Bob Somerby does excellent though sometimes he goes off the rails. But his column today is Grade A, as he explains in clear detail how our Media simply fails at its job. This time he discusses Margaret Carlson's latest travesty in discussing Al Gore and the 2000 election:

There are no words, except bad words, to describe this new column by Margaret Carlson . . . [She] muses about the lessons we can learn from the events of Campaign 2000. And omigod! Even today—even after Iraq—Carlson simply refuses to stop. Her cohort is shameless beyond all compare. They’re disgraceful, like those who enable them:

CARLSON: George W. Bush's win (if that's what it was) over then-Vice President Al Gore was attributed in part to style. Gore took every opportunity to lecture voters on how a bill becomes a law. He even invoked the “Norwood-Dingell” patients' bill of rights legislation in a debate to show how much his 24 years of government experience mattered versus his opponent's five.

Even today—even after their conduct has led to Iraq—these people are determined not to stop. In the first paragraph quoted above, Carlson refers to the third Bush-Gore debate, the “town hall forum” held in St. Louis on October 17, 2000.

Question: Did Gore mention the Dingell-Norwood bill “to show how much his 24 years of government experience mattered versus his opponent's five?” Did he mention this bill because he “took every opportunity to lecture voters on how a bill becomes a law?” Yes, that’s what the laughable fellow did—if you live in the fictionalized world of a moral disgrace like Carlson. In the real world, though, a different reason intrudes; Gore mentioned Dingell-Norwood (not “Norwood-Dingell”) for a good and obvious reason. Bush had been saying that he supported a “patients bill of rights” too; Gore wanted to show that Bush was supporting a weak bill, one that was favored by industry.