Today The Economist officially endorsed Barack Obama as President of the United States.
The endorsement touches on a number of factors which led to my own transformation, but of course, elaborates on them more eloquently because, well, it’s The Economist.
A choice excerpt reminds me of one of my key (and favorite) posts illustrating my fitful morphing from McCain-to-Obama:
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.
The stars keep aligning. What options are left for us to sabotage ourselves now?
Reading the comments, I was struck by the manner in which people deal with an entity they respect choosing to disagree with them: they dismiss it as biased!
indeed. Americans have a deep-rooted notion that the press must somehow be “objective” – because the founding fathers equated it as the “fourth estate” – an entity that serves to check gvt., the church and the populace:
..that said, these comments have deviated (and regressed) so far from the turn-of-the-century Enlightenment thinking that spawned them that I wonder if it’s mad to even associate the two….like “telephone” gone on steroids!
Comments are closed.