Atrios approvingly links to this HuffPost by Eric Boehlert, on the Gore-Bradley battle for the Democratic nomination in 2000:

But did Gore really "struggle" putting away primary contender Bradley at the ballot box? I went back and looked up the answer. Here's a look at the 2000 Democratic primary results, state-by-state in alphabetical order (Bradley was not on the ballot in every state):

Arizona, Gore +59
California, Gore +63
Colorado, Gore +47
Connecticut, Gore +14
Delaware, Gore +15
District of Columbia, Gore +90
Florida, Gore +63
Georgia, Gore +66
Idaho, Gore +59
Illinois, Gore +70
Indiana, Gore +53
Kentucky, Gore +65
Louisiana, Gore +52
Maine, Gore +13
Maryland, Gore +39
Massachusetts, Gore +23
Michigan, Gore +42

You can see where this is gong [sic]. In the end, Gore won every primary contest against Bradley in 2000, and did it by an average of +47. Gore threw a shut-out in what was one of the most lopsided routs in recent primary history as Bradley, despite spending $40 million, was only competitive in a handful of New England states. But now Slate, which fawned over Bradley in real time, casually re-writes history to suggest Gore "struggled" against Bradley. That's pure fiction, as well as lazy and dishonest.

Actually, Eric, what's "lazy and dishonest" is not reporting the result of the New Hampshire primary, which was where Bradley spent most of his time and money (btw, it would have been next on his alphabetical list). Gore won that won as well, but by only four points; the subsequent primaries listed by Boehlert were all after New Hampshire, when the battle was effectively over. There was a five week gap between New Hampshire and the next primaries, on "Super Tuesday", and Bradley, running as a progressive alternative to Clinton and Gore, needed a win in New Hampshire to remain viable for the Super Tuesday primaries. He didn't get it, had almost no funds left, and Gore's narrow victory in the Nutmeg State effectively ended the race.

Boehlert's book, Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush, has predictably been embraced by one of the more depressing elements in our body politic, the Whiny Left. The Whiny Left is perhaps best seen in its native habitat, the blogosphere, where it moans about how mean the New York Times is to focus on the Clintons' sham marriage, or how outrageous it is that the Washington Post attempts to draw links between Jack Abramoff and Democrats, or what a satanic thug Joe Lieberman is, or, even more importantly, how vicious the MSM is for not hyping an after-dinner speech by Steven Colbert a few weeks back. The Whiny Left is the core audience for anyone who writes a book detailing what a spineless bunch of wussies the media is (are?).

The fact that the Whiny Left may be right (especially about Lieberman) is less important than the fact that its only effect is to harden the attitudes of those less invested in their partisanship, who might otherwise be potential allies. The Whiny Left offers nothing in the way of solutions or alternatives to the status quo, and seem united only by an intense and unwavering hatred of George Bush, not understanding that the broad disapproval the general public has toward the President and his policies does not mean that they will embrace the agenda, such as it is, of the Whiny Left.

If there's one thing I've learned about angry people, it's that they may be publicly amusing, but privately, they're all bores.