Financial Times: Obama is the better choice

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1d0b127c-a380-11dd-942c-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

US presidential elections involve a fabulous expense of time, effort and money. Doubtless it is all too much – but, by the end, nobody can complain that the candidates have been too little scrutinised. We have learnt a lot about Barack Obama and John McCain during this campaign. In our view, it is enough to be confident that Mr Obama is the right choice.

At the outset, we were not so confident. Mr Obama is inexperienced. His policies are a blend of good, not so good and downright bad. Since the election will strengthen Democratic control of Congress, a case can be made for returning a Republican to the White House: divided government has a better record in the United States than government united under either party.

So this ought to have been a close call. With a week remaining before the election, we cannot feel that it is.

Mr Obama fought a much better campaign. Campaigning is not the same as governing, and the presidency should not be a prize for giving the best speeches, devising the best television advertisements, shaking the most hands and kissing the most babies.

Nonetheless, a campaign is a test of leadership. Mr Obama ran his superbly; Mr McCain’s has often looked a shambles. After eight years of George W. Bush, the steady competence of the Obama operation commands respect.

they are the main competitor of Wall Street Journal (which was rumored in April to be considering an Obama endorsement, but I'm not sure what became of that.)

they make it clear that they are very impressed by him personally and that they are convinced McCain would be a disaster.

have to do with helping poor people and taxing billionaires a little more.

Horrors!

:scared: