Did you see this New York Times article about Clinton trying to reverse the original war vote?
Here’s paragraph 7:
Mostly, Mrs. Clinton appeared to be trying to claim a new leadership position among the Democratic presidential candidates against the war in Iraq.
..and from there it spends the next several paragraphs talking about the politics of her propsal.
It nicely demonstrates many of the liberal criticisms of the MSM:
1) There is zero evidence this was done for political reasons, and none is presented. It never seems to occur to the authors that it could possible be a sincere belief.
2) It reinforces the horse-race of politics over the substance. What happens in Iraq is important. It affects millions of lives. Once again, that is ignored to leave room for foolish speculations on the motivations of obviously power-mad cretins intent on controlling our country.
3) It reinforces the double-standard that Clinton faces, where particularly everything she does is because she’s an unprincipled weasel. You will have a hard time finding any coverage about her, particularly in the “liberal” New York Times that doesn’t paint her in this way, examining everything in terms of calculated political motives. This is what builds the bigger narrative. Not coincidentally, it is how the last two leading Democratic candidates, Gore and Kerry, were both painted; flip-floppers of no true convictions.
(MSM is blog shorthand for the MainStream Media. Now you’re in the know.)