While this is not a comprehensive story, it is a short update revealing a few new pieces of information on a story I have been following. I believe the story to be accurate.

This seems like a puff piece profile of a newly elected official, very flattering to him and somewhat slanted against his opponent. Given that Baltimore famously has problems with government corruption, not just violent crime, a serious piece would be asking questions about whether he can impartially fulfill his office, even if powerful people in town are suspected of wrongdoing, given that his wife used to work for the mayor and one of the chief critics of his opponent authored a study by the powerful Abell Foundation. He seems to be much less at odds with the power structure than his opponent. This raises questions about his objectivity in my mind, and I believe these are questions that should have been asked by the author ... More »

It's an interesting update of the status of a historic site in Baltimore. The article seems a bit incomplete, however. When the city planning director says they're looking at spinning it off to a non-profit, a good question would be whether there has been any interest from anyone interested in running it as such. Also, what are the alternatives to this budget cut, as it is not really a lot of money in the overall context of the city budget? What is the annual attendance of the museum? Have they explored ways to improve attendance? Lastly, I want to note that, while the $85K figure given for the musuem's annual budget seems probably accurate, there is scientific research that shows that people find articles more believable if ... More »

This story only cites a couple of sources, M.J. Brodie, of the Baltimore Development Corporation, Tom Noonan, the city's tourism chief, who we must assume is aligned with Brodie on this issue, and city councilwoman Belinda Conaway, who is apparently not firmly in the opponent camp, since she is willing to accept Brodie's explanations, at least provisionally. It would have been more interesting and informative if other parties who may oppose the city's operation of the hotel had been interviewed about their concerns. Additionally, having had some direct interactions with the Baltimore Development Corporation and its president, Mr. Brodie, I would assert that this is not an individual whose pronouncements can be trusted, so some ... More »

This would seem to be an in-depth investigative piece, presenting multiple points of view. I can cite no part of it that I know for certain is erroneous or slanted. Therefore I must cautiously assume it to be an informative article. However, I have past experiences with this publication that cause me to bring a skeptical eye to it. In the past, on stories related to an issue I was intimately familiar with, The Senator Theatre, I noted that this publication appears to have a bias in favor of Baltimore's political power structure and the Baltimore Development Corporation in particular. Not being familiar with the issues in this article, however, I do not detect such a slant here.

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 beneficiaries of Edwards's work. http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jun/22/edwards_campaign_times_refused_to_talk_to_beneficiaries_of_his_anti_poverty_programs It also becomes clear, in reading between the lines 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 an intelligent one.

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 expect them to admit it.

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 this, but instead they went for the false "balance" to which the media so often succumbs.

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 insider politics than is revealed here.

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

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 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 aim of which is to prevent the Democratic Party from advocating for traditional Democratic values. The second problem with the article is that it doesn't do a fair job of evaluating Obama. It repeats the emerging right wing argument that Obama is a ... 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 and now looks like her only serious contender for the 2008 presidential nomination" look silly. One has to wonder why Novak would apparently like to see Edwards out of the race.

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.

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.

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

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

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