I was intrigued with the title of the Economist editorial endorsing Obama for President (as a British publication the writer can't vote, but who says non-citizens can't make endorsements). The title didn't strike me as an overwhelming positive recommendation: America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world. "Take a chance". . .is that what voting for Obama means?
Later it states: 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. It seems the writer has doubts about what Obama "would do."
And it continues: There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job.
But in the end the magazine feels all of the negatives pale in comparison to McCain/Palin. So America has thrown the dice and will be gambling on Obama.
1 comment:
I found an incredibly interesting series online on Newsweek that followed both campaigns over the course of the presidential race. This is the first chapter: http://www.newsweek.com/id/167582
Post a Comment