I'm in the minority here, wishing Parry had done a better job of raising an interesting point about coverage of Obama now and tying it to the treatment of Kucinich and Gore. The latter gentlemen are buried so far down and without links, making them hard to assess, unless one has read the evidence elsewhere. Why not make use of hyperlinks on a webiste? If Parry had simply attacked Milbank for taking a phrase from Obama's speech out of context as an example of its opposite and pointed to a troubling trend as, before explaining its relationship to Kucinich and Gore, I would have found this piece more effective. Instead, Parry undermines his eventual argument by starting out w. a statement of opinion as fact, as the describing the entire editorial page at the WaPo as "neoconservative," which is no more attractive in a journalist than a meme about liberal bias. Even if you are no fan of Dana Milbank, Parry paints w. a broad brush to condemn all of his coleagues. Milbank's somewhat snotty, but clever turn of phrase "presumptuous" in his page A-3 column, entitled, "President Obama Continues Hectic Victory Tour" pointed out that Obama had called meetings with various Bush officials, after meeting with heads of state abroad. Milbank criticized the candidate, "He has already amassed the trappings of the office, without those pesky decisions" and points to a piece in the upcoming New Republic on how other members of the press are ending their "affair" w. Obama. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=22bce6f2-d835-4bd6-96c5-6b1da0b334dd Milbank has characterized Obama in a fashion with which some may argue. Parry attributes all this to the "reflexive disdain for people whom they consider challengers to the Washington Establishment." First, he does not make clear to what degree Obama is such a challenger. Oddly, Obama's go-along vote for telecom immunity would make Chris Dodd a better candidate for that description. And Gore, during the time he was running, was hardly the outsider, which makes this argument even odder. Politics is politics and politicians are politicians, not Messiahs, something that all citizens would do well to keep in mind. I'd argue that the most problematic hubris is not that of the politicians, rather that of some members of the MSM who appears to think that their role is to make and break candidates rather than provide the public with the information needed to make informed decisions. That hubris should have been a target of approbation from the alternative press no matter which candidate was being touted. Sadly, instead, many on hte other side of the media divide have engaged in the same behavior, only complaining when their candidate of choice suffers. I am not familiar enough w. Parry to know whether he is among that rank, but perhaps a review of his writings would reveal a pattern either good or bad in this regard.