Lefties Split On Anti-War Talk

Here's the link to the big WaPo story on the Dem split between anti-war hawks and those who fear backlash for being too Michael Moorish. And here's some commentary from Leftyblogs to illuminate the story:

any party that claims joe leiberman, joe biden and hillary clinton as leaders can certainly betray it’s [sic] ideals and alienate it’s [sic] base-without fail. something in the water, perhaps. [Comment on Suburban Guerilla]

For those who argue that Democratic differences are newsworthy, we counter that Republican unanimity is more notable, if only for the fact that it's emblematic of a party operating without a conscience. As we wrote previously, "What the press conveniently overlooks in their zeal to take down Democrats is that there is nothing inherently wrong with members of a political party holding different views on a matter as serious as war. [Presstitutes]

The WashPo and NYT are strongly pro-war, but that is a separate issue. Vandehei and Murray at the NYT and Balz and Priest at the WaPo are shills for the admin, so read everything you see with enough salt to make you up your blood pressure medication. [Just a Bump in the Beltway]

There's a further consequence when Dean says something like this, after the faux-outrage: merry piles of cash flowing into the Democratic coffers. [Comment on Legal Fiction]

BTW, as long as the Left says the media is biased, they have no reason to become unbiased.

h/t Memeorandum