Earlier I was considering posting today’s Washington Post Kerry endorsement. I was maybe a little surprised at how mild an endorsement it was — they seem to give it to Kerry by a nose.

But then my Mom sent along the Shreveport Times’ Kerry endorsement, which surprised me even more.

Both argue that Bush hasn’t earned reelection and fault him not for going to Iraq, but for failing to be realistic about the aftermath.

And I’m rather impressed by a couple of points in the Times’ editorial …

Kerry, as did this opinion page, bought into Secretary of State Colin Powell’s “evidence” presented to the United Nations that Iraq was playing a shell game across the countryside with weapons of mass destruction. But while the president needed the latitude to protect the United States and its allies, the expectation was that military invasion would be a last resort.

[…]

It’s not a sign of weakness but one of intelligence to be inclusive in decisions that profoundly impact our world. The world is too complex, too interrelated to dismiss out of hand global opinion. And regardless of how spinners play his remarks, Kerry has expressed a resolve to act — not to seek permission — in whatever ways necessary to safeguard the United States.

Both points cut right through specific partisan spin points with common sense, which is something I haven’t necessarily seen from many national news operations.