I think you've made a very important point about the use of unattributed sources, RWEditor. My first take on the Globe and Mail's Brodie story was to note its heavy reliance on anonymous sources to relay a tip, as distinct from documented proof of contact. But until I read your comment I hadn't realised that it was a four-fold anonymity.

It's an especially salient point since that TPM's reported the latest development - the Canadian Prime Minister's Office has denied that there were any reassurances about NAFTA policy from the Clinton campaign. I've noticed that before this new story broke, the vast majority of comments on this thread were very quick to take the Globe and Mail story on face value, possibly out of frustration with the way the story has played for their preferred candidate. But now the story has been officially denied, and there is still no other kind of evidence other than hearsay that Clinton's staff contacted Canada as well.

The counterargument I'm sure is that an official denial by Canada is not in any way a conclusive piece of evidence in the other direction. But my main point is that Obama supporters who were indignant after the first CTV report was denied --and later found to be inaccurate in the particulars--have not extended to a similar skepticism of media accuracy in this Globe and Mail case, and I submit that this is mainly because to a credulous reader the G&M story seems to vindicate their guy. Despite all these tirades against journalists in this thread, the fury at the MSM actually seems pretty one-eyed.

So my advice to everyone is to take ALL incendiary charges that are reported in this campaign with a pinch of salt until they are proven, especially if any such charge rests heavily on unnamed sources.

Posted at March 8, 2008 12:00 AM in response to Report: NAFTA-Gate Leaker Said Hillary's People Were Reassuring Canada, Too

Don't see any policies that appeal to young voters? Think there should be some type of student loan forgiveness? It's not exactly the same as forgiving part of a student loan, but Obama has a very well publicised policy to give students a $4000 tax credit on their college fees in exchange for 100 hours of public service. $4000 is around a quarter of the average public university fee and about an eighth of the average private university fee.

It should also be remembered that Clinton is also offering a college tax credit for a similar, albeit sightly lower amount: $3500. Her campaign is also promising to increase the accountability of colleges in setting costs and college affordability generally.

Of course, if we're talking about young people who aren't in college, I think there is definitely a lack of policy around.

Posted at March 6, 2008 6:40 PM in response to The First of Many “Thirds” – Youth Organizing Beyond 2008