It occurs to me that it is entirely possible that a Republican might praise the article precisely because it is neutral and factual.
It is only natural for honest opponents of Kerry's election to feel that a factual description of his record, particularly a factual description that highlights facts that may be relevant but which are not widely discussed in the soundbite-friendly partisan media, helps to educate voters who, being honest, will naturally come to better understand why people oppose Kerry's election.
I am quite sure that many Democratic activists (perhaps the sort who like to call their political opponents "dumbasses", not naming any names here) will read our Bush article with similar joy, due to it naming some facts that these partisans feel are scandalous, but which Bush supporters may greet with either a yawn or even admiration.
The test of NPOV is not "does one side really like it?" because that assumes bad faith, that the only reason someone could like an article is that it is biased.
The test of NPOV is "do both sides like it?" This is assuming good faith, i.e. that all sides of any controversial issue are typically good people who are not "dumbasses" and who have a sincere interest in a fair presentation of the facts.
--Jimbo