re: anti-Kerry bias, the image of Kerry as an aloof elite was something that Rove was pushing because it was hurting Kerry in the polls, wasn't it? I'm sure if you polled people if they wanted a loner as president, the response would be an emphatic 'no'. It's at least possible that this was meant as a subtle jab at Kerry.
I'm a bit confused as to what a "social loner" is. Is it a loner who at times tends to be social, or a guy who, even in a social setting, is a loner? Is Kerry the guy who leaves the party early and goes home to work, or is he the guy who looks perfectly comfortable standing alone while nursing a drink at the party? I think Atrios is objecting to the characterization of Kerry as the second type, while you see him as the first.
More to the point, the article misses the real issue. The problem is NOT (or not only) a warped sense of "balance".
The REAL issue is why does the NY Times waste column inches on BS stories like this? We all know the answer to that: because the NY Times feels that anything said by the WH or GOP spokesmen counts as news, and important news at that. So the WH and the GOP get to set the agenda simply through the talking points that they distribute to their minions each day; and the NY Times laps it up, giving headlines to whatever bogus issue the WH wants to dominate today's news cycle, rather than some background issue that actually matters, all the while congratulating themselves for their "balance" at giving both sides of the GOPs talking point.
Look, no educated person gives a fuck about whether Kerry is a loner or not, regardless of how balanced the story is --- what we want to see is stories that ignore such stupid issues and focus on something important --- like how the GOP is planning to screw the poor even more through their revamped tax structure.