At this point, it’s really no secret that the Washington Post is all in — mind, body, and soul — for Elizabeth Warren. But you’d think that maybe, just maybe, at least someone over there would have the good sense to dial it back a little.

Nope. Margaret Sullivan — who loves her some Elizabeth Warren — put together a list of “Five ways the debate could have — and should have — been much, much better,” and this was number two:

2. Framing the (apparently unavoidable) question about universal health care and how to fund it in a non-gotcha way. Journalists are kindly doing President Trump’s work for him when they insist on trying to pin down Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), the new front-runner, to declare she’d raise taxes to fund Medicare-for-all. Of course, it’s legitimate to dig into the costs, but not in a way that creates a nice GOP campaign ad, and misses the larger lens of overall costs. (Warren, notably, refused to take the bait.)

So … Elizabeth Warren’s advocating a plan that would require a buttload of money, and she doesn’t really want to get into where that money’s going to come from … and asking her about it is baiting her? That’s really where we’re at?

It’s not really surprising at this point from a WaPo journalist … but it’s still pretty jaw-dropping in its brazenness.



‘OK, this is absolutely nuts’! White-hot WaPo take: Elizabeth Warren is just like Frederick Douglass because she poses for selfies

‘Trash journalism’: WaPo stomps on last remaining tiny shred of media credibility while running cover for Elizabeth Warren