The hed is misleading at best - the story is really just a rehashed press release from a manufacturer of software that purports to save some paper . As such, it does not comment on how well, if at all, this software might work, under what circumstances it might work, where it would be most useful, what it costs ... really nothing that would let a reader know anything beyond the fact of the software's existence.

There's not enough context provided to be able to tell if the polling numbers are truly meaningful and, if they are meaningful, what they might mean.

It couldn't really be called journalism at all. It is opinion presented as fact, with a skewed, pejorative use of language (Lieberman was "purged"). It presents as fact the existence of an "Olbermann wing" of the Democratic Party - a nonsensical notion, since Olbermann is neither politician nor party activist.

My one criticism of this article is that the political affiliations of the pollsters is not mentioned until the 6th paragraph. When I saw the name of one, Peter Hart, who is well-known as a Democratic pollster,, in the 4th 'graf it made me question the poll a little and those questions weren't resolved until further down in the article - but not everyone will read that far.