I haven't read the LATimes piece, but I gather that the bold print and parenthetical may be yours. So can we assume that your line of thinking is that a reporter "looking into" something is "desperately trying to find" and do you believe that a lot of reporters regulary do hit jobs on behalf of a campaign?

"When did the Los Angeles Times stop being a real newspaper?"

Probably not too long after a bunch of financial hucksters calling themselves Tribune Co. bought the Los Angeles Times.

Number 48 in the “Obama Smeared” series. One thing about smears that seems to be forgotten is that at base there is a lie. They are not just factual investigations of the “victim” no matter what might be the intent of the author.

MJ, “…desperately trying to find links between Obama and Farrakhan. (I guess that is the "scandal" the Clinton folks are counting on to end Obama's candidacy, the one they keep hinting about.)”
Now, that’s a smear.

"It's pretty amazing. When did the Los Angeles Times stop being a real newspaper? ... How low can it go?"

The corporate media is the most dysfunctional institution in the country...and seeing the state of politics, academia, and our corporate structure, this is saying a lot. It is also one of the most dangerous institutions to what remains of our democratic institutions. It is time to build a "new" media outside the corporate structure. Do I know what I am talking about. No. But it seems to be a real need we must somehow address (to some extent the left blogs are already doing some of this).

Schlussel also also reveals that Wallsten, the LA Times reporter on the Obama beat, is desperately trying to find links between Obama and Farrakhan. (I guess that is the "scandal" the Clinton folks are counting on to end Obama's candidacy, the one they keep hinting about.)

Or could it be a scandal the republicans are looking for?

I totally didn't know that about Tsongas. Figures though.
As to Clinton folks hinting that some shocking new revelation will end Bama's campaign, ask a reporter. That is the line. And it's also the pne fed to the superdelegates.
That isn't even news.

Dan K. I think you are right. I wonder what it is about Obama that leads inevitably to the assumption that there is something dark in his past.

talk about long range defense:

from Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974080.html


U.S. Presidential hopeful Obama launches Hebrew blog in Israel

By The Associated Press and Haaretz Service

U.S. Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has launched a Hebrew blog in Israel.

Obama aide Eric Lynn says on the site that the senator hopes through the blog to strengthen ties with the Israeli public.

The blog that opened Friday includes Obama's speech to a pro-Israel lobby in March.

Lynn says at the bottom of the blog that Obama is committed to Israel's security.

The Yediot Ahronot newspaper reported Friday that Obama's campaign insisted that the blog be opened before the Democratic primary April 22 in Pennsylvania. The state has a large Jewish population.

Obama's staff has worked hard to disprove a mass e-mail campaign, which had leveled a succession of allegations against the candidate, branding him a secret anti-Semite, a closet Muslim who took his official oath of office with his hand on the Koran instead of the Bible, and a disciple of fiery Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

The campaign further alleged that several of Obama's Mideast policy advisors are pro-Palestinian haters of Israel.

During a debate with Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, Obama stressed his "stalwart" support for Israel and his ties to American Jews. He said he considers Israel to be one of the U.S.' "most important allies in the region [Mideast]" and added: "I think that their security is sacrosanct."

I live in LA and I don't read the Times anymore. It was already starting to fade 6 years ago when I first moved here but it was still a legitimate paper with generally solid reporting. But once the Tribune Company bought it the drop off was staggering.

John W,
I disagree. The Jewish thing is not coming from the Republicans. I know that for a fact (reporters tell me where its coming from).
I'll vote for HRC if she's the nominee but I thank God she won't be.

MJ, it -- the "Jewish thing" -- WILL come from the Republicans in the fall. And not just to gain Jewish votes, but also to gain conservative Christian votes. Some of us WASPS are as crazy about Israel as the Likud party is.

Krauthammer's piece today is very predictable. He really gets on my nerves. I fail to understand why he can't see in the slightest the the best course for Israel would be to cut a deal with the Palestinians.

If that was accomplished, then you would see the strategic threat to Israel diminish over time. Not right away, but over time. Instead, what people like Krauthammer are doing is increasing the strategic risk to Israel over time, as time is not in Israel's favor.

The 900 pound gorilla in the room regarding the West Bank problem is the rise of China. Over time, China will come to eclipse the US as the world's dominant power. They have no Jewish community to speak of, and certainly no historical or cultural ties to the Judiasm, like the West or the US does.

In short, they have no dog in this hunt. BUT they do need oil. Who would you be willing to listen to, Israelis or the mass of Arab nations that have a resource you need? Because of the long, gradual, slide of the US -- hastened by Bush's stupidity -- the umbrella protecting Israel, in terms of modern weapons, funds, etc., will count for less and less. It will not be replaced by a Chinese one.

If Krauthammer and people like Joe Lieberman had a lick of common sense, they'd understand that the window of opportunity for cutting a deal is closing....

You can be sure that Obama will play to all sides on this issue.

I have trouble seeing how a campaign can have some bombshell peice of dirt on another candidate, that the press hasn't gotten any sniff of. Here's my logic:

a) If it was widely known through the HRC campaign, the secret would just leak out and the press would already know (too many lips to seal). Therefore, it would have to be known and tightly held by just a few in the Clinton campaign.

b) How would they have come about this information? How would the leaders of the HRC campaign, who are plenty busy day-to-day, find time to run around investigating muck on Obama? What resources would they have that the press wouldn't?

c) Why would they hold onto it? She's losing ground in Penn pretty quickly. Why not use it now? If they've had it for awhile, wouldn't it have been useful before or just after the Texas/Ohio primaries?

Seems like a lot of smoke to me. We'll see if there's a fire, or if it's just a smoke bomb.