Exactly, like the British citing Berlusconi as the default 'scumbag', the 'worst' of all politicians exploiting the media....at least Italian prosecutors like Spataro are addressing their own corruption

Der Spiegel has a fascinating article about Amando Spataro and his laborious 5 year effort to nail the CIA and their Italian counterparts complicit in the extraordinary renditions kidnapping of Egyptian suspected terrorist Abu Omar.

Tony Blair, in the early 90's had a chance to cut Murdoch off at his knees but made a deal with Rupert that if the Sun would support him, he wouldn't apply pressure to his ever increasing media empire. Now he's created the platform for our radical right like Palin and Beck...

Maybe the source requested anonymity, but Smith doesn't say so; or maybe we are supposed to understand that Politico runs on the Russert standard that sources can assume anonymity unless they request otherwise.

So I put this more on Politico. The unintended irony is pretty squarely on the source, but the presumed/automatic anonymity disease is more on journos, it's a standard of their choosing.

I also wouldn't put it past Smith to have artificially juxtaposed the Weiner comment and the WH response (to a deliberately provocative framing of the question), because Democratic Infighting = DRUDGE = $Traffic$.

It's crappy journalism either way, and lousy PR on the part of the WH, but it's pretty emblematic of the way news is manufactured these days.

Maybe the source requested anonymity, but Smith doesn't say so; or maybe we are supposed to understand that Politico runs on the Russert standard that sources can assume anonymity unless they request otherwise.

I don't doubt that Politico runs on a modified version of the Russert standard when it comes to anonymity -- anyone who wants it is presumptively entitled to it -- but I highly doubt Smith just imposed it on this person who didn't ask. Smith would have an even more dramatic, inflammatory and attention-getting story had it been a specific, identifiable WH official slamming Weiner rather than an anonymous one.

How far are we already enmeshed in a Big Brother culture, and don't know. It's like the line from The Usual Suspects, the devil's best trick was convincing people he doesn't exist. How much power was assumed under The Patriot Act? How can we know for certain?Is this being paranoid?

Why didn't this anonymous White House official address Rep. Weiner's point on its merits? Jon Corzine was deeply unpopular in New Jersey, and was losing throughout most of (if not the entire) campaign season against a pretty horrendous candidate in Chris Christie. Though Mayor Bloomberg was definitely the favorite in his race, he wasn't exactly doing stellar with New York City voters himself, and he essentially had to buy their votes.

It's debatable whether or not Obama campaigning for William Thompson would have made a difference in the race's final vote tally, and it's also possible that Obama didn't want to endorse Bloomberg's opponent because he figured that Bloomberg might be a high-profile endorsement in 2012. Those are, however, completely hypothetical discussions. Why not ask them? What's wrong with Rep. Weiner entertaining the thought that Obama endorsing Thompson could have made a difference? Why does this official have to react with knee-jerk disdain when it's perfectly legitimate to suppose that campaigning for an unpopular Corzine may have been wasted time?

In addition to their realization after the fact that Bloomberg would have been beatable with the appropriate candidate and campaign, the White House no doubt is still miffed at Weiner for his strong advocacy of the public option. Weiner published, on his House website, a list of 150 Republicans who are fighting hard against the public option but for themselves use a government-funded single-payer program for their health care. Such "manning-up" just can't be tolerated when the White House is working so hard behind the scenes to gut the public option.

"Maybe Anthony Weiner should have manned-up and run against Michael Bloomberg," shot back a White House official….

So, Weiner should enter a campaign against a deep-pocketed incumbent while knowing that he would not likely receive the support of his party in the race! This White House official seems to believe that “manning up” entails acting with reckless stupidity.

It helps to pick battles to fight when one might win something tangible. Weiner seemingly did that when he did not run against Bloomberg and when he criticized the White House for politicking.

I was an undergraduate journalism major right outside DC not too long ago, and my professors, most of whom were DC reporting veterans, were whole heartedly against anonymous reporting. I wanted to do a big project on the economics of drug dealing on campus, and would have been able to get great sources, but obviously they would have wanted anonymity, so the whole thing was a non-starter.

Most of these professors were from the 'old school' as it were, and I hope they would be applying those same standards to any political reporters working under them now. The level of anonymity in political reporting is getting absurd (I'm reminded of the official whitehouse briefing a few months ago given by four anonymous officials). I don't see what can be done about it though- the ombudsmen I've written agree with me, but the reporters don't seem to have any reason to change if it just means their leads will dry up and go to someone else. What can be done?

day after day?

hypocrite after hypocrite?

i was thinking just this morning that i need to stay away from all politics for a while because i am so so depressed. obama is a huge disappointment. republicans won last night. maine decided to continue to be bigots.

it just feels like rome is burning. and only a few people care.

so thanks for all that you do. i just don't know how you remain sane.

Another reason these forums need edit features. feel free to delete one of them (and this one too)

So, this anonymous White House official doesn't have the courage of their bitchy pettiness?

Perhaps, in polite company, the acting assumption ought to be that all such sulking sour words were muttered by the White House Chief of Staff? After all, if Rahn doesn't this drek out there he would be running tighter ship.