Financial Times endorses Obama

[featherman]

"After Tuesday’s vote, the Democrats should move quickly to affirm Mr Obama’s nomination. That is not just because his lead in elected delegates is already unassailable and the contest should be brought to a swift conclusion. It is also because he is, in fact, the better candidate."

"Mr Obama has fought a brilliant campaign, out-organising his opponent, raising more money, and convincing undecided Democrats as well as the country at large that he was more likeable, more straightforward and more worthy of trust."

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/the-financial-times-endorses-o.php

[Waya]

1. HAAAAA!!!!

[invictus]

2. K & R. GOBAMA!

[cbayer]

3. I must of missed the part when we decided Brits could vote for our President.

Didn't we fight a bloody war over this?

[jakem]

4. Ill take a BBC inspired vote over FOX anyday!

[davidpdx]

9. No, but there are quite a few of us that live overseas

that vote. My understanding is there are a large number in Europe.

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. You evidently missed that the FT is an international and not merely British paper, too.

Its print edition is published in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Dallas, San Francisco, Miami, and Washington DC.

The Economist, another London-based international publication, endorsed John Kerry for President in 2004, and said this in doing so (which I would agree with, re their 'right' to make such an endorsement, and it applies here, too):

...some readers are bound to protest that we, as a publication based in London, should not be poking our noses in other people's politics. Translated, this invariably means that protesters disagree with our choice. It may also, however, reflect a lack of awareness about our readership. The Economist's weekly sales in the United States are about 450,000 copies, which is three times our British sale and roughly 45% of our worldwide total. All those American readers will now be pondering how to vote, or indeed whether to. Thus, as at every presidential election since 1980, we hope it may be useful for us to say how we would think about our vote—if we had one.

[elocs]

5. Same subject from today at 12:56 a.m.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5598643

FT endorse Barack Obama Updated at 2:13 AM

They must have gotten wind of the Campaign Financial Reports! :)
FT is the Business Publication who's endorsement a Democrat should covet!



Democrats must choose Obama

Published: April 20 2008 18:59 | Last updated: April 20 2008 18:59
<>
After Tuesday’s vote, the Democrats should move quickly to affirm Mr Obama’s nomination. That is not just because his lead in elected delegates is already unassailable and the contest should be brought to a swift conclusion. It is also because he is, in fact, the better candidate.
<>
Mr Obama has fought a brilliant campaign, out-organising his opponent, raising more money, and convincing undecided Democrats as well as the country at large that he was more likeable, more straightforward and more worthy of trust.

On form, he is a spell-binding orator and holds arena-sized audiences in thrall. He is given to airy exhortations, it is true, but genuinely seeks consensus and has cross-party appeal.

Mrs Clinton’s campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.
<>

How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate’s fitness to be president is debatable – but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise.

In fact, the campaigns have underlined the contenders’ respective strengths and weaknesses.

Mr Obama’s consistent and relaxed demeanour attested to his coolness (in both senses, his swooning young admirers would add); it seemed to affirm his authenticity. In contrast, Mrs Clinton’s hyperactive advisers dressed her in a new personality each day, sometimes several in the course of an interview. They wheeled out Bill Clinton, to remind people of the 1990s, then reeled him back, to help them forget.

Too many course corrections, not enough course.
<>
The US has the urge to be inspired a little. Electing the country’s first woman president ought to be very inspiring. But not this woman – with her dynastic baggage and knack for antagonising the undecided – running against this man.

The Democratic party has waited an awfully long time for a politician like Barack Obama. Enough already.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/19c88b7c-0f00-11dd-9646-00007...

[ginnyinWI]

6. K&R

This is a very well respected newspaper.

[BooScout]

7. You do know the Financial Times is the UK's WSJ?

It's generally centrist........BUT it's BIG Business baby and that's who it's geared for. So is the big corporate bad asses now supporting Obama?

[eridani]

8. They always have been. Clinton and Obama were both at the bottom of my list--

--for exactly that reason. However, even though they get a lot of their money from the same fatcats, Obama has been far better at managing his spending, not to mention adding a huge base of small donors.

[jordi_fanclub]

10. Noam Chomsky has said that it is "the only paper that tells the truth"

The Financial Times is normally seen politically as centrist, although to the left of its principal competitor, The Wall Street Journal. It advocates free markets and is generally in favour of globalisation. During the 1980s it supported Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan's monetarist policies. However, it has recently seemed to have aligned itself with Labour in the UK. It also has been quite supportive, until recently, of Gordon Brown, the current British Prime Minister. FT editorials have tended to be pro-European Union, though often taking a critical view. Several members of British far-left groups, however, do work for the paper, and it is popular among the left (Noam Chomsky has said that it is "the only paper that tells the truth").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Times#Opinions

[Political Heretic]

12. That quote is incorrect.

Video of his statement can be seen on Manufacturing Consent. He said that financial publications are the only ones that tell the truth, not that the financial times exclusively is the only paper that tells the truth.