new york times

Yes, it’s Clinton Rules

by

Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com

NYT Logo

I don’t buy NYT Public Editor Margaret Sullivan’s explanation for the paper’s glaringly flawed “exclusive” story (splashed across the front page and digital platforms) about a criminal investigation on Hillary Clinton over her emails. No, what happened appeared to yet another instance of “Clinton Rules” though I do agree with the general point about scoop journalism Sullivan makes here:

There are at least two major journalistic problems here, in my view. Competitive pressure and the desire for a scoop led to too much speed and not enough caution. Mr. Purdy told me that the reporters, whom he described as excellent and experienced, were “sent back again and again” to seek confirmation of the key elements; but while no one would discuss the specifics of who the sources were, my sense is that final confirmation came from the same person more than once.

The reporters and editors were not able to see the referral itself, Mr. Purdy said, and that’s the norm in such cases; anything else would be highly unusual, he said. So they were relying on their sources’ interpretation of it. All at The Times emphasized that the core of the initial story – the request for an investigation – is true, and that it was major news, as was the later development.

Read more

Paul, honey, we pro-choicers could have told you this 30 years ago

by

krugman

Paul Krugman’s Monday NYT column is a sharp observation of how the American Right is untethered from evidence on a wide variety of policy issues.

Of course not. Evidence doesn’t matter for the “debate” over climate policy, where I put scare quotes around “debate” because, given the obvious irrelevance of logic and evidence, it’s not really a debate in any normal sense. And this situation is by no means unique. Indeed, at this point it’s hard to think of a major policy dispute where facts actually do matter; it’s unshakable dogma, across the board. And the real question is why.

Read more

Why don’t Democrats win in Arizona? Answer: Not enough Democratic voters

by

Crossposted at DemocraticDiva.com

canvassingPhoto: IPrecinct.us

Erik Loomis at Lawyers, Guns & Money wants Democrats to stop trying to woo old white people who hate them:

So what’s up? I think there are a few really important points. Democrats need to just stop trying to appeal to old white people. White men voted for the GOP 64-34. It is a loser strategy. This demographic overwhelmingly votes GOP. Alison Grimes, who ran an utterly pathetic and embarrassing campaign, refusing to say whether she voted for President Obama is the prototype of how not to do it. No one is going to believe you. Heard a bunch about the North Carolina race last night and all the discussion about how Ebola, ISIS, and immigration dominated voters’ agenda. When I hear those three things in this context, I hear three words: racism, racism, and racism. And the Supreme Court supporting racist policies to restrict blacks from voting by eviscerating the Voting Rights Act allowed racists to indeed restrict black voting in meaningful ways that may well have swung North Carolina to the execrable Thom Tillis. Developing entire political campaigns to swing a few of these voters to the Democrats isn’t going to work–as we saw quite clearly last night.

Read more

On the obsessive focus on poor people’s morality

by

Per Gawker:

Ta-Nehisi Coates of the Atlantic and Jonathan Chait of New York have, over the past week, been engaged in something equal parts duel and duet in the pixels of their respective magazine’s websites. Their debate has plumbed the depths of race and racism in America, working out the questions of civic and historical responsibility in a public forum with respect and grace. As readers and citizens we are privileged to bear witness to this dialogue. They’ve also thrown some damn good shade at each other, so let’s look at that.

The Gawker piece provides a quick synopsis of the debate (you should read all the links) and since then Coates (who is the clear winner in my opinion) has followed up with this and this, which I cannot recommend enough.

Read more

CAP is at it again with a heinous anti-choice bill

by

Fresh on the heels of their embarrassing defeat with SB1062, comes the Center for Arizona Policy with HB2284, which would allow surprise inspections of abortion clinics and impose criminal penalties on anyone who is not the parent or guardian of a minor who assists her in getting an abortion.

Democrats and progressive orgs plan a response, similar to the SB1062 one:

As long as the legislature is still in session, none of us are safe from Cathi Herrod, the Center for Arizona Policy, and other aligned organizations. Fresh from losing the battle against legalized discrimination, they now want the government to meddle in women’s healthcare with surprise inspections of clinics that provide healthcare and abortion services. This law is intended to frighten women out of utilizing these healthcare resources–as well as frighten clinicians & doctors out of offering these services. This bill, if passed into law, would be unconstitutional, illegal, and drastically misaligned with the priorities of Arizonans.

We must keep fighting for what is right: our dignity, privacy–and our freedom.

ACTION:

1) Share this event with ALL of your contacts.
2) Join the presser on the Capitol lawn at 1 PM.
3) Call Speaker Tobin at (602) 926-5172 or email him at atobin@azleg.gov to voice your opposition to this bill.
4) Fire up Brewer’s phone lines again at: (602) 542-4331.

#NotYourWomb

Read more