The Seattle newspapers both praised Obama's choice of Joe Biden as his running mate.  First, the Seattle Times.

Joe Biden adds heft to the Democratic ticket and brings few liabilities.  The senior senator from Delaware gives Barack Obama some things he does not have: long experience in the nation's capital and a deep knowledge of foreign policy.

Next, the Seattle PI.

Obama's new partner is a solid choice, and a decent political figure, and, ironically, one of McCain's best friends in the Senate.  We like that because American democracy is well served when there is a healthy, spirited debate among friends about the direction of the country.

Especially when that friend is no damn fool.

And both newspapers excused Biden's plagiarism in much the same way.

Seattle Times:

Biden's name is often associated with two negatives: slips of the tongue and the plagiarism of a speech by British politician Neil Kinnock.  The plagiarism was long ago and nobody cares about it.   The slips of the tongue have had to do with propriety, not substance, and are a fault that for many Americans make the man more likable.

Seattle PI:

One rap against Biden -- that of plagiarism -- isn't quite fair.  It's true that in one 1988 stump speech, Biden, then a presidential candidate, stole the words of British Labor leader Neil Kinnock without attribution.  But, as The Washington Post reported at the time, "John Quinlan, a reporter for the Sioux City Journal, said his notes showed Biden said he was quoting Kinnock when he used the same passage in a speech Aug. 14."  This is a storyline that should be retired.

Both newspapers are wrong.  Here's what David Greenberg says in Slate.  (Which is not a conservative publication.)

But Biden's exit from the 1988 race is worth recalling in detail, because his transgressions far exceeded Obama's own relatively innocent lifting of rhetorical set pieces from his friend Deval Patrick, which occasioned a brief flap last February.  Biden's misdeeds encompassed numerous self-aggrandizing thefts, misstatements, and exaggerations that seemed to point to a serious character defect.

So there was more than one instance of plagiarism; there were "numerous" instances, going all the way back to law school.  And borrowing from Kinnock wasn't a harmless slip, because in some speeches Biden also borrowed Kinnock's biography, claiming, for instance, that he was the first one in his family to go to college, which was true for Kinnock, but not Biden.  Greenberg has more examples of falsehoods from Biden during that campaign.  Individually each falsehood might not seem serious, but together they raise serious doubts about his character.

I'm not sure why the Seattle papers made this mistake.  But both newspapers should run corrections.  And they might want to take a hint from my title.  Are they failing to get basic facts right because they are too committed to Obama, because too many people at both papers have stopped being journalists and have become Obama boys and girls?

Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.

(For what it is worth, a far left British newspaper, the Independent, also likes Biden, but doesn't mention his plagiarism in their editorial.  They do say he has "straight-talking charm", which may cause some to chuckle.

There's some interesting background on Biden's plagiarism in this Jack Shafer column.)