WASHINGTON, Oct 24: Another powerful American newspaper, The Washington Post, on Sunday endorsed Democratic candidate John F. Kerry for president. On Oct 16, 'The New York Times' had supported Senator Kerry, calling him "a man with a strong moral core" and observed that this presidential election was mainly about President George W Bush's "disastrous tenure."

Mr Kerry also won the support of his hometown 'Boston Globe', 'The San Francisco Chronicle', and 'The Miami Herald'. President Bush last week received the endorsement of 'The Chicago Tribune', the largest daily in America's third-largest city.

The Tribune said Mr Bush has the ability and experience to deal with threats to the US security. Other papers backing the president include Denver's 'Rocky Mountain News' and 'The Dallas Morning News'.

Opinion polls show the candidates in a virtual tie with election day less than two weeks away and their supporters hope that endorsements from powerful newspapers can help their candidates win over those voters who are still undecided.

While endorsing Sen. Kerry, The Washington Post noted that "half the nation is passionately for George W. Bush and half passionately for John F. Kerry - or, at least, passionately against Mr Bush." Comparing the two candidates, the Post says: "We find much to criticize in Mr Bush's term but also more than a few things to admire. We find much to admire in Mr Kerry's life of service, knowledge of the world and positions on a range of issues - but also some things that give us pause.

"On balance, though, we believe Mr Kerry, with his promise of resoluteness tempered by wisdom and open-mindedness, has staked a stronger claim on the nation's trust to lead for the next four years."

The newspaper points out that Mr Bush's actions have not always matched his stirring rhetoric on democracy, and setbacks to democracy in other parts of the world, notably Russia, appear not to have troubled him much.

It praises Mr Bush's policies in Afghanistan and says that because of these policies "both Afghans and US security alike are better off (today)."

The Post, which had supported the US invasion of Iraq now faults Mr Bush for "exaggerating to the public the intelligence (about weapons of mass destruction) and for alienating allies unnecessarily."

"Above all, we fault him for ignoring advice to better prepare for post-war reconstruction. The damage caused by that willful indifference is incalculable," notes the Post. It says that the chances of success would have been higher had US forces "prevented post-war looting, secured arms depots, welcomed international involvement and transferred authority to Iraqis more quickly."

"These failings have a common source in Mr Bush's cocksureness, his failure to seek advice from anyone outside a narrow circle and his unwillingness to expect the unexpected or adapt to new facts," the Post says.

"These are dangerous traits in any president but especially in a wartime leader. They are matched by his failure to admit his errors or to hold senior officials accountable for theirs," it adds.

The paper points out that Mr Bush's domestic policies were also a failure and concludes that because of his negative performance in the first term, he has "not earned a second term."

Underlining weaknesses in Mr. Kerry's personality, the newspaper says: "There is no way to know whether he would be more successful than Mr Bush" but "he attaches the right priority" to both domestic and international issues.

"We do not view a vote for Mr Kerry as a vote without risks. But the risks on the other side are well known, and the strengths Mr Kerry brings are considerable.