Shales' style

I really don't know what a "Style Columnist" is for the Washington Post. But whatever it is, knowledge of current events and fairness evidently is not required. Case in point is Tom Shales attack first on ABC and then his demonstration that he either has not been keeping up with what's going on, or he wants to spin it.
I give you:

The boyish Stephanopoulos.....looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation.

Someone should tell Tom, "once associated" means "in the past." Ayers and Hussein continue to associate, and are actually serving on the same corporate board. And then there is the large lapse made when Hussein compared Ayers and Senator Coburn.

No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has,

True enough, but his answers haven't been satisfactory. So now he just says his unsatisfactory answers are OK and we should just move on...

Perhaps it is natural that someone who writes in the Style section of a paper would be more interested in style than facts. But he really shouldn't complain about bias when it is glaringly obvious that he is in the tank for the master of style, Hussein.