So, the Washington Post is biased towards Creigh Deeds? Hmmmm...well, this article should put that myth to rest forever. Here are a few quotes to give you a flavor for what right wingers would call a "hit piece by the Washington Post" if it had been written about Bob McDonnell.*"Creigh Deeds was stammering, as is often his way when trying to explain a change in one of his political positions."
*"[Deeds] has spent a career trimming and finessing positions"
*"Indeed, specifics to Deeds often look like road mines. 'I could be specifically wrong,' he said in the conference room, a tad irritably."
*"What is your own view on same-sex marriages and civil unions? he was asked. He stammered a little. He looked down at the conference table...Suddenly, in mid-sentence, he stopped talking...Finally, he shrugged. He shuffled his feet beneath his chair. He evolved a little more."
*"Characteristically, Deeds managed to sound somewhat conflicted about his change of heart."
*"...at some point, even people on the mountain want to know where you are taking them, want to see your map. For Deeds, the task is to convince voters during the campaign's final 30 days that he has one."
True, the article also points out that Deeds believes "results count more than white papers" and that there's no "point in pontificating from the mountaintop." Still, overall I'd rate this article a major "ouch" for Deeds. Honestly, after reading this article, I'm starting to wonder whether the Post will even make an endorsement in the governor's race at all. Regardless, after this article, the myth of the Washington Post being biased towards Creigh Deeds should have just vanished into thin air.
P.S. Why, then, did the Post endorse Creigh in the primary, you ask? Perhaps it wasn't so much "bias" towards Deeds as the fact that the Post editorial board wasn't happy with either Brian Moran or Terry McAuliffe?
