I can see that if she or her spokesperson gave Klein the go ahead with the quote he used, that she can be gracious and apologize to him by not alerting him to that change of vote.

And in that blog post he wrote, "Yesterday I spoke with Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Ca.) just back from Iraq, who voted for the bill..."

Apparently he wrote this passage either

(1) some time before the vote, in the belief that (a) Harman would later vote in favor and so (b) it would be in keeping with the ethical practices of Professional Journalism™ to phone in the story before the vote had actually taken place (which might explain his writing "voted for" instead of "plans to vote for"), or

(2) some time after the vote, in the belief that (a) it was not his responsibility to check whether Harman had changed her mind, or perhaps had had a medical emergency and not shown up to vote at all, and anyway (b) even if it was part of his job, it still would be in keeping with the ethical practices of Professional Journalism™ to phone in the story without checking (which might explain his writing "voted for" instead of "voted against").

Either way — Klein wrote in ignorance. He got the facts wrong either because he phoned it in or because he didn't bother to check the vote.

Is there another explanation? I don't want to be unfair.

But I find myself wondering if this is the only time a Professional Journalist™ has written without checking, or written a story before it actually happened; and wondering how much Professional Journalists™ are paid; and most of all, wondering how big an increase would it take to get them to become "motivated" (or "incentivized" or whatever ickword of the month the bosses use these days to describe bringing about at least a dreary  cow-like willingness on the part of their bored and despairing employees to make it through the front door by 9:00 and not leave again until 5:00) to check at least the basic facts and not to phone things in ahead of time?

Professional Journalism™ — gotta love it!