It’s not much of a shock that the The New Yorker would endorse Kerry over Bush, given their reporting over the past few years, but again, their writing, their critique, the very completeness of the argument that the editors make show why the New Yorker remains the Gold Standard for writing and reporting — and the long form article — in America today. Here’s a quick sample, but you really should read the entire editorial.

The damage visited upon America, and upon America’s standing in the world, by the Bush Administration’s reckless mishandling of the public trust will not easily be undone. And for many voters the desire to see the damag arrested is reason enough to vote for John Kerry. But the challenger has more to offer than the fact that he is not George W. Bush. In every crucial area of concern to Americans (the economy, health care, the environment, Social Security, the judiciary, national security, foreign policy, the war in Iraq, the fight against terrorism), Kerry offers a clear, corrective alternative to Bush’s curious blend of smugness, radicalism, and demagoguery. Pollsters like to ask voters which candidate they’d most like to have a beer with, and on that metric Bush always wins. We prefer to ask which candidate is better suited to the governance of our nation.