NY Times asks: What to do with Bear Stearns CEO?

And it's actually serious. Somehow this guy even thinks mentioning Michael Eisner is a good thing, as though he may have actually had a positive impact on Disney. How could anyone possibly think that Alan Schwartz deserves anything above shame for his terrible service? How many billions have been lost? How many jobs are gone? And the NY Times thinks this bum deserves anything other than being tossed on the side of the street? Really? Read the rest of this post...

4.2 million accounts breached

During the authorization process? Pathetic.

A security breach at an East Coast supermarket chain exposed 4.2 million credit and debit card numbers and led to 1,800 cases of fraud, the Hannaford Bros. grocery chain announced Monday.

Read the rest of this post...

Bad Journalist Erases Evidence of Bad Journalism

As Joe noted earlier, Bill Kristol repeated some made-up stuff today in the NYT and then fabricated a thesis around it. Now Greg at TPM Election Central reports that Kristol's source got caught trying to wash his hands of the mess.

Ronald Kessler apparently edited his own Wikipedia entry to remove references to today's Newsmax/Kristol debacle. Greg writes:

I checked in with Kessler himself, and he confirmed that he had done the deed. He said he'd cut out the reference to his own fact-bungling because it also contained a reference to an article criticizing him for his stance on torture -- and that all of this was part of the same "left-wing" assault.

Greg also points out that Kessler's entry has already been changed back to make sure it's accurate.

I'm not at all surprised a "journalist" with a loose commitment to facts thinks it's ok to alter the truth about himself online.

I am, however, a little surprised Kessler didn't consider he'd get caught. How many times do we have to revisit the Wikipedia transparency tale? Maybe if Kessler's determined to alter the truth, he should have a chat with Brian Chase, various Congressional staffers, or the anonymous Chris Benoit editor about why doing it on Wikipedia is such a lousy idea . Read the rest of this post...

Voters in Florida won't be Mailing it in

The AP is reporting that the Florida mail-in do-over plan is dead:

Florida Democratic Party chairwoman Karen L. Thurman sent a letter announcing the decision.

"A party-run primary or caucus has been ruled out, and it's simply not possible for the state to hold another election, even if the party were to pay for it," Thurman said. "... This doesn't mean that Democrats are giving up on Florida voters. It means that a solution will have to come from the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee, which is scheduled to meet again in April."

Being a South Florida native, I have to agree with this decision. I'd vote Florida the state least likely to be able to get its political act together in time. Read the rest of this post...

It will be a Clinton-initiated, Clinton-led civil war

Markos has an important post, The Clinton civil war, that sums up how a lot of Democrats are feeling these days. Bottom line is that by any marker, Hillary cannot win the nomination. But, she's pursuing a slash and burn campaign anyway.

The traditional media is playing up the Obama-Clinton battle. And, the Clinton campaign is playing along with them. Reporters and pundits know the reality - Hillary can't win - but it's good for ratings to keep this battle going. In terms of what is really happening, the media pack is behind the curve on the Democratic race.

Sure, Clinton will win Pennsylvania -- she should win it by 15 or 20 points. So what? Clinton supporter Governor Rendell said either Clinton or Obama will win his state in November. And even with a huge Pennsylvania victory, Hillary will still lose to Obama in the overall delegate count, and THAT is the standard for victory. Pennsylvania is now irrelevant because Hillary lost this race many states, and many weeks, ago.

Hillary won't win the nomination without some machination - Markos calls it a coup, and he's right - that will result in a Democratic Party civil war. And, that seems fine by her as Markos explains:

It is Clinton, with no reasonable chance of victory, who is fomenting civil war in order to overturn the will of the Democratic electorate. As such, as far as I'm concerned, she doesn't deserve "fairness" on this site. All sexist attacks will be dealt with -- those will never be acceptable. But otherwise, Clinton has set an inevitably divisive course and must be dealt with appropriately.

To reiterate, she cannot win without overturning the will of the national Democratic electorate and fomenting civil war, and she doesn't care.

That's why she has earned my enmity and that of so many others. That's why she is bleeding super delegates. That's why she's even bleeding her own caucus delegates (remember, she lost a delegate in Iowa on Saturday). That's why Keith Olbermann finally broke his neutrality. That's why Nancy Pelosi essentially cast her lot with Obama. That's why Democrats outside of the Beltway are hoping for the unifying Obama at the top of the ticket, and not a Clinton so divisive, she is actually working to split her own party.

Meanwhile, Clinton and her shrinking band of paranoid holdouts wail and scream about all those evil people who have "turned" on Clinton and are no longer "honest power brokers" or "respectable voices" or whatnot, wearing blinders to reality, talking about silly little "strikes" when in reality, Clinton is planning a far more drastic, destructive and dehabilitating civil war.

People like me have two choices -- look the other way while Clinton attempts to ignite her civil war, or fight back now, before we cross that dangerous line. Honestly, it wasn't a difficult choice. And it's clear, looking at where the super delegates, most bloggers, and people like Olbermann are lining up, that the mainstream of the progressive movement is making the same choice.

And the more super delegates see what is happening, and what Clinton has in store, the more imperative it is that they line up behind Obama and put an end to it before it's too late.

NOTE FROM JOHN: Amen. Read the rest of this post...

Reps. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Kendrick Meek should be working to elect Democrats, not coddling their GOP friends

Over the weekend, DavidNYC wrote a very important post at DailyKos and he's followed up with another today about two powerful Florida Democrats, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Rep. Kendrick Meek, who are refusing to support three strong Democratic candidates for Congress in South Florida. Even worse, Wasserman-Schultz has a key position at the DCCC. This is beyond appalling. These two Florida Democratic members of Congress are actually helping to re-elect three Republicans.

Both Wasserman Schultz and Meek are also strong supporters of Senator Clinton -- and both have campaigned relentlessly for her, making frequent appearances on cable shows. In fact, Wasserman-Schultz led the calls for Samantha Powers to resign:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) said Obama had set a tone for this campaign and had talked about the politics of hope throughout, so it should not degenerate into "name calling," which she said was the result of frustration and anger from his losses Tuesday. She called it "below the belt" and "out of bounds."

Actually, Congresswoman, supporting Republicans should be "below the belt" and "out of bounds."

No wonder we don't win Florida in the general election. Key Democratic congressional leaders help Republicans. That has to stop. Read the rest of this post...

Clinton campaign details Hillary's faults

One of the first rules of media and public relations work is "don't repeat the negative charges against you." Meaning, if someone asks "aren't you an idiot?", you do not reply "no, I'm not an idiot," but rather, you respond "I'm actually quite intelligent and here's why."

Well, the Clinton campaign, attempting to convince us that Obama is black, I mean, too uppity, I mean, too negative, sent an email to a number of bloggers detailing all the horribly negative things Obama has said about Hillary. (This, intending to convince us that Obama is actually just as nasty as Hillary, if not moreso.) Included in that email was the following list of charges about Hillary that Obama and his supporters have leveled. I'll list, and comment on them, in turn:

"Disingenuous" - uh, yeah


"Too polarizing to win" - uh, YEAH. Biggest negatives of any candidate, nearly half the country has said they will refuse to vote for her, the only candidate that can rejuvenate the dispirited right-wing and send our candidates in red states down the drain.

'Divisive' - Yeah, she certainly hasn't caused any division amongst Democrats, including the 25% of her supporters who now say they won't vote for our party's candidate in the fall, and her donors who are now extorting the DNC.

"Untruthful" - Peace in Ireland, anyone?

"Dishonest" - She created the children's health insurance program after she opposed it.

'Calculating' - Does anyone really believe that Hillary is a hawk?

"Saying and doing whatever it takes to win" - I hear that John McCain would make a great president, especially compared to that black guy.

"Attempting to deceive the American people" - See Norther Ireland, SCHIP, and the death-defying USO tour in Kosovo with Sinbad, Cheryl Crow and Chelsea.

"One of the most secretive politicians in America" - Tax returns are for the little people.

"Literally willing to do anything to win" - Delegate counts are for the little people.

"Playing politics with war" - Unlike you and me, Hillary lived through September 11.

Read the rest of this post...

Kristol now says "I regret the error" about Obama

As reported earlier today, Bill Kristol made what Marc Ambinder a "major, prejudicial error" about Obama in his NY Times column today. Kristol has acknowleged -- and regrets -- the error. Kristol should regret the error. Kristol should never have made the error in the first place:

In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama camapaign has provided information showing that Senator Obama did not attend Trinity that day. I regret the error.

Has Kristol learned that the right wing site, NewsMax, might not be a reliable source? Has the NY Times learned that Kristol isn't reliable? Read the rest of this post...

How can Cheney be greeted as a liberator if he only makes "surprise visits" to Baghdad?

If things were going so well -- five years later -- why would Cheney need a surprise visit? Cheney was so confident about being greeted as a liberator, why does he sneak into Iraq? Why not announce the visit in advance so the Iraqis can plan the parade?:

Vice President Cheney made an unannounced visit to Baghdad this morning, just two days before the five-year anniversary of the start of the war, to push Iraqi leaders to do more to resolve the political disputes still driving the conflict.

Since McCain and Cheney are both in Iraq, I have to post this video again:
Read the rest of this post...

Krugman: The big bailout is coming

It's not if, it's when. The only question left is how well we implement the bailout. Do we trust the people who led is into this abyss to do it properly? I sure as hell don't, but that's probably what we're going to get. In case I haven't mentioned it in the last ten minutes, McCain's economic team is central to the economic problems we are facing, so don't forget it.

As Bear goes, so will go the rest of the financial system. And if history is any guide, the coming taxpayer-financed bailout will end up costing a lot of money.

The U.S. savings and loan crisis of the 1980s ended up costing taxpayers 3.2 percent of G.D.P., the equivalent of $450 billion today. Some estimates put the fiscal cost of Japan’s post-bubble cleanup at more than 20 percent of G.D.P. — the equivalent of $3 trillion for the United States.

If these numbers shock you, they should. But the big bailout is coming. The only question is how well it will be managed.

Read the rest of this post...

Bill Kristol's column contains "a major, prejudicial error" about Obama

Marc Ambinder exposes "a major, prejudicial error" in today's NY Times column by right wing warmonger Bill Kristol. Clearly, Kristol didn't check his facts (not that facts would matter to Kristol). Kristol asserts that Obama "was in fact in the pews" at his church on July 22nd during one of Rev. Wright's sermons. But, Obama wasn't. He was in Florida. Kristol's source -- and I'm not kidding -- was the wingnut site, NewsMax. That has to be a first for the NY Times.

Pretty big mistake for something that could so easily be verified, as Ambinder notes:

Now, a simple Google search suggests that Obama spent most of the day in Miami. But a simple e-mail or telephone call to Obama's campaign might have cleared things up.

It's an especially big mistake given the context. The NY Times just let Kristol spew misinformation from its op-ed pages. He leveled a serious charge against Obama without checking the evidence. Doesn't the Times now fire reporters who make stuff up?

UPDATE 10:35 a.m.: Still no correction from Kristol or the NY Times. The website of the Times is updated every minute, it seems. Apparently, there is a new standard for facts on the Times op-ed page for Kristol (and his NewsMax sources.) Maybe the op-ed page editor should do a little googling and find the facts that evade Kristol. Try the terms "Obama" "Miami" "July 22" and "La Raza." Read the rest of this post...

Bank of England injects $10 billion into UK banks

Let the market self regulate? This is getting to be painfully expensive and there is no end in sight.

The Bank of England said it would offer five billion pounds of three-day funds later on Monday in an exceptional fine-tuning operation designed to bring overnight interest rates down.

"This action is being taken in response to conditions in the short-term money markets this morning," the Bank said in a statement.

Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Duit. That's Happy St. Patrick's Day in Irish...(and it's the Irish language, not Gaelic.)

So, this should be a wild week. Bush has really been lying about the economy, too. I mean, we're approaching Iraq war level lies. It is really hard to fathom the damage he has done to America. And, don't forget, McCain repeatedly told us that the economy is not his strong suit.

McCain has to file his February FEC report this week -- by March 20th. We'll see if McCain is breaking the campaign finance laws. If he's busted the spending cap -- meaning he spent over $54 million -- it's a crime.

All that should keep us busy.... Read the rest of this post...

Where will Iraq fit in during the bailout?

McCain and Cheney are both visiting Iraq, highlighting their commitment to that black hole of spending. Bear Stearns has just had to be bailed out and sold and there are bad rumors everywhere about a few other overstretched, poorly managed Wall Street names including Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch. It's obvious that a bailout/rescue/money pit is being geared up for those companies as well, possibly others. These are the financial institutions that were chugging along with major assets.

A bailout is not going to be cheap so where is the money going to come from? As a country, how can we afford Iraq, Wall Street bailouts plus the normal services that Americans want, need and deserve? It's obvious taxes now have to go up thanks to Republican mismanagement of the economy but that's only just the start. Read the rest of this post...

World markets respond to Bernanke's latest knee jerk rate cut

And it ain't pretty. The dollar crashes to yet another new low, oil jumps yet again and all of the major markets in Asia and Europe are selling and deep into red. We are all supposed to be impressed because Bear Stearns execs are being shoved out the door without the usual golden parachute. Sure, it's a start but considering the money they've all made from pushing junk the last few years, it doesn't even matter. Their actions went well beyond not deserving a golden parachute.

But hey, Wall Street can surely drum up a few more laughs about Spitzer. Did you know he had sex with a prostitute? Keep talking about sex so Wall Street, the Fed and Paulson can pull a few more fast ones on all of us. Read the rest of this post...