This WaPo article on Kerry begins and ends snarkily, all the while sneaking in conservative or DLC-ready talking points.
It starts with a comment on Kerry being below the Sharpton line (dKos readers are way ahead of the WaPo readership on this one). It ends by claiming that what undid Kerry was not his style, or the fact that much of his support was from the more liberal wing of the party and it couldn't abide his war vote of convenience, or that Howard Dean just seemed to offer so much more vision or had a more exciting and effective campaign. No, what undid Kerry, apparently, is that Clark undercut Kerry's military angle and Bush was too effective a president.
One of the most infuriating lines (for any Democrat):
For those Americans still queasy about the United States using military force to right wrongs and save lives, the choice seems to be Dean. For those who understand that this is precisely what history asks of the world's leading nations, there is Bush.
This goes wrong in so many ways, one hardly knows where to begin.
PS-I'm posting this as a favor to pcapone