Two little things caught my eye when I looked at the editorial page of the NY Times this morning. On the front page:

THE PUBLIC EDITOR
Political Bias at The Times?
EDITORIALS/OP-ED
• Editorial: Kerry for President

All I’ve done is to excise the spaces, they really did have these two headlines one above the other. The header for the second article was:

John Kerry has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive and we enthusiastically endorse him for president.

OK, OK, we’re not surprised that the NYT supports John Kerry, but really. From the editorial:

… his entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices

I think that the NYT and myself have a rather different idea of public service here. A cushy well paid job in Congress is not, to me, public service. It’s not only rampant careerism, it’s sucking at the public teat: not what can I do for the public, but what can the public coffers do for me?

There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush’s disastrous tenure.

Nice example of the Aristotelian logical fallacy known as petitio principii. If anyone sufficiently ill-educated to be a liberal (and thus not know what this means) is mystified you can look it up at Wikipedia. For the moonbat classes, further aid, simply put the W word into Mr. Google, he is your friend.
The rest is the usual farrago of half truths and misdirections. For example:

…and a clampdown on embryonic stem cell research.

Errr….no. there is no “clampdown”. There is simply the Federal Government not paying for research on newly started cell lines. Private money can continue to do whatever it wants. Federal money can still be spent on those lines already extant: another way of describing this is that Federal money may not be used to kill someone so that some of us, might, at some indeterminate point in the future, benefit. You can call this many things (some might describe it as the Catholic viewpoint, something that which by taking Communion John Kerry is binding himself to uphold) but a clampdown it isn’t.
I leave it to the astute reader to fisk further.
Daniel Okrent seems to be so wearied by his impossible task, that of bringing clarity and translucency to the paper’s institutional biases, that he sub-contracts out his column. Good one Danny, wish I could get a week’s pay for that.