The Washington Post used the occasion of poll results to sneak in: subjective descriptions, unsubstantiated facts, and editorial comments.

"Bush's relentless attacks on Kerry have badly damaged the Democratic nominee, the survey and interviews showed."

Bush's "relentless" attacks? Perhaps attacks by supporters or members of the campaign, but I would hardly call them "relentless." That's like the hunter who wounds himself blaming the deer's "relentless" attack. And can a survey possibly show the proximate cause of what the survey purports to show? Results are the results, whatever you make of them, but unless there was a question that said, "what has made you feel this way" and the answer was, "Bush's relentless attacks," I don't think a {factual} news report can make that statement and be accurate.

"Voters routinely describe Kerry as wishy-washy, as a flip-flopper and as a candidate they are not sure they can trust, almost as if they are reading from Bush campaign ad scripts."

Or, almost as if Kerry's incredible lack of consistently has allowed poll respondents to accurately perceive Kerry as wishy-washy?

"But Kerry's problems are also partly of his own making."

Partly? How about overwhelmingly? (That's at least if you buy into the argument that we are responsible for our own actions.) Must. Not. Entertain. Possibility. Of. Own. Shortcomings.

"Despite repeated efforts to flesh out his proposals on Iraq, terrorism and other issues, he has yet to break through to undecided voters as someone who has clear plans for fixing the country's biggest problems."

Ah, see how it isn't any defect or lack in the ideas themselves, just that he hasn't been able to "break throw" (all those relentless Bush attacks and all.)