Somehow, I missed this Washington Post article a couple of days ago:
Pelosi (D-Calif.) has become "the face of liberalism in the Obama era," more so than Obama himself, said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton.
Her infamy among conservatives is partly the product of her often-imperious manner, a rougher media culture and a superheated political climate. But it is also a backhanded acknowledgment of how effective she has been.
Keep in mind: that's a (front page) straight-news article, not an opinion column.
So, at the Washington Post, it's totally unacceptable for a journalist to privately disparage Pat Buchanan -- but calling Nancy Pelosi "imperious" on the front page of the paper is quite all right.
Speaking of the front page, what exactly justified the article's placement there? Under the header "Conservatives use Pelosi as face of liberalism in campaign ads," it simply noted that Republicans are criticizing Nancy ffdPelosi as part of their electoral strategy. In other news, the sun rose in the east today. Somehow, in more than 900 words about the GOP's strategy of running against Nancy Pelosi, the Post never got around to mentioning that they've tried that before, without much success.