New York Times endorses Kerry... gasp!

The New York Times, in a move about as shocking as Pravda endorsing Joseph Stalin, has handed its coveted endorsement to Senator Kerry:

We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear thinking - something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change.

I wonder what "conditions" the Times is referring to? Would Howard Dean's runaway campaign - based entirely on an anti-war platform - during the Democratic primary qualify as one of these conditions? This Senator has not "re-evaluated" anything besides his own best interests. The ideological evolution of John Kerry is not borne out of a desire to better serve our nation; it has drifted along the ebb and flow of political expediency.

But why bother arguing the Times' endorsement, its not as though this came as a surprise to anyone.

Among papers endorsing the president was the Chicago Tribune, which offered the following explanation:

There is much the current president could have done differently over the last four years. ... But for his resoluteness on the defining challenge of our age — a resoluteness John Kerry has not been able to demonstrate — the Chicago Tribune urges the re-election of George W. Bush as president of the United States.

Looks as though the Trib wasn't as impressed with Kerry's political nimbleness as was the Times.