When I read Adam Nagourney's piece in Week in Review about how Democrats shouldn't -- god forbid -- you know, hold hearings in congress that perhaps maybe dare to slightly question Bush administration behavior, I knew something wasn't quite right. I couldn't quite articulate why it was so wrong, though.
Joan Walsh, Salon's Editor-in-Chief, lays it out quite nicely.
The liberal blogosphere has been hammering Nagourney for the last few years (see, as one random example, John Aravosis here on Nagourney's coverage of Lieberman and liberal blogs in 2006). Perhaps the epitome of Nagourney was his July 2003 newsvertisement for the poor DLC, whose prime 2004 presidential candidate (Lieberman) wasn't doing so hot.
But all the criticism of Nagrouney hasn't changed much that I can see. He's still writing this garbage.
What are the implications for the coming election? I'll make one prediction. We haven't really seen the Times go after Obama yet. Right now they're being out-reported by the Chicago Tribune and others. But just you wait. When it comes to crunch time, the Times news pages will turn against any candidates much further to the left than Clinton.