Libearl bias? What liberal bias?

The Washington Post gets caught with their pants way down around their ankles:

Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth said today she was canceling plans for an exclusive "salon" at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to "those powerful few" — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

Or was it Obama that had his pants down, while the Washington Post enthusiastically got on their knees to service him?

Oddly enough, the Post seemed (emphasis on past tense) to me to be the least biased of the WashPost-NYTimes-BostonGlobe trifecta. Not that they didn't have some bias (they made Obama wait until the second date before they put out), it's just that I didn't think it was quite as bad as the Times and the Globe. Now? At best, they're just as bad as the others.