My thoughts ?
Obviously hardcore partisans will interpret things differently. Perhaps some pro-Obama types will read that article as a ringing endorsement, but what I got from the article was not that Obama is some superstar who is worthy of their unreserved endorsement, but rather that of the two horrible choices available, Obama is still not great, but he sucks a bit less than Romney does.
I cant help but wonder, given a pool of >300 million people to draw from, is it really that hard to find 2 people who both have the potential to be great? To get to the point where some entity like "The Economist" does not have to frame the choice as the lesser of 2 evils ?
Dont the people deserve better than that ? Perhaps that's a naive expectation. I've had the good fortune to work under some fantastic leaders, (and under some lousy ones). Without being terribly presumptuous, I think I'm accurate in suggesting that those I'd class as fantastic would have no interest at all in running for public office.