Seriously, they've become as disconnected from reality as the nuttiest of the Tea Party candidates.
Their lead editorial this morning says Obama "thumbs his nose at the Senate" by appointing Elizabeth Warren in the manner he did, and that "Mr. Obama would have been better off picking a more confirmable candidate" because apparently in their universe, his more 'confirmable' candidates have been sailing right through Congress with no more than the usual hassles.
Meanwhile, in the universe that the rest of us live in, Obama appointments that draw only a few 'no' votes in the Senate when they finally get a vote, hence must be regarded as eminently confirmable, have had their appointments held up for months (and well over a year in some cases) by holds and the prospect of filibusters.
In addition, they gripe that the nature of the Warren appointment "might have been in keeping with the letter of the laws, but not with their spirit." I guess that in their reality, the GOP's practice of filibustering literally everything the Dems put forward, which after all is what necessitated Obama's "end run" around the Senate confirmation process, is in keeping with the spirit of the Senate rules allowing filibusters, so it doesn't merit similar criticism.
Finally, they try to make Warren out to be some sort of radical, referring to "Warren's zealous campaign against what she called the "tricks and traps" of the banking industry." "What she called"?? How dare she suggest that the banksters might try to make a buck by misleading consumers! Let's not deal straight up with whether her characterization is true or not, let's just call it 'zealous' and use the "what she called" phrase to suggest that reasonable people would disagree with her.
They note that this sort of thing "has made her a hero to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party" but that "[l]ike many such activists, however, Ms. Warren can be simplistic and hyperbolic." But other than the aforementioned use of the "tricks and traps" phrase, they can't be bothered to give any evidence of this.
This is a smear job, pure and simple. And they've got nothing to back up their characterization, so they invent their own reality out of thin air. There really isn't anything, anymore, that distinguishes the WaPo from the wingnuts.