"Andrew Leonard surveys the vast expanse of the economic, social and political expanse of the 20th Century and lands upon . . . Willie Horton."

Boy, that is a very odd reading of his essay. Take a throwaway line and try to turn it into the main point. Strange.

"Got a survey of what Blacks think about interracial anything?

-as compared to caucasians, yellows and other colors."

Interracial "anything"? Whatever that means. Well, if you are really interested in finding out you could look it up. It shouldn't be that hard.

Because Gore is neither a professional nor amateur liar.

"Avoided becoming a professional thief and liar."

You may have avoided becoming a professional liar, as opposed to being one here, but that's not saying much. I'll give you some credit and take your word about not being a thief.

"Yeah, that could be it. Or perhaps they realized how ridiculous they looked when they self-righteously rushed to judgment at the start of the case and felt that it would be best to lie low and keep their traps shut in hopes that most of the public would forget about it? Yeah, that could be it too."

Yeah that probably is it for you but in reality, they didn't issue another clarification because they didn't feel they needed to after they issued the one in Jan. Now, despite your bluster, the fact that you didn't know about the one in Jan. is your problem.

"Oh, and the Attorney General didn't just drop the charges, he declared the three accused young men to be innocent. That might sound like a minor semantic quibble but anyone with any knowledge of the law will tell you that it's not."

Yeah so? I knew that but it still doesn't support your contention/claim/whatever that the so-called "gang of 88" should have issued another clarification, but then again, you didn't know about the first one. Oh well....

"Even AFTER that, the Group of 88 issued no correction, clarification, apology, retraction--nothing. Utter silence for assassinating the characters of a bunch of kids."

That's somewhat misleading and a bit untrue. They issued a clarification in Jan. of the original ad they placed last year. Now they didn't issue a further clarification after the State Atty General dropped the charges. I guess they didn't want to get to on the perpetual correction/clarification/apology/retraction train.

"OK, everyone needs to back off of him for his Group of 88 reference, because although it was a stretched and strained comparison, there is enough of a similarity there to make a valid point about irresponsible journalism and rushing to judgment, let alone media character assassinations."

Nobody needs to "back off" at all. Who died and made you the boss of this thread? Mike Pace first made his ridiculous comparison as an anon potshot and when called on it he came out from under the covers and offered a silly explanation for his comparison. Stretched and strained is putting it very kindly.

"O'Reilly was blaming an underage male sex assault and kidnapping victim for enjoying his predicament--despicable and far more extreme, to be sure. The Group of 88, however, DID publish an inflammatory manifesto that presumed the guilt of the Duke lacrosse players before all the facts of the case were known--hell, before nothing more than the basic outlines of the accusation were known. The accused players were vilified and crucified by many in the rush to judgment in that case, only to be fully exonerated at a later date when it became clear that it was a false accusation and they'd been the victims of prosecutorial malfeasance on a grand scale. Even AFTER that, the Group of 88 issued no correction, clarification, apology, retraction--nothing. Utter silence for assassinating the characters of a bunch of kids."

Your comparison doesn't make sense. O'Reilly's blame came after it was established that the kid was a victim. IOW, the facts were known and he was being a dirtbag as usual. OTOH, most of the so-called "Group of 88" blather is just part of the tiresome propaganda battle around the Duke Case - like calling the ad they placed in the student paper an "inflamatory manifesto".

Whatever your feelings, they placed the ad which, was much more broader than the purposeful misreading you're applying to it, before the facts were known and, more importantly, they were entitled to their opinion just like everybody else in the court of public opinion. They didn't make or file the false charge. The only people who should apologize are the DA and the accuser. Period. The rest is noise.

"I suspect that Mikes Pace is getting the reaction he got for much the same reason--plenty of posters here simply refuse to admit how wrong they were about the Duke lacrosse case, so they have to lash out at anyone who dares bring it up."

No, Mike is getting the reaction because, as you stated, he made a "stretched and strained comparison" that, despite your insistence otherwise, is not similar enough to make a valid point.

Indeed. Though it is amusing to see Mike Pace come out from behind an anon cloak to offer a tortured and absurd rationale for his ridiculous comparison.

I said "core" players but perhaps I should have said "most" responsible as well.