Apparently the magazine didn't get the memo on Barry being a "spread the wealth," socialist, anti-capitalist red. Shame when that happens. Obviously McCain Campaign flack Tucker Bounds is not doing his job in getting the smears out n' stickin'.
From The Economist:
(T)his 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.
This doesn't mean The Economist is in love with Obama. They're concerned about how he'll handle the Congressional Democrats if they start pushing protectionist economic policies and acknowledge that he doesn't have a lengthy resume to do extensive tea leaf readings on. But like many members of The George Will Revolt, The Economist's editors couldn't get over how different the John McCain of 2008 was from the John McCain of 2000. And Gov. Sarah Palin? She almost made them spit up their blackberries and brie.
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.
The Republicans really left them with no other choice ... and somewhere Mitt "Mittens" Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, is rubbing his hands together, prepared to pull the lever for Obama -- not because he likes the candidate (Heavens no!), but to make sure it's his economic phoenix who will emerge from the ashes of what he hopes will be a crash and burn one-term presidency to give The Economist the free market, ship your jobs to China, lower your tariffs and raise your dividends,
lover candidate she deserves in 2012.
Now he just has to get that woman out of the way.