The Economist endorses Kerry

[jeff]

With a cover titled "The incompetent or the incoherent", the soberly, solidly right-leaning Economist has endorsed Kerry. Not without misgivings, but after itemizing flaws with both candidates, they summarize: "...as Mr. Bush has often said, there is a need in life for accountability. He has refused to impose it himself, and so voters should, in our view impose it on him, given a viable alternative. John Kerry, for all the doubts about him, would be in a better position to carry on with America's great tasks"

Darn, you can't put markup tags in the title - I wanted to italicize the publication name

[Inquartata]

Meh, why should we heed the English telling us for whom we "should" vote?

[darius]

Did you actually read the article?

"Whenever we express a view of that sort, some readers are bound to protest that we, as a publication based in London, should not be poking our noses in other people's politics. Translated, this invariably means that protesters disagree with our choice. It may also, however, reflect a lack of awareness about our readership. The Economist's weekly sales in the United States are about 450,000 copies, which is three times our British sale and roughly 45% of our worldwide total. All those American readers will now be pondering how to vote, or indeed whether to. Thus, as at every presidential election since 1980, we hope it may be useful for us to say how we would think about our vote—if we had one."

darius