The New York Times today published their endorsement of Barack Obama for President. It's very well thought out and very thoughtful. The Times has a tendency to value experience very highly and in the primary season endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The editorial explains very clearly, citing a variety of issues, how they have come to develop greater confidence in Obama's ability since that endorsement as well as how the conduct of McCain's campaign has led them away from an endorsement of him.
There is such a cool interactive feature on the same page. Called New York Times Endorsements Through the Years it shows whom they endorsed in each presidential election and links to the actual endorsements. I've spent way too much time wading through this. Sometimes the endorsements themselves were a surprise to me (Wendell Wilkie, really?) but more often it was just fascinating to see what the issues were at the time and how they were presented. The endorsement of Lincoln in 1860 is remarkable for its snide derogatory tone, for its assurance that there would be no civil war, and for its statement that Lincoln was 6 foot 7 inches tall (all the history books seem to think he was 6'3" or 6'4"). One hundred years later, the endorsement of Kennedy devotes close to half of its text to consideration of Quemoy and Matsu (leaving me to ask "Who and what?" and go look it up) and concludes that with Kennedy as POTUS we would not be in danger of getting involved in "local war in Southeast Asia."