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

[ShamusNYC]

FT is a much, much better paper than the WSJ - hands down.

[RobinSeattle]

Well, we all know that The Economist and the Financial Times are part of the liberal media conspiracy right wingnuts?

I have extolled both of these fine publications in the past even though I am a leftwing liberal and my faith in them has been rewarded.

Good job guys. Again, history will give you a pat on the back for your endorsements.

[swift goat pet for truth]

The Economist endorsed Bush the last time.

So much for good judgement.

[edremy]

No, they didn't: they endorsed Kerry. The cover for that issue was a classic: "The Incompetent vs. the Incoherent."

They did support Bush the first time around, as well as supporting the Iraq invasion. They have apologized numerous times for the latter, something I've rarely seen in other newsmagazines.

[ThatOne4Me]

What about the Wall Street Journal? They now belong to, you guessed it: Rupert (Made up Faux News) Murdoch!

[ContraEgoiste]

Big surprise! Who did you think this leftists socialist rag was going to endorse.

(well, somebody has to be the troll, since they don't dare acknowledge this)

;^)

[LemonMeringue]

Who would have guessed so many prominent economists and conservative newspapers would come out for that tax and spend and communism stuff.

[alvdh1]

Wow and McCain thinks Obama is a socialist. When the numbers are tallied, the economy has always performed better under Democrats. I will consider a subscription to the Financial Times.

[ContraEgoiste]

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=12342127

The Economist

AS THE financial crisis pushes the economy back to the top of voters’ concerns, Barack Obama is starting to open up a clear lead over John McCain in the opinion polls. But among those who study economics for a living, Mr Obama’s lead is much more commanding. A survey of academic economists by The Economist finds the majority—at times by overwhelming margins—believe Mr Obama has the superior economic plan, a firmer grasp of economics and will appoint better economic advisers.

~~~~~~~

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5124&en=0a676fbd7849a186&ex=1378267200&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

James Heckman (Nobel~Laureate, Professor of Economics at The University of Chicago) on Obama
“I’ve never worked with a campaign that was more interested in what the research shows.”

~~~~~~~~~

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Influential_Conservative_Republican_Economist_Endorses_Obama

Dr. Larry Hunter, PhD - Longtime ultra~conservative economist talks about why he supports Obama.

~~~~~~~

Other Prominent economists who support Obama:

Brad Delong, Berkeley macroeconomist
Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel~laureate
Edmund Phelps, 2006 Nobel~laureate
Ray Fair, Yale macroeconomist
Dan McFadden, 2000 Nobel~laureate
Robert Solow, 1987 Nobel~laureate

~~~~~~~

Prominent finance people who support Obama:

William Donaldson, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair 2003-05
Arthur Levitt, SEC chair 1993-2001
David Ruder, SEC chair 1987-1989
Warren Buffet

~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://hburgnews.com/2008/02/07/local-economist-endorses-obama/

Local Economist Endorses Obama

[loudyk]

Good article! I liked that the FT compared favorable and not so favorable aspects of Obama. While I really think Obama has something special, he isn't a saint. People will be disappointed when he can't cure all the problems in this country. But I believe he will be a very good leader and uniter. I think he can do more good than McCain ever could. Obama will be the calm in this storm we are all going through.

[MyAudacity]

I had to read it a 2nd time, because it almost sounds like a defacto endorsement. But, after 2nd reading, I realize they are saying what many of us already realize. Should Obama be elected, his troubles will just be beginning, and there are going to be disappointed people who have unrealistic expectations. I'm hoping and praying that he is prepared for this, and that the common sense and intelligence he's shown during his campaign be a huge asset to him in office as he face some very tough decisions. I have confidence that he can and will, I just pray that the people will have patience.

[lovethesinner]

I'm seeing a pattern, here. Sober people think Obama should get the job. (Hmmm...?)

[greenwitch]

Thank you, FT. Almost everyone with a brain is supporting Obama. Will that be enough in 2008 America? God help us if it's not.

[motu]

thanks, I guess..
though I don't know much about FT I'd ask "what brilliant pollicies have you supported the last 20 years?!"..

[planetjeffy]

Thanks FT. You've actually endorsed a candidate that reads your paper. Just like Sarah the moose.

[bartonfink]

great stuff. even better in the reread. I'm going to go email the link to a bunch of people, then probably read it again

thanks, FT

[eden4barack08]

Nice, no nonsense, very honest endorsement. Thank you.

[JaneaneTheAcerbicGoblin]

Another conservative magazine endorses Obama!

[Jason404]

It's actually a (right-leaning) newspaper, from London (where I live).

[Grannysue]

Nice endorsement, you know as someone who's worked in the healthcare field for over thirty years I've never understood why business would be against Universal Healthcare? Not the pharmacutical and Insurace companies themselves, we all know why thier lobbyist will fight to the death against it.
But corporations and small business's would benefit a great deal from Universal healthcare, if we had a one payer plan and everyone was covered look at the revenue they would save on their bottom line. No more negotations trying to get a better deal every year to cover their employees, no more raised premimums because a percentage of their work force somehow became more ill one year and filed more claims. My feeling has always been we need a flat tax system in this country, one which say everyone paid ten to fifteen percent, that includes corporation, no loopholes period. No breaks for shipping jobs overseas, matter of fact if you allowed say a small percentage off for every worker hired then even the corporations and small busines's would benefit. We are the only major industrialized nation that does not cover it's citizens, and those horror stories of long waiting lines, months waiting on surgeries etc., is pure crap. I know people in Canada who are afraid to travel to the U.S. for fear something will happen to them and they will be stuck with thousands in medical bills, .