I bet Edwards spends less per hair than Cheney, Thompson or Guiliani.

John Solomon = dirty media whore

Wow, Solomon is getting really good at rewriting those republican talking points. Of course, he should stay a bit more current, todays memo is still dealing with Scooter.

Journalists like John Solomon...

I don't usually post-edit the blogger, but maybe you should write it as:

"Journalists" like...

If there's not yet an award for the most vacuous political article of the year, there needs to be one - with an appropriately vacuous prize.

George W. Bush had the makeup/hair person from the television show Austin City Limits doing him during the 2000 campaign, at considerable expense. Where was Mr. Solomon then? Why wouldn't Mr. Solomon hold that up in contrast to the attention on Edwards, and then ask why the difference? That would be 1) intellectually honest, and 2) deserving of column inches in a national newspaper. But, then, neither of those goals have seemed to be guiding lights to Solomon.

George W. Bush had the makeup/hair person from the television show Austin City Limits doing him during the 2000 campaign, at considerable expense. Where was Mr. Solomon then? Why wouldn't Mr. Solomon hold that up in contrast to the attention on Edwards, and then ask why the difference? That would be 1) intellectually honest, and 2) deserving of column inches in a national newspaper. But, then, neither of those goals have seemed to be guiding lights to Solomon.

George W. Bush had the makeup/hair person from the television show Austin City Limits doing him during the 2000 campaign, at considerable expense. Where was Mr. Solomon then? Why wouldn't Mr. Solomon hold that up in contrast to the attention on Edwards, and then ask why the difference? That would be 1) intellectually honest, and 2) deserving of column inches in a national newspaper. But, then, neither of those goals have seemed to be guiding lights to Solomon.

Thersites!

where were you in "Troy"? Sadly underpresent! No Gods and no Theresites. No wonder it was heartless blovating.

I would love to do the Iliad right. And YOU would be right there!

sorry
off topic.

of course Solomon is a media whore
and Friedman over at the times is also apparently incapable of experiencing embarrasement.

What the hell is going on?

It seems that nearly every blog comment nowadays is paying special attention to John Solomon's incontinence. Across the entire Internet, the shameful state of John Solomon's bladder control, and his inability to keep from near-constant urination on himself, is attracting far more notice than his journalism. It speaks volumes about our culture that Solomon is more noted for the allegations of embarrassing public urination incidents than for his articles.

Whether Solomon's incontinence is as serious as suspected is still a matter of some doubt, but unconfirmed reports suggest that he has, indeed, urinated on several occasions. Blog commentors everywhere are keeping a close eye on Solomon's bodily functions, leading many to wonder whether a major newspaper can afford to hire a reporter who may wet himself multiple times during an interview.

I see this problem as one in which the fish is rotting at the head.

Truly, what can you expect of journalists in general when the "paper of record", the NY Times, proudly employs a columnist, Maureen Dowd, whose sole distinguishing feature is her ability and willingness to reduce politics to tabloid level celebrity gossip and snark?

If the NY Times so obviously countenances this kind of commentary, and like reporting, on what grounds can other news organizations say no to it?

Somewhere, somebody in journalism has to stand up and say that such gossip trivializes and damages our political process. If the NY Times, pompous with morality and utterly full of itself when it suits its purposes, nonetheless endorses it, what hope is there that it will end elsewhere?

It may seem lamentable now, but when the unstoppable Hair Force propels Edwards to the White House, he'll get the last laugh.

George Bush's hair calculation when JFKerry's $70 haircut was deemed too expensive as in not factoring in the Watergate Hotel's hairstylist's transportation back and forth, haircuts missed (a standard rider), tip, products used -- standard fare that would have likely have brought this past the Edwards mark.

She also did GHW Bush's hair, so presumably Junior's hagiographers working the "Regular Guy" myth were hiding the vast portion of largesse that rug. And what kind of schmuck doesn't pay for a working person's transpo or leave a tip? Talk about cheap labor conservatives.

Edwards is someone they'd love to have in their stable. (Make of that double entendre what you will.)

Solomon was probably instructed to write something critical about Edwards. He doesn't understand Edwards' anti-poverty policy so this is what he came up with.

Solomon should write for The Enquirer or Entertainment Weekly.

...it's a lot like Anderson Cooper on CNN and his half-hour lament of the coverage of Paris Hilton.

This letter to Poynter points out that the original headline for the article was "Edwards's Hair Stylist Takes It From The Top". The headline was then altered.

I wonder how much Romney spends on his well-groomed head of hair. Seems Solomon might turn his attention to that coif.

I want to thank Solomon for proving that this haircut thing is less of an issue that I first thought.

Folks we are talking about performances on television. Makeup people, hair dressers and barbers have to be imported from someplace. Because of the need for media consistency it is not surprising that Edwards imports his barber for a trim before TV performances. I bet several of them do it. Not Giuliani. He doesn't have enough hair to cut. But I bet Romney and Thompson import their hairstylists.

John get started investigating how much Thompson pays makeup person. That is a wonderful use for your team.

This wouldn't be a problem if Edwards just followed Schwarzenegger's lead and set up a charity to take care of his grooming and travel.

John Solomon is a media whore, which is a way of saying corporate employed journalist.

kla on July 5, 2007 at 10:55 AM
where were you in "Troy?"
I was in the original script, but George Clooney was busy so they had to write me out...

Brojo: now you're insulting whores!

Oh boo hoo.

You don't want press stories about $400 haircuts, don't pay $400 for a haircut. You don't want press stories about $400 haircuts being charged as a campaign expense, pay for them yourself. This is not a complicated proposition, especially for a very wealthy man like John Edwards.

There seem to be a lot of people who think that it's the media's job not to print stories that reflect unfavorably on politicians they like. Welcome to politics, folks. Criticism can be fair or unfair, substantive or trivial, but it isn't as if politicians (and the armies of consultants that politicians that politicians like Edwards have working for them) are congenitally unable to see in advance the kind of things likely to get themselves into trouble, and avoid them. Paying more to get your hair styled than your wife does, for those not paying attention, is one of those things.

John Edwards is not a victim here, not of John Solomon or anyone else. This is a guy who got into politics by winning election to a Senate seat, which he proceeded to treat as a part-time job while he prepared a Presidential candidacy. Soon after the last election cycle ended he began preparing another Presidential candidacy. So, yeah, a politician like Edwards is going to be vulnerable to the charge that he's more style than substance. How obvious is it that a politician in that position needs to avoid doing things that make it look as if he really, really values style?

But, hey, complaining about bad stories after the fact and telling all the world that the reporters who write them are being very mean could work. Right?

When Dems finish feng shui'ing their numerous war rooms so that one or two can actually work on such a thing ...

They'll do a comparison chart on what the Repug candidates pay out for hair and makeup. No fiscal dishonesty required. Having a hair/makeup person on hand for a photo-op or filming a promo is NOT cheap.

And frankly, I'd love to see how they'd spin that Fred Thompson is so manly, he puts on his own lip gloss thank you very much.

Look, we've GOT to solve this haircut problem- before we do anything about Darfur! Tell all your conservative friends!

This is a big deal that conservatives would care about!

"It's as if there is some sort of inexorable force at work here. The hair just attracts attention all on its own, like a magnet attracting metal objects. Journalists like John Solomon apparently have no role in this process."

There is a sort of point to that. People like John Solomon have no conscious intent to sabotage the political discourse, they're only writing what they (or their bosses) know sells. The popularity of tabloid journalism is combined with the pressure put upon media outlets to make a profit. The Post sees these sort of articles as necessary to making a living; the effect they have upon the political environment is seen as mere collateral damage.

Somebody- post a link in comments on LGF and Powerline. They'll solve this, somehow.

Solomon should write for The Enquirer or Entertainment Weekly. pj in jesusland at 11:13 AM

Awww...your pet media attacking the wrong party again? In the list of things showing Edwards to be rankly oblivious to his own elitism, his haircuts are the least of it.

Don't worry. I hear Edwards is going to sic his wife on Solomon.

that john edwards shure is an elitist. a hardscrabble self-made regular guy like me has much more in common with my subjecs, er, people.

that john edwards shure is an elitist. a hardscrabble self-made regular guy like me has much more in common with my subjects, er, people.

I don't know what you're confused about, Kevin.

Soloman is doing exactly what the Post is paying him to do. Undercut and damage any and all potential Democratic candidate. He gets the ball rolling and next will come the talk cable shows, the late night comedians, the network morning shows and right wing hate radio hammering on the story to keep it in the public consciousness.

And then Brian Williams will spend half of the next debate he moderates worrying about it.

******
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200705010001

Meanwhile, NBC anchor Brian Williams appeared as a guest on David Letterman's show last week where discussion soon turned to Edwards' haircut. Asked what was the most he'd ever paid for a trim, Williams responded, "probably $12."

Really? I have to pay $16, plus tip, for a trim at a little barbershop on Valley Avenue in the New Jersey 'burbs. But Williams, who lives in a restored farmhouse in Connecticut where he parks his 477-horsepower black Porsche GT2 (that is, when he's not decamping on the Upper East Side), gets his haircut for just $12. And remember, that's probably the most he's ever paid.

Williams enjoys a $10 million salary. He's a celebrity journalist and recent Men's Vogue cover boy, who, up until just a few years ago, was probably known as much for his perfectly coiffed locks as he was his reporting skills. Yet, eager to project himself as one of the guys, Williams insists his trims cost chump change.
****

I already heard Joe Scarborough this morning working it into his show multiple times.

It's okay if this is a "real story" as long as there's some journalistic integrity behind it. Meaning:
1. Across the board comparison of all R/D candidate's haircut costs and practices (tipping, travel pay, etc)
2. Qualitative/quantitative analysis and comparison of related issues -- makeup, clothes, etc. You can bet your booties that every suit these "common folk" put on costs more than a grand.
3. Halitosis/Dandruff/Eczema comparison. Wouldn't want to miss a blotch or a flake. This is important stuff.

Whatever we do, let's at least measure all the candidates. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. I mean, if these are the selection criteria for the next leader of the free world, let's make sure we're not screwing it up.

I love it when troll-types say things like "Edwards shouldn't get these haircuts because he campaigns as a populist!" and "If you don't want stories about $400 haircuts, don't get $400 haircuts!"

You seem to have forgotten how your guy Nixon got beat by Kennedy in 1960. His atrocious television appearance played a big role. These days, if you're not on TV enough that you require $400 haircuts, you probably can't even get elected to the House.

It's enough to make you long for the subtle, well-crafted, unbiased reporting of Nedra Pickler.

I bet Edward's hair cuts cost alot less that Bush's lied about war.

And of course WHY did the Washington Post reward John Solomon for writing "odd and misleading articles" that attacked Dems for things they really didn't do? John Solomon NEVER investigated, it's not his stik, anymore that Bush hearsay about WMD was Judith Miller's job to investigate - it's all about the hearsay, but if Dan Rather was fired - why hasn't Soloman been FIRED.

Bush is like the mafia, he's like Al Capone - they buy people, this administrations, or its corporate backers? Not only has Bush made the Department of Justice into a political tool for Republicans, it's seems people are being paid to make competely false claims about Dem congress members.

But what Dems in office doing about it???

IF Democratic congress members want to get re-elect - well than maybe Reid should sue Soloman and the WP or something, because it is LIBEL - something has be to done, it can't just be left to bloggers to say hey - hey, you'r lying Soloman? Obviously, the WP thinks that great and they shield law for this non-news too.

Republicans want to get rid of Dems in office and WILL lie about it, turn the DOJ into a tool for it - so why are Dems doing nothing about that? Why are they waiting for to bloggers like Benen to take up the issue?

If Harry Reid doesn't care - and he certainly is acting like he doesn't care - that I say we need better Dem representivies anyway.

Sen. Leahy doesn't really seem to care that Bush was turning the DOJ into a tool for political witchhunt for Dems congress-members, but Sen. Leahy has been slow to supboena, he waited way to long to have the Gonzales no-confidence vote, looked like smiling idiot on Meet the Press.

Sen. Leahy is acting like it's not his place and not his job to worry about what Bush's id doing to the DOJ. Sen. Leahy smile and acted like what Bush was doing was really no big deal. That bloggers are making a political fuss about nothing.

If this had happened to Republicans - they be screaming bloody murder. That person, Donna Edwards, who is running for office (to replace a do nothing Dem) sounds like she cares what the voters think, but Dems that have been in office act like its the voter job to investigate what is going on in this administration - are just too busy playing golf, or what?

My favorite media idiocy moment on the haircuts issue was CNN's plastic mannequins Kieran Botox-Lady and facially-verathaned J.D. Roberts snarfle about such vanity before TV appearnces. Their chortling was so intense they had to do the rest of the news covered the kind of facial craquelure the Mona Lisa would die for.

Our well-known strategy of turning an opponent's perceived strength into a liability only works if the press plays along, and John Solomon has played his part well---move his seat up on Air Force One, and grant him some exclusive time with Dana Perino. . .

See, we can't have a repeat of 1960 if Mr. Edwards were to end running up against Fred Thompson or Rudy Guiliani.

Although, if Romney becomes our nominee, then all of this is a nullset, and personal grooming expenditures become a valid, indeed a necessary criteria in measuring a man's fitness to be Commander-in-Chief. Did we mention that women think Mitt's hot?

Under the hair, there is no there there.

It's not an inexorable force, it's a conscious effort to keep the story alive by giving more tidbits for beltway chatterers to discuss.

and who gets haircuts that cost up to $1250 dollars, that's NEWS! It will bury him.

Despite what conservative goons want us to believe, revising the system- like making health care public- is what's going to help regular people, not John Edwards getting less expensive haircuts. Funny how it's the Republicans who work so hard in the Congress to prevent changes like that that would help so many people so easily.

My heart shall burst at any moment over poor John Edwards. The guy just wants to look good, and he gets hounded by the mean ole media. It's just not right.

Walter: Under the hair, there is no there there.\

(-: | :-)

-- Walter looking in the mirror while typing the above.

Zathras:
There seem to be a lot of people who think that it's the media's job not to print stories that reflect unfavorably on politicians they like...the reporters who write them are being very mean

No, no, no. If this were an unfavorable story about Edwards' health care proposal that examined why it wouldn't work as well as another candidate's proposal, that would be fine. John Solomon isn't being "mean;" he is, however, degrading his job by writing about ephemeral matters at the expense of the actual policy issues that matter, and what's more, he's doing it by dredging up a "story" that has been talked to death. It's not the "mean" that's the problem, it's the "stupid."

By far the stupidest part, though, is the unexamined claim that this is a major issue that's overshadowing other issues, rather than actually covering those other issues.

The Republicans should start a rich Republican tax, if they really care about how John Edwards haircuts make a difference- every Republican who has something they don't need, saya $1,250 set of golf clubs, a vacation every year when they already go on at least a couple others, a wife who gets $200 haircuts two or three times a month when she could pay less than $100- and they should set it aside, and make the donation to an individual working-class, poor person (instead of to some shady charity that has high overhead costs) in addition to any money they give to charity already.

Then we'll be able to start talking about how John Edwards' haircuts are a big problem, in comparison to everyone else's pet luxuries.

What a coincidence that WaPo and the msm continue to rehash this sort of silly crap over and over - but only when it comes to one candidate, Edwards.

It's becoming obvious that he is the one candidate who threatens the conservative status quo.

Chrissy, you nailed it. They whine about the haircuts because that's all they understand. They cannot and will not stoop to understand poverty in America or loss of jobs or the loss of the rule of law under the Asshole-in-chief and his puppetmaster. But give them a haircut story and they'll dribble it out as long as they can. It keeps coming back, like chancre sores on Coulter's nether lips.

I thank SDM just upthread for his response, but I'm not sure he got my point.

I'm no supporter of John Edwards, and I could make the same complaint about the media's coverage of him SDM has. The guy's record of using public office exclusively as a platform to campaign for higher public office is, to my mind, disqualifying as far as the Presidency is concerned, but the media barely touches on it. The media also treats Barack Obama's paper-thin record of accomplishment in public life as a mere tactical problem for his campaign, and runs more stories on Hillary Clinton's pantsuits than on the glaring fact that she is only able to run for President because she is Bill Clinton's wife.

One could make similar complaints about shallow media coverage of other candidates in both parties. My point, though, is that if you are running for President (or supporting someone who is) you can't count on the media to do your job for you. It's likewise pointless to complain that they aren't doing their job for you.

Of course, in Edwards position, it would be nice if media coverage only dwelt on those issues that present him in a favorable light -- and much of it has. The biggest positives he's gotten in the press over the last three months have been sympathetic stories about his wife's cancer, which incidentally is not much more relevant to the question of whether Edwards should be President than the haircut story is. But no candidate should count on this happening. This candidate in particular has no reason to feel cheated because the same media that rarely mentions how little Edwards has accomplished in public life doesn't push wonky stories about the policy ideas his campaign has come up with. And, again, while no candidate can avoid all bad stories a lot of them can be prevented by not doing things anyone can see are going to look embarrassing in the newspaper. A candidate who insists on doing them anyway deserves what he gets.

Dejah, please no more talk of this poverty thing. Ew, ew, ew. There is no poverty in our circle.

Fondly,

Silly

Cue Howard Kurtz.
At least the Washington Post is not doing naughty things like outing immoral lobbying companies. At least it's not populated by do-gooders like Ken Silverstein. No, the Post is doing it's bit to preserve and strengthen American democracy.

It's all sour grapes. Do they really want to call attention to hair? With the parade of bad rugs, tortured comb-overs and helmet hair that the overfed repub pale males sport, they'd sell their mothers for candy bars to have a head of hair like Edwards. (and no doubt cheat her on the split, afterwards). And how on earth did Bob Ney get that cat to lie so still on top of his head?

New RNC slogan: "what America needs is a another schmuck with bad hair."

"There seem to be a lot of people who think that it's the media's job not to print stories that reflect unfavorably on politicians they like."

Complete and total bullshit, since nobody here has said (or believes) anything even remotely resembling that. Why don't you try addressing the very real and very substantial objections to this story instead of just making shit up? Your entire post was nothing but strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks, neither of which I'm going to dignify with a response.

"The media also treats Barack Obama's paper-thin record of accomplishment in public life as a mere tactical problem for his campaign, and runs more stories on Hillary Clinton's pantsuits than on the glaring fact that she is only able to run for President because she is Bill Clinton's wife."

LOL... In your own completely unbiased opinion, no doubt.

Come back when you've actually got something to say other than the mindless drivel you've come up with so far because, right now, you're just embarrassing yourself.

Under the hair, there is no there there. Walter E. Wallis at 1:35 PM

…A toughly worded cable sent from the embassy to State Department headquarters on May 29 highlights a cascade of building and safety blunders in a new facility to house the security guards protecting the embassy. The guards' base, which remains unopened today, is just a small part of a $592 million project to build the largest U.S. embassy in the world.
The main builder of the sprawling, 21-building embassy is First Kuwaiti General Trade and Contracting Co., a Middle Eastern firm that is already under Justice Department scrutiny over alleged labor abuses. First Kuwaiti also erected the guard base, prompting some State Department officials in Washington and Baghdad to worry that the problems exposed in the camp suggest trouble lurking ahead for the rest of the embassy complex….

Kuwaiti company, now who is the Hero of Kuwait? That would be George H. W. Bush. Think there could be some royal family to royal family kickbacks?

Hair or no hair, what got to me early on about Edwards was the costume he selected for his anti-poverty stump speeches.

Here was a multi-millionaire sporting worn-looking jeans.

Did he buy them looking that way at, say, $160 a pop?

Or did a campaign staffer stay up all night putting them through wash after wash until they looked worn?

Or were the jeans rubbed on rocks in a creek bed until . . . but you get the idea.

The fact that the Edwards campaign tanked several months ago perhaps is a result of his trying to fool us.

Bluejeans: Is that your best shot? Making fun of haircuts and jeans? If these things are your best shots aimed at Edwards your side is in trouble.

But maybe you could revive this fading meme. Why not hire Ken Starr and get a swatch of Edwards' clothing to examine? Make sure it's genuine and not to pricey. Maybe you could rifle through his drawers and examine his hair products to make sure they don't cost too much. Cut a snatch of hair to examine under a microscope for top dollar hairspray. Have Solomon rifle through the trash for receipts from anyplace you deem he shouldn't be allowed to shop at.

Chrissy,

Elizabeth Edwards said, during her guest appearance on "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!" June 2 (5m18s into her standalone clip on the show's website), in her response to a question asking what people don't know about John Edwards, that her husband does not use any hair products at all (besides shampoo, I'm guessing). I do not know if there would be an exception for a quick spray before a televised debate, mind you....

See, that show was an appropriate venue for this discussion.

I would have felt better about the Edwards hair story if we had simultaneously found out how much it costs Obama and Clinton to do their hair. And the Republican candidates, for that matter.

"The fact that the Edwards campaign tanked several months ago perhaps is a result of his trying to fool us."

I doubt it. Thompson, he of the fake rented pickup that he didn't even drive, has managed quite well.

As for your ad hominem attack, did it really not occur to you that the simplest explanation is that Edwards simply wore the jeans?

"Here was a multi-millionaire sporting worn-looking jeans."

As compared to the sophisticated clothing that people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Sam Walton always wear (or used to wear, in the latter case)? Sheesh....

John Edwards' haircuts are important because John Edwards thinks they are important.

If you think that Sen. Edwards' haircuts are unimportant, then blog about something that is important, such as this:

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/232536.php

That's just one suggestion.

Wow, Solomon is getting really good at rewriting those republican talking points.

Wrong.

Solomon is *originating* GOP talking points.

If he is not on the take, he certainly should be.

John Edwards' haircuts are important because John Edwards thinks they are important.

Yep. That rape victim was certainly asking for it, wasn't she, with her beautiful long hair and all....

F-ing tool.

Folks we are talking about performances on television. Makeup people, hair dressers and barbers have to be imported from someplace.

Ding ding, we have a winner. Presidential campaigns are television campaigns, and continuity matters. The candidate needs to look consistent from week to week, just as actors need their daily trims. You might as well complain about the cost of backdrops and placards, because the head-of-the-candidate is a design feature.

Heck, has John 'Heather' Solomon checked how much the trip to USS Abraham Lincoln cost?

Harry Reid's nepotism and shakedown operations in Nevada would make Jesse Jackson blush... to say that Solomon's exposures were'nt newsworthy is just hogwash. Likewise, Edward's lying and dissembling about how his staff is always responsible for his screwups [butting in line to by a toy at Walmart, or spending contributions on $400 haircuts] speaks volumes about his management ability... if he can't handle his staff now how will he handle the Scooter Libby's in the future.

On the same day that the AP's John Solomon once again tried to perpetuate the tale of John Edwards' $400 haircut, a real story of tragedy promises to draw attention to Edwards' past. In Minneapolis, the powerful suction from a drain in a wading pool partially ripped out the small intestine of a six-year old girl. Hauntingly reminiscent of a $25 million jury award John Edwards secured in the case of five-year old Valerie Lakey, the Minnesota tragedy will no doubt reignite the Republican war on trial lawyers - and Edwards.

For the details, see:
"The Next John Edwards Story."

I read the article, but I did not know Solomon. I had heard of him vaguely, but now, thanks to the Internet and blogs like this, I have him nailed.

The blogosphere 1, MSM 0 on this issue, this article.

Solomon, by the way, is trying to make a living in an old-fashioned way. I remember reading a Disraeli novel (he wrote them when he was young and a dandy) that had a journalist hack who wrote "slashing articles", a satire of a real life hack in the pocket of a magnifico. That's almost 200 years ago.

What an odd coincidence when the MSM leaks about (a) Gore’s son’s DUI which hurts
Gore if he enters the primary and helps Sen. Barak Hussein Obama, (b) John Edwards’s $1,200 hair cut, again helps B. Hussein Obama to get the anyone-but-Hillary vote when Edwards drops out, (c) negative, personally destructive, You Tube ad against Hillary Clinton from B. Hussein Obama’s camp (destroying Hillary helps B. Hussein, the second runner-up), B. Hussein falsely claiming he has no clue, then firing his employee.

Too many coincidences, but B. Hussein benefits.

So now Matt Stoller is sock-puppeting as josh?

Sweet Jesus,
Is stupid as pandemic as the bird flu?
Who knew?
A haircut vs. dead people. Of course, for Soloman, the priority is the cutting of hair.
This Soloman, though, is no "Soloman."
Just an ASS!!!
God, I'm sick of these people. How guilty am I if I wish a pox upon them? Just a small pox :-)

"Harry Reid's nepotism and shakedown operations in Nevada would make Jesse Jackson blush..."

Really, dear? Then it should be trivially easy for you to post relevant examples. We'll be here waiting.

"to say that Solomon's exposures were'nt newsworthy is just hogwash"

Actually, dear heart, they were, in fact, hogwash, as evidenced by the fact that a) Solomon got key details wrong and omitted other key details, and b) Reid was investigated and cleared. There was never anything there, dear.

...something that is important, such as this: confederateyankee... MatthewRmarler at 6:49 PM

Harry Reid's… shakedown operations in Nevada would make Jesse Jackson blush...minion at 8:08 PM

It's too bad that the Libby's always seem to happen during Republican regimes: Reagan, Nixon, BushBush. Is there something in the gin you drink that leads to corruption, crime and cover-ups?