Philadelphia Inquirer endorses Obama: Obama will do a better job

[wan]

Obama has created jobs. The 2009 Recovery Act is derided by Republicans for its $787 billion price tag, but they don't want voters to remember the context. It's not wrong to point out the program's cost in a country with huge debts. But with the nation desperate for employment, economists say the stimulus created 2.5 million jobs and added up to 3.8 percent to the gross national product. http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/inquirer/20121014_Inquirer_Editorial__Obama_will_do_a_better_job.html

Winston-Salem Journal endorses Obama: Obama is best choice for president (endorsed McCain in '08)

http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2012/oct/14/obama-best-choice-president-ar-2689120/
Americans have a clear choice between two presidential candidates with starkly different ideas for spurring the economy, providing for the health of our people, defending our interests abroad, educating our children and protecting our environment. We believe that President Barack Obama’s progress on these issues merits him a second term in the White House.

[technical support]

[Likely Voter]

should there be a single thread created or all the newspaper endorsements? The thing to watch out for will be papers switching from McCain to Obama or vice versa. Romney is trying hard to make that happen. The story about Romney flip flopping last week on abortion was from his meeting with the Des Moines Register.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

The Inquirer sucks

[minionofmidas]

Only endorsements by newspapers that a) anybody reads / cares about b) aren't a foregone conclusion really even merit mention. These by that token also merit collation in a single thread - a thread about some random endorsement that sinks to page 2 within a few hours doesn't hurt anybody (except the forum bandwidth).