I'm willing to bet that Chris Matthews and the gang will be harping on Drudge's version for the rest of the week: Any takers?

The DNC has no motive to promote Nagin over Landrieu. If anything, it's the opposite. Landrieu was seen by the Democratic party as a rising star. Nagin also had more high profile Republican endorsements than Landrieu.

More important than the whereabouts of Karl Rove, has anyone seen Patrick Fitzgerald since the alleged meeting? Have there been any sightings of mysterious jet's taking off for locations unknown since the meeting? After all, I'm pretty sure that indicting Karl Rove is a treasonous offense, and just being a U.S. citizan is not going to prevent Patrick's extraordinary rendition to Uzbekistan...

OK, we're all looking forward to when we have answers rather than speculation.

"Wonkette has the not-so-interesting answer: He was headed to a fundraiser for Republicans in a northern Chicago suburb."

This is completely inconclusive. Secondary purposes for travel are a long-used practice by visible White House figures; when the president wants to attend a political fundraiser on the public's dime, needs to inspect a school or something in the neighborhood sometimes are noticed to reduce the cost; it works the other way, too.

The 'need' to attend a Chicago funraiser would be an easy cover for the primary purpose of a visit to Fitzgerald.

Or, not. That's the thing, we don't know, and can prety much just look for patterns of 'coincidence'.

So what exactly is Matt Drudge? A blogger? A journalist? A gossip columnist? A stenographer? This guy has been peddling conservative right-wing Republican talking points and channeling their smear campaigns for some time now. Odd that until the progressives started fighting back and responding through their own media outlets, the regular corporate press wasn't much concerned about the "competition" posed by such alternate sources of information. Is it because they didn't take him seriously, or because they, for the most part, had the same sources and perhaps held the same views?

The Al Gore "scoop" is hardly on the same level as the Rove scoop...even if true, which apparently it is not. The Rove story is yet to be played out, and Mr. Leopold has yet to proved wrong. To present both as somehow equal in import smacks of conservative media bias.

Why are we fighting? Aren't we supposed to be on the same side? Don't progressive bloggers want the same thing--the elimination of this fascist government?

Unfortunately, Tim Grieve is being a bit deceptive in today's War Room article about the Rove indictment issue when he writes: Truthout's Jason Leopold said last week that he had "five sources" to back him up. In its latest defense of the story, Truthout says it "now" has "three independent sources" who confirm what Rove's team denies.

Yes, Jason Leopold - who wrote the initial Rove indictment story - said he has 5 sources. Today's article, however, was written by TruthOut Executive Director Marc Ash. It's Ash - not Leopold - who says he has 3 independent sources. Moreover, if a person cares enough to look back at the TruthOut history on this issue (and Tim Grieve should have) he or she will also see that Marc Ash explains those above-mentioned three sources as being from major media outlets (reporters who can't report about this on their own outlets for fear of reprisals). Ash also says they have other sources "of their own" and, thus, both articles are correct.

Leopold had sources when he wrote the first article. It resulted in a rash of media responses - some clearly initiated by Rove and his crew to try to discredit TruthOut and buy time while Rove and his attorneys try to figure a way out of the situation - and it also resulted in additional credible sources backing up TruthOut's story.

Let's forget about the one-upmanship and get together, combine forces, and get the real message out to the public which is starving for someone to tell them the truth!