By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Josh Marshall provides a response that I have seen in a couple of venues to the McCain story:

I find it very difficult to believe that the Times would have put their chin so far out on this story if they didn't know a lot more than they felt they could put in the article, at least on the first go.

(Emphasis supplied.) Since, despite the protests of some, the meat of this story is the allegation of a romantic involvement with a person not his wife, I believe Marshall is referencing more evidence of the romantic relationship. And Marshall's response demonstrates what is outrageous about the Times' journalism here. If the Times cannot put "a lot more" into the article, then the allegations of a romantic relationship can not go in the article. This seems obvious to me.

Marshall also adds this troubling sum up:

Given unspoken understandings of many years' duration, a lot of reporters and DC types can probably imagine what the full picture looks like. But we're going to need a few more pieces before the rest of us can get a sense of what this is all about.

(Emphasis supplied.) Is this what journalism has been reduced to? The Paper of Record can now run allegations of romantic relationships based on what DC reporters can understand but the "rest of us" do not get to know about? If there is "more," as some suggest, then the Times has to print it, or NOT print its explosive allegations until it CAN print "the more." My view has not changed -- this is a piece of atrocious journalism. I am eager to read the NYTimes Public Editor on this story.

Further evidence that the country is finally coming to its senses: the punitive approach to juvenile justice that fails to recognize the difference between children and adults is giving way to a philosophy that reduces recidivism without damaging kids.

About a year ago, New York City started an alternative sentencing program called the Juvenile Justice Initiative. Instead of locking kids up in residential "treatment" centers or detention facilities, nonviolent offenders are sent home where a therapist provides intense intervention to restore order to the family. The program "helps parents learn how to supervise and manage their adolescents so that they act responsibly instead of engaging in dangerous behaviors," according to a city official.

After a year, there is evidence that the program works:

The city said that in the year since the program began, fewer than 35 percent of the 275 youths who have been through it have been rearrested or violated probation. State studies found that more than 80 percent of male juvenile offenders who had served time in correctional facilities were rearrested within three years of their release, usually on more serious charges.

The program takes kids who are a drain on society and makes them productive, saving huge tax dollars in the process: [more...]

The First Amendment right to a free press generally prohibits a court from restraining the publication of information. Whether that doctrine applies to any or all of the whistle-blowing documents collected at Wikileaks.org, a court's decision to order the website "disabled" is an obvious affront to the First Amendment. Talk about killing the messenger.

On Friday, Judge Jeffrey S. White of Federal District Court in San Francisco granted a permanent injunction ordering Dynadot, the site’s domain name registrar, to disable the Wikileaks.org domain name. The order had the effect of locking the front door to the site — a largely ineffectual action that kept back doors to the site, and several copies of it, available to sophisticated Web users who knew where to look.

Judge White's order is tantamount to ordering the New York Times to cease publication because some of its stories are based on leaked information. Shouldn't the same right to a free press apply to internet websites, the most accessible means of publishing information to a wide audience?

Fortunately, the Times was kind enough to tell us where to find the information that Judge White doesn't think we should read: [more...]

Bump and Update: McCain releases a statement condemning the New York Times article. Olbermann read it really fast but I didn't hear any denial of the allegations pertaining to the female lobbyist.

Update: Salon has more. Scroll down to the bottom of this post for the key Times quotes, and again, this isn't about sex.

***

MSNBC broke into Hardball to announce this news that just appeared on the New York Times website: John McCain is tied to a 40 year old female lobbyist 8 years ago. Both deny an improper relationship. That's not what others suggest.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s clients, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mike Huckabee anyone? If McCain's ethics and ties to corporate lobbyists are in doubt, when he has made this a hallmark of his campaign, can he still get the nomination? [More...]

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

My thoughts on the NYTimes story on John McCain (Jeralyn writes about it here) are summed up in my headline. More extensive thoughts below the fold.

ABC News has a pretty thorough analysis of the status of things in Texas, and which way different demographics are breaking.

There's three problems for Hillary in Texas, and they don't sound small.

• 1/3 of the delegates will be awarded based on a caucus held at the conclusion of the primary.

• Delegates are apportioned partially by Democratic voter turnout in prior elections

• The primary is open to Independents

The significance: Obama does better in caucuses and primaries where Independents can vote.

The places with the greater amount of liberal and African American voters (Dallas, Houston, Austin) had greater voter turnout than the Latino communities in prior years, so even if Hillary gets a great Latino turnout, she won't score as many delegates. [More...]

By Big Tent Democrat

Via TPM, it's semi-official, Hillary Clinton has to win Texas and Ohio:

If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee; if you don't then I don't think she can. It's all on you," the former president told the audience at the beginning of his speech.

Of course, Obama and his supporters do not agree with the first part but certainly we all agree with the second part.

Texas and Ohio are the last stand.

By Big Tent Democrat:

Predictably, I find this statement, via Media Matters, from Bill O'Reilly utterly offensive:

In a discussion of recent comments made by Michelle Obama[,] O'Reilly . . . stated: "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) Yes, predictably, I find the comment racist and offensive. I am a PC cop.

Predictably, Daily Kos notices.

By Big Tent Democrat

Channeling Howard Beale from the movie "Network," [ yelled into the microphone, "Give me a break! I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter."

There is quite a bit of irony in the complaint, as the Left blogs have been regurgitating Right Wing talking points about Bill and Hillary Clinton this entire campaign.

Later today.

Teamster President James P. Hoffa plans to meet with Obama in Austin, Texas, before an announcement is made. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the planned public announcement.

The Teamsters has 1.4 million members. More importantly for Obama,

They also are a potent source of campaign cash and get-out-the-vote workers for Democrats.

By Big Tent Democrat

Matt Stoller is chock full of ideas for negatively branding John McCain:

I've been doing some calling around to political insiders I know, many of whom are doing serious research on the 2008 election, to figure out how to brand McCain. . . . Everyone I've spoken with believes that the holy grail of branding seems to be associating McCain strongly with Bush. . . . A backdoor way to frame McCain as a Bush-like candidate is to portray him as old, part of the politics of the past, and angry. He's quite vulnerable on his temper and age, and women in particular revolt against his treatment of his first wife (whom he left for a younger wealthy woman after she got into an accident). McCain is definitely open to attack on the economy, and voters are quite willing to believe he is going to continue the Bush economic legacy of tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. So old, angry, addicted to war, and part of the past seems to be the consensus narrative on McCain.

This begs the question - does Barack Obama do negative branding? And if so, can he also work on negatively branding the entire GOP?

A must-read today: Russ Tuttle reports on the planned Guantanamo military commission trials in The Nation:

Now, as the murky, quasi-legal staging of the Bush Administration's military commissions unfolds, a key official has told The Nation that the trials are rigged from the start. According to Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor for Guantánamo's military commissions, the process has been manipulated by Administration appointees in an attempt to foreclose the possibility of acquittal.

This is mind-boggling: Pentagon Chief Counsel William Haynes told Davis there can be no acquittals: [More...]