Update [2007-3-28 11:9:44 by Big Tent Democrat]: BTW, I think Swampland is becoming a great must read blog, for some intentional, but mostly unintentional reasons.

And I am not talking about Casey Stengel, but rather Rick Stengel, Time Managing Editor, who got called out by Ana Marie Cox on his embarrassing performance as a Kewl Kid. But Stengel's reply to Cox is worse:

In reading your reaction to my comments on Chris Matthews, I realize that I've been caught out speaking as a citizen rather than as editor of Time.

I had no idea Citizen Stengel had been invited on to the show. I could have sworn that Matthews introduced him as the Managing Editor of Time, not as Citizen Stengel. But it gets better (worse):

[A]s a citizen, I think it's unfortunate and perhaps short-sighted for Democrats to be perceived as focusing on the past rather than the future. If people see the Democrats as obsessively concerned with settling scores, that's not good for the Democrats or the country.

Perhaps Citizen Stengel can talk to Managing Editor Stengel and make sure this FALSE talking point does not become the new narrative at Time Magazine. Citizen Stengel is a unique "concern troll" in that he can actually do something about his "concern."

Keith Olbermann named Bill O'Reilly worst person of the day Friday for cutting his co-host Lis Wiehl's mike during his radio show. What was Lis's transgression? Pointing out there would be no public transcript of White House officials' interviews before a Congressional panel if the White House proposal was accepted.

O'Reilly screamed and yelled and got so mad he demanded Lis' mike be cut for three minutes. What a prince of free speech -- not.

Media Matters has the audio tape, go listen, it's a hoot. Probably was no fun for Lis who you can hear in the background after her mike was cut -- good for her for standing up to him.

And check out her new book.

Jared Stern, the fired and federally investigated gossip writer for the New York Post's Page Six has sued Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Give me a break. I refrained from criticizing Stern when he was represented by my pal Joe Tacopina. But who's representing him in this suit? Clinton-hater Larry Klayman.

In my opinion, this suit isn't worth the toilet paper it was printed on.

Gawker says:

While Stern's primary beef deals with Burkle and the Daily News, he spares no one in his lawsuit. The lawsuit names another Burkle spokesman, his head of security, even former President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. The Clintons are friends with Burkle, and Stern says they were all part of a vast conspiracy against him and the paper.

How do you define chutzpah? See Fred Hiatt. Today he writes:

It would not be acceptable for Mr. Bush to fire the attorneys to short-circuit prosecutions of political corruption among Republicans. So far there's no evidence that he did, and in fact the most questionable conduct we know of originated in Congress, with New Mexico Republicans Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson.

Wow! Did Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson fire David Iglesias? What a disgrace Hiatt is. But it gets worse:

Lawmakers would do well to demonstrate more understanding of the legitimate institutional concerns at stake here . . . and remember . . . a Republican Congress eager to rifle through the files of a Democratic administration.

I remember WaPo cheering a Starr doing the same thing:

"The White House should remember that what is driving this story," the Post pronounces, "is not the conduct of Mr. Starr's staff, alleged leaks, supposed media bias or -- in Mrs. Clinton's now famous words -- a 'vast right-wing conspiracy.' Mr. Clinton is the only one who can make this matter go away, and he remains entirely free to do so at any time."

Is Mr. Bush not entirely free to do the same now? But a horse's ass is a horse's ass of course of course. In this case, his name is Mr. Fred.

At daily kos, BarbinMd eviscerates the Washington Post Editorial Board:

Self-serving, revisionist rationalizing is the only way to describe today's Washington Post editorial marking the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war. They begin:

Tomorrow marks the fourth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, as appropriate a moment as any to take stock. What matters most is finding the best policy now -- doing whatever can be done to help Iraq and safeguard U.S. interests in a vital region. But looking back also is essential, particularly for those of us who supported the war.

Wrong. An appropriate moment for a nationally read newspaper to take stock would have been before deciding to support a preemptive war, both through editorial cheerleading and a willingness to abandon journalistic integrity and act as stenographers for the White House in the run-up to the war.

Read the whole thing.

Our fearless leader Jeralyn will be discussing the Gonzo prosecutor firings tomorrow morning with Howie Kurtz on CNN's Reliable Sources program.

Sure to be the highlight of the Sunday programs.

[Update [TL]: Video of my comments on the show is here.]

Thanks to the good folks at Progress Now, a bunch of bloggers had some hands on video training this morning. We were divided into groups of three and sent out to make themed videos. Here's the one my group made.

David Brooks provides a window on the Politics of Exiting Iraq:

The fact is there are two serious approaches to U.S. policy in Iraq, and the Democratic leaders, for purely political reasons, are caught in the middle, and even people like Carl Levin are beginning to sound silly.

One serious position is heard on the left: that there’s nothing more we can effectively do in Iraq. . . . The second serious option is heard on the right. We have to do everything we can to head off catastrophe, and it’s too soon to give up hope. . . .

Say what you will about President Bush, when he thinks a policy is right, like the surge, he supports it, even if it’s going to be unpopular. The Democratic leaders, accustomed to the irresponsibility of opposition, show no such guts. As a result, nobody loves them. Liberals recognize the cynicism of it all. Republicans know the difference between principled opposition and unprincipled posturing. Independents see just another group of politicians behaving like politicians.

I have repeated this too many times - the political options on Iraq are binary. You are for Bush's Iraq Debacle or you are against it. The "nuance," if it ever existed, is gone. The Blue Dogs and the fools who enable them - to wit, the Dem leaders in the House - live in a political fantasyland. They have to pick a side now. There is no other way, whether they like it or not.

The truth is the Dems need leadership in the House and they are not getting it. In the Senate, Reid seems to have regained his footing. In the House, Pelosi seems stuck in quicksand. And the Netroots seems intent on enabling this failure of political and policy leadership. It is quite disheartening, on all levels. We need new leaders - everywhere.

I was not of a strong opinion on the Fox Nevada debate. But I have always detested Bill O'Reilly. I also have contempt for Lanny Davis. Here he provides all the evidence you need:

O’REILLY: . . . The Soros-Lewis mob despises Fox News because we have their number and we report on them accurately. . . . These people use techniques perfected by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister of information. They lie, distort, defame, all the time. . . . The Fox News Channel has been fair to the Democratic Party and will continue to be fair. . . Let’s go to another honest guy here [See O'Reilly calls him himself honest here], Lanny Davis. . . .

DAVIS: You know, I’m inclined to give everybody the benefit of the doubt here except the people that are calling for cancellation of the debate because they don’t like Fox. . . . We got to be talking to everybody, and I disagree with this pressure from Daily Kos and MoveOn.org to cancel the debate. I think anybody that took that pressure including John Edwards ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Lanny Davis sits with Bill O'Reilly, listens to him compare people to Nazis and says nothing, and Daily Kos and Move On should be ashamed of themselves? John Edwards should be ashamed of himself? Lanny Davis is not only detestable, he is insane.

Fair is fair, hats off to John Solomon (and coauthor Dan Eggen) for this story:

While it is unclear whether the documents, which were reviewed yesterday by The Washington Post, will answer Congress's questions, they show that the White House and other administration officials were more closely involved in the dismissals, and at a much earlier date, than they have previously acknowledged. . . . Administration officials have portrayed the firings as a routine personnel matter, designed primarily to rid the department of a handful of poor performers. But the documents and interviews indicate that the idea for the firings originated at least two years ago, when then-White House counsel Harriet E. Miers suggested to Sampson in February 2005 that all prosecutors be dismissed and replaced.

Good work from Solomon.

An AP television writer asks whether the writer known to TalkLeft readers as "the She-Pundit with long blond hair" has hit her tipping point, "whether her shelf life is expiring." Does it matter? As long as AP keeps writing about her and networks continue to air her intolerant rants, she'll still be stinking up the shelf.

NYU Journalism Professor and blogger Jay Rosen has high praise for the team Firedoglake put together to cover the Scooter Libby trial:

"What happens? One blog puts more boots on the ground than any commercial news operation. The writers bring more background, savvy and commitment to the case. And they dominate in coverage of a big news event. Journalists themselves use it to keep up and get their bearings."

How did they do it? With help from their readers.

More...