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.Hey! I thought we couldn't use his middle name! It's racist, after all!
And, after all, John McCain is old!
And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?).
To be fair, the Economist has a far better argument for supporting Obama: he has run a better campaign. Period. That's it.
Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent.Nothing else. No fact, figures, or evidence to support their endorsement. No evaluation of his economic proposals. Why would I turn to the Economist magazine for that?
The magazine goes so far as to tell us to take a chance on Obama, and voting for him is a gamble.
Take a shot; what the hell? It is just our country, our constitution, our money, our way-of-life, our very lives themselves at stake. What the hell.
There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. The magazine proudly reports.
And I am sure that the Economist would hire as Editor-in-Chief someone with no editorial experience, but whose resume was printed on nice paper and who wore the better suit. Right.
Take the leap. What does the Economist care? When the economy tanks under Obama, more people are likely to subscribe to their magazine.
I was thinking about subscribing to this magazine. But, if this editorial is evidence of the level of insight they lend to other issues, I'll go with Mad Magazine instead.
Remind me who brought race into this campaign?
No comments:
Post a Comment