Financial Times Endorses Obama For President

Financial Times:

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.

Read the whole story: Financial Times

Comments

[vote-obama]

comedian rush limbaugh says "it's all about race".

donate-vol­unteer-vot­e.
obama/biden08 and beyond!!!!!!!!!

[decm]

I've been reading HP for quite a while, but this is my first post... it's an old joke:
Q: what's pink and hard in the morning?
A: The Financial Times crossword

[MajorKong]

For those unfamiliar, Financial Times is essentially the British equivalent of the Wall Street Journal and is usually center-right in their politics.

[BabsfromKansas]

Much more respected than the WSJ!

[ohiodem250]

The Financial Times endorses a Socialist? Suck it, Republicans.

[BabsfromKansas]

This is huge - the FT is very conservative and very well respected.

[ggfree]

Does anyone know if the Wall Street Journal has endorsed either yet?

[rockyb26]

it's pretty obvious that they will endorse mccain if they haven't already. i would be shocked if they endorsed obama.

[SEQUOIABISON]

Even the most staunch conservatives can no longer lie to themselves about what they see; a dysfunctional McCain/Palin campaign as opposed to a well run Obama organization.

The end of fascism (government run by corporations) in America, is near, lets hold the course, steady as she goes, no major gaffs this week, please.

Obama/Biden

[Hopalongpoppyseed]

Alas, the battle against American fascism has only begun. The corporatists are very rich and determined and we will have to fight them for decades. We may soon win a battle, but the struggle will be very long-term.

[VOTER]

The Financial Times has just put the final nail in the McBush/Palin's Campaign.

Their endorsement will bring moderate Republicans to the polls voting for Obama.
I can already see and hear the change in my strong GOP County.
It is over for McBush/Palin.

[suemcf]

Do not assume anything. McCain can still win. I know...I have lived this nightmare the last 8 yrs and watched them do it. Go vote, tell everyone..­..start FREAKING out.

[canucklivinginUSA]

I agree with everything Financial Times said, especially the last paragraph. I think too much expectations are on Barack's shoulders. And that bothers me a lot. Furthermore, I do believe that too much of a party will be detrimental to this country; I would prefer a even number of democrats and repubs(moderate ones, not the crazies). Anyhoo, I am happy to see FT endorse Obama

[VOTER]

With a victory, our work is just beginning.

Unlike the Republicans who gave Bush/Cheney a free ride, we must
stay on top of issues and voting and let the politicians hear from us.

[Rog49Thomas]

one of the central problems in this country is that unlike others we deify our candidates, we make them larger than life heroes and so we place unrealistic expectations on them

and behavior like that is clear evidence that despite all our braggadocio, at heart we have little confidence in ourselves

hardly a recipe for a functioning democracy

[Bluebayou101]

Re: "too much of a party"

In 1992, the Democrats had both Houses with 56 seats in the Senate and 267 seats in the House along with the White House victory. IMO, the United States did just fine and fear on this issue is way overstated.

[canucklivinginUSA]

yeah and they lost that majority in 1994. Explain that to me if it was that dandy

[gbrooks]

The Financial Times gave a very logical argument on the case for Obama, essentially the same one that I made to myself as a staunch fiscal conservative. I have no illusions about an Obama presidency, but I also have none about the horrors of a McCain presidency.

One point that I've never seen spelled out by anyone is the likelihood that Mr. Obama will work harder for us than probably almost any other president for many reasons: 1. he is a very disciplined man. 2. he has the intellectual depth to realize how enormous and varied our problems are. 3. as our first black president, he knows that he sets a precedent and his presidency will be scrutinized from this perspective and his success or failure can either elevate or deflate the status of black people in the US and around the world. This is not necessarily fair or right, but I believe it to be true.

If Obama wins on November 4th, I will spend November 5th indulging in massive relief. From there on out, I will fully support his presidency and hold him to his promises. We all need to become more involved with our political process as I view we the people as the fourth and most powerful arm of the government and it's about time we started acting like it rather than making ourselves out to be hapless victims of "The Man."

[AnalyzeIT]

I for one 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th that. Great post and I agree 100 percent with what you said.

Most especially: " as our first black president, he knows that he sets a precedent and his presidency will be scrutinized from this perspective and his success or failure can either elevate or deflate"

Senator Obama as President will do a surperb job, however, it will not be easy. With that I add, our biggest problem will be to get our country back on it's feet and in good standing with the rest of the world. As far as I can tell, most of the world population want him as America's next president. Imagine that, "most of the world population", even foreign leaders. I believe too, the majority of "terrorism" will fill fade away - with the exception of a few radical here and there.

OBAMA-BIDEN

[canucklivinginUSA]

Here, here gbrooks. Unlike some on this board who are a bit to idealistic for my taste, I do believe that Obama will be more of centrist to the chagrin of his ultra-liberal fans, and that is a good thing. We, in this country need someone who will represent every spectrum of the political world, not just one side and that is what I hope from Obama

[ByersL]

Oh oh, what will poor Chrystia Freeland do now? Will she still flagrantly push the Sarah ticket anyway?

[littlejohnpa]

Palin will call the FT `Un-American`!

[Academic]

Don't be surprised if John McCain, his surrogates in the embedded US media, his campaign and his supporters among the Republicans and those "fake" Democrats who for pure racist reasons can't bring themselves to vote for a black man damn the Financial Times as SOCIALIST.

Professor Dr. Stanley Collymore.

[Rog49Thomas]

well they might be able to get away with that given the level of intelligence of the average vote

the ft is of course a right wing (economically) newspaper

[InspiredbyObama]

This is amazing...­. I honestly haven't heard any papers endorsing McCain.

[Rog49Thomas]

well there are

in the commonwealth of vriginia -- the winchester star and the daily press of newport news

in tejas - the dallas morning news (they think honest john is a progressive conservative - whatever the heck could that mean? i suppose it could be a diagnosis like "progressive diabetes"))

in florida the tampa times

of course the bigger question is -- if you need a newspaper or a celebrity to tell you how to vote, are you really mentally equipped to cast a vote? me I waiting to see what Paris Hilton says...

[MajorBarbara]

Even the largest paper in Alaska endorses Obama. I feel bad for them. Palin is going to fire all of them when she gets back.

[DCCommuter]

I think this is great. Some posters think it is a lackluster endorsement? Aren't they British? British are not sentiment and swoony. If this is all the love they can muster, I'll take it.

[HarkaDahl]

Americans looking for gushing sentimentality, heaps of praise and other starry eyed nonsense that characterize an American election will not find it in the pages of the FT. It is a financial newspaper that strips away the crap casts a steely eye. If the FT says Obama is better than McCain, its a bland and unadorned piece of fact, not an excuse for a ticker tape parade, nor a partisan favour.

Unlike the wild-eyed hysteria that grips America in an election year, Brits keep a cooler head about politicians. None of them are what they claim to be, but some are still better than others. If you make Gods of them, then 1) they are bound to disappoint, and 2) it goes to their heads.

An tempered endorsement from the FT is worth more than all the uncritical hyperbole the US news media can muster.

[SeanGardner]

And this is an endorsement? What the hell?

[Rog49Thomas]

if you knew the economic philosophy of the FT, you would understand just how difficult this is.

it would be like "Doctor" Dobson praising the Quran as God's word

[squander123]

You have to understand that the FT is a very, very 'serious' newspaper, which is one of the last strongholds of Old School good journalism. They don't discuss politicians as if they're celebrity contestants, and they judge policies not personalities. This endorsement will carry HUGE weight with the financial community: including those in America with a vote in this election, as I gather Wall Street reads the FT for precisely the reasons of 'seriousness' I've just described.