Howard Kurtz writes:

[T]he president said “the media's run with” the idea that he was late to the game. “I was down there a month ago, before most of these talking heads were even paying attention to the gulf.”

On that point, he is wrong. Obama visited Louisiana on Sunday, May 2. The oil spill was a prime topic on the Sunday shows that day, and on the network newscasts and cable chatfests the next day--though it was eclipsed for a time by the arrest in the Times Square bombing case.

I don't think “wrong” means what Kurtz thinks it means. Either that, or he's a little foggy on the concept of time.

See, Barack Obama said he visited the gulf “before” pundits started paying attention to the BP spill -- and Howard Kurtz says Obama is wrong, because the day after Obama's visit, the spill was discussed on network newscasts and cable shows. Got that? Barack Obama was wrong to say he was in the gulf before pundits started paying attention, because the day after he was there, network newscasts and cable shows covered the spill.

Heck of a job, Howie.

Kurtz began today's column by quoting a White House aide dismissing as “psychobabble” the inane media ramblings about Obama being insufficiently angry -- and, in the process, Kurtz forgot to mention that he's been one of the primary offenders.

Oh, and in yesterday's column, Kurtz quoted three paragraphs of Fred Barnes' nonsensical column arguing that President Obama would benefit from a GOP takeover of Congress without noting the glaring, disqualifying flaws in Barnes' argument.