By Big Tent Democrat

Via Greg Sargent, NYTimes Executive Editor defends the McCain story:

On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself. In all the uproar, no one has challenged what we actually reported. On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready.

'Ready' means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats. This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it.

I agree with Greg's take. This statement addresses NONE of the concerns raised. Wholly inadequate.

Update: (TL) The New Republic, which reportedly was the impetus for the Times running the McCain story yesterday, has now published its article about the history of the Times' article and investigation.

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.

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.

Funniest moment on tv last night. From Hardball. TX state senator Kirk Watson gets grilled by Chris Matthews:

A late night opera with themes from today, mostly sparked by reader comments:

Act 1: Poison, Give Me Something to Believe In

Acts 2, 3, 4 and the curtain call below the fold.

Here's a thread to vent about tonight's election news coverage. Who did you like? Who made you reach for the mute button or turn the channel?

A San Antonio lawyer criticizes the local media for complaining that judges who follow the law are "soft on crime":

The media destroyed [Judge Pat Priest's] political career when he lowered numerous ridiculously high bail amounts set by a magistrate judge in clear violation of the Constitution. Though he did what the law and his duty required, the media criticized him mercilessly as a "soft" judge who "let criminals out of jail."

"Soft on crime" is usually a code for "follows the law." Why don't editorialists complain when judges are soft on the Constitution?

By Big Tent Democrat

The theme of press bias, however, is woven through the Clinton campaign's narrative of the story thus far. There are two basic allegations: that journalists look at Obama uncritically while subjecting Hillary Clinton to microscopic scrutiny; and that we react with hair-trigger reflexes when attacks on Obama have the slightest whiff of racism but don't seem to notice, or care, when Clinton is subjected to rank sexism.

The first charge is just bogus, in my view.

Whatever you say Gene. How's that NBC gig working out for you? More . . .

Title: Here's One for the Girls.

A good way to end a blog day filled with debate over sexism.

It's been a contentious week in the blogoshpere and the media between the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama factions. It's Friday night. Let's lighten up -- here's something for fans of each of them:

[hat tip to The New York Times' Caucus Blog.] This is an open thread.

By Big Tent Democrat

If the Clinton campaign thought NBC was going to do anything to rein in the pattern of behavior of its on air personalities, Tweety quickly removed any such expectation this morning:

Chris Matthews fired a salvo at the Clinton campaign this morning after both he and his MSNBC colleague were privately and publicly rebuked for recent comments deemed misogynistic or inappropriate.

Appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe, the Hardball host went off on the Clinton press shop, calling them "knee cappers" who were "lousy" and delve in the business of "intimidation."

Got it? NBC will do NOTHING to change the pattern of behavior of its network. It remains proudly the anti-Hillary network, sexist and misogynistic to its core. See also Bob Somerby on Tweety's continuing patttern of sexism, stuff you won't read about at the A-list blogs.

Dan Abrams tonight on MSNBC counts the reasons the media is counting Hillary Clinton out too soon. He says "Obama lovers" have become obsessed and are incapable of making an objective analysis. To balance him, he's got two guests who are pro-Obama, and Lawrence O'Donnell who is playing the part of the unbiased observer:

1. She's ahead in polls in Ohio, Texas and PA. She gets a win in New Mexico. And the story line is "what if she loses?" No one is talking about the possibility that she could win big in those states.

2. Her campaign is re-tooling her field campaign.

3. The superdelegates: She's leading 260 to 181. Dan has been trashing the process for the last two weeks, but he says, these are the rules and she's ahead there. He says if it's close enough at convention time, we'll see a big fight for them.

4. The underdog factor. She has it now.