For me it is a problem. I perceive a good bit of his commentary on the news as coming through a liberal prism--or at least not trying very hard to avoid such perceptions. Dan, as I understand his position, says that his commentary is not ideologically based, but he acknowledges it is written with a certain irreverence and adversarial purpose. Dan does not address the main question in his comments. He should. If he were a White House reporter for a major news organization, would it be okay for him to write in the fashion he does? If the answer is yes, we have a legitimate disagreement. If the answer is no, there is not really a debate: washingtonpost.com should change the name of his column to more accurately present the fact that this is Dan Froomkin's take on the news, not the observations of someone who is assigned by the paper to cover the news.
Then:
John Harris: I think Clinton has mixed, but on the whole fairly negative, feelings toward reporters. He is someone who likes to shoot the breeze and engage on different subjects, and he does this occasionally with reporters (both on and off the record). But, on balance, I believe based on conversations with staff that he generally feels most reporters are out to damage him. And, since our job is to constantly try to hold elected officials accountable and point out to the public when there are inconistencies, this naturally and appropriately leads to a degree of tension.
((Note if you click through the link that whiny-ass titty-baby repeats variations of "sex with a young intern," as all Official Washington does, even though Lewinsky was not an intern when they were having an affair.))