Financial Times backs Obama in Democrats’ nominating battle

April 21, 2008

WASHINGTON – Britain’s Financial Times newspaper, which has bigger paid circulation in the United States than its home country, weighed into the bitter Democratic nominating contest– offering its endorsement to Sen. Barack Obama.rtr1zo49.jpg

The backing of the financial newspaper in Monday’s edition comes just a day before voters in Pennsylvania go to the polls, a state that could offer some salvation for his opponent Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has been clinging to a narrow lead in the state but trails in the delegate count. 

The FT points to Obama’s well-run campaign and cross-party appeal for putting him over the top of his rival. It also cites Clinton’s unpopularity and questions her campaign strategy, arguing it has been re-tooled several times.

A small excerpt (more here):

After Tuesday’s vote, the Democrats should move quickly to affirm Mr Obama’s nomination. That is not just because his lead in elected delegates is already unassailable and the contest should be brought to a swift conclusion. It is also because he is, in fact, the better candidate.

The contenders’ differences on policy look small and in reality are even smaller. Their disagreement on healthcare mandates, for instance, frequently emphasised by Mrs Clinton, is of little practical significance. A mandate to obtain insurance, as proposed by Mrs Clinton, does not achieve universal coverage unless enforced with punitive sanctions, which she does not advocate.

Some question the value of endorsements, does this bit of overseas analysis add anything to the mix?

Click here for more Reuters 2008 campaign coverage

– Photo credit: Reuters/Tim Shaffer (Obama waves to supporters at a rally outside Philadelphia.)


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

Questions ABC should have asked Mrs. Clinton:
1. Senator Clinton, you have been sleeping and keeping house with a known adulterer who also lied with his hand on the Bible. Why have you not denounced and rejected him? Does this mean that you approve of, even are yourself an adulterer, and have no respect for or do not believe in the Bible?
2. You kept your chief strategist, Mark Penn, on your payroll, although he had been working to pass free trade agreements with Columbia, also you continue to remain married to Bill, who also received $900,000 for such support, and millions more from China, Saudi Arabia, etc, known breakers of human rights and for China now with aggression against the Tibetan people. Are you therefore really for free trade and approve of China’s and other nations’ bad human rights record? Are you in fact a free trader and dictator at heart? Why have you not denounced and rejected Mark Penn and Bill Clinton?
3. Your daughter works for a hedgefund company on Wall Steet. Are you therefore a candidate for a hedgefund front and will take Wall Street over Main Street and over blue-collar workers? Why have you not denounced and rejected your daughter, Chelsea?
The ABC debate was disgusting–it was like watching a set-up/ambush/lynching of Senator Obama with the three on the stage doing a mob attack. It was more like a bunch of hoodlums against one honest man, with Hillary slugging him from behind. I am a senior citizen feminist who will never vote for Mrs. Clinton. Hillary believes she is entitled to her husband’s ex-job, but most Americans dislike and distrust her, and on good evidence. We’ve watched Hillary lie with a smile on St Patrick’s Day about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia. Watched her smile as she knee-caps Obama with distortions on words taken out of context. Watched her smile as she lies to blue collar workers about NAFTA and about her working class identity, she of the multimillions from shady off-shore corporations and with a Yale law-school degree put to the service of union-busting Wal-Mart. Senator Obama shows restraint and class in steering away from negative attacks on her, and whoa! is there a pile of *hit on record with the Clinton dynasty. Pardons in exchange for payback from criminals, Saudi millions for the Clinton Foundation, hundreds of thousands for support of the Colombian free trade treaty, etc, etc. Hillary cries for the camera to get the sister votes, chugs down whiskey chased with beer for the machismo barflies, and keeps intimate company with an impeached president caught lying with his hand on the Bible about not having sex with that woman. What does her sleeping with a proven adulterer and lying-under-oath President say about the company she keeps? The more we watch Hillary, the more we distrust her. The more we know Obama, the more he becomes our candidate to change dynastic business as usual in Washington. We citizens of the American Republic denounce and reject the Clinton dynasty. We want our democracy back.

Posted by shirlin | Report as abusive

Informative and concise, my kind of article. Thanks for endorsing Obama, that many of we obamaicans appreciate.

Posted by Cecilia | Report as abusive

Thank you FT!…Obama is something awesome. I was in attendance on Friday at the Philadelphia rally (35,000!!!) The energy was amazing!..In addition, after the rally about 5,000 of us walked down market street chanting “YES WE CAN!” I paused, looked around and saw all colors, shapes, sizes, classes, religions, genders, orientations…AMERICANS UNITED. Thank you mr. Obama for reminding me of what our very best looks like.

Posted by PaigeinPhilly | Report as abusive

A well thought out endorsement- thank you.

Posted by Lauren | Report as abusive

This demonstrates that Sen. Obama will be a better choice when it comes to resolving economic problems. We know he already is the best candidate when it comes to foreign policy. Thank you FT. And thank you Reuters for reporting this. The Clintons cannot be trusted. Enough of them.
Pennsylvania, our future is in your hands.

Posted by Pedro | Report as abusive


Posted by Noah | Report as abusive

Clinton has lost. She cannot win the vote.

She should have bowed out after slim wins in Ohio and the projected delegate loss in Texas.

This is not about what is good for the party or the country any more. It is about what Senator Clinton wants, and that is to win.

We have just endured 8 years under a president who is willing to prolong an un-winnable conflict that is counter the national interests for his own benefit.

I was alright with Senator Clinton at the beginning, but given the fact that she is willing to put her own pride and arrogance over the party’s and the country’s best interest, I wouldn’t vote for her as a democratic candidate.

Obama or Bust.

Posted by Joseph | Report as abusive

Thank God the British got it right. YES WE CAN!

Posted by Mary Mansour | Report as abusive

Wonderful article and wonderful comments. I bursting with pride. You all said it so well and complimented each other so nicely. I think Obama can be proud that his supporters are so classy, unlike Hillary’s who act just like her. Thank you all….I hope Obama see gets to see all of this.

Posted by nancy | Report as abusive


Posted by joll0586 | Report as abusive

Concise and thoughtful–We need the same kind of arguments from our American press.

Posted by Docb | Report as abusive