So, we’ve got to go on an Easter egg hunt.

First stop, yesterday’s column. The Amazing Froomkin has this to say about Rather’s suit, in great contrast to chinless wonder Teabag Fred’s winger-rampant and disinformation-ridden Op-Ed page. Let me just fair-use the whole paragraph:

Dan Rather Watch

Eric Boehlert of Media Matters marvels at the reaction to Dan Rather’s lawsuit, specifically from all the “mainstream journalists who rushed in to denounce the former anchorman as dishonest, arrogant, bitter, and delusional, all the while making sure not to take up Rather’s challenge of addressing the underlying facts of the story surrounding Bush’s no-show military service.”

And the key point that Teabag Fred’s service providers conveniently omit:

Writes Boehlert: “[T]he dirty little secret that [winger] bloggers and mainstream journalists don’t want to discuss is that Rather is right — the National Guard story was true.”

We were never defeated on the merits of the story. Not ever. If CBS caved for business reasons after Federalist Society operative F/Buckheard fired off his Rovian triple-bankshot on serifs, that’s not our problem—except insofar as Bush got selected again, because our famously free press happily accepted any excuse to drop the story, of course.

Second stop, the long Googled list of Froomkin’s exhaustive posting—thank The God(ess)(e)(s) of Your Choice for Froomkin:

For more background, here’s some of my own coverage of the controversy over Bush’s service.

Third stop, the Easter Egg!  Read more 

Froom Savages his coworkers on the dead-tree side of the WaPo conglomeration today. The occasion is the awarding of the Pulizer Prize for National Reporting to Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe. Which Globe? The Boston Globe. Not, um, the Washington Globe, er we mean Post, which might seem logically more in a position to have picked up on the subject of Savage’s reporting: Presidential signing statements.

Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting yesterday, “for his revelations that President Bush often used ’signing statements’ to assert his controversial right to bypass provisions of new laws.”

The stories that won Savage his prize are certainly familiar to White House Watch readers — and yet worth rereading.

And here’s a question White House correspondents should be asking themselves today: How did an investigative reporter at a regional newspaper end up winning an award on their beat?

According to Globe Editor Martin Baron, the answer is: “What Charlie does and the reason he won this richly deserved Pulitzer is because he covered what the White House does, not just what it says.”

Another thing to keep in mind: For entirely too long, Savage was a one-man band on this important national story.  Read more