Long story short, Politico has it's thumbprint on every major, anti-Democratic piece of sleaze that winds its way into the MSM. Bush gave them a big tongue bath 3 weeks after they launched:

At a Feb. 14 news conference, President Bush invited Mike Allen, The Politico's chief political writer, to explain his new outfit to "the American people."

[Everybody who subsequently visited the site that evening would have found an article conveying a major GOP propaganda initiative]... In a Feb. 14 article, John Bresnahan, The Politico's congressional bureau chief, used the loaded phrase "slow bleed" to characterize the Democrats' strategy in dealing with the administration on Iraq.

That same day, the Republican National Committee released a letter citing Bresnahan's article in falsely claiming that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) call the Democrats' strategy "their 'slow-bleed' plan."

Bresnahan issued a clarification on Feb. 16 which made clear that "slow bleed" was indeed The Politico's "characterization," and that it "was not a term used by any Democrats or the anti-war groups supporting their efforts." But the damage had already been done

If Politico wants to be thought of as an opinion blog, then that's fine.

But since it does not, then it is NOT fine.

As BTD corectly characterized them, they are an online Beltway gossip rag with a direct pipeline to the GOP, and really nothing more.

And quite frankly, when we see ever-increasing numbers of friends and neighbors out of work and suffering financially, it's patently offensive to think that such self-flattering "cocktail journalists" receive financial remuneration at well above the national average for consistently mediocre effort and highly suspect product.

My favorite bits in the linked article are:

Friends say the Obamas are looking to maintain the dizzying social calendar they had in their pre-White House days, while using their knack for socializing to find new friends and win hearts on Capitol Hill and in other Washington power centers.

"They want to replicate the same kind of environment they had in Chicago," said a longtime friend of the Obamas, adding that White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers is "the perfect person" for the job because she knows the couple's former life inside out and is "designing the calendar to reflect the kinds of things they like to do."

"If there was a party or an event [in Chicago], they were there," the friend said. "They've always liked to go to lots of restaurants and be a part of the community. Now they want to be a part of D.C."

"Barack and Michelle have always been interested in the details of people's lives," the confidant said, calling them "people people." "They know who's engaged to whom, what people's spouses do for a living, all about their parents, where they grew up, names of children."

The president, the friend added, "likes to be in the know."

No one disputes that "Variety" has journalistic chops. But Hedda Hopper? Louella Parsons?

Let's let Politico be the "soft" coverage. Is "E!News" news? What about "Access Hollywood"? "Inside Edition"? "The O'Reilly Factor"?

Every paper has an "entertainment" section. Politico is entertainment for Pols. Nothing more, nothing less. They are still journalists, even if they pitch softballs. Who was the ONLY journalist keeping Obama's feet to the fire on Bush/Cheney's crimes? Sam Stein of HuffPo. Everybody else just throws softballs, and don't really deserve the name journalists.

The editing that they do is not meant to promote "a free flow of ideas," but rather a cut-and-paste caricature for whatever personal agenda Huffington is pushing.

Handle Ben Smith with caution. He also has a history of being a key source for false stories that go viral. As MediaMatters reported: Ben Smith was the first prominent 'journalist' to accuse Hillary of calling Obama a "secret Muslim" on 60 Minutes (March 2/08):

within hours of the 60 Minutes'telecast, a Clinton critic quickly posted a truncated video of the interview on YouTube under the loaded headline "Hillary Clinton Stokes False Rumors about Obama's Faith." (Truncated, because the video chopped off the part where Clinton expressed her sympathy for Obama for having to put up with Muslim innuendos.) The video was then pushed out to the press. [snip]

[A few minutes before 9:18 p.m.] Ben Smith at the Politico had linked to the video, along with his comments, in which he echoed the sentiment of the YouTube headline; that Clinton had come dangerously close to spreading a smear. Smith stressed that Clinton's answer was "weird" and "less than ironclad," that Clinton was in a "danger zone" for even "hinting" that Obama was Muslim, and that she was "leaving [herself] open to uncharitable interpretations."

Uncharitable interpretation by whom? By people like Smith.

The story then picked up steam, and the journalism it produced was depressing, albeit not that surprising.