Thoughtful editorial endorsing Obama for president, by the right-of-center Economist, one of the top-rated publications on NewsTrust. This article provides one of the best overviews of the respective merits of both candidates, identifying their strengths and weaknesses with insight based on factual evidence, providing extensive context and original perspective. Highly recommended eye-opener on pros and cons of an Obama administration.

The sobriety of this article, particularly considering it's source, instantly captures the attention of this reader. A methodical look at these two candidates and the implications of their policies, characters and the manner in which their campaigns have been run. The campaigns' own words and other quantifiable evidence provide the foundation for a simple pro and con analysis. Different political perspectives (notably including global polling) are presented and create the fabric of a concise, pragmatic piece of decision-making. Factual integrity, an unforced style and the timing of the article make for a very noteworthy piece of journalism.

One can always depend on the Economist for superb writing and well-founded analysis; this editorial is no exception. (One might wish, however, that "cack-handed" had simply given way to "clumsy.") What especially impresses, given their endorsement, is the Economist's critique of Obama; if Obama wins he deserves recognition for his strengths, however what he may need more is our continued awareness of his weaknesses so that they do not become national liabilities. For Americans who seldom travel abroad, this editorial emphasizes the fact that "leader of the Free World" is hardly an empty title; the pronouncements of our President and the actions of our Congress are front page news worldwide. We bear enormous responsibility.

This endorsement of Obama from the Economist provides a compelling case from an international perspective while at the same time identifying potential dangers ahead. Well written and thoughtful.

Though they claim wholehearted support, The Economist never does manage to define exactly why they made this choice. They admire his steadiness under fire and the assured campaign, but list at least as many qualifiers. It is clear they wish the true maverick John McCain of old had run this year. And just as clear they'd have supported him instead. But, as with so many this year, they just couldn't get past the campaign he's run and his VP pick.

Yes. The article is well written and it comes to a good conclusion. The writer analyzes both candidates and takes a look at strengths and weaknesses. After considerable vetting the conclusion is that Obama represents hope for change and ran a superb campaign.

This seems a very thoughtful endorsement, providing both strengths and weaknesses of both candidates. From a more conservative publication, it's a welcome endorsement.

This opinion piece has minimal journalistic merit. The magazine is well-known for its left wing slant. The authors do make it clear that Obama is unqualified to be President, with no executive experience, indeed less than Gov. Palin, whom they claim, without giving any reasons, is "unfit". They also do note the incompetence of the Democratic Congress and the danger that a President who shares their far-left positions will cause. Yet somehow they still favor Obama, who has consistently said he will put far-left policies in place. So the result is a completely muddled piece, suitable for a beer party, but not serious journalism.

Definitely one of the best-written article around. It is rare to find such article nowadays - incisive, comprehensive and very sensitive with the context.