They aren’t huge fans, mind you, and it’s framed as a blunt rejection of Bush and of how McCain has been running his campaign, but the editorial board of The Economist <\/em>magazine endorses Obama for President<\/a>. (Emphasis mine.)<\/p>\n For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist<\/em> does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America\u2019s self-confidence<\/strong>. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama\u2019s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.<\/p>\n […] Is Mr Obama any better? 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\u2019s allies would rally to him<\/strong>: the global electoral college<\/a> on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America\u2019s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.<\/p>\n […] There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama\u2019s r\u00e9sum\u00e9 is thin for the world\u2019s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort<\/strong>. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and out-fought the two mightiest machines in American politics\u2014the Clintons and the conservative right<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him<\/strong>: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain\u2019s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well<\/strong>.<\/p>\n It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America\u2019s enemies. Part of Mr Obama\u2019s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is\u2014 but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.<\/p>\n Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party\u2019s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.<\/p>\n\n