The Economist endorses Kerry

Probably the best endorsement I've read. It hints at what I consider to be the bottom line: Bush has lost almost all credibility with half the American electorate and people in other countries. They will never trust him again. Even if you agree with everything he says (and I don't) this distrust will prevent him from accomplishing his foreign policy goals.

I disagree with The Economist on a few issues that are relatively minor, by the standards of this campaign:

• I was on the fence on the Iraqi invasion, and I still am.
• I agree that Bush was "inspiring" after 9/11 and that he "grasped the magnitude of the challenge well". But the "war on terror" has little in common with the traditional concept of war. There was indeed a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. But just as the "war on poverty" is not a war, potential terrorists who hate America cannot be fought in a war unless they reside in a terrorist-friendly country (and most don't).
• I don't agree that Kerry "has seemed to hark back to the old Clintonian view of terrorism as chiefly a question of law and order". That's not what Kerry has said, and besides that's not what Clinton thought (as Richard Clarke and several other sources have attested). The main obstacle Clinton (and Bush) faced was a pre-9/11 mindset on anti-terrorism. Kerry won't have that problem. In fact, based on what likely Kerry cabinet members Wesley Clark, Richard Hoolbrooke and Rand Beers are saying, Kerry would be more creative and coordinated with other countries in his fight against terrorism.