"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...."

The Economist cannot endorse McCain. And Obama?

Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy....

He's a risk, but he gets the endorsement.

Here's an ad:



ADDED: The Corner's Andrew Stuttaford rationalizes:

The Economist endorses Obama, as it did John Kerry (2004), Bill Clinton (1992) and no-one (1984, 1988). Yes, it endorsed Ronald Reagan in 1980, Bob Dole in 1996 and George W Bush in 2000, but to portray this particular endorsement as an Obamacon moment seems like a stretch.

You know, (unless I'm mistaken) I had not blogged any endorsements until now. But this one impressed me and really hit home. It did not feel like the usual liberals doing what liberals do.