Treachery prized by Pulitzer committee

Douglas MacKinnon:

The Pulitzer Prizes were just awarded, and once again, I was left off the winners list. Why? Why would the Pulitzer committee knowingly choose to undermine my self-esteem?
As I wring my hands and wrack my obviously inferior brain, the answer hits me like a bolt out of a blue state. I didn't win, get nominated or even noticed because I didn't meet their very rigid criteria for selection. As simple and telling as that.
And what exactly is the litmus test a writer has to pass before the Pulitzer committee deems his or her work acceptable? Well, as near as I can tell, to make the grade, one must have done at least one of the following: Betray national secrets; go after only Republican lobbyists; tackle only Republican corruption; blame the United States for everything wrong in the world: and the surefire attention getter; try to tear down the presidency of George W. Bush.
Think I'm exaggerating for reasons of hyperbole? First of all, I'm not even sure what hyperbole means. But since I know the Pulitzer committee likes big words, and since I'm not a quitter, I threw it in. Secondly, let's look at a few of the actual prizes awarded by the "nonpartisan" Pulitzer committee, to see if I hit the mark with my list of criteria that would collapse the left side of any scale.
Dana Priest of The Washington Post, won the best reporting award for revealing that the CIA was using secret prisons in Easter Europe to interrogate terrorists.
In other words, they gave an award to a reporter who got a tip from a government worker who betrayed his or her country by revealing top-secret information. The reporter and The Post, in an effort to become the darlings of left, then splashed said top secret information all over the front page. Who benefited from this "Pulitzer Prize Winning Reporting?" Terrorists who mean to kill everyone in the United States.
Next, you have the New York Times winning a Pulitzer Prize for announcing President Bush's "domestic eavesdropping program." Again, a proudly left-of-center newspaper is given a prestigious award for revealing top secret information that can only bring aid and comfort to al Qaeda and other terrorists who mean to destroy us and our allies.
It should be noted that with regard to the two prizes just mentioned, in the interests of national security, Mr. Bush personally appealed the patriotism and commonsense of both The Post and the New York Times, and implored them not to run the stories. Both papers, it seems, put their strong dislike of Mr. Bush and his policies before the future safety of Americans.

...

I guess we bloggers were not elgible for the prize, but many on the left deserve some prize for elevating the art of the insult above logic.