If you're a regular reader, you know I'm somewhat obsessed with Adam Nagourney, who works a "Democrats are doomed" message into virtually every story he writes for The New York Times. His latest article (co-written with Jim Rutenberg) runs for 24 paragraphs. Here's how I read it:

* In 13 paragraphs, either interviewees or Nagourney and Rutenberg themselves suggest that the Bush campaign is strong, the Kerry campaign is weak, or both.

* A mere 3 paragraphs suggest that Kerry's doing well and/or Bush isn't.

* In 1 paragraph (the one that begins, "Mr. Kerry's aides proclaimed that they would expand...") the two sides trade blows.

* 7 paragraphs are essentially neutral.

Nagourney -- fair and balanced as usual.