For the first time in 80 years, the New Yorker has endorsed a presidential candidate. In one of the longest and strongest editorial endorsements we've seen, the New Yorker editors blast Bush and comes on strong for Kerry. It trounces Bush on virtually every front...from the war in Iraq to Ashcroft and the excesses of the Patriot Act, to its secrecy in the war on terror, to the economy and more. And it blows off claims that its endorsement is Anti-Bush rather than pro-Kerry:

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 damage 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.

Read it all, then read it again and e-mail it someone you know who is still undecided. Or who thinks their vote won't matter. If you don't have time and need a cheat sheet, here's the short version.