I have had a subscription to The Economist for a couple of years now. I loved it at first, and I still enjoy its pieces on third world countries and certain obscure matters. But I have long skipped their coverage of U.S. issues and many of their editorials because they seemed indistinguishable from liberal editorials I see everywhere else.

My subscription was nearing an end a few weeks ago, and I couldn't decide whether to renew it. Then, came this (emphasis mine):

The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk...

Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour...

So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.

There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.

Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well...

Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.

So, let me get this straight. According to The Economist, Obama lacks executive experience, is too far to the left, wouldn't stand up to a Democratic Congress, wouldn't defy the unions, his charisma is insufficient to solve the nation's problems, voting for him is a "risk," his "resume is thin," and he would at most shift to the center (or centre) of the Democratic party.

Then there must then be a darn good reason to vote for him, right?

Here are The Economist's reasons: Obama's election would curtail anti-American conspiracy theories in the Islamic world, "the global electoral college" shows him winning (because the same people who elected Chavez and Ahmadinejad have such a good track record of selecting leadership), his "star quality" would be useful, he beat the "Clinton Machine" (the go-to answer when any Obama supporter is asked about Obama's accomplishments), he made a "thoughtful speech" when cornered (which he contradicted about two weeks later), he has great advisors, and he "listens, learns, and manages well" (would The Economist be so kind as to inform us how it has deduced that about Obama?).

And which one of these reasons exactly qualifies him for the presidency?

This is embarrassing for The Economist. No publication that supposedly supports free trade, the Iraq War, school vouchers, health care deregulation, and opposes the corporate tax, a welfare state, the minimum wage, "windfall" taxes, and free speech regulation has any business endorsing Obama. Especially when his compensating qualities are his "thoughtful speeches," a "star quality," and the upper hand in the "global electoral college."

So, I have decided not to renew my subscription. And The Economist must know that my respect for it has taken a serious hit.