Of course, that didn't prevent the Economist from being one of Bush's most enthusiastic apologists during most of his presidency. Wankers.
No they weren't. They supported the invasion of Iraq long after it was seemly to do so, but that isn't the same thing. Especially compared to US news sources, they've been very critical of the Bush presidency including the conduct of the Iraqi occupation, and they endorsed Kerry in 2004. In any case, I know of few serious publications that would start an article with "Few readers of The Economist, one would imagine, have seen a one-eyed dwarf with bat-like wings, pointed ears and sharpened talons. Even fewer are likely to have been sodomised by one." If that had been an actual comment on the Bush Presidency, it would have been perfect.
electoral-vote.com has Obama up 20 points since yesterday - I don't see how the debate tonight will change anything, unless the McCain camp thinks it has nothing to lose and takes some big risks.
I think the McCain camp has been running on that strategy for a while. There was that whole "I'm dropping everything to solve the financial crisis!" Hail Mary pass, the "I'm appointing the only person I could find who would be a worse President than the incumbent". But even before then, he was apparently putting his campaign's resources into the ads comparing Obama to Paris Hilton instead of (i.e. didn't have the money for both) building a network of offices to compete in the ground game. Now he's treating going negative in the same fashion. I really get the impression he has no patience for an incremental strategy. He thinks there's one big roll of the dice that will win this for him.