Y'know, when the AP is gonna drop little gems like this -- "Media Bias for Obama? New President Gets Positive Coverage. See How It Compares to Clinton, Bush" -- I almost don't need coffee to get up and going on a Monday AM.

So many things wrong. Where to begin? First, there’s the assumption that all news coverage is partisan, that it couldn’t possibly be "positive" because there are more positive things to report. Sadly, given my thorough contempt for DC media, I wouldn’t be surprised if this were true. Also, they've conveniently forgotten that the media were wholly in the tank for Bush for most of his Presidency. Also also, I love that they’re supporting the case that there’s pro-Obama media bias by comparing to Bush, one of the most unpopular Presidents evah by the end. Srsly. That’s like saying that people are much more likely to write positive stories about lollipops than about a bowl full of broken glass a la mode. Hey, I hear people are much more likely to prefer a bowl of ice cream to a dose of SARS.