I just came across a link for what I think must be the most biased, least illuminating, and generally ludicrous article of the primary season. (Well, maybe after the Washington Post's offensive article about the Muslim smear email.)

I hesitate to link to it, but read it for yourself: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/01/23/AR2008012304036_ pf.html

Whoever in the Obama campaign managed to get the Post to write this deserves a promotion. This is the most one-sided description of the battle between Clinton and Obama I've seen. The article pretty much quotes a whole bunch of Obama supporters attacking Clinton, and worries whether Clinton's attacks might hurt party unity.

Where was Kornblut (who seems to be the author on a disproportionate number of crappy pieces) when the Obama campaign was pushing racial innuendo to the press, or insinuating things about Bill Clinton's sex life, or putting JJ Jr. out to claim Hillary doesn't care about black people? Sheesh. I understand that the Obama folks have their side of the story, but couldn't they quote at least a couple of Clinton folks?

Wow. God is the press horrible.

If you want to complain (please do), you can send email via this link: Send complaint.

There's more...

As I wrote yesterday, some members of the media who joined the conference call David Bonior held to announce Sen. Edwards's Road To One America tour just couldn't conceive that there wasn't some grand political calculation behind the tour.

Case in point: WaPo's Anne Kornblut:

John Edwards is battling back the "three H's" that have dogged his campaign -- expensive haircuts, a lavish new house and a stint working for a hedge fund.

Now, he is trying to put emphasis on a "P" -- his new poverty tour across the South and the Midwest.

NOW he wants to emphasize poverty? Classic. Media Matters does what they do:

Kornblut's suggestion, however, that Edwards' "emphasis" on poverty is intended to distract from the "three H's" is baseless -- poverty has been a signature issue of Edwards' 2008 presidential campaign, as it was during his 2004 campaign.

And uses Kornblut's own words against her:

Kornblut herself reported on July 25, 2006, while she was with The New York Times, that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "did not, however, go as far down the populist path as other possible presidential candidates, in particular Senator John Edwards, who is focused almost exclusively on poverty as he campaigns in early primary voting states."

I suspect, though, that the campaign would gladly take a million such articles because it's a million more articles that mention poverty than there would normally have been.

There's more...