Take a look at the piece I submitted, Driving the Snakes out of Ireland" or the original at Savage Politics, with an endorsement from Mo Mowlam on Hillary's assistance with the Northern Ireland peace process.

I'm sure the Washginton Post never errs or runs flippant stories about cleavage without doing a good job. And I'm sure Karen DeYoung never does a poor job of expressing the 2nd side of a story, or Peter Baker take an unfair hit or two at candidates he doesn't like.
------------------
Brad DeLong
Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? (Yet Another Washington Post Edition)

Matthew Yglesias bangs his head against the wall as he contemplates the lack of professionalism shown by the Post's Executive and former Assistant Managing Editor: TAPPED: August 2004 Archives: HARD DETERMINISM AT THE POST. The Washington Post joins the list of media organizations taking a look back at their prewar coverage and concludes, as have the others, that they overplayed stories backing the administration line and underplayed more skeptical accounts. Then Karen DeYoung, a reporter and former Assistant Managing Editor, says something very odd: Bush, Vice President Cheney and other administration officials had no problem commanding prime real estate in the paper, even when their warnings were repetitive. "We are inevitably the mouthpiece for whatever administration is in power," DeYoung said. "If the president stands up and says something, we report what the president said." And if contrary arguments are put "in the eighth paragraph, where they're not on the front page, a lot of people don't read that far." That's a pretty accurate characterization of what goes on, but there's nothing "inevitabl[e]" about it -- the paper could do things differently. Indeed, since they've concluded that this is the procedure that led them to create a misleading public impression...

Posted by DeLong at 08:02 PM
--
Daily Howler
BAKER KNOWS SNARK: The Washington Post’s Peter Baker knows snark. In today’s paper, the gentleman passively-aggressively ends a Rove rumination like this:

BAKER (8/15/07): So, would a Clinton victory next year be a repudiation of Karl Rove politics or the perpetuation of them?

As the late Merv Griffin would have said, “Ooooohh.” Is Clinton “perpetuating” Karl Rove’s politics? No thought could inflame the net-roots more. Peter Baker, a weak little fellow, really knows how to pour on the snark.

And how to pour on the slick! In what way is Clinton said to be “perpetuating” Rove’s politics? Baker cites two sources. The first is GOP hit-gal Nicolle Wallace, at the start of his report:

BAKER (8/15/07): As he packs his desk just 15 steps from the Oval Office, Karl Rove says he will not join any 2008 presidential campaign. That's just as well because none of the Republican candidates presumably could afford the association even if they wanted his strategic smarts. Besides, none of them is running the campaign quite the way he would. The candidate who seems to be adopting his style and methods the most so far? Hillary Rodham Clinton.

At least that's what Nicolle Wallace thinks. The former Bush White House communications director, who worked closely with Rove, said that Clinton "has almost operationalized the whole idea of turning your weakness into strength, message discipline that is almost pathological—she does not get off message for any reason—and never skipping an opportunity to exploit her opponent's weaknesses.

Thoughtfully using the word “pathological,” the vacantly-smiling GOP talker lists three things Clinton is supposedly doing. Two of them are about as controversial as brushing your teeth when you turn in at night. The third—“never skipping an opportunity to exploit her opponent's weaknesses”—just sits there in Baker’s report, supported by zero examples.

And Baker continues. Good God, what a flyweight! In a sane world, what an embarrassment:

BAKER (continuing directly): Clinton's campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, seems to agree with that assessment, having effectively vowed to run her operation much as Rove did his two successful national campaigns. "She expresses admiration for the way George W. Bush's campaign team controlled its message, and, given her druthers, would run this race no differently," Michelle Cottle writes this month in New York magazine. " 'We are a very disciplined group, and I am very proud of it,' she says with a defiant edge.”

In Baker’s mind, Clinton’s campaign manager “seems to agree with Wallace’s assessment”—because she is quoted agreeing with one of the lady’s three points!

No, you can’t get dumber than that—or faker, or slicker, or more Bakeronian. Peter Baker is a weak little man—and God only knows about his “editor.” But go ahead! Just watch well-meaning people on the web take his well-crafted bait.
--
More Daily Howler
THE FABULIST BAKER BOY: It’s been a good week for bad journalism. First, that ludicrous column by Professor Inkblot (more below). Then, today’s wonderfully comical “news report” by the Post’s sad Peter Baker.

And yes, this is a “news report.” It isn’t on the Post’s op-ed page; it doesn’t bear an “Analysis” tag. This is Baker’s attempt to “report” the fall-out for Hillary Clinton’s campaign of Eliot Spitzer’s recent troubles. The comedy starts in paragraph 3. In that paragraph, Baker reports what “some” have thought—what they “could not help but” think:

BAKER (3/12/08): [Spitzer’s] apparent involvement with a prostitution ring has not only distracted attention from [Clinton’s] efforts to take down the front-runner, Sen. Barack Obama. It has brought back unhelpful memories of her own husband’s dalliances in office. There on cable television again were pictures of Bill Clinton hugging Monica Lewinsky. And the image of Spitzer’s wife standing painfully by his side could not help but remind some of Hillary Clinton’s own stand-by-her-man moment.

The image of Spitzer’s wife “could not help but remind some” of Clinton’s earlier situation. And clearly, one of those “some” was Baker himself. As he continued his news report, he speculated about things which “remain unclear.” Then, he made the wonderfully comical statement we have highlighted:

BAKER (continuing directly): How this will play out remains unclear, of course. Spitzer has so far resisted entreaties to step down in the face of rather sordid allegations, much as Bill Clinton resisted calls for his resignation in 1998 after news of his trysts with the onetime White House intern. Spitzer’s reluctance to leave can only guarantee that the story will live on in the hungry vortex of cable television, talk radio and the Internet. It may be that most voters long ago discounted Bill Clinton’s infidelities when making their minds up about his wife’s qualifications for president. It may be that voters conclude that Spitzer’s indiscretions have nothing at all to do with whether Hillary Clinton can effectively serve as president. And it may be that Spitzer ultimately does resign, allowing the political dialogue to move on.

Really? It may be that voters conclude that? Why on earth would voters conclude that Eliot Spitzer’s indiscretions bore on the question of Clinton’s effectiveness? The analysts enjoyed a good solid laugh at Baker’s silly, Starr-era clowning. And then, bonanza! The fabulous fabulist went where these scribes often do:

BAKER (continuing directly): Yet this certainly is not the way Clinton's strategists would have mapped out this week on the campaign trail. They want voters to be thinking about that 3 a.m. phone call in terms of who is ready to handle a crisis in the White House, not in terms of where an unfaithful husband might be catting around town. And, sure enough, the late-night comedians wasted little time linking the Spitzer case to the Clintons...

Of course! The late-night comedians have been doing it! We’ve told you this for years and years: Silly, fabulist boys like Baker always blame “the late-night comedians” for the very same things they are doing! Soon, the silly sleuth was trying to imagine things which might be said. And good lord! Just look at his description of Spitzer!

BAKER: Hillary Clinton was asked about the case late Monday and, predictably enough, tried to brush it off without comment. "I obviously send my best wishes to the governor and his family," she told reporters. Still, it is hard to imagine that will be the last time she is asked about it. She could hardly want that to be on camera, once again being asked to account for yet another man in her life who couldn’t live up to his marriage vows. And what will Bill Clinton say when he is inevitably asked to comment?

Good God! According to this Starr-era sex snoop, Spitzer is “yet another man in her life who couldn’t live up to his marriage vows!” Meanwhile, by normal standards, “news reporters” wait until a public figure says something; then report what the person said. Not Baker! In his idea of a “news report,” he asks himself what Bill Clinton might say, when he’s inevitably asked. (Answer: As Baker understands, Clinton will say this: No comment. And he might say, this is sad. )

But then, Baker’s a cosmically silly lad; he’s been presenting this nonsense for years. As we said, it’s been a very good week for bad journos. In this case, we at least were allowed to enjoy a series of horse-laughs.

Discourse on method: Here we go again! We’ve transcribed all these passages from today’s hard-copy Post. Much of this material does not appear in the on-line version of Baker’s “report.”

Archibald MacLeish published a wonderful article (no longer available online, to my knowledge) in which he posited things like this if the US-USSR Cold War ended. His reasoning was interesting - we defined ourselves solely in opposition to the Russians, and without them, had no concept of ourselves.

He was right.

Apparently Bill didn't listen to her about NAFTA, at least if you believe her side of the story.

I agree with the WP article in a lot of ways. It's certainly unreasonable to suggest that Hillary wasn't involved in foreign or domestic matters during Bill's administration.

The problem is that her claims of involvement tend to be absurdly overblown (for example, on peace in Ireland or visiting Bosnia with Sinbad). At the same time, her historic positions on issues of current political importance always seem to come out matching the way the winds blow today, even when evidence (such as her past public support for NAFTA) suggests otherwise.

JF Christ, read her speech on the AUMF vote - she wasn't so "utterly taken in" by the Bush Adminstration. Wash, rinse, recycle, regurgitate.