The Washington Post's ombudsperson, Deborah Howell, has been caught in the crossfire of fulminating liberals who are denouncing her for allegedly—supporting conservatives! (Did we read that right?) Howell had the temerity to suggest in her column that more than a few Democrats might have been caught in flagrante with money tainted by the Abramoff scandal in addition to all those hateful Republicans. In point of fact, they have, but don't ever tell that to a true believer on the left.
Howell was apparently inundated almost instantaneously with outraged email commentary from lefties who had their knickers in a knot over anyone at the Post even suggesting that anyone but genetically evil, knuckle-dragging Republicans could possibly be involved in the scandal. After all, the Post is a reliable mouthpiece for the left, right? So how DARE they betray this current article of leftist faith, namely, that only Repubs are involved in the scandal?
When the comments starting going over the top (as leftist commentaries always do), Howell cut the bitching off and deleted the online comments. But print journalists still haven't picked up on the lesson learned (or maybe not) by Dan Rather and Mary Mapes, namely, that censorship ain't that easy on the Internet, particularly when the blogosphere is around. The denouement of this story is nothing less than hilarious.
If you don't believe us, read all about it here. And be sure you follow the "deleted" links just to see the hilariously easy methodology that was used to resurrect the "censored" comments. Courtesy of the ever-watchful Instapundit.
After you have a few chuckles at Howell's and the Post's misfortunes, the important lesson to learn is that the left never allows the actual facts of a case to interfere with secular church dogma.
MINOR UPDATE: Howell retracted her initial assertion that Abramoff contributed money directly in all instances. While he contributed some money of his own to candidates, much of it was "directed" to be contributed by others. A hairsplit, really, and doesn't alter any of the above observations.