The New Yorker, perhaps genuflecting to make up for that notorious cover a couple of months ago, writes a 4000+ word endorsement that goes by the numbers:
The Republican disaster begins at home. Even before taking into account whatever fantastically expensive plan eventually emerges to help rescue the financial system from Wall Street’s long-running pyramid schemes, the economic and fiscal picture is bleak. During the Bush Administration, the national debt, now approaching ten trillion dollars, has nearly doubled. Next year’s federal budget is projected to run a half-trillion-dollar deficit, a precipitous fall from the seven-hundred-billion-dollar surplus that was projected when Bill Clinton left office. Private-sector job creation has been a sixth of what it was under President Clinton. Five million people have fallen into poverty. The number of Americans without health insurance has grown by seven million, while average premiums have nearly doubled
(Not to mention the 159,000 people that lost jobs in September, nearly double the 95,000 that lost jobs in August, which nearly dwarfs the 60,000 that lost jobs in June!)
Of many Mcain missteps, deficiencies, and old Maverick glories, the endorsement notes that the selection of Palin was "an act of breathtaking heedlessness and irresponsibility." Breathtaking heedlessness is the perfect characterization for what Cindy McCain said yesterday.
Esquire's endorsement is waaay less enthusiastic, perhaps a bit begrudging. They seem to be choosing, the least of two evils:
Obscured by Obama's dithering is the fact that his Republican counterpart is one of the first presidential candidates in history to run as a parody of himself. John McCain has decided on a cheap and dishonorable campaign. He has embraced the tactics with which he was slandered in 2000...
Meanwhile, Richard Cohen at The Washington Post lambastes the mainstream media for "grading on a curve suitable for a parrot" in its treatment of Sarah Palin during and after the Vice Presidential debate.