New York Times Endorses Kerry

I'm shocked. SHOCKED! Who could have expected that the New York Times would back Kerry?

Michele notes that of 23 paragraphs in the piece, only 3 focus on why Kerry is good, the other 20 read like an anti-Bush manifesto.

Kevin at Wizbang points out that while most of their reasons for the endorsement boil down to 'because he's not Bush', the few pro-Kerry reasons don't really amount to much.

Even confirmed left-wingers like Atrios complain that the article looks, and I quote, as if it were written in crayon.

Meanwhile, Blogs For Bush finds the whole thing a bit laughable. They say if a member of the Bush administration found a cure for cancer the NYT headline would be 'Bush Administration Actions Threaten Cancer Researchers Employment'

Chris Short over at Our Life has a question we should be asking the Times.

Meanwhile, the UN claims that Kerry caused the death of 50 Haitians. Seems like a very tenuous link to me, but who am I to doubt the UN?