As if anyone could be surprised, the New York Times editorial board wrote its official endorsement piece on Friday, "Barack Obama for President." And I could not help myself: at first, my blood boiled. But about halfway through the piece, all I could do was laugh.

The same paper endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain for their respective parties last spring. They had substantial arguments both for John McCain and against Barack Obama. These arguments were blatantly ignored and in some cases reversed for the sake of this endorsement. Some of their justifications behind electing Obama are just plain amusing. So let's start from the beginning. Unless otherwise noted, quotations mark direct excerpts from the piece.

The keystone of the Democrats' campaign is that the country is in absolutely wretched and horrible shape. The Times agrees: "The United States is battered and drifting after eight years of President Bush's failed leadership." Battered and drifting? This reminds me of the way Obama ads say they desire to "rebuild America." As if we just suffered some nuclear holocaust and second Great Depression that requires us to "rebuild."

The first and foremost justification to elect Obama is stated in the piece's thesis: "After nearly two years of a grueling and ugly campaign, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has proven that he is the right choice to be the 44th president of the United States." I suppose a grueling campaign outweighs a 26-year Senate record and about a decade spent in a Vietnam torture facility. My mistake.

"Mr. Obama has met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change." Wait a minute. Is this a newspaper or www.barackobama.com?

They go on to say that John McCain has run a campaign based on "partisan division, class warfare and even hints of racism." I would love some examples of this. I have examples of all three of these things from the Obama campaign. Partisan division: Obama has been constantly blaming one party and one party only for this country's shortcomings. Class warfare: It is Obama that is stirring up jealousy and rage of the upper classes by promising to "share the wealth," and Joe Biden who has stated he will go after CEO's pensions first. Hints of racism: It is Barack Obama who stated that Republicans will bring up the fact that he "doesn't look like those guys on the dollar bills" and who associated with a bona fide racist for over two decades.

"Mr. McCain offers more of the Republican every-man-for-himself ideology, now lying in shards on Wall Street and in Americans' bank accounts." I seriously think the extent of this ed. board's research was Barack Obama's website. It was three Republicans, one of them John McCain, that introduced a bill in 2005 that would create a federal oversight agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Democrats killed it in committee. It was Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who stated that "we don't have a crisis at Freddie Mac and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines," while again killing an important oversight bill in committee. Bush brought up the risks in the mortgage market 17 times in 2007 alone, and has been sounding the horn on it since 2002. The reason American bank accounts are "in shards" is the fact that the government thought it could spend it more wisely. And it failed. This is not change, and this is what Obama wants to continue once elected.

"Mr. McCain, who once opposed President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy as fiscally irresponsible, now wants to make them permanent." This is clearly for two reasons. (1) Now that taxes are at this point, it is "fiscally irresponsible" to raise them in a time of economic recession. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would raise taxes on everyone. (2) Since the Bush tax cuts, government revenue has increased by $1 trillion, even in the midst of an expensive war. That sounds fiscally responsible to me.

On national security, the Times states that "Mr. Obama was an early and thoughtful opponent of the war in Iraq." Who cares? Why is his opinion five years ago relevant? Now that we're in this war, it is our duty to see it through. It is despicable that people in Congress are playing political games to get elected at the peril of our troops and Iraqi stability. Furthermore, why is Afghanistan so much more important, even after bin Laden himself states that Iraq is the central front for the war on terror? Why not send troops to both countries and make sure both are successfully rebuilt?

Continuing the obsession with our "image," the Times says, "Both candidates talk about repairing America's image in the world. But it seems clear to us that Mr. Obama is far more likely to do that -- and not just because the first black president would present a new American face to the world." Is the Times telling us to elect him because he's black? That's what that sentence means. Also consider this. Since Bush irreparably tarnished our international image, we have been completely safe from terrorist attacks, and pro-American, conservative leaders are winning elections all over the world including Canada, France, Germany, and potentially Great Britain. Let me make this clear: I don't want Iran, North Korea, or Venezuela to like us! Because if they do, as Obama wants them to, then we have sacrificed that which makes this country great.

"[Mr. McCain's] righteous fury at being driven out of the 2000 primaries on a racist tide aimed at his adopted daughter has been replaced by a zealous embrace of those same win-at-all-costs tactics and tacticians." Let me translate: Republicans chose Bush due to racism in 2000. Now, Americans are voting for McCain because of racism. Incredible!

On judges, "Mr. Obama may appoint less liberal judges than some of his followers might like," (really?) "but Mr. McCain is certain to pick rigid ideologues." That's fine with me, if the ideology they are so rigid upon is the U.S. Constitution! When four Supreme Court justices, whose ideology is shared by Mr. Obama, tried to make the Second Amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional, I'd prefer rigid ideologues to those who see a "living Constitution." I'd also prefer those who don't see the right to life guaranteed by our Constitution only applying to those who are completely out of the womb.

By only consulting the Barack Obama campaign's "fact" sheets, the New York Times has spit out lie after lie and misconception after misconception. They have not only been blatantly in favor of Barack Obama on their editorial pages, but also in the "objective" news pages. It is no wonder to me that their circulation is falling drastically as it sacrifices its credibility in the name of elitism and partisanship.

No honest endorsement should be free from criticism. For example, the New Orleans Times-Picayune devoted several sentences of its Obama endorsement pointing out "concerns" they have with the man's policy. The New York Times's senseless worship of a man with no qualifications and dangerous policy is, while unsurprising, quite unbelievable.

In the end, consider what these candidates honestly stand for, and how their record compares to their rhetoric. (Yes, I stole that from McCain.) And this will present to you the clear choice for election day: John McCain.