[anonyreliant]

Why did the magazine endorse Bush in 2000 and then again in 2004? What exactly is obvious in retrospect that wasn't apparent to even marginally informed observers at the time.

The Economist has been a weathervane since they decided expanding into the US market required an editorial shift to the right. The International Herald Tribune is producing much higher quality and politically neutral reporting these days imho.

[davidw]

They did not endorse Bush in 2004. They don't claim to be neutral - they're very much in favor of things like free trade, for instance.

[alecco]

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3...

"Whenever we express a view of that sort, 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."

I don't like The Economist, but you are right, they did the right thing in 2004, Amazingly.