And so the front page Gore-ing of Kerry begins

[jpgray]

We have a weasel of a reporter obfuscating the facts to present Kerry's fundraising as something unusual and laden with hypocrisy. As usual, the goal is to cherry-pick and interpret the facts to fit an agenda, rather than inform readers of the facts. :)

From today's Howler:

On January 31, the Post scribe penned a foolish, front-page report about Kerry’s receipt of contributions from lobbyists. As we’ve explained, the report was grossly misleading. It has since formed the basis for a blatantly bogus claim—the claim that Kerry ranks first among all U.S. senators in receipt of special interest money.

This morning, VandeHei is at it again, with another silly front-page report about Kerry’s fundraising. It’s hard to read these reports without recalling Connolly’s work from Campaign 2000—a campaign in which the Post committed vile offenses against you and your American democracy.

Bush is their boy. The differences between Bush and Kerry are at least enough for the Post to make a decision on who to shill for, even if they aren't significant for some here.

[RageAgainstTheirMachine]

1. Thank You for your investigation.

But the Gore-ing begins ... sad ... I hope Kerry is more prepared than Gore was.

[trumad]

2. Sure he is...

He has Somerby and the rest of us to watch his back... Nobody was there in 2000.

[flpoljunkie]

3. Do you get impression that the RNC faxes this shit over to the lazy WP?

Not only are they lazy, they are decidedly Bushco enablers.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

4. The Washington "Whorington" Post rolled over for....

pResident Bush. At least the NY Times runs positive articles
about we Democrats. I noticed that the "propagandists" on Faux
never critisize the Washington Post was always attack the
Times as being liberal. Maybe that's because the Times opposed the
war while the Post supported it.