N.Y. Times' Editor Bill Keller Responds to McCain Flap

"In more than 26 years at six newspapers and one wire service as a reporter and editor, I can't tell you how many times I've known reporters, excellent reporters, who were convinced that a piece was ready to roll, totally nailed down, only to be told that they needed to do more reporting. Or that the article needed to be rewritten or reorganized or broadened."

Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias is with the put-up-or-shut-up crowd:

"If they have reporting they're willing to stand behind of a McCain-Iseman affair, they should publish it. And if, as seems to be the case, they don't have the reporting, then they shouldn't write the story."

Journalism professor Jay Rosen isn't awarding a high trade:

"Lots of people will be asking: did the Times have the goods, enough facts to even run this story? . . . I notice that the Washington Post essentially ran the same story, minus the innuendo about an affair . . . Which makes me wonder why the Times didn't run a G-rated version scrupulously free of tabloid stuff . . .

"Any report alleging a damaging affair by a current presidential candidate needs to be air tight and locked down, especially when the events in it date from two election cycles ago. But for this purpose the Times has only anonymous sources; that makes me nervous."

The Quiet Debate

With Hillary Clinton clinging to a 48-47 lead over Barack Obama in Texas, and 50-43 in Ohio, according to a WP/ABC poll, I thought she might come out swinging in last night's CNN debate. But when she was asked about her own criticism that Obama isn't ready to be commander in chief -- and insisted on turning the question into the 400th rehash of her health-care argument -- I knew she was keeping the gloves on.

Chicago Tribune: "Barack Obama defended his presidential campaign style as more than just inspirational, and Hillary Clinton got a mixed reaction when she told a debate audience Thursday night that her rival's use of borrowed oratory makes his call for change as genuine as a Xerox copy."

NYT: "Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama veered from collegial to clenched and combative in a debate on Thursday, with Mrs. Clinton turning especially aggressive as she all but accused Mr. Obama of plagiarism and derided his political message as 'change you can Xerox.'

"Mr. Obama, buoyed by 11 straight victories in the most recent nominating contests, sought to maintain a positive tone throughout, though at one point he accused Mrs. Clinton of suggesting that his supporters were 'delusional' or 'being duped' by his themes of hope and unity."

Boston Globe: "Barack Obama last night was wonky and detailed enough to set heads nodding in Capitol committee rooms, but delivered probably the most effectively boring debate performance in recent presidential politics."

As for Clinton's emotional close, where she said she was honored to share the stage with Obama, Marc Ambinder writes: "This was the night where we all learned that Hillary Clinton understands the moment in history we are in, and that she is smart enough and gracious enough to realize that her party is more important than personal vanity, that there are things she just cannot say about Obama because it would hurt him in the fall, and that more likely than not, she will not win the nomination."

That occurred to me as well: She doesn't want to lose ugly.