I officially don't get it. I have subscribed to The Economist for a long time, because, well, I fancy myself a pointy-headed intellectual. There, I said it. The Economist is generally dedicated to free trade, free markets and limited government. However, in this week's leader the venerable magazine said:Mr. Obama is an impressive nominee with the potential to be a fine president.But wait, there's more. They proceed to take him to task for his tilt towards protectionism, his stance on denying funds for the "surge" in Iraq, his insistence on withdrawing troops from Iraq on a rigid timetable, and his incentive destroying proposals to tax the "rich." The editors also allow as how many Americans see him as "too young and inexperienced for a dangerous world." Further, they describe his breaking of his campaign finance promise as cynical and shabby. Finally, he has "never exhibited political courage by daring to take on his party's powerful interests." But other than these modest failings, what's not to like?
But hey, the man can speechify, especially with a teleprompter. In the article, Chris Matthews is even given a pass for the "thrill up the leg" comment. I somehow lucked into seeing both of the speeches Obama and McCain gave that night as well as Matthews' comments live. I was appalled by Matthews. McCain's discussed how we wished to serve his country because his country had first saved him. That resonated deeply and moved me to tears. For the life of me, I cannot remember a single thing Obama said that night. I challenge the reader to remember as well, go read the speeches (linked above). Somehow the hip, cool, young, speechifier is going to repair America's damaged relationships in the world. That's it. That's the whole deal, why they like this guy. Good grief.
