Discredits a fake news story that appeared on the front page of the New York Times today.

As it was placed on the front page of the New York Times, this article calls the judgment of the New York Times editor and their reputation as a paper into question. The article is nothing but a smear based on innuendo. It disregards the fact that Edwards has been instrumental in putting poverty back on the national agenda. It disregards the fact that his work has actually helped people. As TPM Election Central is reporting today, the New York Times refused to talk to any of the ... More »

This is a press release from one of the major presidential campaigns on the important topic of health care. It lays out the Edwards plan in some detail, so I think it's important to review the document itself, not some distillation of it that may come through the press. I found it very comprehensive and convincing when I read it. I would be interested in other opinions.

This is a good profile of Edwards and I think accurately depicts how his message has evolved. It includes enough skepticism and differing views to be fair.

This is good journalism because it accurately depicts the foreign policy perpective of one of our presidential candidates on a key issue. There has been misinterpretation elsewhere of a remark that Edwards made at the Herzliya Conference, and he is setting the record straight. I think his approach is well-reasoned. Is he correct? I don't think I know enough about the Middle East to evaluate that fully. The interview is accurately reporting his perspective, though, which seems to be ... More »

This is true. Shakes is now the netroots coordinator at the Edwards campaign. I know this from her appearance the other day at the Edwards blog, which I frequent. It's a fairly minor story, just one more hire by a presidential candidate. I think it's interesting from the perspective of the growing importance of the net in politics. I also happen to personally agree with a reason she cites for supporting him - we can't expect someone who's perfect and doesn't make mistakes, but we can ... More »

This is right wing opinion, nothing more. It fails to explore several counterarguments that could be made, not the least of which is that none of the Democratic candidates are any less experienced than Bush was when he ran in 2000.

Excellent article with some in-depth detail about his proposals and a fair approach. It's refreshing to see some reporting about the candidates that leaves out sensationalism and doesn't try to make predictions about the outcome.

This reads like an op-ed against voting machine paper trails. It presents potential problems with voting machines that use printers, while failing to mention that in the paperless touch screen systems in use in Maryland and other states, it is IMPOSSIBLE to do a recount. This is presenting only one side of the issue. The ballot or paper trail printers available may not be the ideal solution, but they're better than losing all possibility of a recount in a contested election.

This is an important topic, reflecting on the integrity, or lack thereof, of our elections. The story is, unfortunately, short on investigative journalism. Repeating the Republican claim that there is no evidence that the machines malfunctioned is a bit of "he said, she said" journalism, substituting competing spin for facts. The fact is there is indisputable evidence that votes were lost by the machines. There are statistics out there that the reporter could have cited to prove ... More »

This tells me there has been a change at the DCCC, but it doesn't say why. If, as the story asserts, Emanuel is credited with winning in 2006, why would they get rid of him? Personally, I give more of the credit to Howard Dean, the leader of the DNC, who made them compete in every state. I'm not familiar with Van Hollen. Is he more liberal than Emanuel? If so, is this a recognition that the DLC strategy of moving to the right hasn't worked? I want to know much more about the party ... More »

The story makes some good points. It sounds like something the Democrats should keep in mind if they want to build for the future. The argument is well presented.

A discussion of the financial costs of moving to a Diebold system without any discussion of the parallel cost to election integrity seems flawed. What's likely to happen is that local areas will pay the huge financial cost, then new federal rules will make them change their systems again because of the accuracy problems.

Leaves too many questions unanswered and, since the material was already in a lab in Germany, seems to be making a big deal out of very little. Also, missing from the piece is any discussion of whether the U.S. should be encouraging nuclear power, which is a big environmental concern.

This made me laugh. Edwards is obviously trying to close the gap between those of us who know enough about him to see him as a real concerned citizen and those who see the shallow media portrayal of a guy with nice hair. It's so hard for candidates to get past the shallowness of the U.S. news media. It's nice that he's trying.

This evaluates the possibility that various candidates on both sides of the aisle will run.

This report from a right wing site falsely claims that a proposed new requirement to require lobbying groups to file reports on their activities would limit freedom of speech. All that is being asked for are reports, not limits on their activities. The proposal, H.R. 4682, would increase transparency in lobbying campaigns by making it possible for citizens to find out who is behind lobbying efforts. It is an attempt to prevent things like the Abramoff scandal from happening again.

There are a couple of problems with this story. One is that it repeats the discredited old saw that Democrats have to move to the right to win. This has been largely discredited by George Lakoff's research and the fact that Democrats won in the 2006 election by running on progressive values. Nevertheless, the article repeats the tired old chant that only a centrist like Hillary Clinton can win (at the same time it tries to paint Clinton as a liberal). This is a right wing frame, the ... More »

This story is laughable. It's bad enough to try to predict the outcome before candidates have announced their intentions, but the cited poll data doesn't even mention John Edwards, who is leading by a big margin in Iowa, according to another poll. Specifically, this makes right wing columnist Novak's assertion that "A prominent Republican pollster's national survey of Democratic voters shows support stalled for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton while Sen. Barack Obama has come from nowhere ... More »

I'm assuming "Dana Scully" is an anonymous blogger, since she's named after a character on the X Files. This post successfully argues against a ridiculous article, but does not back up its arguments by citing any sources. The article she's criticizing is so ridiculous that I almost wonder why she bothered.

An interesting choice and I think, given the impact that bloggers are having on politics, a good one.

This is a good analysis of how little the Republican Congress achieved in terms of causing additional harm to the environment. What it leaves out is their refusal to do anything positive to help it, for instance, by addressing global warming.

A creative solution to a political problem. Well presented and interesting.

Convincing analysis pointing to good use of progressive framing as the reason the Democrats won the midterm election.

It's difficult to tell whether this is accurate, but it's disturbing and should be looked into further.

Not good journalism. It is a very short opinion piece that expresses agreement with Jimmy Carter's latest book without going into detail about what the book says or what the arguments against it might be.

This is actually about the Iraq war and Bush's refusal to respond to popular opinion about the war. The discussion of the war itself is informative and persuasive, however, the argument Cole tried to make that Republicans are "stealing" the elections by ignoring the will of people is pretty weak. They are ignoring the will of the people, which is a valid point, but it's not as if that's entirely unusual even in elected politicians. The title is misleading in that it would seem to ... More »

Quotes 2 anonymous sources. As far as I'm concerned, this is rumor at this point.