I"m happy to see Gallop has found a way to interview cell phone users. But in a race so markedly different from recent races (race, breaking up of old coalitions, etc) the fact that this poll has a margin of error of up to 4 percentage points makes a the results reported here hardly news

This is a classic example of challenging yet "accurate" science reporting turned downright harmful by the headline writer. The piece reports on one research result which finds a combined correlation which, in turn, correlates to self-harming behavior, which in turn is a factor in suicide attempts which in turn are a predictor of successful suicides. In order to judge the real import of this article it is necessary to have a good science background and access to the original data. The ... More »

this is a 36,000 ft overview of Bush as lame duck and specifically in light of his less than decisive actions on immigration and Libby with regard to his base. It does state the obvious, and in that way is simplistic, but it's mildly useful in a culture that includes those that see a monolithic Right. The most interesting question IS begged: what is the Republican Party doing to replace its lame duck and how will they manage to run against their own 8-year legacy?

Well, it appears when you are not the incumbent, you are not teflon, even if you're Republican. For what it is - floating a balloon to see if this story will catch news cycles in an election - this story is balanced. It quotes for and against. What it fails to do is provide some key context. If this is a "Swift Boat" kind of smear, to what end? Who benefits? Guiliani? Surely not Democrats. Billing records is a red herring, when we're talking 16 years ago. A stronger point is buried ... More »

the issue is not commutation, it's obstruction of justice. This editorial needn't agree, but it could and should acknowlege the issue as raised. Rather it chooses to ignore that angle. Understandable, but not to be truted.

The story is a bit puffed out. It's news that someone stands up and says "revolution" and the regime says "shame on you". But that's two paragraphs. It does not appear that this journalist looked for any background other than that supplied by Berezovsky, by the Kremlin, and by the Foreign Office. The question is, is there a story here beyond the guy making a story?

While I admire the story and agree the "chill" effect needs to be discussed, I sense this is angled toward journalistic comfort. The issue of leakers "gaming" journalists is mentioned but not properly weighted by the author.

I can't help but find it ironic that the issue which the editorial states is "not known" is likely quite well known among its staff but unpublishable because journalists protect sources, even when those sources use them to commit illegal acts. This editorial cites our judicial system as at risk, but clearly has its own interests in that system uppermost in mind.

Initial reporting was chaotic and rumour replaced sources and checking in the rush to get the reports out.

Every President sees his approval ratings slump to the lowest of his presidency. Is this what Dobbs means to say here? Others have called this piece a rant and I must agree. it is mostly froth, around the mouth.