected, he was re-elected too!

Of course I know it hasn't happened yet.

You know, based on your past posts here...I don't think you do.

Not only did Obama already get elected, he was re-elected too!

extra double plus bonus points!

See, I dont believe it either. I think you think it already happened. You show consistantly you dont know whats going on over here or how it works over here, why should I assume this is any different.

Yeah, I keep edition.cnn.com as my first open tab for looks. It says right there that there's four days until the election. You must be retarded to think ANYBODY on this planet doesn't know when this election will take place.

I prefer to refer to future events that will definitely happen as having already happened, because, you know, why argue it? The sun's gonna burn out, why not just say, the sun has burned out?

Not only did Obama already get elected, he was re-elected too!

The hell!? That's it. Abolish daylight savings time. It just screws up my whole calendar.

Not only did Obama already get elected, he was re-elected too!

Of course he's going to win again. Republicans are too dumb to win the next election.

Not only did Obama already get elected, he was re-elected too!

Yep. Why else do you think we're currently under Shariah?

Yeah, I keep edition.cnn.com as my first open tab for looks. It says right there that there's four days until the election. You must be retarded to think ANYBODY on this planet doesn't know when this election will take place.

I prefer to refer to future events that will definitely happen as having already happened, because, you know, why argue it? The sun's gonna burn out, why not just say, the sun has burned out?

suuuuuure rusty.

Yeah, I keep edition.cnn.com as my first open tab for looks. It says right there that there's four days until the election. You must be retarded to think ANYBODY on this planet doesn't know when this election will take place.

I prefer to refer to future events that will definitely happen as having already happened, because, you know, why argue it? The sun's gonna burn out, why not just say, the sun has burned out?I guess I can stop worrying about my health then, because I'm dead.

extra double plus bonus points!

Well, the fact that I said that sort of puts a dent in your "This dumbass thinks the election already happened" theory.

Outstandingly fair for the Economist.

I guess I can stop worrying about my health then, because I'm dead.

Yeah, pretty much.

I prefer to refer to future events that will definitely happen as having already happened, because, you know, why argue it? The sun's gonna burn out, why not just say, the sun has burned out?

....

riiiiight.

Your understanding of US politics is pathetic. You stated Obama "won", he hasn't yet. YOu stated for 8 years, presidential terms are 4 years. YOu stated the house had power over the president, it doesn't. YOu said the house election wasn't happening this year, it is. You have demonstrated you have no clue what's going on in this election, and you got called on it. Suck it up and admit it.

Well, the fact that I said that sort of puts a dent in your "This dumbass thinks the election already happened" theory.

no, it just adds to it, now it's "this dumbass not only thinks the election already happened, he thinks it's for 8 years" theory.

....

riiiiight.

Your understanding of US politics is pathetic. You stated Obama "won", he hasn't yet. YOu stated for 8 years, presidential terms are 4 years. YOu stated the house had power over the president, it doesn't. YOu said the house election wasn't happening this year, it is. You have demonstrated you have no clue what's going on in this election, and you got called on it. Suck it up and admit it.

When did I ever say I knew anything? You're under the assumption that I think I know things. I know nothing. I know as much as a maggot that dances it's way through a corpse. Hell, I don't even know how to read or write.

I want to hear opinions of agreement and disagreement. The Economist is Right wing and British (so not American is my point), has obvioulsy more than a few problems with Obama (do you guys believe they are legit problems?) but would still vote for Obama.

What do you think about this article? I hope you read it.


As it happens, I've been reading the issue of the Economist in question today, and am a long-term reader of the magazine.

I question whether describing the Economist as 'right-wing' is entirely valid. I'd argue that it's classically liberal (with a small l) in the European sense.

Yes, it's in favour of liberal free markets economics and what most posters here would consider right wing economic policies.

But it's also strongly in favour of what most posters here would consider to be left of centre liberal social values. Positions it's taken over the last decade or so include support for gay marriage and abolition of the (British) monarchy.

I don't agree with the Economist on everything, but - as the article quoted in the OP shows - it can usually be relied upon to be scrupulously well-reasoned, which is why I read it.

I expected as much. The biggest issue with Obama (both for me and the guys at The Economist) was his talk on trade. Other than that, he has McCain beaten pretty much everywhere. So, just as the article says, as long as he stays away from fiddling with protectionism, there can be no question.

The magazine has a list of past endorsements, and they never endorse the same guy twice. While a good publication, I think the folks at The Economist have unrealistic expectations about what presidents can and will do.

Personally, I don't really care about the economist's view on politics, I care much more about their economic analysis, which has been consistently shown to be rigorous, objective and unbiased, which is why I respect them.
The boundries between Politics and Economics are regularly blurred when discussing International Relations and Geopolitics, which The Economist does. They go hand in hand.
Seemingly Ike was never particularly tied to Jehovah's Witness(ism?) as he converted to Presbyterianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower#Religion
Right, but he did so after becoming President.
My current attitude towards the US is "it's so gratifying to see you wallowing in the mess you've made. You're screwed, thank you, bye."
Not intelligent of you. If the U.S. economy is in bad shape, the world is igenerally n bad shape. Ferrous Oxide, Global Market. Global Market, Ferrous Oxide. Now you two have been introduced.
It's a good thing you elected Obama, I wanted an excuse to hate the US for the next eight years. If there's one thing my life needs, it's more hate. Much more.
You know our terms are for 4 years, right? Anyway you shouldn't hate the U.S. even if you don't like our leadership. We are a good country filled with good people and we are generally a source of good in the world, even more so when compared to other rising powers like Russia and China...
Yep. Why else do you think we're currently under Shariah?
I'm still laughing about the possibility (what someone joked about earlier) of Obama opening his Inauguration speech with, "Praise be to Allah". :D
As it happens, I've been reading the issue of the Economist in question today, and am a long-term reader of the magazine.
As am I.

I question whether describing the Economist as 'right-wing' is entirely valid. I'd argue that it's classically liberal (with a small l) in the European sense.
I'd say it is right wing, it just isn't that socially consevative. However, they are pro-market, anti-Russian, pro-small government, for controlling the American borders and illegal immigration and believe that the American super power exporting Political and Economic freedom to the world is a good thing. Also, the paper, while criticizing Pinochet's human right's violations and not admiring him as a person, believed that he greatly helped and lead Chile down the road to prosperity and economic stability.

It's Right wing, just refreshingly so in a way that Americans and many Europeans are not used to.

I don't agree with the Economist on everything, but - as the article quoted in the OP shows - it can usually be relied upon to be scrupulously well-reasoned, which is why I read it.
Indeed. I tend to agree with them on alot, but not everything. But I do believe it is probably the magazine which comes closiest to my real political views.
I expected as much. The biggest issue with Obama (both for me and the guys at The Economist) was his talk on trade. Other than that, he has McCain beaten pretty much everywhere. So, just as the article says, as long as he stays away from fiddling with protectionism, there can be no question.
It's not just his views on protectionism that worry The Economist [and I], but (amongst other things) the fact that Obama has an awful record of standing up to his own party instead of flocking along with them.
Things can get really extreme with a Democrat controlled congress, ready to unleash everything they've wanted to the past couple years and now able to do so because they will be unchecked by a President who has no history of checking (disagreeing) with his party.

Hell, remember, many people believe things got so fucked up under Bush is because there were no checks on the power of our Executive Branch. Personally, I don't feel great trading that unchecked Executive power for unchecked Legislative power...

Hell, remember, many people believe things got so fucked up under Bush is because there were no checks on the power of our Executive Branch. Personally, I don't feel great trading that unchecked Executive power for unchecked Legislative power...
I don't actually think you can draw reliable comparisons between being a member of the senate who is presented with a given party agenda for the day when he steps foot into his office, and being president.

I don't actually think you can draw reliable comparisons between being a member of the senate who is presented with a given party agenda for the day when he steps foot into his office, and being president.
You can't say they are identical, logically, but you can compare one's individual personality in regards to standing up to lobbyists, members of your party, etc.

The point that was made in the article in the OP was that it is worrying that an unchecked Demoractic Congress would be, just that, unchecked by Obama to pursue any goals it wanted to (in the case given in this article, it was anti-China legislation).

And think about it, if you've been restrained for years, first, literally without power to influence decisions and then later with power to influence decisions but with a stubborn (in the Democrat's opinon) President working against you, wouldn't you be itching to just unleash everything you wanted to once someone gets into power that you know won't say no to you, because he never has before?

The Economist nonetheless stated support for Obama, but did claim that he was risky, a gamble, for exactly reasons like these. Again, it's not so much that The Economist likes Obama, but that he is simply (in their opinion) more able to lead than McCain, which really doesn't state much....

Wow. Thats a surprising endorsement. Wonder how long it is before they rename themselves "The Mujahideen" or "The E-Communist" :p
Reminded me of a wonderful picture I had just stumbled upon:

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w297/motoblade/anti_communist_comics17-1.jpg

Anyway, it's not really suprising...both candidates are awful and The Economist just decided that after weighing the faults of both candidates, Obama came out with a few less faults. It doesn't mean they are felashing him, though.

The boundries between Politics and Economics are regularly blurred when discussing International Relations and Geopolitics, which The Economist does. They go hand in hand.


That's not the point. I'm not particularly interested in its opinions as to what we should do, more in its analysis of what is the case at present, in the past, and sometimes what might happen in the future..


for controlling the American borders

Not sure about this, they are explicitly pro free immigration.

that the American super power exporting Political and Economic freedom to the world is a good thing.

I don't think they would put it like that.

believed that he greatly helped and lead Chile down the road to prosperity and economic stability.


I don't think they think that either. They may merely acknowledge that his economic reforms are helpful, despite that fact that they dislike the person, to make sure they're not being unbalanced.

That's not the point. I'm not particularly interested in its opinions as to what we should do, more in its analysis of what is the case at present, in the past, and sometimes what might happen in the future..
Fair enough.


Not sure about this, they are explicitly pro free immigration.
I didn't say they are anti-immigrant, at all. I said they are for controlled, legal borders (as one could see from their articles on the mexican border wall issues) and are for legal immigration, and do not encourage the breaking of a nation's laws to enter.


I don't think they would put it like that.
Well, notice how I didn't quote them word for word, but here is a quote that backs up my point:

"Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy."


I don't think they think that either. They may merely acknowledge that his economic reforms are helpful, despite that fact that they dislike the person, to make sure they're not being unbalanced.
Which is what I said???

I didn't say they are anti-immigrant, at all. I said they are for controlled, legal borders (as one could see from their articles on the mexican border wall issues) and are for legal immigration, and do not encourage the breaking of a nation's laws to enter.


Right, but I don't think they support border control to the extent anyone who identifies themselves as right wing does.


Well, notice how I didn't quote them word for word, but here is a quote that backs up my point:

"Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy."


Actually no, it doesn't at all. They're just summarising what the US is aiming to do, but my main point was that "exporting political freedom" is generally used as justification for many acts of aggression, something the economist would not support, so they probably wouldn't say it like that.


Which is what I said???

I don't think they would say he greatly helped Chile.

Right, but I don't think they support border control to the extent anyone who identifies themselves as right wing does.
Well that's certainly debatable. Too debatable, in fact. Let's drop it.


Actually no, it doesn't at all. They're just summarising what the US is aiming to do, but my main point was that "exporting political freedom" is generally used as justification for many acts of aggression, something the economist would not support, so they probably wouldn't say it like that.
No. They clearly state, like they state in every single opinionated article they write, what the /U.S. should do. They are not just reporting, they are opinionating. :p

So whether you you want to use the word export or resell, they support that. And no that does not have to mean by invasion or anything militaristic at all, though it could. You shouldn't jump to conclusions and use your own personal definitions as facts. Just because other people may use Thing A as justification for Thing B (which, let's say, is a bad thing), does NOT make thing A bad. Understood?


I don't think they would say he [I]greatly helped Chile.
Meh. In the stuff I've read, they generally praise all the free-market reforms and liberalization under him and claim he lead Chile to become Latin-America's best economy and most stable state (Which is true).
Of course they also are very vocal about their opposition to his brutalities, murders and general human rights violations, but that isn't really the point we are discussing. I think you can really see how they think in this article here, which was posted right after the revolution in Chile, before Pinochet's crimes were known (or even commited), but, since it's already acknowledged that they totally oppose his human rights violations and that is not the issue we are discussing, that should be irrelevant.
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11674052

Anyway, that's just for you to read. Let's sort of drop that, because it's getting off topic.

No. They clearly state, like they state in every single opinionated article they write, what the /U.S. [I]should do. They are not just reporting, they are opinionating. :p


Yet, in the paragraph you presented, they didn't do that in the slightest. There was not a single ought statement in that paragraph, they were just correctly summarising what the US is currently aiming to do. Not only this, but in your original statement implied that the US is actually "exporting Political and Economic freedom to the world", despite the fact that the US aren't presently doing this at all. Not only that, but The Economist is highly critical of the current model of American capitalism.


And no that does not have to mean by invasion or anything militaristic at all, though it could. You shouldn't jump to conclusions and use your own personal definitions as facts. Just because other people may use Thing A as justification for Thing B (which, let's say, is a bad thing), does NOT make thing A bad. Understood?


You've clearly completely misunderstood what I was trying to say there. I didn't say the idea of aggressive action is inherent in that statement, I was saying that in an international context, that's how the phrase is usually used, so it would be a very poor choice of wording.


Anyway, that's just for you to read. Let's sort of drop that, because it's getting off topic.

Ok.

You can't say they are identical, logically, but you can compare one's individual personality in regards to standing up to lobbyists, members of your party, etc.
Well, how much can we really extract about his personality as a leader from his position in the senate? Senators aren't expected to lead most of the time. They're there to make up the numbers and keep the seats warm, until one of them has an idea for a bill.

Obama has on the other hand demonstrated that when he is in charge, he can be very effective, including against the big power brokers of his own party, who started out with Hillary as the crown princess.

Again, it's not so much that The Economist likes Obama, but that he is simply (in their opinion) more able to lead than McCain, which really doesn't state much....
I wouldn't actually have minded the original, "straight-talk express" McCain. But he demonstrated precisely the opposite to Obama, in that he pandered purely to the party faithful, following orders from the former Bush election team.

Look, I'm not really a fan of Obama. I think he has the better policies than McCain, picked better people to surround himself with and has shown in the campaign that he has excellent organisational skills. His image and person in itself is also a boon to the US both at home and abroad, though you can't credit him with all of that.

That doesn't change that he is, like all people in these circles, an absolutely ruthless professional politician, willing to do whatever it takes to get to power. And he's more skilled in that art than most, having started out in Chicago (for example, winning one local election by having all opponents kicked off the ballot). His willingness to pander to populism on the trade issue is worrying as well, and so he's obviously far from the ideal candidate I would create for myself. But that doesn't change that he is emphatically the better choice here, for pretty much anyone except the religious fundies and perhaps the very rich. McCain will still get many votes, but many of them won't be because he deserves them, but because of the same old partisan divide in the US.

And besides, keep in mind that neither candidate has accounted for a recession lasting years in their plans.

The Economist is a magazine I've always admired, for being well researched, well reasoned, intellectually honest and sharply analytical in presenting it's viewpoints which are diametrically opposed to my instincts. On more than one occasion I've read something of theirs, thought to myself "That's insane!", then thought more and decided they had a point. I contribute my crowing economic liberalist traits to The Economist's influence.

In this, they show much the same. Their criticisms of Obama are the only reasonable, legit one's I've come across. If Obama were up against a far superior opponent than he currently is, I would still probably consider him better as I would prioritise his social program over anything else, but obviously the Economist wouldn't. It seems that The Economist has decided that against McCain, it's gotta be the Big O, not that Obama is the best for the job. Which, consideriing their views, is better than I expected.

Which is awesome. I love it when social conservatives and doddering idiots get what they deserve.

EDIT: Please excuse the rambling nature of this post. It is late. I am sleepy.