This time, the claim that Obama was emailing George Clooney about policy. Politico walks us through it.
Salon's Walter Shapiro writes that after covering John Edwards in 2004 he felt like he got to really know the candidate, and was therefore surprised by the recent affair story.
But I think Salon reader "fromPhilly" gets it right:
"Oh good grief. How does 'covering' someone mean you know someone? Covering someone is not a friendship."
"They'd start every convention story with the finding that nothing important happened that day and that your attention is not needed," writes Jack Shafer at Slate.
Before reporters heap too much praise on the supermarket weekly and insist there's nothing wrong with journalists chasing the tab's stories, the Boston Globe reminds us the Enquirer still prints dubious stuff up about famous politicians and then settles lawsuits to make them go away.
Dave Neiwart at FDL wonders why the campaign book filled with distorions, Obama Nation, gets so much more media attention that the campaign book that's factually sound; The Real McCain.
Like most Beltway pundits, E.J. Dionne cannot stop writing about the Clinton's. Yet in his Post column today he insists we're the ones obsessed:
"It has been more than two months since Barack Obama secured the Democratic presidential nomination, yet here we are, still fascinated with Bill and Hillary Clinton and what they're up to." [Emphasis added.]
In today's day-late follow-up to the NYT article on Corsi's anti-Obama book and the progressive fact-checking that's raised questions about its veracity, the Post claims "Parts of the book have also been disproved by the mainstream media." [Emphasis added.]
The Post offers no evidence to back up that claim. And trust us, it's just not true.
Watch Paul Waldman TKO the anti-Obama writer on Larry King Live last night.
Radar's Charles Kaiser's tries to find out if the publishing giant did any fact-checking before shipping out Jerome Corsi's Obama book.
Short answer: No.