Adam Nagourney's view of the candidates in his take on Sunday's Dem debate in Iowa: Edwards is "low-voltage;" Lieberman made an "entreaty from across the stage" for Dean to unseal his Vermont records; Kerry "scrunch[ed] up his face" when questioning Dean.

And Dean? Why, he's the "candidate of the day. "None of his opponents challenged him" when he said that Iraq didn't pose a danger to the United States. When Lieberman challenged Dean to open up his gubernatorial records, Nagourney said that Dean "declined" to do so in the past (contrasted with what is usually characterized as the "refusal" of the White House to open its own records).

A particularly egregious example of what seems to be a pro-Dean bias in Nagourney's work can be seen in this exchange:

"When you were asked by The Concord Monitor about Osama bin Laden, you said you couldn't prejudge his guilt for September 11th," Mr. Kerry said, scrunching up his face and turning incredulously to Dr. Dean. "What in the world were you thinking?"

Dr. Dean responded by citing the primacy of law.

"As an American, I want to see Osama bin Laden get what he deserves, which is the death penalty," Dr. Dean responded. "But I was asked that question as a candidate for president of the United States. And a candidate for president of the United States is obligated to stand for the rule of law."

First, Dean did not "cite the primacy of law," he argued that the American legal system should take precedence over the use of military force in a matter of national security. To take Dean's statements to their extreme, Dean would seem to be suggesting that it would be wrong to fire a TLAM on a suspected bin Laden hideout, since to kill a person without determining guilt would be prima facie immoral.

Second, isn't Dean reaching new levels of evasion in his waffling? "As an American," he wants to see bin Laden dead, but "as a candidate for President" he's "obligated" to feel differently? Adam, where's the outrage?