Monday morning is dreary enough, without the kind of headline that announces The Washington Post thinks the President is irrelevant. "Economy War, to Dominate State of the Union: Bush’s Challenge May Be Getting People to Listen." There is no "news analysis" tag on this piece by White House reporter Michael Abramowitz. It ought to have a tag that announces "News With Attitude."No one will argue that the last State of the Union speech of a two-term president is typically a dramatic event. But the Post goes out of its way to tout how the President will get no credit for progress in Iraq, just as he received no credit for a booming economy when it was booming earlier in his tenure. Is this a recitation of facts? Or is the Post simply taking credit for its own desperately partisan journalistic manipulations? Here is the irony. Go back to President Clinton’s last State of the Union address, and guess what? On the morning of the speech – January 27, 2000 – the Post put it on page A-14. This means Bush’s last SOTU is more relevant than Clinton’s to the Post – but only so they can talk him down, and quote Democrats as the experts on his political decline. The story begins: