That's current readers of The Economist, a journal that used to be rationalist 19th century liberal but became a pale imitation of the Wall Street Journal editorial pages in the 90s. Even this readership, the very heart of McCain's former constituency, is massively pro-Obama.
So I figured the "paper" would endorse Obama. If 80% of the US readership of a WSJed-lite publication wants Obama, they aren't going to be stupid.
Still, in 2000 they endorsed Bush. They never adequately apologized.
In 2004, they weakly, half-heartedly, with poisoned pen, "endorsed" John Kerry as "the incoherent".
So I was expecting a grudging, muttered, meaningless endorsement.
Instead we got ...
There's nothing poisonous about this endorsement (emphasis mine):
... all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly ..."Wholeheartedly". A carefully chosen word.
They are not forgiven. They will never be forgiven for their 2000 endorsement of GWB.