Post is Neo Con and it is in cahoots with Jewish (Israeli) media elites.

Dear Stumped.

Post is not conservative but it is neo conservative.

See last 15 editorials on O'bama and Iraq War. It has consistently supported Iraq War and continue to support lasting Occupation of Iraq.

Sometimes, We get the impression that it is in Cahoots with pro Israeli media crowd.

Wake up stumped. The Post is a conservative paper. This once fine paper has been drifting along with Washington's elite for a while and I doubt it will ever become a watch dog again.

I guess pretending it is neither, is what the inane comment above is all about. The Post and it's staff need to come to grips with what it means to have Fred Hiatt, Charles K., George W, Michael G, and Robert Novak as dominators of their opinion page.

The reader comments are my favorite part of the paper. Like one of the commentators above I think it would be fine to open the opinion pages to more voices than Will & Company. They are so predictable. Let others write the articles and let Will & Co. respond in the comments section.

The post regularly publishes right wing conservative columnists who will slime Senator Obama no matter which side he takes on an issue. Most of the Post's editorial page is not worth the pixels it takes up on my monitor.
The Post has never apologized for it's blanket promotion of the Iraqi invasion, and to this day the Post is one of the leading cheerleaders for keeping the war going forever. I'd bet real money that nobody who is in charge of the editorial page has volunteered for Guard duty, and none of them would welcome a military recruiter at their kids school.

In defense of Stumped's logic, dear posters, he didn't say that the Post is neither liberal nor conservative. He said, in fact, that the Post is BOTH liberal AND conservative. This is more nearly true than the opposite assertion that everyone's arguing with. Whether the left or the right pan of the balance scale dips lower depends, I expect, on where you think the center ought to be. I certainly seem to see a grubby thumb on the right, but that could be just me...

Stumped, calling Obama's tour a "candidate's tour" is itself putting an over-the-line slant on the affair. He's a Senator on a Senate fact-finding tour, with two other Senators. Obama's status as the presumptive Democratic nominee affects the amount of coverage the tour gets in the news media. But Obama is, in fact, behaving like a Senator on this trip. Props to him.

Dan Froomkin is the only thing worth reading now. Eugene Robinson sold out in the last year or so, so another erstwhile fine writer gone. As with the rest, boring and predictable.

The Post is conservative. It is only its coverage of crime which might make you think it had a social agenda, but that is only a function of its location.

Good Lord, Stumped, are you serious, the Post is neither conservative nor liberal? Where the Post isn't blatantly sucking up to the Bush Adminsitration, or toeing the neocon line, it is just completely abdicating its journalistic responsibilities. The Post has fallen hook-line-and-sinker for the fallacy that printing both sides' versions of events, without bothering to check which side is actually correct, is "fair and balanced." Now Post reporting is nothing but "Republicans say this, but Democrats say that." The Post, Fox-lite.

Laura V., excellent point, your astute observation that religion has its own place in one of the better parts of the home page, whereas science has to live out of a shopping cart, under an overpass, hoping for an invitation to spend the night somewhere.

contrary to Limbaugh's feigned outrage (this morning) that Obama is unconstitutionally conducting foreign policy behind the back of the commander in chief, Obama has in fact been quite carefull not to act as if he is anything but a candidate on a listening tour. The comments about a timetable for withdrawal were unilateral comments by Iraqis (one to a German newspaper before Obama left the US) to the press. Obama and the Iraqis made clear that the subject was off the table during their face to face meetings. Of course Limbaugh is never burdened by facts.

Stumped has it covered, forcing me to pick at a nit that overall is a huge problem among fair-minded writers whose admirable quest for objectivity has been scrapped in favor of "providing balance", which proves in practice to be to fairness what bipartisan is to nonpartisan. If you don't know the difference, you're neither alone nor to blame.

It's not balance, for example, to equate the Bush administration strategic abuses of position to promote a partisan agenda with "some Democrats" in the 90s doing what? Where are the dirty details to prove equivalence? Whom does it serve to pretend "everybody does it"? Why pretend it's the new normal.

Andres is young enough not to know better, which is to say how much better every prior president back through FDR was in treating us as one people, equal in his eyes. It's not normal the way Bush only speaks if his advance team locks out bleeding-heart, lily-livered, cowardly, appeasing doves.

He and his administration systematically have campaigned on military bases in violation of federal law to warn our troops not to vote Dem or "The terrorists will have won. Al Qaeda wants the Democrats to win. The Democrats don't want us to hear what the terrorists plot over their phones. They want them to have all your privacy rights. They want terrorists detained in your hometown. They want them set free. They want you to cut and run. They don't support you. They want to cut off your supplies. They want to appease the terrorists. They want talk sweet to them. They don't want them to lose. They want you to lose."

Allegations of right-wing bias of mainstream news outlets always make me chuckle. I'm sure that the Post (as well as the Times and the major networks) are well to the right of most commenters here. That's because most of you are lunatics.

The mainstream media sits comfortably in the middle of the Democratic Party. If the average Democrat is too far right for you, then the Post is too far right for you. That doesn't mean the Post is objectively conservative.

Anyway, if the breathless coverage of the Obamessiah's European tour doesn't convince you that the mainstream press is completely in the tank for the Lamb of Chicago, then you really are insane.

In 1953 when I was stationed in D.C. and worked at the NSA in Arlington, the first thing I did each morning was read the Post. It was exciting. Herblock's cartoon was a must see every day.
Now, if I had to use one word to describe the Post, it would not be liberal or conservative. It would be BORING. Broder hasn't said anything new in years. Everyone knows what Krautheimer is going to say without bothering to read his column.
Boring.

Actually, when you consider the Post has been running a 500 part series on the unfortunate death of a young woman while in the middle of the Worst Presidency Ever, the Post may be both nuts & right wingnuts.

When you look @ the Post's repeated, fact-free, & delusional endorsements of McBush- from Chuckles, Broder, Hiatt, Cohen, etc.- only a nut would deny they have been drinking the bush Koolaid. Just look at how little they cover bush & McBush converting to Obama's program in Afghanistan & Iraq. Not to mention the recent poll among Jews saying the like/respect Obama much more than Holy Joe Lieberman.

The Post has some great liberal writers, but more and more they seem to be just tokens. When you stop providing a podium for discredited neo-conservative hacks like Krauthammer then maybe you'll appear more balanced and less biased, but I think the Post has become much more conservative and much less balanced over the past few years. I'd like to see more in-depth objective news reporting and a lot less opinion. The election coverage thus far has been atrocious.

The Post is neo-con, a confused babel of wilsonian idealism and GOP corporatism, plus a smattering of ineffective Bush governance. In other words they are kool-aid swilling GOPers, tools and puppets, willing to fight to the last (somebody else's) child.

But they sure are luvin' them some wars, aren'tcha Fred?

I take it that Sally doesn't regard Columbia as a foreign country?

As for the Post, I think it's just sweet!

Lawrence Oswald wrote:
My repeated suggestion is that the Post eliminate ALL the regular contributors, especially the weekly and biweekly spewers. There are tens of thousands who could contribute insightful columns....Better occasional pearls than periodic puke. We will recognize QUALITY if we see it.

---------------------
Although there might be some problems with taking this approach, I do agree in principle with the commenter above. The punditry of the past eight to twelve years has been ABYSMAL, especially that coming from the far right, in my opinion. Ever since the extreme right wing of the Republican Party declared war on America, we've been subjected to the constant bombardment of extremist views and extremist tactics, including outright illegally paid-for propaganda.

As to Senator Obama's trip, I think he is so far doing a great job of it. Today he was quoted as saying "I'm not hear to make policy, I'm here to listen." I think that's just the right tone. As opposed to the screaching that's coming from the McCain camp.

If the Post is going to continue to put Charles Krauthammer's opinion pieces front and center, than they'd better balance it with an atricle by Kos. The rest of the journalists seem balanced, and while abviously liberal or conservative, they don't rant and rave like Charles. GET RID OF CHARLES!!!! he is the one that gives the paper a "rag" like quality, and not in a good way.

Oh, come on. The Post is a neo-con paper, through and through. Cheerleading the war, belittling anyone who criticizes it. Always pushing for more foreign intervention, and more foreign interference in the affairs of others.

To call the paper neither liberal or conservative is absurd.

I do wonder about a(n online) newspaper that has its Science section buried under the Nation section weekly but has its "On Faith" tab on the front page dead center every single day.....

I think the rap that the Post is Conservative (or Liberal) is weak. What is true is that on the Editorial and Opinion pages the writing is poor. A perpetual "LESS FILLING" - "TASTES GREAT" shouting match is a sad excuse for an OpEd page.

In "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" the writer searches for QUALITY. QUALITY is rarely to be found here. My repeated suggestion is that the Post eliminate ALL the regular contributors, especially the weekly and biweekly spewers. There are tens of thousands who could contribute insightful columns. This would require adding to the editorial staff a couple young people whose job it would be to communicate with professors, policemen, prognosticators and plain people who have something to add to the public discourse. Better occasional pearls than periodic puke. We will recognize QUALITY if we see it.

Sorry Stumped,

The Post has a decidedly Neo-Con Editorial Page slant -- while it has remained socially liberal.

These leanings are not supposed to affect the "news" sections of the paper, but many readers believe that they do.

This is partly because the paper tries be objective, while right wing conservative outlets do not, so liberals get frustrated because the paper goes after all subjects with equal fervor. That can make it "seem" more right wing than it is.

Although, every once in a while, as in the run-up to the Iraq war, when Walter Pincus's articles were given less prominent display, the paper has NOT been objective. And has shown a definite political bias.

Come on Stumped, your readers deserve a decent answer.

The liberal or conservative question was answered four or five months ago when a new generation took over as publisher. If doubts remained, the change in editors of just a couple of weeks ago should have cleared them up. Any paper which features writing by the likes of Sowell and his "mushroom clouds swallowing up American cities," and Charley (The Hawk) Krautheimer cannot claim to be anything other than a print version of Fox News. An excellent paper, gone to hell. I weep for the newsroom.

Americans are kidding themselves if they believe that in four years, U.S. Troops will have withdrawn completely from Iraq. Regardless of which candidate is elected, they will leave tens of thousands (perhaps as much as 100,000) of U.S. Troops in Iraq.

There are certainly major differences on issues between Obama and McCain. But let's not pretend that one of those issues is "This candidate will get the U.S. out of Iraq, and that candidate won't".

Ever wonder why the DNC has become ranting Stalinests.

The Post is neither liberal or conservative. They merely suck up to whomever is in power at any given moment.

Inane? I almost went for it. The Post is contradictory. The editorial board used to write opinion which contradicted their own reporting.

Recently that has been rectified. Now the reporting has been fixed so that reporters hold back information which could jeopardize the editorial board's opining.

Wonderful rag you've got here.

Terms drift and what was once called radical is now called liberal. However, in the classical sense of the term, the Post is liberal. It believes a fair presentation of all views will serve the reader.

That was the heart of the liberal view.

Now it is "define..."

OH, stumped get real. The Post's endorsement of Sen. McCain and cheerleading for him is palpable ... Mrs. Graham is rolling over in her grave at the conservative rag her beloved Post has become.

The Post is inane, which makes it difficult to classify as conservative or liberal. Along the way, it hews a pretty conservative line, but has enough wiggle room so that conservatives can safely claim that it is part of the liberal-bias media even while agreeing with it most of the time.