This is one perspective of one unorganized caucus. The caucus I attended was very well organized. It's not a big picture story, but one thing the piece did not mention is that the statewide Democratic Party has been begging for volunteers for weeks. It's unfortunate, but precincts without much in the way of past democratic party participation would by necessity have novices in charge. This story illustrates one of the main stumbling blocks of citizen journalism. It's a tiny piece of a huge picture.

This is a piece focused on a single question and, as such, does not look at much beyond that question. There is only one viewpoint, but it is one that does not seem to be mentioned much by most mainstream outlets. The language neither favors nor derogates the argument, but the author offers little to dispute it and two experts who seem to agree with it. The sexist quote at the end of the story was unnecessary in my opinion.

Unfortunately, Ms. Steinem leaves very little room for the idea that a woman can be a feminist, support women for office on local and national levels, and still be put off by Ms. Rodham-Clinton. "[T]he slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo" is not so much a slander as a fact. Ms. Rodham-Clinton is more likely than either of the other two front runners to cozy up to big business. The true slander is in calling her policies "progressive" when they are, in fact, centrist.

This is an interview, but no attempt is made to present an opposing viewpoint, even when factual errors are blatant: ie, the idea that predominant aggressor laws make it difficult for the police to arrest female abusers, or the claim that restraining orders are often based on false accusations. This is not, however, a piece of journalism. I'm not sure it even claims to be. It's an opinion column. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how ignorant or ill-advised.

The WSJ seems to be focusing on only one side of this issue. Voter fraud is typically a concern of Republicans (and other conservatives), while Democrats (and other progressives) argue that Voter ID laws disenfranchise poor, elderly, and disabled voters. That more progressive viewpoint is nowhere in the article. There also seems to be an assumption that the increase in challenges to election contests is motivated solely by the fact that Al Gore challenged the 2000 election ("'In 2000 in Florida, we broke a psychic barrier,' says Doug Chapin"). There is not even a single mention of the fact that most of these more recent challenges have been because of faulty electronic voting devices. The article seems to me to be a piece ... More »