Submit your suggestions---what evidence can we cite for WaPo's pro-Obama bias

Ever watch Veggie Tales? Sure you have. Especially if you have kids.

On one of the show’s episodes, in which Larry the Cucumber plays Sherlock Holmes and Bob the Tomato plays Dr. Watson, two other vegetables play the roles of London constables guarding a crime scene. Whenever Holmes and Watson try to approach the crime scene, those “constables” always say “Move along…nothing to see here.”

NLT tomorrow, I expect the WaPo and its MSM allies to be saying “move along…nothing to see here” IRT Flyer-gate.

Howard Kurtz has spoken. The Post has explained that it was all a misunderstanding. And, after all, they are The Washington Post. If they say it was a misunderstanding, who are we to disagree. Therefore, any further discussion of this unfortunate matter (and all that it implies) would be much ado about nothing.

Not so fast. I’m an intelligence analyst by training. We intelligence analysts are supposed to connect the dots. And, IMO, there are plenty of dots to connect IRT the WaPo’s conduct since Barack Obama won his party’s nomination and then the Presidency.

John Hinderaker posed the question of the day: Where does the Obama administration end and the Washington Post begin?

Well…let’s connect the dots, shall we?

What dots do you see? My suggestions are below—what are yours?

(Posted earlier as a comment under Erick’s front page story on this topic):

1) Doug Feith’s War and Decision.

If that book had captured popular attention, it might have started a popular discussion that helped McCain and hurt Obama. Especially since, in the 2008 election cycle, we were well on our way to WINNING the Iraq War. Hey, if you can’t say bad things about Iraq, the next best thing is to make sure that nobody says much about it at all.

It turns out the WaPo did a rush-job review of the book…and then claimed it couldn’t give Feith’s book a more thorough reading, because the paper had already reviewed it! I remember Academic Elephant and other Bush supporters looking forward to the MSM’s review of Feith’s book, because Feith directly addressed lots of the criticisms levied against Bush 43’s war policies. That discussion never really happened, largely because the MSM starved the story of oxygen. The WaPo was a leading player in that.

2) Obama’s threat to “bankrupt” coal-burning plants and make energy costs “skyrocket.”

Ummm—aren’t some of the states in the WaPo’s part of the country big producers and users of coal? (WV, PA, VA)? Hmmmm…best not to make too much of that speech from The One, and (IIRC) the WaPo didn’t make a big deal of it. Good thing he gave it in San Francisco…

3) The Obama campaign’s alteration of its online donation software to allow millions of dollars in contributions that were most likely illegal.

Compare the amount of coverage the WaPo gave to that story, as opposed to “macaca.”

4) The paper’s editorial and reportorial soft touch toward Porkulus, in the weeks before it passed.

Remember Obama’s prime-time news conference before the Porkulus vote? The WaPo had one question to pose to the president, at a time when Porkulus was the hot topic in DC and the country. What subject did the WaPo, “the” newspaper of the capital city of the Free World, ask the president about, at this critical time in the national debate on Porkulus? (Drum roll…) A-Rod and steroid use! I’ll bet Rahm and Valerie and David Axelrod were thrilled to take that question, instead of a more journalistic one.

And, remember the week of the Porkulus vote itself? As the Dems tried to get that travesty of a bill passed, before evidence of all of the problems in it leaked out…imagine how powerful and influential a stern WaPo editorial on the bill could have been, prior to the vote. In fact, if the WaPo’s editorial page had spoken forcefully about the many flaws in the bill, it might have compelled Team Obama to revise the bill. A debugged bill could have saved our grandkids—the ones who are really paying for Porkulus—billions of dollars.

Well, the WaPo editorial on Porkulus came out on Saturday, the day after the Senate vote. What a coinky-dink!

Those are the dots I see, and IMO they’re building a pretty convincing trail of evidence to support this conclusion: The WaPo really, really wanted Barack to win. Now, after we’ve seen that flyer, maybe we know why: Obama in the White House + Dems in control of Congress = money, money, money for the WaPo!!!

There’s no way the WaPo could have run as successful a Salon racket if McCain had won and the GOP still controlled Congress. No way. Am I wrong?

Anyway, that’s how I see it. Specifically, those are the dots I see. What other dots do you see?

Let us flood this story with oxygen.