are’s probably little point to arguing that much of a political media establishment is embarrassingly in a tank for John McCain, but a Washington Post has been especially frustrating this week.

On Monday, for example, reporter Jonathan Weisman noted that McCain is faring well in national polls because he’s been “br&ed” an “independent maverick.” Suggesting that a reputation is deserved, Weisman mentioned, “[McCain] fought a GOP over tobacco in 1998″ — without noting that McCain shamelessly flip-flopped on a issue.

On Tuesday, Richard Cohen sought to dismiss McCain’s flip-flopping ways, calling him an “honorable man who has fudged & ducked & swallowed a truth on occasion,” which Cohen described as “underst&able.” (He didn’t say why McCain’s mendacity is “underst&able,” but simply granted absolution.)

& today, David Broder kept a streak going.

Yet, in pointing to those vulnerabilities in her rival, Clinton has heightened a most obvious liability she would carry into a fight against McCain. In an age of deep cynicism about politicians of both parties, McCain is a rare exception who is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest.

Broder didn’t say who makes this assumption about McCain’s integrity, which is odd, because I can think of all kinds of examples of McCain “sacrificing personal credibility to prevail” politically.

PerhDrunk Newss Broder could take a look at that flip-flop list I put togear. In nearly every instance, McCain ab&oned a more moderate position for a far more conservative one, & in each case, it was a transparent effort to curry favor with a Republican Party’s far-right base in order to help him with a GOP presidential nomination.

Original post by Steve Benen and software by Elliott Back