Crooks and Liars has Part I (20) minutes of the Clinton interview with Chris Wallace available for you to see. (video here.)

Arianna provides her take here.
Jane at Firedoglake and Matt at MyDD agree with Arianna.

Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards talks to the Sun about the quality of today's drugs:

HELLRAISER Keith Richards says he has finally given up drugs -- because they don't give him Satisfaction any more. The Rolling Stones guitarist complained dealers and chemists have reduced the power of his favourite narcotics. And he doesn't like modern drugs like ecstasy because they "mess with the brain". Former heroin addict Keith, 62, moaned: "I really think the quality's gone down.

"All they do is try and take the high out of everything.

"I don't like the way they're working on the brain area instead of just through the blood system. "That's why I don't take any of them any more. "And you're talking to a person who knows his drugs."

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

At Daily Kos, on a few occasions, certain issues have caused dustups and have lead Markos to prohibit posts on ceratin subjects. Inevitably, on those occasions, a number of diaries will appear decrying the "censorship" and the "assaults on freedom of speech" and the "First Amendment violations." While not quite as obtuse as that, Andrew Sullivan comes close, in his defense of the "even handed" Brendon Nyhan:

Last Wednesday, controversy broke out when I slammed two liberal blogs . . . In an email Friday morning, Sam Rosenfeld, the magazine's online editor, asked that I focus my blogging on conservative targets. He specifically objected to two posts criticizing liberals (here and here) that I wrote after the Atrios controversy. I refused and terminated the relationship.

Let's assume Nyhan is telling the truth here (and he is not for the most part, but leave that aside for a second). How does this comment from Sully make any sense?

I'm skeptical when it comes to new tv shows, particularly on network television. Despite the raves of the critics, I didn't think I'd like "Studio 60." I was never a "West Wing" fan or a fan of any of its actors, except John Spencer whom I loved on LA Law. I've never been a Judd Hirsch fan. Timothy Busfield was good in "30 Something" but far from my favorite character in the show. The movie Network had become a cliche to me even before it won the Oscar. I'm also pretty clueless as to what happens in the "control room" except when they whisper in my ear, "Jeralyn, jump in if you want" when the host isn't calling on me or "Hey, everyone, keep your answers short, we've only got 2 minutes for the segment and there's a package."

I only watched Studio 60 last night because of the buzz and because of its connection to Saturday Night Live. I thought there had been too much hype. I was wrong. Except for the predictability of Judd Hirsch's "Network" moment, it was excellent television.

Many of the tv critics say they got riveted from the moment Matthew Perry made his appearance. That didn't do it for me. For me, it was the scene where Amanda Peet (Jordan) showed up in Bradley Whitford's hotel room room and used his failed drug test to convince him to come back to the show. The ensuing scenes between Brad and Matt Perry clinched it for me. They totally work together. I also got very into Amanda Peet's self-confidence -- she promises to be even a better role model for women than Geena Davis was in Commander in Chief.

by TChris

Thousands of people would like to see Nancy Grace fired. It is not solely in response to this incident that people are starting to say what they think about Nancy Grace. The reviews aren't pretty.

From the executive editor of the Ocala Star-Banner:

Her insistence that the world is black and white - filled with saints and sinners, and nothing in between - is childish and irresponsible. And her condescending, holier-than-thou attitude makes the hair on the back of my neck stand on end. ... Big hair and a small mind just don't work for me.

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

Via Atrios referencing this comment , I notice this online chat with David Broder. The strange thinking exhibited by Mr. Broder certainly provides reason to doubt his judgment:

Washington, D.C.: Mr Broder, if you feel Karl Rove is owed an apology from the pundits and writers over Valerie Plame, did you also call for an apology to the Clintons after Ken Starr, the Whitewater investigation and the failed attempt to impeach President Clinton? If not, why not?

David S. Broder: As best, I can recall,I did not call for such an apology. My view, for whatever it is worth long after the dust has settled on Monica, was that when President Clinton admitted he had lied to his Cabinet and his closest assoc, to say nothing of the public, that the honorable thing was for him to have resigned and turned over the office to Vice President Gore. I think history would have been very different had he done that.

So it is the lying to the Cabinet? Clinton's closest associates? The public? Any lie? Or just lies about private sexual matters to questions that never should have been asked in the first place? Or is it lies that have been proven to be so by a 50 million dollar partisan witchhunt? And is it only lies by Presidents? Because, you see Mr. Broder, Mr. Rove lied to the FBI. Mr. Rove lied to the grand jury. You would say he made a mistake I suppose. But at the least, an apology to Mr. Rove seems to be an absurd response for his own mistakes no? On the flip we can discuss more of the Strange Mind of David Broder.

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

How ironic. One of the main forces of Left blog detraction of the past few years, The New Republic, has joined the shrill partisan forces:

This November, control of Congress hinges upon the reelection of Republican moderates--especially those in the Northeast, such as Chafee and Connecticut Representative Christopher Shays. Inevitably, these dwindling, endangered few present their survival as an essential cause for all those who care about decency and goodwill. "I feel a moral obligation to make sure I do everything I can to make sure moderates have a place in this party," pleads Shays.

We don't want moderate Republicans to disappear, right? Surely we don't want Congress to descend irrevocably into bitter partisanship, do we? Actually, yes, we do. This November, it's time for voters to wipe out the remnants of the GOP's moderate wing--and without regrets.

Hello? Rather shrill of them no? More on the other side.

Talk show producers are relentless when trying to get guests with first-hand knowledge of a tragedy. They circle like wolves, cajoling and promising fair treatment.

That's not what Melissa Duckett got from Nancy Grace's show this week when she agreed to an on-air telephone interview with Nancy. She got cross-examined and practically accused of being responsible for her son's disappearance.

The interview was taped on September 7 and scheduled to air September 8. Hours before it aired, Ms. Duckett went to her grandparents' home, took a shotgun and killed herself.

Police have not named Ms. Duckett as a suspect in her son's disappearance, although she appears to be a person of interest to them (as are all parents in such cases.)

Duckett's family members disputed any suggestion that she hurt her son. They said that the strain of her son's disappearance pushed her to the brink, and the media sent her over the edge.

First, the bad news. MSNBC has terminated its relationship with Eric Alterman, writer of its best blog, Altercation.

The good news: Altercation will be moving to Media Matters, where Eric will be a senior fellow.

Update your bookmarks, the new Altercation will be here, starting Sept. 18.

When I started TalkLeft in 2002, Altercation was one of my favorite blogs. Eric was gracious enough to link to it early on. After that, he let me help select and update the list of bloggers on his blogroll and guest write Altercation numerous times when he was out of town, which I continued to do through this summer.

I suspect the higher-ups at MSNBC want to limit themselves to blogs by their tv anchors, reporters and political analysts, in hopes that they can internally feed viewers and readers to each other. There's nothing wrong with that, but still, MSNBC is losing its most independent and provacative voice, and for that I'm sad.

On the other hand, kudos to Media Matters for having the foresight and wisdom to add Eric to their ever-growing team.

Unless the pressure on ABC proves too much to bear, The Path to 9/11 will air Sunday and Monday. Here's a new wrinkle.

In another complication, President Bush has asked broadcast networks to clear time for an address to the nation Monday night at 9:01 p.m., just at the start of the last hour of "The Path to 9/11" on the East Coast. ABC announced plans Friday night to cover what is expected to be a 20-minute speech before resuming the film.

The movie is a partisan distortion of history and now we have to listen to Bush further spin both?

by TChris

Right wing commentators have been fond of the epithet "islamofascist" for some time, but the term broke into mainstream use when the president recently uttered a variant, "Islamic fascist." The term sweeps too broadly, and in any event, associating an entire religion with the doctrine of fascism is gratuitously offensive. The term is useful only as propaganda, and in that respect, it's disturbing to see conventional journalists adopting it, apparently without giving much thought to its accuracy or value.

But the "fascism" analogy has holes in it large enough to drive an Abrams tank through, and so its spawn, "Islamofascism," is also imprecise. Any political PR offensive relies on the airwaves and printed pages of the MSM for its dissemination. By reporting "just the facts" and on news-pegged events -- in this case the various speeches by the president and his cabinet members -- the press, whether or not it thinks the term "Islamofascism" apt, is helping to disseminate propaganda. ...

If editors had some boilerplate language to insert when appropriate that would give readers at least some sense of why the term is misleading, it could help repair some of the damage done by this type of propaganda.

Good for Harvey Keitel, who plays the lead in the ABC drama Path to 9/11:

Harvey Keitel, the lead actor in the film, said in a TV interview that changes must be made in the film. He said when he was hired for the role he was told the movie was a "history" but then found that certain facts were "wrong." This led to "arguments," he recalled. "You can compile certain things as long as the truth remains the truth," he told Showbiz Tonight. "You can't put these things together, compress them and then distort the reality....

"You cannot cross the line from a conflation of events to a distortion of the event. Where we have distorted something, we made a mistake and it should be corrected."

If these are the only changes being made, they aren't enough. Keep the pressure on.