Just look at the work of perhaps Gore's most vocal supporter during the recount effort, the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne. Read through his recent columns in search of one insult directed toward Bush, or a single, baseless accusation of criminality. You won't find either. Former Clinton advisor Paul Begala recently rolled up his sleeves and wrote a tough, although widely misinterpreted, column for MSNBC.com. The reaction from professional name callers on the right? They were apoplectic with rage. Apparently, liberal pundits aren't supposed to dish it out.

It's hard to say if all this conservative "rage" is sincere or simply calculated. Neither conclusion is particularly flattering: If it's sincere, the right-wing pundits are in bad faith (since they must know in their hearts that Bush would do the same thing Gore is doing if he were in the same situation); if it's calculated, they're not serious political thinkers as much as obedient spokesmen for the Republican Party.

Maybe it's displaced. Could it be that the conservative press, forbidden from criticizing Bush during his time of need, really has been angry and frustrated since Election Day, but at their own guy? Convinced a victory was assured, and now forced to sit through the painful and precarious recount process, pundits may be stewing over what might have been.

Perhaps they're mad Bush couldn't put away an opponent he outspent nearly 2-to-1, and one whose likability rating, we're told, hovered around that of the Grinch. They're mad Bush spent the final days of the campaign in places like California and New Jersey, where he got routed. They're mad Karl Rove bragged Bush was going to "win in a walk," yet he's still trailing in the popular vote. They're mad GOP governors in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin could not deliver their states. They're mad Bush, the "compassionate conservative," won just 8 percent of the African-American vote, the worst showing by a Republican presidential candidate in over 25 years. They're mad Hillary Rodham Clinton won with ease, while five sitting Republican senators got knocked off. They're mad the supposed Nov. 7 referendum on President Clinton has turned out to be too close to call. They're mad Beltway mainstays like David Broder and Maureen Dowd won't join in the Democrat-bashing the way they did during impeachment. And they're mad Bush, in his first post-election challenge, has proven to be everything they hoped he was not -- slow-footed and poorly stage-managed.

Of course some, like CNN's Mary Matalin, might be embarrassed, as well as mad. On election eve she told the Washington Post that Bush would win 359 electoral votes. Wall Street Journal contributing editor Peggy Noonan was sure it was going to be a Bush romp too, with the governor rolling up 411 votes in the electoral column. With the Florida count still disputed, Noonan's currently off by a mere 165 electoral votes, which represents would-be Bush wins in New Jersey, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Hawaii, Maryland and Massachusetts.

It was telling to note the difference in tone that a couple of days and a thousand lost Bush votes in Florida made. Hours after the historic vote on Nov. 7, Bush's biggest backers, including editorial writers at the Wall Street Journal and New York Post as well as columnist Will, all supremely confident that a prompt recount would simply confirm Bush's original Election Day tally, were downright lofty in their remarks.

The Wall Street Journal intoned, "For the moment at least, the tumult of partisan politics has been shouldered aside by the sheer historical drama."

The New York Post reached for the high road: "It's a time for politicians of both parties to put the rancor of the close-fought campaign behind them. America's leaders -- Republican and Democrat alike -- must get through this difficult period with civility and grace."

And in his Nov. 9 Washington Post column, Will himself was in an elevated mode: "Let there be no mistaking what happened Tuesday: Our system of constitutional democracy worked well."

Days later, when it became clear that Gore might win, the high-flown rhetoric suddenly disappeared, replaced by the more familiar litany of insults and unproven accusations. "It is hard not to admit the obvious," read the Wall Street Journal's unsigned editorial. "The Gore campaign is trying to railroad a victory." The New York Post suddenly saw "a coup d'état," while Will was off on a two-week tirade about Gore's "serial mendacity" and "slow-motion larceny."

Salon News A Salon-eye view of the day's news, with investigative reports, analysis and interviews with newsmakers.