The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

I was one of those who wrote to Ms. Howell with concern about the piece. I am also a contributor to the Post, a working writer, and my complaint had nothing to do with anger. It was a complaint about bad writing. The author wrote to assure me he meant to debunk the myths, but the article comes nowhere close to meeting that intention. The problem is in sentences such as this one: "Despite his denials, rumors and e-mails circulating on the Internet continue to allege that Obama (D-Ill.) is a Muslim, a "Muslim plant" in a conspiracy against America, and that, if elected president, he would take the oath of office using a Koran, rather than a Bible, as did Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the only Muslim in Congress, when he was sworn in earlier this year." So much more time is spent in that paragraph depicting a wicked Muslim president (and an irrelevant detail of Ellison), that we forget the first clause: "Despite his denials." That is bad writing, because the style is discordant to the meaning. In good writing, the fact is given more weight than the rumor. And on that first clause--how about "despite all evidence" or "despite the facts" or even "despite careful debunking by the Chicago Tribune, as I show below"? I am not even asking the author to do his own investigative journalism; I am asking for good sentences, good style, and a tone that underlines his intention. None of these are present and the article, however well intended, is a failure. This journalist needs a course in how style is a crucial part of meaning.

BTW, Baker, if the piece is so defensible, why did Howell say she would be addressing it?

Wow, I used to think Baker was rather reasonable. But I guess all bets are off when the blogosphere disses your bud Perry.

Sorry you're just another hack, Baker.

If a story were titled: FOES USE WAPO"S RIGHT WING TIES TO FUEL RUMORS ABOUT THE PAPER just how sure would you be that the story was intended to debunk those rumors?

If the story then did a sloppy job like that done by Bacon which does not reveal that the first school Obama attended in Indonesia for two years was Fransiskus Assisi which quite transparently was a Catholic school and the the next school he attended was an elite school catering to Indonesia's elite who are not Wahabi, would you think it was beyond criticism?

Further, it would appear that neither Baker nor Bacon are native speakers of English: Rumor is defined as "a piece of unverified information of uncertain origin n usually spread by word of mouth." As Baker's use of the term 'untrue rumor' shows, a rumor can ultimately prove to be true or false.
So the claim that because we were talking about rumors it is obvious we were trying to show that they were false is ridiculous.

That you are receiving a lot of angry emails is not a function of the idea that there is a lot of anger out there but rather because you did poor reporting that made a lot of people JUSTIFIABLY angry.

Please respond to the following points raised by Greg Sargent at TalkingPointsMemo.com:

1. The "Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ in Chicago" sentence doesn't actually debunk the smear being made that Obama has a shadowy Muslim past that he is trying to cover up. How did the WaPo article debunk this claim?

2. The WaPo article doesn't debunk the smear that Obama attended a Madrassa as a child.

3. If the WaPo article doesn't debunk these smears, how is it not just repeating them?

4. Isn't the whole "angry bloggers" a cliche by now? Didn't you learn not to use cliches in journalism school?

"Any reasonable reading of the story makes clear they [the rumors that Obama is a closet Muslim] are not true. Right there in the second paragraph, it says Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ in Chicago."

That argument makes no sense at all. The rumor is that Obama is using membership in the United Church of Christ as a cover to hide his alleged true Muslim identity. So basically you're citing confirmation of part of the rumor as if it were a rebuttal to the rumor. Greg Sargent makes the point in more detail here:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/12/washington_post_12.php

May I add that it's hard to believe you writers are unaware that this kind of article only spreads the rumor. After all, you people are supposed to be professional wordsmiths. That's what makes me so "vituperative". I mean, what the heck is going on over there?

The test is: would a reader who had never heard of the rumor that Obama is a Muslim realize that he is not after reading this article? The answer is no, for reasons others have pointed out.

You don't seem to know how to debunk a rumor. Go to Obama's website (as Perry Bacon did not) and read how CNN "sent a reporter to Obama's former school in Jakarta to check the facts."
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070123-debunked_insigh/index.php

Or, go to snopes.com and read their excellent debunking.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

That's what the Post should have written. And, Bacon could have at least mentioned the idea that those who make assertions have the burden of proof, or at least a bit of evidence.

But no. The article reads like the truth does not matter, only the "perception" of "some people". Same old, same old.

Is this the Washington Post's official response to its headline and article on Obama "rumors"?

If so, it now owes readers two apologies. First, for the front page article that failed journalistic standards. And second, for this offensive "defense" of its initial bad judgment that suggests the readers just didn't understand.

Just when I thought that reporting the news in America had been dumbed down as low as it could go by Fox and CNN, the Washington Post has proven me wrong.

PS

Many people act confused as to why the Post would do a hatchet job on Obama.

The neocons at the Post are not sure of Obama's committment to greater Israel in general and the Iraq War in particular. That is why the hit came down. This also explains John Solomon's pathetic hit piece on Edwards two months back, the one even the Ombusdman said was vacuous.

It also explains why the Post won't touch with a ten-foot-pole, much less the front page, the fact Rudy Giuliani is earning millions of dollars in consulting fees from the terrorist-enabler who sheltered Khalid Muhammed, the architect of 9-11.

The Post has disintegrated right in front of our eyes.

You're a lying hack, Baker.

George Bush's grandfather was one of Hitler's bankers. When will the Post run a front-page story entitled "Bush Dogged by Nazi Rumors" citing several wacked-out blogs and only rebutted with "he's a member of the Republican Party" and "he denies the rumors."

The lies about Barack Obama being a Muslim say that he is pretending to be a Christian.

So saying that Barack Obama is a member of the Church of Christ in no way contradicts those lies.

The article does not "debunk." It does nothing to shed light on why people are so misinformed. It does nothing to "trace the origin" of these lies. Instead, the article spreads misinformation.

I find it odd that you don't admit to error in judgment about running the Perry Bacon Jr. article about Sen. Barack Obama.

"But somehow a story intended to debunk the false claims, trace their origin and explore the challenge they present the campaign in trying to quash them spawned a furious eruption among liberal bloggers accusing the Post of spreading the rumors."

Nowhere in the article does it make clear that the 'rumors' are in fact false. The words 'false', 'lie' or 'debunked' do not appear anywhere in the article. A little careless to report on 'rumors' without unequivocally speaking to their accuracy, no?

"Any reasonable reading of the story makes clear they are not true. Right there in the second paragraph, it says Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ in Chicago. In other words, a Christian, not a Muslim. And yet the bloggers seem to think readers are so stupid they will actually think the Post is saying the opposite."

Well, someone at CBS News is stupid. Here's their headline linking to the Bacon Jr. article - "Obama Dogged By Muslim Rumors". Dogged by rumors stoked by the editors of conservative publications (of little repute) and a GOP supporter in South Carolina? By extension, isn't President Bush dogged by rumors that let 9/11 happen? Isn't President Clinton dogged by rumors that he murdered Vince Foster? After all, those 'rumors' come from sources with a mental stability roughly equivalent to that of the people fueling the Obama 'rumors'. No?

Admitting to a mistake isn't the worst thing in the world. More often than not people forgive, eventually forget and move on. Yet, for some reason, newspapers (like politicians) refuse to acknowledge any errors or wrongdoing. The story was careless and the Post should say so.

Baker writes:

The presumption of ill will extends across the ideological spectrum.

Hey, maybe when we live under a legitimately elected administration that governs Constitutionally, the ill will might abate somewhat. Ya think?

False equivalence, huh? Yet another in the sordid bag of tricks lazy journalists use to justify their misfeasances.

The Right bloggers are whining because someone who might plausibly be considered a Democrat got to ask a perfectly reasonable but embarrassing question at the CNN Republican debate. What, precisely, is wrong with that? Digby at the excellent blog Hullaballoo counted no fewer than ten "gotcha" questions that made the cut at CNN's Democratic YouTube debate. Are Republicans allowed to never hear a dissenting word? Are free speech zones still in force in America, and do they not include YouTube debates?

On the other hand, Left bloggers (and the Columbia Journalism Review) excoriate Perry Bacon's article for the focus on false, amlicious rumors about Obama as if the content of the rumors were the story, rather than the motivation of the smear merchants behind them. This wax not mentioned in any meaningful way in the article, despite being the only plausible angle deserving coverage.

As long as the mainstream press passes on malicious smears by reporting on the "phenomenon" of the rumors, rather than properly naming and shaming the perpetrators, it will be complicit in the corruption and cheapening of American politics by the peddlers of those rumors.

The Post's Left critics demand you hold yourselves to the standard of the truth. CNN's Right critics demand the right to hide from it.

"liberal bloggers ripped The Washington Post for publishing a story on untrue rumors that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is secretly a Muslim."

Nope dear Pete it is also run of the mill readers of the Post who question the paper publishing untrue rumors about a guy whom they would never vote for, like me.

I find your defense of such actions disgusting. It's like you live in a bubble that separates you from average readers and your arrogance shows them that you hold them in pure contempt.

But I do note that the rumor of George Bush having paid for an abortion in the early 1970's (before Wade v Roe), did not rise to the front page of the Post as did the rumor of Obama's grade school indoctrination of Islam.

So, tell us again how the Post exhibits impartiality; us readers could use the laugh.

Shame on you Mr Baker, the two of us have been engaged in many personal emails deaing with situations akin to just this cherry-picking approach to news, yet this is by far your most deceitful and worst hour as a journalist.

I used to think you were a stand-up guy, now I don't.

I read the original Obama story and did not see it as a debunking. Rather, it was pure swiftboating ie the Post giving "air time" to, and thus reviving, false charges. The issue is a journalistic one and is pretty clear cut. The CNN issue has no similarity, and does not involve the Post. I assume you include it in order to make light of criticisms of the Obama article...a poor response.

It's funny, I seem to recall that when a certain 60 Minutes anchor ran a somewhat sloppy piece on certain allegations about President Bush, a veritable s***storm took place and that anchor had to step down.

But somehow this hit piece on Obama, which is supported by nothing but lies and innuendo that are never described as such, is perfectly acceptable?

Baker, if the voices you're hearing are loud and vituperative, it's just possible it's not the fault of the Internet. This article is appalling, and deserves every iota of the criticism it has received.

Look, the whole point of the rumors is to claim that Senator Obama is hiding the fact that he is a Muslim. Simply stating that he is a member of a church or that he denies the rumors does nothing to bring clarity. Your paper made no attempt to provide independent investigation. You left it up to the reader to determine who was telling the truth.

Rumors on the internet continue to swirl that Peter Baker has sex with goats. Mr. Baker denies the allegations. At the same time, Snopes.com suggests that he is only denying it so he can keep his job at the Washington Post. The issue is having an impact on Mr. Baker's writing career.

Editors at the Post demonstrated their poor judgment by letting "assertions" stay in the second graf. Assertions my patootie. Why not call them lies? The Post would never use "assertions" for a host of other clear falsehoods, such as Holocaust deniers, flat-Earthers, etc.

Mr. Baker, your blog is as insulting as the original article was. How condescending to say that the tens of thousands of people who protested your front page story on dozens and dozens of blogs and to your newspaper weren't 'reasonable readers'. Reasonable people read it and saw all the vituperative lies and rumors repeated over and over and never was it clearly and firmly pointed out that none of those rumors were true. It was shabby tabloid journalism and it had no place on the front page of a formerly respected newspaper.

Mr. Baker,

You say, "Any reasonable reading of the story makes clear they [the rumors] are not true." Despite the bully pulpit you have with this blog, you simply are incorrect.

I, and thousands of others, performed a "reasonable reading" of the article and found it to be sorely lacking. The author's intent may have been benign, but the quality of the article was poor, and that poor quality tilted toward giving credence to the false rumors rather than debunking them.

How do you explain the author quoting from Snopes.com without acknowledging that the site itself was quoting an email chain in the course of debunking it? Or noting that Snopes.com is an urban myth site?

In this instance, I ask you to consider your own "eye of the beholder" bias in overstating the case that any "reasonable" perspective could not possibly criticize this weak article.

Mr. Baker,

You wrote, "The reporter wrote the story because a voter in Iowa told him that Obama is a Muslim and he was struck that people remain so ill informed."

The article that the Post ran resembled nothing that could be remotely confused with this rationale.

Mr. Bacon did not interview the voter or any others to substantiate this portion of your "explanation." How you come up with this version of the story, I -- for the life of me -- do not know.

What is worse, is that with the singular exception of Tom Toles, the editorial cartoonist, not one person in the Post organization has had the decency to come out and say, "We were wrong. We owe the Senator an apology for continuing to spread lies about him." Not the editorial staff, board, not the Fact Checker Michael Dobbs, not Dan Balz, not the Ombudsman Deborah Howell, not Howard Kurtz, media critic, not Lois Romano, Jonathan Weisman, no one. It's "circle the wagons" time at the Post.

From Media Matters for America, to the esteemed Columbia Journalism Review, this has been called the most shameful piece of campaign reporting this year.

And here, you could have said "we screwed up." But instead, it's one more lame excuse after another.

Do us all a favor. Take Tom Toles' cartoon and the Columbia Journalism Review article, enlarge them on the office copier, and hang them where everyone can see. Remind yourselves that journalism is an art -- and should be a noble one. And remind each other that it's more important to get the story RIGHT, and get it right the FIRST TIME.

Now go apologize to Senator Obama and his campaign. Don't make me come over there!!!

The article did more to perpetuate the rumors than debunk or clarify them. Sad.

Senator Obama has unfairly been smeared by the right and many of us have worked hard to get the truth out. We are just so tired of good people and candidates having their character and life destroyed by the vitrol of the right.
They go beyond all boundaries and we have worked hard to counteract their lies.
As such, we have become very sensitive to anything that appears to smear one of own. the article was poorly written and only flamed the right's lies.
As for CNN. They somewhat brought this upon themselves. 2 weeks ago they held the democratic debate that was questioned for it's honesty and they filled the after debate commentary with Clinton supporters. this on the heels of the audience plant. the nickname of Clinton News Network has some truth in the name. So, the right saw this as another favor for Hillary. they messed up but, the right saw it suspiciously because of past actions. And both sides hold a deep suspicion of Hillary in general and question her ethics.
In this we agree.
But, it is in an atmosphere of hate. the hate has been pushed by the media for many years. Talk radio. Fox news. and the msm trying to copy Fox. We saw Al Gore and his good name destroyed by this.
And we had no way to voice our objections.
the blogs gave us voice. And we can be hard but, there is alot of stored up outrage.
Some on the left and many on the right have seen this past year as a coronation of Hillary. On the left, we are upset as she is not the only candidate running, is not beloved and our other candidates have suffered from this.
We witness our debates and our opinion of the debates being ignored by a holier than thou pundit class who picks our winners for us when we don't agree.
We witnessed Sen. Obama be lambasted by the same pundits for defying conventional wisdom and daring to voice fresh ideas and having his words twisted or laughed at when the voters and people agreed with him and not with the conventional wisdom.
So the story yesterday set people off on another twisting of the Senator and written unfairly.
There needs to be a calming down of both sides, agreed. But, missteps by the media is only fueling it.
It would be a good thing for the media itself to have a forum addressing this and how to heal the country and why people are angry and to maybe have both sides come together and discuss these problems. that is the only way to begin.

The right wing blogs are up in arms because this fits in perfectly with their paranoid, us vs. them, victimization narrative. We see it day in and day out. And it is probably here to stay. I just ignore it.

For crying out loud: when are these media people going to understand that it is them causing all this emotional political environment criticized by the author the article?

Check this comment he makes,referring to the CNN and Wapo's outrageous "journalistic" practices: "any legitimate criticism and sober-minded discussion of the issues raised" (referring to cnn and wapo) "get drowned out by the loudest, most vituperative voices. The net result is not dialogue, but a contest of outrage."

So, we don't have the right to raise our voices or be outraged when the media manipulators try to manipulate our thinking using transparently clear immoral journalistic tactics! What legitimate criticism? You people in the media know exactly what you are doing and the consequences of what you are doing. It's called manipulation. Manipulation has to be denounced with our strongest voice. You are not going to stop manipulating, so, we continue "vituperating".

"The presumption of ill will..."? The hell this guy lives? And then he goes on to defend the indefensible: Mr. Bacon's article.

WAPO just keep digging itself further dip in the excrement that has become our national news and t.v. media.

So yes, include me in the group of the "vituperants", for i will continue to raise my voice to let you know that you don't fool me with your badly veiled attempts to brainwash me. As long as we still have remnants of freedom of speech and as long as you continue to publish the trash you try to pass as news, i will speak up.

It is possible that Senator Clinton is the best candidate. However, even though any may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record, just as Senator Clinton insists.
.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where torturing people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and to protect the citizenry.
.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
.
Do we want a President who sends a "crime does pay" message to society?
.
Would you vote for a President who signed nonaggression deals with the KKK or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKK and Nazi Party.
.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for "gang stalking" to see the tip of the dirtberg. Please do it before you decide to reply to my post. Here let me make it easy for you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22gang+stalking%22.
.

I'm mad at CNN for not using my question to Rudy Giuliani: "How much candor and honesty can we expect from a Presidential candidate who as NYC mayor tried to conceal his bald pate beneath the world's most obvious comb-over?"

Another "horrors of the great unwashed" post. The point (at least from my perspective) is not that candidates should be shielded from opposing POVs. It's that news sources should disclose material affiliations and they should strive for balance among questioners. Yet, many of the questioners at the last debate were crypto-Dems, and almost every audience questioner at the previous debate had some sort of link to the Dem party.

As for asking real questions, perhaps the WaPo could lead by example. I have yet to see the WaPo ask real questions about IllegalImmigration, and it isn't difficult to see why they avoid that. The WaPo's coverage of the issue is frequently biased and omits key facts.

Let's see the WaPo start offering real coverage of this issue. They can start by asking Broder to correct a recent misleading statement, as I indicate in my first comment here:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/29/huckabees_ready_for_the_fight.html

Read the scathing review of Bacon's piece in the Columbia Journalism Review:

"This pathetic story has no place on the front page--or any page--of a paper like the Post. If a worse campaign-related story comes out this year, we don't want to see it."

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/post_75.php

Mr. Baker,

You are being completely disingenious. This was a story that had been told before and yet the artical could not bother to state categorically from sentence one that lies were dogging Sen. Obama. The whole story read as a process piece digesting information "denied" by Sen. Obama's campaign.

It is ignorant and condesending to expect readers to divine the intentions of the journalist or for you to assume those who protest hold the newspaper audience as "stupid."

Rather, this is a nation where people for a long time a majority though Saddam Husessin was a part of 9/11. And your paper reported this without stating categorically that it was a falsehood but setting up a he/she said statements.

It was shoddy writing you front-paged to create a controversy that doesn't exist. The writer would have done better to begin lies about Sen. Obama's religion are being decimiated and affecting the caucus.

Furthurmore, since Sen. Obama is in the LEAD your reason for running the story is blown away. The issue was addressed and the majority of cacus goers clearly realize the truth so your reporter led with lies and repeated lies and stated the Obama camp denies this: all without taking a position or stating the baldface fact.

These were lies.

The Washington Post should be ashamed. But I doubt that you all will do anything to remedy the situation.

This entire situation emerges as a smear of Sen. Obama's campaign when he has started gaining traction. And in defending your collegue your own journalistic integrity becomes fouled, sir.

So please, in future, think twice about writing such condesescending blog posts. Especially when citing Journalism 101 lapses of ethics: CNN had a responsiblity to state and review the identies of the questioners and reveal political affiliations especially someone like the General. And the Post has a responsiblity to call a lie a lie from the first paragraph. I remember in the eighth grade they told us tell them the most important thing in paragraph one: that a lie about Sen. Obama is being spread is news. To perpetuate it without clearly labeling the facts is shoddy, manipulative smearing of a civil servant.

"...and yet bloggers seem to think readers are so stupid they will actually think
The Post is saying the opposite." These bloggers Baker seems to think are so stupid are proved correct by not a few of the comments that follow the article. Trouble is good intentions aren't enough to overcome a wholly misleading headline, which referred to Barack's need to explain "his Muslim ties" rather than, as is the actual case, his lack of them.

Mr. Baker, perhaps you can clarify one thing for your readers. I thought I read somewhere that the ground rules for the Democratic and Republican CNN/YouTube debates limited questions to people within their respective voting blocs. In other words, the Democratic debate was for Democrats to vet their candidates and the Republican debate was for Republicans to vet Republicans. If those were indeed the ground rules, then it would probably be against the rules for someone holding an official capacity with a candidate from a rival party to ask questions.

"But somehow a story intended to debunk the false claims, trace their origin and explore the challenge they present the campaign in trying to quash them spawned a furious eruption among liberal bloggers accusing the Post of spreading the rumors."

If you were really trying to debunk the rumors, you would have focussed on Obama's religion, and speeches that he has made about religion, the services he has participated in, and the Chritian character he has exhibited in all his actions.

Instead, you repeated every bit gossip you claim to try to debunk, which was the real point.

Why did CNN have to apologize when the general in question is a Republican?

The whole incident is pretty funny, considering we have a president who in 7 years has never had to face a question from a citizen who doesn't agree with him. It really all boils down to the Republican Party not being able to face John Q Public.

As to the Obama story, saying he goes to a Christian church is not sufficient to refute the smear by those who are spreading it.

Reporters have an obligation make sure that anybody reading the article doesn't have any question regarding the veracity. And that was not there.

And, by the way, what's with all the pearl clutching, Mr Baker. I've seen your picture and you don't look like an 8 year old girl. Either a criticism has merit or it doesn't. Who made you the arbiter of civility?

Tuesday, you wrote:"Time for a little reality check here. The "mud" Clinton groused about was, in fact, a series of questions about her policy positions or her experience. Obama's criticism of her vote on an Iran resolution may be overblown or distorted, but is it mud to debate an important foreign policy question? Former North Carolina senator John Edwards's assertion that she is too tied into a calcified, corrupted Washington establishment to bring about meaningful change may be tough or exaggerated but is it illegitimate to ask whether someone who has been at the center of the system for the last 15 years can genuinely reform it?"

Which I happen to think was just way out of line and made me want to puke, but hey, you don't hear me telling you to shut up.

I mean, really:
"Obama's criticism of her vote on an Iran resolution may be overblown or distorted, but..."
and
"Edwards's assertion that she is too tied into a calcified, corrupted Washington establishment to bring about meaningful change may be tough or exaggerated but..."

Do you even hear yourself? Don't be such an *ss.

I certainly hope the Democratic candidates don't react as cowardly when the tables are turned. A candidate's electability is key in this race. What better way to demonstrate that than to answer questions from the people who will be coming after you in 10 months?

Its sad that candidates (and commentators) get upset when a non-acolyte dares to ask them a "hard" question.

"I simply don't understand the outrage over the questioners during the CNN/YouTube debate"

If I had to hazard a guess, I think the GOP would rather argue over the media's bias than discuss that thoroughly off-putting debate performance from their candidates. Just a thought.

Mr Baker:"The story's obvious intent is to clarify, which it did."
If I may, this is a point of contention and your defensive dismissiveness is not productive. You referred earlier to "untrue rumors". Had the article in question ever done that, we would not be discussing it here.

"What this week shows is that intent is in the eye of the beholder"

I do wish you all would remember that when you're doing your cutesy little "analysis" pieces.

I simply don't understand the outrage over the questioners during the CNN/YouTube debate.

If anyone could submit a question, then why should they vet those submitted to make sure they were republicants? It would seem to me that if that was the intent, they should have said as much so Democrats or anyone leaning that way wouldn't bother submitting in the first place.

Also, does it really matter WHO asked the questions? Each question that was used was reasonable and could have come from anyone.

(And, as for this retired general, it should be noted - the guy is part of the log cabin republicans and has not donated a single penny to clinton or any other democrat running.)

The issue isn't that republicans can't take questions from democrats, but rather that the Democrats asking the questions made the Republican's look like buffoons. Who cares about the Confederate flag, whether or not the candidates believe every word of this book, the candidates gun collections, honestly iraq and immigration were the only two legitimate discussions that occurred. While some may say "those issues are important to republicans" and follow it up with a predicatable display of Bush/conservative bashing, I haven't given up that 50% of the country is conservative and cares about real issues.

"it says Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ in Chicago"
then says that people say this is just a cover up because of how hard it would be to win as a Muslim, and the article gives independent evidence that it would be hard to run as a Muslim.

So for every denial it presents a retort, and never points out that there is no logical way to conclude he is a Muslim based on facts, not just his denials.

Keep spinning for your Judith Miller Journalist. BTW i didn't need a blog to tell me this was outrageous article, i read it and was outraged. This is one of the Washington lowest moments.

I read that article and it seemed that even though most of the information presented was denyiny Obama being a Muslim the section about Snopes seemed to leave a sense of doubt that it could be true . It seemed to need further clarification and was misleading . I was very surprised at that not being cleared up .

To give you another example: Imagine if the Post wrote a story titled, "Despite rampant rumors, Hillary Clinton denies being a lesbian".

That's basically the story that you wrote...

Trying to stay with the three threads that might develop from this column is more than anyone can hope for, so I will start at the thread that ought to be the most scary.

Within seconds, it seems, of the ends of the debate toe blogs began to ring condemning Democrat plants by CNN. As the column points out, there was nothing outrageous about the questions posed, only that Democrats who might have some connection with Democratic candidates posed them. Coming toward the end of the bubble presidency, after seven years of management by yesmen, it is scary that Republicans would think that their candidates need yet more time in the bubble.

Since no comments from the candidates about these questioners have made it into print, it is being premature to judge the candidates on how they stand on management in self imposed isolation, but unless the candidates jointly and severally denounce the right wing complaint machine for wanting to put Republican politics in a Republican can, to the exclusion of the rest of the electorate, I believe I can draw the conclusion that there isn't a Republican candidate out there who is willing to speak to all of the American people.

As a Democrat, the quality I most despise in George and Dick is each of their willingness to pontificate in my name, to declare that THEY speak for they American people, when they only actually speak for their thirty percent. The world has lost its respect for the country collectively, over characteristics shared only by only the most rabid right of the country. I get stereotyped as an arrogant, ignorant, flatulent boor because that is how a President I worked against and voted against chooses to behave.

I wish my representative to the world would have just a little more care to the image he projects, loudly, in my name.

If this current crop of pretenders isn't willing to speak out, now, to end the campaign, in their name, to restrict discourse to properly baptized conservatives, they don't even deserve to be on such a public platform.

Give me Harry Truman on the back end of a train to Tom Dewey in his New York cocoon anytime.

Yeah, people were outraged by the story because it read like it was meant to smear Obama.

I'm not one of those nuts who thinks that the Washington Post is pro-GOP or pro-corporations or whatever. I think you're the liberal media. But that story was so reckless and misguided that I really wonder about your judgement...