Soren Dayton's blog

AP Reporter Lara Jakes Jordan wrote about a letter that had "been sent" but not yet delivered to Attorney General Mike Mukasey. The reporter had a significant number of facts, including that the signers of the letter were Obama donors, that she did not disclose. Part of the story:

Six former Justice Department lawyers want Attorney General Michael Mukasey to make sure voter registration investigations don't keep eligible minority voters from the polls on Election Day.

The six attorneys formerly worked in the department's Civil Rights Division, which oversees ballot access issues as part of the Voting Rights Act.

The core of the letter concerned a policy at the DoJ that the Wall Street Journal has noticed is not being followed:

In a letter Friday to Mukasey, the attorneys noted that Justice Department policies generally discourage voter-related investigations until after elections to make sure the inquiries don't interfere with legitimate voters at the polls.

There are several problems with this story however. First, as noted above, the letter hadn't yet been delivered and no names were mentioned. Once I actually asked her for a copy of the letter, it turned out that 3 of the 6 signers of the letters were Obama donors. And she did not disclose that she herself is married to John Kerry's campaign manager Jim Jordan. And that's not the only problem.

Anderson Cooper’s “news” broadcast last night was among the more lopsided I have seen in some time.

I decided to count the number of positive and negative statements and characterizations about Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama made during Cooper’s lead package, which was about Monday’s back-and-forth on energy.

During the segment, which lasted roughly ten minutes, Cooper and his guests generated a net favorable perception of Democrat Sen. Barack Obama and net unfavorable perception of Republican Sen. John McCain. Specifically, Obama received five total positive mentions and four total negative mentions. Sen. McCain did not fare as well, however. He received a total of eleven negative mentions and only four positive mentions.

Video below the fold:

Exactly how wide is the gulf between elite media opinion and public opinion on matters of politics?

Let’s put it this way, after Sen. Barack Obama falsely accused Sen. John McCain of saying he (Obama) doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency and has a funny name, Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC, called Obama's "Dollar Bill" statement "self-deprecating":

ANDREA MITCHELL: I have to tell you that the people who heard Barack Obama say what he said Wednesday night—and it's very similar to things he's said in Paris and Berlin and a lot of other stops—it's very self-deprecating. He says "I don't look like other people who have been President of the United States," most people who watched that, I don't know very many people who've watched that, and the people in the audience, the reporters, have never interpreted it, have never inferred from that, that he is making some kind of racial statement, but that's the way the McCain camp says that they took it, and Rick Davis by putting it out there, sure –

The New York Times published a story about a fundraiser that John McCain cancelled. They published the following pushback from the campaign:

“These were obviously incredibly offensive remarks that the campaign was unaware of at the time it was scheduled,” said Brian Rogers, a spokesman for the McCain campaign. “It’s positive that he did apologize at the time, but the comments are nonetheless offensive.”

However, when The Hill and the Washington Post published the story, they published pushback from the RNC that included information about one of Barack Obama's fundraisers, Jodie Evans:

“While Obama and Democrats launch attacks on Republicans, their silence concerning fundraisers like [Code Pink co-founder] Jodie Evans and Jim Johnson is deafening,” said RNC spokesman Alex Conant. “Obama’s hypocritical attacks undermine everything his campaign is supposed to be about.”

Note that Evans advocated working with Saddam Hussein as human shields in 2002 and 2003, thereby deliberately undermining US foreign policy. Williams Clayton has apologized, while Evans never has.

Why did the NYT feel that this was an appropriate story to (1) publish in the paper, but (2) not use the same response as other papers that pointed out that Obama had even more questionable links?

New York Times's Larry Rohter today asked the question "Will the Real Tax and Spender Please 'Fess Up?" Fortunately, he tells us what the answer is, even though he has no facts to support it. He has this wonderful little nugget, in which he tries to refute John McCain's statement with two points:

Some question whether Mr. Obama’s tax plan can even be characterized as an increase. Some also argue that contrary to Mr. McCain’s assertions, the Democrat’s proposals, if enacted, would actually reduce taxes for the middle class — the voters both candidates see as the key to victory.

The first, bolded above, statement is completely unsourced. No one in the article makes this claim. The second point he actually defends. For example: