The thinking that goes into whether a media outlet has deemed something 'newsworthy' appears to have been corrupted. The newsworthiness of the Articles should not be dependent upon the reporter's predictions about what will happen with them. The journalist should simply report the historic fact that they are being considered at all. It is fine to comment upon the Republican insistence that the articles represent the 'loony Left', but in addition to that statement, and the statement from Kuchinich, a good objective reporter might want to consider the substance of the allegations.

Downplaying the significance is a way for Koppelman to play along with the transcriptive nature of modern journalism. Koppelman is essentially ceding his judgment about what is important to politicians, rather than listening to what his readers say.

That is a curious notion of 'newsworthiness' indeed.

Recent polls suggest that Obama in fact has a comfortable lead over McCain. He's gotten a nice bounce since clinching the nomination. "Some people" even think that, absent continual attacks by Clinton supporters, he'll win easily.

Could you consider deleting all the off-topic comments by "theplanner"? They appear to be generated by a 'bot, and they have no visible connection to this column.

Rondo must have had a terrific +- before he was injured in Game 3. The Cs have been noticeably worse with him on the court in Game 4 and Game 5. I don't have the exact numbers, but Rondo started both games while the Lakers were pulling way ahead, and was sitting on the bench during all the comebacks.

Before he was injured, it was clear that Rondo was the best option at the point, since he was the quickest, the best passer, and played the best D of the three options (including Cassell and House). With the ankle injury, Rondo is much slower, and that's making a huge impact on his defense and his ability to attack.

I know Doc is a big man for staying loyal, but I think Rondo would be an extremely short leash in Game 6, presuming he starts at all. One thing we do know about Doc is that he'll bury anybody on the bench if he thinks that player is playing sub-par.

As for all the KG-bashing: don't confuse great offense with great play. KG did not have a great Game 5, but OTOH, he was the only consistent Celtic at all in the Hawks and Cavs series, while both Pierce and Allen were mired in miserable shooting slumps. I know that hype is a transient thing, but let's not start elevating Pierce far above KG. Right now, I would vote Pierce for Finals MVP, but that hardly means KG has not been important. And aside from his poor free throw shooting in Game 5, he's been damned good most of the time.

I would not be surprised to see him with 25 points, 15 rebounds, and 8 blocks in Game 6,

No, really, it is.

Russert, like most of the leading journalists of his generation, inherited the tradition of excellent journalism of the WWII generation (Morrow, Cronkite, Chancellor, et al.) and basically did nothing to keep the momentum moving.

Russert's brand of journalism consisted of talking to powerful people deferentially and letting them say whatever they wanted with little serious fact-checking. Every once it a while, he would toss out a "gotcha" question, but usually this was done to Democrats, and usually the general tone of his coverage served establishment politics.

First and foremost, Tim Russert was an employee of GE. He was quite content to let his coverage fit in with the political desires of Jack Welch and his successors at GE. Russert was not a journalist at the level of Halberstam. His testimony during the Libby trial made the clear. Russert's attitude towards journalism was drenched in deference to those in power.

And it really is not inappropriate to point that out, if the ongoing hagiography loses touch with reality. Respect is something that needs to be earned, and if Russert hasn't managed to do that to the satisfaction of a good number of Salon's readers, perhaps the Editors should note this, rather than feel obliged to suppress the information.

It really is sad that the Editors prefer bland praise over pointed criticism.

Using ALL CAPS is a good way to alienate readers..

Nobody cares any more how much money Obama spent in Pennsylvania.

This choice is Obama's to make. It is very rare for the Presidential nominee to choose the runner-up as his VP candidate, and it is rarer still for the nominee to pick a running mate who had a higher public profile than he did at the beginning of the year.

Obama needs to pick a person who will be perceived to be a deferential team player. Based on the way Clinton ran her campaign, and her connection to the old guard in the DLC (which is amply represented on Salon), it is very hard to see Clinton filling that role.

The poison of DLC thinking can be seen in the various commenters who apparently think that the only way Obama can win is by adding Clinton to the ticket. Recent polls demonstrating this to be a false assumption are simply ignored. (If I have to hear about another sub-demographic cherry picked to make Obama look bad, I'll scream. No, white suburban moms are not uniquely positioned to decide the election.)

Clinton supporters and DLC types are trapped in a historical fallacy. All they remember clearly is the history since the 70s, and so they think that the US is a nation inevitably and inexorably politically position to be right-of-center. And so they inevitably cooperate with the right and never fight for left-of-center ideas. The fact that right-of-center ideas have been failing miserably for the past 8 years is something that these people throw out of their consideration.

The possibility that the nation might be positioned to move away from conservative ideology is something that is never considered.