(This is from a email I sent earlier) For those of you who haven't seen The Economist endorsed Obama (I saw this initially on twitter from Josh).  Link

I'm a bit shocked to see the Economist endorsing Obama outright, but as a true on-the-fence voter (less so once Palin was nominated as VP candidate - bad choice IMO - I thought she was a great governor, but not qualified to run the country) I had many of the same concerns regarding both candidates that they brought up.

I've spent several hours watching debates, reading about the candidates, comparing their views (sites like procon.org, etc.) and trying to get a good feel but after reading The Economist article I know I'm not alone. I want McCain's experience but could live without the recent overt pandering to the religious right - such as during one of the debates where he not only brought up Abortion, but then pounded it into the ground as something he was firm on. It appeared to me he was trying to rally the religious base, which turned me off since I always saw John McCain as a person of reason, not of party lines.

If the John McCain of the past was running he would have had my vote, but the John McCain currently running feels fake. He's less John McCain and more "I mean change.. as long as it's the party line". Between this, and the Palin choice I think he's compromised too far on his positions and gone from being someone different and refreshing to the same old republican stooge. Early on I saw him getting squishy on his approach and hoped he would do the right things once in office, but now I don't think I can take that chance with his recent messaging.

As for Obama I want to support "Hope" and "Change" but at the same time he doesn't seem to stand on solid ground or want to make commitments regarding what Hope/Change entails when he must take action once in office. Too much feeling, not enough direct statement about what he's going to do. I don't like candidates that will not take positions and Obama hedges too much when answering questions. The biggest one for me is balancing the federal budget. The government will need to continue to pour money into the economy for the next few years to get everything stable but a President Obama should be able to say that by the time he leaves office he will have worked within the government to balance the budget. The biggest issue I see is that many of his views feel good on the surface, but come with very steep price tags with no statement about how he is going to fund them. He states that we need to use a scalpel when determining what costs to eliminate vs. an axe and won't commit to cutting the deficit. How the heck is he going to fund the hundreds of billions in programs he is proposing without taking the money from somewhere else? I dunno, and I suspect that at this point neither does he. Combine this view with having the house/senate be Democrat and you could break the federal piggy bank, nationalize/regulate a ton more services and take away your guns all in the same term.

One thing that has been appealing for me is that Obama has people coming out of the woodwork to support him. With a average contribution of <$100 that is saying something about who and how many people believe in Obama, including according to the polls I have seen the rest of the world. Having a president people and other nations believe in isn't such a bad thing.

So it's a choice for me - vote for someone that I'm hoping will turn back into someone I feel I can trust once he's in office, or get on the Hope and Change bandwagon and see if someone with relatively little experience will grow into a president we can be proud of.

I guess I miss the "Straight talk express" and due to it's absence I'm thinking Obama will get my vote.. -Alan