Fenster writes:

The last thing this blog should be is a political one.  Little danger of that actually, considering the readership and writership.  And while I am a political junkie I have been careful not to use this as a platform to spout.  I get enough of that from Facebook friends.

But there comes a time to stand and deliver and this is about time.

Fenster endorses (drumroll) . . . . . ummm . . . .

Hold on! Hold on!  Not so fast!  Let me kind of duck that question and refer you to a most superlative Economist endorsement, out today.

It is as nearly perfect an account of the way I see the race–and the issues that are truly important animating the race–as I can imagine.  I urge you to incorporate its reasoning into your thinking in its entirety.

It’s all there.

Romney more serious on deficit: check.

But Romney stuck with no-tax approach to same: check

Obama’s foreign policy record better than the right says: check

But Obama is “aloof and disengaged” and “no master diplomat”: check

Romney may actually be a moderate and may govern accordingly: check

But Romney’s right flank is downright scary, way scarier than Obama’s left, and may drag Romney where it wants him: check.

Obamacare coverage of uninsured a good thing: check

But Obamacare’s ducking of medical costs a bad thing: check.

It is equally important what is left out of this endorsement.  I yield to no man in my appreciation of issues such as women’s rights, the pill, abortion and gay marriage.  But for me at least they are down, down, down the list of truly important issues for the nation, especially in a presidential race.

The Economist ends up endorsing Obama, but by the razor thinnest of margins.  Indeed, it would do no injustice to the logic of the article if it concluded in its final paragraph to endorse Romney.

As to Fenster, he cannot quite summon it up to endorse Obama.  But he endorses The Economist.  This post is about politics, so it can be as ambiguous as it likes.