[Soul Seeker]

Well...they USED to be a good paper..at least on the editorial side. It's only been the last couple of years they jumped into the Liberal poll to rival the NYT's for bias.

I can't say why they'd do this now, but I don't find it incredibly unbelievable that they would.

[DoughtyOne]

I haven't been able to stand the WP since the late sixties. That was reinforced during the 1990s when Bill Clinton's escapades were deemed unworthy of the true full blown scrutiny that a "Richard M. Nixon's" escapades would have received.

The Post's two main hatchet men against Nixon said they did it all for the country. When it came to Clinton they took a dive. No they weren't active on the staff in the same roles they were around Nixon's time. Still, these were two men to canonized themselves as much as anyone else did.

Where was their interest in the truth, when it came to Clinton? Surely they could have used the income from books deals and movie rights.

What this told me about the WP, as if I didn't know Katheryn Graham's modus operandi already, was that their activities were ideologically driven. Under Clinton they were as well.

I have no love for the Washington Post, and if it should go belly up some day, I'll be somewhere smiling down on the rubble.