Saturday, May 29, 2004

Quick headlines

I meant to post the correction notice which the New York Times published earlier this week about the paper's Iraq coverage ["Correction: The New York Times on Iraq coverage"] but I just didn't get around to it. As we all know, no one is perfect. Correction notices are published in all newspapers responsible enough to admit when they've published a mistake [Are you listening, Boston Globe?]. But how about this - an amazing overview of how reporter Judith Miller was duped over and over and over again by those advocating regime change in Iraq: ["How Chalabi and the White House held the front page"]. Here is a really great section which should frighten anyone who questions the NYT supposed liberal bias:
"The White House had a perfect deal with Miller," [one CIA analyst] said. "Chalabi is providing the Bush people with the information they need to support their political objectives, and he is supplying the same material to Judy Miller. Chalabi tips her on something and then she goes to the White House, which has already heard the same thing from Chalabi, and she gets it corroborated. She also got the Pentagon to confirm things for her, which made sense, since they were working so closely with Chalabi. Too bad Judy didn't spend a little more time talking to those of us who had information that contradicted almost everything Chalabi said.
Ten-thousand-plus dead Iraqis and 800-plus dead Americans later ...
Do you think the NYT should have written a correction or offered payments to those who have been adversely affected by their coverage? Where do those people go to get their lives back? Where do the soldiers go to get their limbs back?
BTW, Miller is still employed at the Times.

More NYT errors: Can you imagine a better time to release a book about the huge mistakes over at the NYT? I doubt "Democracy Now'" Amy Goodman did: ["Fatal Error: The Lies of Our Times"].

Thank heaven, for the ACLU ... The protectors of civil rights have released more information on its legal challenge against the PATRIOT Act and the Justice Dept's obsession with ISPs: ["'John Doe' Revealed as Secret Client in Censored ACLU Patriot Act Case"].

Big dreamers?: Kerry hasn't even won yet but some "armchair strategists" are looking towards the future: ["Kerry's Cabinet? Here goes"]. Edwards as VP? Gephardt at Labor? McCain at Defense? Sounds reasonable.
Here is another more humorous point of view: ["Pros and Cons"].
And almost the entire congressional delegation is salivating at the chance to move up: ["SENATE RE-SEATING ARRANGEMENTS"].
What a bloodbath this one is going to be. Although, it depends.
As the law stands now, Gov. Romney gets to choose Kerry's replacement. Former DA Ralph Martin, a liberal black Republican, has been floated as a possible candidate. However, there is a bill in both houses of the Legislature which would change the law and instead, call for a special election sometime after the 2005 inauguration.
I've heard that Meehan [along with AG Tom Reilly] was looking at a gubernatorial race against Romney in 2006. So is Capuano. I doubt Delahunt is going anywhere fast. That leaves Frank, Lynch, Markey, and whoever else wants to jump in. Markey is a terrible campaigner, Lynch is pro-life, and Frank is too much of a leftist for most. However, Frank [or Meehan, if he were to run] probably has the edge. I agree with a lot of the analysis of Reilly's piece: In a large field, Lynch could pull off a tight win, similar to what he did in the 9th CD special election in 2001 after the death of Joe Moakley. If Lynch won, look for a whole slew of voters to abandon him for a pro-choice Republican or a Green Party candidate - although it is doubtful that they would be able to beat Lynch [This almost happened in the final part of the special election in 2001. Lynch was challenged by Socialist Worker's Party candidate Brock Satter, Conservative Party candidate Susan C. Gallagher-Long, and pro-choice Republican state Sen. Joanne Sprague, who got 37-plus percent of the vote in a district where only 11 percent were registered Republicans. There was speculation that Sprague could pull of a surprise victory. But in the end, Lynch was able to keep the Democrats in line and the media virtually ignored the final leg of the race].
However, if Kerry wins, it will all be so interesting ...
Plus, there is this: ["Kerry to spend $17m on ads in June"]. $17 million? Damn. In places like Virginia? Wow. Kerry is clearly showing some confidence with this move.

Nader's N.H. visit: Ralph Nader was in New Hampshire earlier this week stumping for volunteers and support. It is interesting to look at the different versions of just one press conference: ["Nader says he gets more votes from Republicans"] ["Nader says he's in it for the principle"] ["Nader has plan to get GIs out of Iraq"]. The AP Story was also published on the Globe's Web site. It is also interesting that the state Democratic Party held a conference call with former Nader supporters who are now planning on voting for Kerry. Do they do that when Bush, a Libertarian, or Green Party candidate come to town? Do reporters bother to cover such a conference call? Nader will speak to the National Press Club on June 3. Also, the Greens are debating the Nader factor too: ["Green Party debates picking own candidate or endorsing Nader"].

Update: I missed this nhpolitics post about the press conference, with their own spin: ["Nader draws more media than supporters in NH trip"].

No comments: