The Washington Post has a rather loaded story this morning on page A3 about Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla. -- "Marco Rubio on national ticket could be risky bet for Republican Party":
The charismatic Cuban American lawmaker from Florida, the theory goes, could prompt Hispanics to consider supporting the GOP ticket — even after a primary contest in which dust-ups over illegal immigration have left some conservative Hispanics uneasy.
But Rubio’s role in recent controversies, including a dispute with the country’s biggest Spanish-language television network and new revelations that he had mischaracterized his family’s immigrant story, shows that any GOP bet on his national appeal could be risky.
Note the reference to "revelations that he had mischaracterized his family’s immigrant story." Though it goes unmentioned, the WashingtonPost is the source of allegations that Rubio somehow failed to tell the truth about whether his family left Cuba before or after Castro took power. Rubio has hotly disputed this story, and there really isn't any strong evidence that Rubio mischaracterized anything. His senate bio may have been inaccurate in this respect, but Rubio was definitively on record telling journalists his family left before Castro took power.
It's really shameless of the Washington Post to make these kinds of dubious allegations, and then after they're disputed, write a story that asserts Rubio's national reputation is damaged despite any real evidence that it is. That's not journalism -- it's a badly biased stab at wish fulfillment.