There is no question he would bring change - but not as much as is needed after a presidency that enriched the wealthy over the working and middle classes with excessive tax cuts; gorged on spending; failed to address America's energy needs and global warming; undermined the credibility of U.S. military power, and got blindsided by the Wall Street meltdown, thanks in part to deregulatory zeal.

The Post waxes on (I told you it was long) about our hero McCain:

His strongest suits are foreign affairs and the military. Tough-minded on both, he was dead-on regarding Iraq. From the start, he advocated more boots on the ground so the military could provide security to the Iraqi people, not just topple Saddam Hussein. Then, in the war's darkest hours, he held fast against overwhelming opposition to urge a bigger troop deployment.

Thus was born the surge that opened the way for Iraqis to begin building a civil society and pointed America toward withdrawal by the next President - perhaps, ironically, Obama.

McCain's insistence on persevering in Iraq - and on getting it right - reflects a core belief in promoting U.S. interests with a wise use of America's assets, from ideals to arsenal.

He has complemented global savvy with walk-the-walk bipartisanship. Among the highlights were battles for immigration and campaign finance reform, as well as a readiness to attack pork-barrel spending by both parties.

Then a hint of why they aren't endorsing him:

There is no question he would bring change - but not as much as is needed after a presidency that enriched the wealthy over the working and middle classes with excessive tax cuts; gorged on spending; failed to address America's energy needs and global warming; undermined the credibility of U.S. military power, and got blindsided by the Wall Street meltdown, thanks in part to deregulatory zeal.

...Thus was born the surge that opened the way for Iraqis to begin building a civil society and pointed America toward withdrawal by the next President - perhaps, ironically, Obama.

McCain's insistence on persevering in Iraq - and on getting it right - reflects a core belief in promoting U.S. interests with a wise use of America's assets, from ideals to arsenal.

He has complemented global savvy with walk-the-walk bipartisanship. Among the highlights were battles for immigration and campaign finance reform, as well as a readiness to attack pork-barrel spending by both parties.

McCain's misfortune is that he is the standard-bearer of a party whose leadership, starting at the top, ran the U.S. onto the rocks.

There is no question he would bring change - but not as much as is needed after a presidency that enriched the wealthy over the working and middle classes with excessive tax cuts; gorged on spending; failed to address America's energy needs and global warming; undermined the credibility of U.S. military power, and got blindsided by the Wall Street meltdown, thanks in part to deregulatory zeal.

So What does Obama Have that makes the paper choose him?

These times call for boldness backed by expertise, not by ideology. We support Obama in the expectation that he would tap the brightest minds, regardless of political affiliation. He would need seasoned advice on every front, not least in adjusting from the rhetoric of a hasty Iraq withdrawal to the facts-on-the-ground duty of commander in chief.

Then there's this:

A brilliant mind combined with practicality would well serve any President, and the reserves shown by Obama suggest he would bring nimbleness and judgment to the Oval Office. So does his crucial vow to reach across the aisle for solutions frozen in partisan gridlock.

Obama has the potential to reinvigorate a nation fed up with the dysfunctional behavior of its leaders. But he would face tests - deciding, not speaking; governing, not campaigning - that dwarf any he encountered in his slim 12 years in the Illinois Legislature and the U.S. Senate.

Note the paper calls 12 years "thin"but makes no mention of Palin. It sounds like they are making a recommendation with their back against the wall.

The Miami Herald:

Indeed, the way the two candidates responded to the economic meltdown offers a lesson in contrasting styles of leadership. Both have put forth a series of worthwhile policy options, but where Sen. Obama was calm, Sen. McCain was frantic. He first put his campaign ''on hold'' and suggested he would cancel the first debate, and then suddenly decided to take part even as the first bailout deal cratered. He said the fundamentals of the economy were strong, then a few days later vowed to ''name the names'' of those responsible for the financial crisis.

In other elections, voters have complained of having to make a choice between two bad candidates. That is not the case this time. The nation is fortunate to have good candidates and a clear choice. Sen. Obama represents the best chance for America to make a clean break with the culture wars and failed policies of the past, and begin to restore the hope and promise of America as the world's greatest democracy.

The San Francisco Chronicle endorses Barack Obama -- with one paragraph:

"Throughout a campaign that has been intense - and at some points, ugly - Sen. Barack Obama has kept his composure and maintained a vision of optimism that has drawn an unparalleled wave of young people into the political process. His policies and his persona have offered hope to a nation that is deeply polarized, swimming in debt, mired in war and ridden with anxiety. He taps into that treasured American reservoir - patriotism - with his calls for sacrifice and national service. Barack Obama is the right president for these troubled times."

We also have the right-leaning Rocky Mountain News which cops out and decides not to endorse either candidate.