What do you do if you want to undermine the panache and dignity of winning such an award? Easy--attack, attack, attack. Doesn't matter how accurate the attacks are (see Love Canal, Swiftboat Vets for Truth, etc.) so long as you get your attack out there, and everybody reports the attack without examining its validity. Somerby includes a brief history of the Post's recent bizarre attacks on Gore:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/1) On the front page of the Sunday Style section, the Post published an entire report about how fat he is.
2) In the increasingly daft Outlook section, the Post published a dotty opinion piece complaining about the book’s lack of foot-notes. Unfortunately, the book has 20 pages of end-notes. The citation the Post’s writer desperately sought was clearly marked there.
3) In his always-clownish “Washington Sketch,” Dana Milbank devoted an entire “sketch” to the complaint that Gore used too many big words when he gave a speech in Washington. One example: At one point, Gore had referred to the “marketplace of ideas.”
4) On the op-ed page, the Post published a column by Slate’s Emily Yoffe, who made clownish misstatements about warming science and complained that Al Gore was going to scare the children if he published a children’s version of the book, An Inconvenient Truth.
5) Also in Outlook, a piece was published gushing about how smartsexyhandsome Fred Thompson is. Among other insults (including the one to Post readers’ intelligence), the clownish piece found time to ridicule Gore as an example of “road kill.”
6) In Book World, Alan Ehrenhalt formally reviewed Gore’s book —and started with a comic-book complaint: “Al Gore possesses a skill that no other American politician can match —or would want to. He has a consistent ability to express fundamentally reasonable sentiments —often important ones —in ways that annoy the maximum possible number of people.” As of this morning, Gore has annoyed so many people that his film has won an Oscar —and he holds the Nobel Peace Prize too.