Wayne Barrett of the Village Voice believes the first of the two unnamed senior Fox officials named in Judith Regan's lawsuit is Roger Ailes. He's said so on Countdown, Democracy Now and the Abrams Report. Salon has more.

"The funny thing about Judith Regan's complaint is that she doesn't refer to Roger Ailes by name for the first 16 pages, right?" Barrett told Keith Olbermann of MSNBC on Wednesday. "But Roger Ailes is ... clearly the person she is referring to as this senior executive who made all these suggestions to her." The next day, on "Democracy Now," host Amy Goodman opened her segment with Barrett by stating as fact that "Regan ... was talking about Roger Ailes." Barrett responded, "I'm sure you're correct."

Another Salon article adds more dates to the timeline:[More]

I'm aware of felony murder laws, in which one participant in, say a bank robbery, is held liable for murder if another participant kills someone during the course of the crime or the getaway, but this California case is going a step further.

LAKEPORT, Calif. - Three young black men break into a white man's home in rural Northern California. The homeowner shoots two of them to death - but it's the surviving black man who is charged with murder.

In a case that has brought cries of racism from civil rights groups, Renato Hughes Jr., 22, was charged by prosecutors in this overwhelmingly white county under a rarely invoked legal doctrine that could make him responsible for the bloodshed.

The murder charge is based on California's Provocative Act doctrine --

The Provocative Act doctrine does not require prosecutors to prove the accused intended to kill. Instead, "they have to show that it was reasonably foreseeable that the criminal enterprise could trigger a fatal response from the homeowner," said Brian Getz, a San Francisco defense attorney unconnected to the case.

The doctrine is used so rarely the NAACP is alleging the charges are racially motivated. It's also are asking why the homeowner wasn't charged with murder.

More....

Headlines after the debate: Clinton Sparkles in Vegas Debate (Guardian); Hillary Makes a Recovery in Las Vegas Debate (CNN); Hillary Shows She Can Take a Punch in Vegas Debate (San Francisco Chronicle); Clinton Calls and Raises in Vegas Debate (CBS News); Hillary Takes Aggressive Tack Against Rivals (International Herald Tribune); Clinton Swings Back Against Rivals (Boston Globe); Hillary Hits Back (Washington Post). After Rough Few Weeks, Hillary Clinton Gives Strong Debate Performance (ABC News).

Obama falters Over Illegal Immigrants (New York Sun); MSNBC: "Richardson, btw, had one of his better performances, possibly his best. Dodd didn't get a lot of time but when he did speak, he seemed to be on message."

My thoughts on the debate:

Winners: Hillary, Dodd, Richardson.

Waffler: Obama playing slip and slide on drivers' licenses for the undocumented. Four chances and wouldn't answer the question.

Least likely to have gained new support: Edwards. But he gave a great answer in response to a question from the audience on racial profiling. Said when he is President, there will be no racial profiling, no illegal spying, no Guantanamo, no torture.

Biden: Displayed a sense of humor, it still doesn't make up for his bad position on issues, particularly on crime. Sample comment: People are afraid their kids are going to run into a drug dealer on the way to school.

More --and a poll -- below the Fold

The Democrats' debate begins in 15 minutes. Big Tent Democrat discussed what you can expect here. He'll also be around to live-blog some of it.

I won't get to see it since I'm off to discuss Judith Regan's lawsuit against News Corp on Dan Abrams'MSNBC Wayne Barrett of the Village Voice will also be on.

I've tivo'd the debate and will add my thoughts after I've had a chance to watch it.

In the meantime, here's a place for readers to discuss it as it's airing.

Updates below:

So sez Greg Sargent:

. . . Here's a bit more detail on what happened on the Judiciary Committee today. Sources say Senator Russ Feingold offered an amendment that would have stripped telecom immunity from the bill, but it was defeated. Then Senator Arlen Specter, the ranking GOPer on the committee, offered a "compromise" amendment saying that in these lawsuits the Federal government, and not the telecoms, would be the defendants. But because of a procedural difficulty Specter's amendment wasn't voted on -- and Senator Patrick Leahy, the chair of the committee, essentially went around Specter's amendment and moved to have a vote to report the bill out of committee without any telecom immunity in it. That passed along strictly party lines. And that's where we are.

Let's see the bill first Greg. If Leahy was able to get this done, then HURRAH for Leahy! Personally, I am not understanding this story at all. If Feingold's attempt to REMOVE telecom immunity failed, then what exactly did Leahy get out of Committee? If the bill did NOT contain telecom immunity, then why did Feingold move to have it striked? Sorry Greg, too many holes in the story as reported to make any sense.

Tonight the Democratic Presidential candidates will be debating in Las Vegas. CNN will televise it (8 pm EST, will live blog it for as long as I can stand to, history shows I'll do the first hour and then bail, hopefully J will be around) and Wolf Blitzer will moderate. It promises to be the most intriguing evening of the campaign so far.

Hillary Clinton was perceived as having taken a blow in the last debate. John Edwards has become an attack dog against Clinton (something we saw too little of when he was actually in the traditional political attack dog role, VP candidate in 2004). Barack Obama has been much less aggressive against Clinton than has Edwards but, imo, has reaped the most benefits from Edwards' kamikaze attacks. The roles the candidates are willing to play will be extremely interesting. And Clinton's response to the last debate perhaps the most intriguing aspect of all.

Substantively, the drivers license issue and how it plays with regard to the immigration issue, will be a big big issue. Nevada has a large Latino population. The wild card on this issue will be Bill Richardson, who as Governor of New Mexico, has ALREADY implemented such an initiative to great success. I expect he will be very aggressive on the issue and immigration generally. The other issue likely to draw attention is Social Security where Obama and Edwards have foolishly adopted Republican talking points, speaking as if immediate action is necessary.

One final thought, after the roasting Russert received in many quarters for his performance in the last debate, I expect Wolf Blitzer to be very aware of how he will be perceived if he allows this to be turned into a Hillary Hate fest. I think it will not.

All the major players will likely have opportunities, both on political tactics and on substantive issues. This will be one to watch.

Working for Fox and its deleterious effects. It makes you blind. Case in point, Juan Williams:

The fact is that (Moulitsas is) not a journalist in terms of someone who knows how to do reporting, someone who reflects balance in what he portrays. To the contrary, he engages in the kind of hyperbole and extreme statements that are represented by that crass and I think offensive statement that he made about those dead people. But you know what? I think that’s just what’s going on in journalism. I think that there’s more and more opinion, less and less people who know how to do the job. All you gotta do is shout, say something on the blog that offends and attacks the other side and suddenly you have the credentials and you’re said to be a journalist. I think it’s a great lie.”

Setting aside that Juan Williams has no idea what Daily Kos is about, does Juan know what Fox News is? Bill O'Reilly Juan? What a ridiculous fool he is.

Dodd still leading on issues, in this case, against FISA Telecom Amnesty:

Today, starting at around 10 am, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be revising and possibly voting on a new FISA law, as Matt Browner Hamlin previously mentioned. The issues at stake, as I'm sure you know, are twofold. First, Chris Dodd . . . believes that there should be no immunity for lawbreaking telecom companies that spied on American citizens starting before 9/11. . . . Second, the FISA legislation in its current form allows the government to obtain "umbrella warrants," which allow it to spy on a wide net of people. Dodd . . . believes this is unconstitutional . . .

It's a jail day for me -- all day -- I'll be back for the debate tonight.

This particular jail is built underground and there's no working wireless connection. It has the feel of being in star trek, between the identical uniforms of the jail guards and the high tech stations. There are underground tunnels with colored arrows on the concrete floors directing you to the next set of gated doors.The jail staff is very polite. The place is so efficient that processing takes about 3 minutes, then we're on our way into the bowels of the building. By the time we follow the yellow brick road to the right area, our clients are already seated, happy to see us.(Anything to get out of those cells for a few hours.).

For the rest of you, there's lots to talk about, from tonight's debate to Bernie and Rudy and Judy, from drivers' licenses to FISA and whatever else might be on your mind.

Enjoy. I'll look forward to reading the thread when I get home.

That was quick. Just yesterday I was criticizing the LAPD's plan to map Muslim neighborhoods.

It's already history.

A plan by the Lose Angeles Police Department to map out Muslim communities, a proposal that civil rights groups sharply criticized as racial and religious profiling, has been shelved, a police spokeswoman said. The department planned to have its counterterrorism bureau identify Muslim enclaves to determine which might be likely to become isolated and susceptible to ”violent, ideologically based extremism.”

Mary Grady, the spokeswoman, said: “There was a clear message from the Muslim community that they were not comfortable with it. So we listened.”

Good riddance.

Journalist Sidney Blumenthal has written his last column at Salon, explaining why he is leaving the magazine to join Hillary Clinton's campaign as a senior advisor.

(Speaking only for me)

This is a great and powerful moment for Senator Barack Obama:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Il, is standing by his support for granting driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants, even after Gov. Eliot Spitzer, D-NY, abandoned the proposal amidst rising political opposition.

"Obama said in the debate he supported it and he's standing by it," an aide to the Senator told the Huffington Post. "He supported a similar bill in the state senate as a law enforcement measure."

Obama's backing stands in stark contrast to the position taken by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, whose campaign now cites the issue as a basic policy difference between the two Democratic frontrunners.

This is Barack Obama's finest moment in this campaign. And Senator Hillary Clinton's lowest. This is certainly a contrast moment and is the strongest evidence to date of the differences the two would bring to leading the country. I have said that if I were to vote today, I would vote for Barack Obama. Prior to this, it would have been a reluctant vote in his favor. Now it would be a proud vote for Obama. This is the promise he has shown now manifested in REAL leadership.