Before Sen. Barack Obama embarked on his world tour, which included stops in Afghanistan and Iraq, he submitted an opinion piece to The New York Times that the paper published. Why wouldn't it? An opinion piece from a presidential candidate is certainly newsworthy and draws in readers. Unless, of course, that paper happens to be The Times, and the presidential candidate happens to be the Republican nominee.

Sen. John McCain submitted an opinion piece in response to Obama's, but the Times rejected it. In an e-mail to the campaign-- leaked to the Drudge Report and quickly picked up by conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh and several conservative Internet web sites--Times opinion page editor David Shipley lamented, "I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written." He went on to provide advice to the campaign on what The Times would consider a worthy submission.

"The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.

It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq."

That drew howls of bias and censorship from Republicans and conservatives. They charge that Shipley let his personal opinion on the superiority of Obama's Iraq position interfere with the news value of McCain's piece. They also charge that The Times has an obligation to provide equal access to its editorial page to both candidates, regardless of the content of their submissions. The fact the Shipley is a former speechwriter for former President Bill Clinton did not help soothe conservative anger over the incident.

Supporters of the Times' action see the issue differently. They say that a newspaper is under no obligation to print material from the candidates that does not offer new information or merely restates campaign talking points. They say that the opinion page is a place for serious discussion of the issues, not an outlet for the partisan back and forth of the campaign trail. The public, however, seems to support the Republicans' claim that the media is biased in its treatment of the presidential candidates.

The New York Times has rejected an Op Ed submitted by Senator John McCain, on the heels of the paper's publication of Senator Obama's "Plan For Iraq." The episode has sparked outraged cries of media bias from Republicans, but the Times says it is a content-based decision. From Drudge:

In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war-only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.'

'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.'

Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'

Given the Times' rocky relationship with McCain, you would think they would want to be on rock-solid ground for something like this. I believe they are.

On the heels of former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's testimony before a House committee investigating the Valerie Plame affair, the New York Times published an article yesterday that named a formerly covert CIA interrogator. There is some question about whether Mrs. Plame was covered by the federal statute that makes it a crime to identify secret employees of the government, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, at the time her name was published. The New York Times said in an editor's note appended to the article that the subject had never worked covertly as justification for publishing his name.

The Central Intelligence Agency asked The New York Times not to publish the name of [redacted], an interrogator who questioned Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other high-level Al Qaeda prisoners, saying that to identify [him] would invade his privacy and put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the agency.

After discussion with agency officials and a lawyer for [the interrogator], the newspaper declined the request, noting that [he] had never worked under cover and that others involved in the campaign against Al Qaeda have been named in news stories and books. The editors judged that the name was necessary for the credibility and completeness of the article.

Still, the interrogator, his lawyer, and CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden had asked the Times not to use the man's name.

Over the past week, you might have noticed the change. The gunfire, raging so long now that it seemed as if we might never know life without it, has stopped. Well, not stopped altogether, of course. Rather, it has been aimed off in another direction. Yes, it appears that the days of Democrat on Democrat violence are behind us. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have stopped shooting at one another.

From The Washington Post:

...the reality is that both sides have declared an effective cease-fire as they prepare to bring the party together for a general-election campaign against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)

Now, like all fledgling cease-fire agreements, this one stands on somewhat wobbly legs. We still don't have an official treaty detailing the specific terms of surrender. Even while Clinton no longer directly attacks Obama's credentials, and Obama scarcely mentions Clinton's name, except to compliment her, there is that tricky matter of the face-saving end game.

Having unintentionally evolved into a New York Times bias watch-dog, I diligently attempt to remain on top of the mountainous heap of slanted news which is issued forth from that venerable institution. However, Powerline has beaten me to the punch this time, noting the Times' outright misrepresentations of the McCain/Obama/Hamas issue (which would cause a lesser instrument of journalism to slink away in shame).

The Times' story, "On McCain, Obama and a Hamas Link.," covers the issue of Obama's embarrassing endorsement by the terrorist organization Hamas. However, instead of contemplating why the thugs and murderers of Hamas have taken a liking to Obama, the Times' denounces McCain for untruthfully stating that Obama would pursue "unconditional" talks with Iran.

This shift in focus is distracting and fictitious, simply a means of covering for Obama and smearing McCain. In fact, Obama's Web site states: "Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." Watch Obama discuss the issue here. As Jim Geraghty notes over at NRO, an Obama adviser has held meetings with Hamas.

I repeat and repeat again: a news organization which misrepresents the truth in order to deceive and mislead the public in critical issues of national import has betrayed its nation with a boldness and effectiveness beyond the scope of nearly any other institution. These are institutions imbued, by their very nature, with the public trust - their sedition is a matter of unparalleled shame.

Following Friday's resignation by Obama Middle East advisor Rob Malley over his many meetings with Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas, the Obama-Hamas controversy is bubbling up once more. Over the last few weeks the controversy has been a particular point of discussion between the McCain and Obama campaigns. In an interview last week, Senator Obama said that McCain was "losing his bearings" and suggested that the Hamas issue was nothing more than a "smear" tactic. In a subsequent appearance, Senator McCain said he believed the endorsement of Senator Obama by Hamas was "a legitimate point of discussion." Conservative and liberal blogs have been abuzz, albeit to a lesser extent than the "When Will She Get Out" speculation.

Senator Obama's position with regard to rogue states and terrorist groups has been a point of contention for months, starting with his statement during a CNN Debate in July of last year that he would meet with such states without precondition. The Clinton campaign made much use of this, with Senator Clinton herself calling Obama's answer "irresponsible and frankly naive," in an interview with an Iowa newspaper that same month.

Via NBC's First Read, the trickle continues. If Clinton fails to come away with an meaningful edge in pledged delegates or the poplar vote in tomorrow's contests, look for many more superdelegates to come out this week.

And for those obsessed with numbers and percentages, you can have some fun with The New York Times' fancy new "Delegate Calculator." Love that interactive speculation!

Late word that Clinton picked up the superdelegate support of Italian resident Theresa Morelli. She counts for one half of a normal superdelegate. Just keeps getting more and more interesting, no?

And per a comment left a reader who goes by "mrbline", here's CNN's own delegate widget.

Reverend Jeremiah Wright surprised just about everybody this week by launching a counter-attack of speaking engagements and interviews designed to give his side of the out-of-context remarks recycled in numerous YouTube clips. The image-rehabilitation tour started rather quietly on Friday during a taped sit-down with PBS's Bill Moyers. From there, however, the tenor of the discussion began to get more animated. Sunday night saw Wright speaking to an NAACP dinner in Detroit, during which he found time to mock the accents of both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. On Monday, Wright addressed a gathering at the National Press Club, where he'd been invited to speak by a supporter of Hillary Clinton. The culmination of his media-blitz, Wright's press club visit found him back in top YouTube form, providing a host of incendiary new clips for television and computer screens still hungry for his oratory.



Well, the reviews of Wright's latest show are coming in from all quarters. Here's a sampling, beginning with the man who has the most to win or lose by Wright's continued presence in the spotlight, Barack Obama:

"Some of the comments that Rev. Wright has made offended me, and I understand why they offend the American people. He does not speak for me. He does not speak for the campaign."

From Obama supporter, and Political Machine contributor Andrew Sullivan:

But what he said today extemporaneously, the way in which he said it, the unrepentant manner in which he reiterated some of the most absurd and offensive views, his attempt to equate everything he believes with the black church as a whole, and his open public embrace of Farrakhan and hostility to the existence of Israel Zionism, make any further defense of him impossible. This was a calculated, ugly, repulsive, vile display of arrogance, egotism, and self-regard... ...an outright attack on the stated beliefs and policies and values of Barack Obama in a secular setting.

Bob Herbert in The New York Times, writes:

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright went to Washington on Monday not to praise Barack Obama, but to bury him. Smiling, cracking corny jokes, mugging it up for the big-time news media--this reverend is never going away. He's found himself a national platform, and he's loving it...

...For Senator Obama, the re-emergence of Rev. Wright has been devastating. The senator has been trying desperately to bolster his standing with skeptical and even hostile white working-class voters. When the story line of the campaign shifts almost entirely to the race-in-your face antics of someone like Mr. Wright, Mr. Obama's chances can only suffer.

On January 25, 2008, the New York Times - flagship of liberalism in America and vanguard of New York sensibilities - threw in with the local lass and endorsed Hillary Clinton. The support was somewhat expected, as Clinton was (and is) serving as the junior senator of New York, but it also reaffirmed Clinton's staunch support amongst the Democratic establishment. Love it or hate it, the Times is a bedrock institution of Democratic politics and liberal issues. Hillary Clinton had paid her membership dues, and was justified in anticipating the reciprocity of establishment loyalty.

However, the Times' endorsement was pained and almost hedged. The decision was between two desirables, Clinton and Obama. "By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama's appeal or his gifts." The paper admitted that, particularly on the issues, "there is no real gulf separating the two." The Times chose Clinton based on her experience, readiness and capacity.

And yet, the Times issued a warning to Sen. Clinton:

As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband's administration and the so-called permanent campaign.

Today, the Times ran a scathing denouncement of Clinton in light of her apparent disregard of its earlier urgings:

The Pennsylvania campaign . . . was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it. . . . It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

"If nothing else, self interest should push her" to disavow her descent into negativity, counsels the Times, as mud-slinging "does not work." However, there are several potential weaknesses in the Times' criticism.

On April 8th, the New York Times ran an article (to which I linked in a previous post) which falsely stated:

In a trip to the Middle East last month, Mr. McCain made an embarrassing mistake when he said several times that he was concerned that Iran was training Al Qaeda in Iraq. (The United States believes that Iran, a Shiite country, has been training Shiite extremists in Iraq, but not Al Qaeda, a Sunni insurgent group.) He repeated the mistake on Tuesday at hearing [sic] of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The final sentence of this paragraph is simply false. McCain made no such statement (Powerline has the full text). Furthermore, McCain's previous "mistakes" were almost certainly mere slips of the tongue, which would undoubtedly have been immediately overlooked by anyone not consciously seeking to construct a derogatory story. Nine days after conservative blogs pointed out the Times' "mistake," the paper of record has printed a quasi-correction:

Correction: April 17, 2008
Because of an editing error, an article last Thursday about foreign policy advisers to Senator John McCain referred incorrectly to an error he made at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 8. He briefly referred to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as a Shiite group, rather than a Sunni group; he did not repeat an error during the hearing that he had made on a trip to the Middle East last month when he said several times that he was concerned that Iran, a Shiite nation, was training Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a Sunni group.

First, an editing error does not explain a substantive attack awkwardly inserted into a larger piece to which it is tangentially related (at best). Nevertheless, I challenge anyone to find the transcript passage in which McCain confuses Al Qaeda for a Shiite group. This would prove impossible because A) it still did not happen, and B) no one outside the media calls it Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. That label, as some remember, evolved out of a conundrum when Democratic candidate John Kerry announced that there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq ... just about the time a group calling itself "Al Qaeda in Iraq" committed several acts of terror. The media couldn't report the story without painting Kerry as a liar or a fool - so they "re-translated" Iraq as Mesopotamia in order to cover Kerry's mistake.

The Times consoles itself for having been caught (yet again) in a lie about a Conservative by fully repeating its precarious assertion that McCain made mistakes when speaking in the Middle East - thereby successfully manipulating its apology for slandering McCain into yet another slander of McCain. This is not the first shameless salvo by the Times in this election (see here and here), and it will not be the last.

UPDATE: As an aside, the New York Times Company posted a $335,000 loss this quarter, "one of the worst periods the company and the newspaper industry have seen. ... The company's main source of revenue, newspaper advertising in print and online, fell 10.6 percent, the sharpest drop in memory...."