NEW IN THIS WEEK'S PHOENIX. Months after claims were dismisssed that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium in Africa, the story is getting a new life. And the right wing is delighted.

NOT A BUG, A FEATURE! Media Log yesterday was hit with a catastrophic computer meltdown. Until it is solved, blogging will be erratic, and formatting will be affected as well. Thank you in advance for your patience.

THE LAST GATEKEEPER. I suppose it's not fair to stick it to Tom McPhail on the basis of one short quote in the current USA Today. But I'll do it anyway: he would expect no less.

McPhail, a journalism professor at the University of Missouri, is quoted in a piece by Peter Johnson on the credentialing of bloggers at the Democratic National Convention:

That bloggers get front seats bothers Tom McPhail, a journalism professor at the University of Missouri.

"They're certainly not committed to being objective. They thrive on rumor and innuendo," McPhail says. Bloggers "should be put in a different category, like 'pretend' journalists."

Where does one even begin? Well, okay. I'll begin with something small: I'm not sure what Johnson means by "front seats." Most bloggers, I imagine, will be allowed to roam the perimeter, outside the convention hall, and to work in a press area for journalists from smaller news organizations, such as Farm Implements Quarterly or some such thing.

But to get back to McPhail. Surely he knows that some journalists have jobs in which they are expected to be "objective," whatever that means (try "fair"), and some are lucky enough to be opinion-mongers.

Most of the best bloggers - Josh Marshall, Andrew Sullivan, Eric Alterman, Danny Schechter - write for print publications, too. Mickey Kaus, who's admittedly gone a bit daft with his Kerry hatred, but who's still entertaining, is a longtime print veteran. Besides, he blogs for Slate. Isn't that a non-pretend news organization?

But all this takes McPhail's observations too seriously. The days of gatekeeper journalism are long gone. Letting bloggers in is no different from credentialing alternative weeklies - or, for that matter, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, and Tom Brokaw.

The old order is dying. I guess word hasn't gotten out to Missouri. (Via Romenesko.)

YOU COULD LOOK IT UP. SO WHY DIDN'T THE TIMES? As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up." Incredibly, the big-time national political reporters who help to define the presidential campaign all too often couldn't be bothered.

Today's example: the New York Times. A front-page story today by Richard Stevenson and Jodi Wilgoren on George W. Bush's defense of his Iraq policy claims that John Kerry has changed his explanation for why he voted against $87 billion in reconstruction money for Iraq and Afghanistan last year. They write:

In an apparent response to Mr. Cheney, Mr. Kerry also said he was "proud" that he and Mr. Edwards had voted against the administration's request for $87 billion to help finance military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan because "we knew the policy had to be changed." That was a new explanation by Mr. Kerry for a vote that has been a point of much contention during the campaign.

...

At the fund-raiser, Mr. Kerry also attacked the administration as unnecessarily sending young soldiers into harm's way, and he spoke about the votes he and Mr. Edwards cast last fall against the $87 billion.

"I'm proud to say that John joined me in voting against that $87 billion when we knew the policy had to be changed, we had to get it right, we needed other countries involved, we needed to reach out to our allies, we needed to put other boots on the ground," Mr. Kerry said.

Earlier, Mr. Kerry had said he voted against the bill because he thought the war and reconstruction should be financed by rolling back part of the Bush administration's tax cuts. That, he explained, was why he had voted for the $87 billion appropriation when it included an amendment demanding that the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans be reversed, then against it once that provision was stripped. His explanation has been mocked as a flip-flop by Republicans and featured in their campaign commercials.

So there you have it: Republican talking points dressed up and trotted out as serious political analysis. Kerry's a flip-flopper! But wait - here is what Kerry said at a Democratic debate on October 26 of last year, according to the Boston Globe's Patrick Healy and Anne Kornblut:

Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, who has suffered intense criticism for his seemingly ambiguous position on Iraq, sought to present a clear explanation for his decision to authorize military force but later oppose the $87 billion proposal to pay for the war's aftermath. "It is absolutely consistent, because what I voted for was to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, but to do it right," Kerry said. "This president has done it wrong every step of the way." He ridiculed Bush's efforts to internationalize the war as a "fraudulent coalition."

And check out what Noelle Straub wrote in the Boston Herald last October 17:

Presidential hopeful Sen. John F. Kerry said he opposed the funding because he believes Bush has not put forward an adequate plan to protect troops and bring in other nations to help and because the money comes at the expense of domestic priorities.

"We need to stand up to this president," Kerry (D-Mass.) said. "They've already proven they can't be trusted, they've already proven that they're willing to mislead, and this particular plan for $87 billion is top down, starting with Halliburton and the other great friends of the president."

Is it true that Kerry supported an amendment to fund the $87 billion by rolling back tax cuts for the rich? Yes. But the Times tag team of Stevenson and Wilgoren makes it sound like that was Kerry's only reason for opposing the $87 billion.

Kerry deserves to be whacked for failing to explain himself clearly, and for that ridiculous clip in which he says that he actually voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. But Stevenson and Wilgoren are taking dictation from the Bush-Cheney campaign, claiming that Kerry has flip-flopped on his reasons for opposing the $87 billion even though he's actually been a model of consistency.

By the way, Media Log thinks Kerry got it wrong twice: he should have voted against authorizing Bush to go to war, but then he should have voted in favor of the $87 billion. But this isn't about anyone's opinion - this is about getting it right.

GUILD AGREES TO GLOBE CONTRACT. How long had Boston Globe newsroom employees been working without a contract? Not long ago I ran into an old colleague at a party. He'd been at the Globe for some time. And he told me, laughing, that he'd never worked under a union contract.

Until now - or, rather, soon. Today the Globe and the Boston Newspaper Guild announced they had reached a tentative agreement on a new five-year contract. Here's the press release, in full:

BOSTON, MA - Monday, July 12, 2004 - The Boston Globe and the Boston Newspaper Guild, Local 31245, announced today that they have reached a tentative agreement on a five-year labor pact covering a term from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2005. The agreement is subject to ratification by the union's rank and file membership scheduled for August 5, 2004.

The wages for the first four years reflect the pattern increases in place with the Globe's other unions of approximately 7.5% in increases for Guild members over that span. The newspaper and the union also negotiated a $12 per week increase for January 1, 2005 and a further $12.50 per week increase on July 1, 2005, constituting an approximate combined increase of 2.14 percent.

The new agreement provides significant new operating flexibility for the Globe aimed at making it more competitive in a changing media marketplace. In return, the Globe agreed as a quid pro quo for such flexibility to increases in funding for the Guild's Health Plan that will result in significantly reduced health care payroll contributions by Guild covered employees.

"The new agreement represents a fair balancing of the competitive needs of the Globe in a changing marketplace with the needs of our employees to have appropriate protections with such changes as well as addressing the rising health care costs impacting everyone," said Globe Senior Vice President and lead company negotiator Greg Thornton. Steve Richards, president of the Boston Newspaper Guild, said of the tentative agreement: "It was a long and difficult negotiation but the union's negotiating committee feels this tentative agreement brings stability to our health fund, which was one of our primary goals. We also feel it protects our members and our union while giving the Globe added business flexibility."

Both the Globe and the Boston Newspaper Guild declined to comment further on the pact until the union's ratification meeting August 5. The agreement culminates more than three and a half years of negotiations between the parties.

It looks like the Globe, at any rate, will have labor peace during the Democratic National Convention. Would that Boston mayor Tom Menino - still tied up in an ugly dispute with the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association - could say the same.

But notice that three and a half years of the Globe contract is retroactive, and that the five-year period that it covers expires in just 17 months. Assuming it gets ratified, it sounds like the negotiators ought to take maybe a week off - and then return to the negotiating table.

STAHL'D OUT. I hope I don't see a worse interview all year than the one Lesley Stahl conducted on 60 Minutes last night with John Kerry and John Edwards. Mrs. Media Log was covering her eyes in embarrassment as Stahl alternated between oozing unctuously and taking the viewers for fools.

The worst moment came when Stahl tried to play gotcha with Kerry on his vote in favor of the war in Iraq. She started by running that clip of Kerry saying that before he voted against the $87 billion in reconstruction money he voted for it. That was obviously not one of Kerry's finer moments, and she was right to bring it up.

But then she tried to use that as a way of demonstrating that Kerry can't give a straight answer on whether he regrets his vote in the fall of 2002 authorizing the president to go to war. Her news peg was last week's Senate Intelligence Committee report. Among other things, she noted that the Democratic vice-chairman, Jay Rockefeller, now says he would have voted against the war if he knew then what he knows now. Why, Stahl demanded of Kerry, can't you just admit you made a mistake?

The transcript isn't available yet, but CBS News's synopsis matches my recollection:

Is Kerry for or against the war in Iraq? "I think the president made a mistake in the way he took us to war," says Kerry. "I am against the war - the way the president went to war was wrong."

The Senate Intelligence Committee has just issued a report saying that the basis for the war was erroneous, and that there weren't weapons of mass destruction. Given what he knows now about that report, would Kerry have made the same decision?

"What I voted for was an authority for the president to go to war as a last resort if Saddam Hussein did not disarm and we needed to go to war," says Kerry. "I think the way he went to war was a mistake."

"I know you want to make this black and white, but the difference is - if John Kerry were president of the United States, we would never be in this place," adds Edwards. "He would never have done what George Bush did. He would have done the hard work to build the alliances and the support system."

"Why build an alliance if they didn't have weapons of mass destruction," asks Stahl.

"We would have found out, that's the point," says Edwards.

Regardless, Kerry says he doesn't regret his vote: "I believe, based on the information we have, it was the correct vote."

Edwards has said that if he is elected "no young Americans will go to war needlessly."

"That's true," says Edwards. "He [President Bush] didn't do the things that should have been done before taking this country to war. This is not a -; I mean, we've now said it 10 times, this is not a complicated thing."

Gee whiz, why can't Kerry give a yes-or-no answer? It's no wonder that Edwards got irritated with Stahl's disingenuous questions - and Edwards is not someone who gets easily irritated, at least not in public.

Stahl would have known better if she had read the Boston Globe's Kerry bio. Here's what Kerry said before his vote giving Bush the power to wage war:

The vote that I will give to the president is for one reason and one reason only, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint conference with our allies. I expect him [Bush] to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council ... and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. [p. 346]

In other words, Kerry's position on the war today is precisely the same as it was in the months leading up to it. He has been absolutely consistent. As Edwards said, it's not a matter of "black and white." To the extent that Kerry later turned against the war, it was because Bush didn't wait for the inspections to play out, didn't consult with our allies so much as dictate to them, and didn't act with the explicit authority of the Security Council.

Is this really so difficult? Apparently it is if you're Lesley Stahl.

NEW IN THIS WEEK'S PHOENIX. "That '90s Show": Its dubious literary merits aside, Bill Clinton's My Life sparks nostalgia for a decade of peace, prosperity, and presidential sex.

JOHN SQUARED. So it's John Edwards, probably the best of some not-great choices. Edwards proved himself to be by far the most engaging public personality in the Democratic presidential primaries. His biggest problem, of course, was that he couldn't get anybody actually to vote for him. Also, is he going to be willing to rough up his vaunted Mr. Nice Guy image by playing the attack-dog role normally filled by running mates?

More questions:

- I know people fell into a catatonic state whenever Dick Gephardt's name came up, but Gephardt might have at least brought Missouri into the Blue Zone. Can Edwards help Kerry win his home state of North Carolina? Probably not.

- Does anyone think the Bush campaign was really worried about running against a trial lawyer last winter? Get ready for a barrage of accusations about how Edwards made his fortune. Before the Edwards campaign fell apart, there were already some websites out there claiming that he got rich with a combination of junk science and courtroom histrionics. Are the Kerry people ready to fire back?

- The most telling criticism that Kerry had supposedly murmured about Edwards was that the guy simply isn't experienced or knowledgeable enough to be president. Now, Edwards is no Dan Quayle, but he's no Al Gore, either. How is this going to play in a post-9/11 world?

That said, Kerry did okay. His dalliance with John McCain already proved he was willing to run with someone more charismatic than he. Edwards will be an asset to his campaign, and help cast him in a more centrist light.

HAPPY FOURTH! The family and I are heading over to Salem for fireworks. I'll be in San Francisco most of next week for the annual conference of Little People of America, where I'll be giving a reading and trying to move some product. Blogging will be light to non-existent.

DEPT. OF SELF-PROMOTION I. A wicked good time was had by all yesterday on National Public Radio's The Connection, where host Dick Gordon interviewed me about my book on the culture of dwarfism, Little People. Laura Zirpolo of Little People of America joined us for the hour. The occasion was next week's LPA national conference, in San Francisco, where I'll be reading at a book event.

Click here, and you can listen to the show and flip through a photo album.

DEPT. OF SELF-PROMOTION II. The Columbia Journalism Review's CampaignDesk.org website has just posted a Q&A with yours truly.

FIREFOX IMPROVES. Slate's Paul Boutin has posted an ode to the glories of Firefox, one of several alternatives to Internet Explorer that I wrote about a few weeks ago. Boutin is using Windows, but it sounds pretty much like the Mac version.

One thing I didn't know until I read Boutin was that the Mozilla folks have upgraded Firefox from version 0.8 to 0.91. I grabbed myself the new version and found that a formatting problem I'd recently encountered on MSNBC.com (including Newsweek) went away. Good news!

THE BEAST WITHIN. A few years ago - quite a few years ago, actually - Ted Koppel traveled to Cambodia for an incredible moment: the trial of Pol Pot, one of the great monsters of the 20th century. For two nights, Nightline showed Pol Pot being tried for his crimes against humanity.

Thought to have been responsible for the deaths of more than a million of his fellow Cambodians, Pol Pot was every bit as evil as Hitler, Stalin, or Mao, lacking only the means to project his horrors beyond the borders of his own country.

The trial, as I recall, was something of a farce, aimed more at getting his fellow mass murderers off the hook than at bringing Pol Pot to justice. Still, seeing him being brought to account, no matter how cynically, should have made a far greater impression than it did. But in the hyper-fast media cycle of 1990s America, so-called big stories - some of which weren't very big at all - began to blend together. O.J. equals Princess Diana equals Monica equals Pol Pot. It's only gotten worse since.

I was thinking about Pol Pot last night as I watched the arraignment of Saddam What an amazing thing to see this evil man, the cause of so much misery and torture and death, brought into an Iraqi courtroom to hear the particulars of his evil read against him.

He looked good, didn't he?

I'm sure Hannah Arendt's phrase "the banality of evil," which she used to describe Adolf Eichmann, will be bandied about quite a lot in the days and months ahead. I'm not sure if it applies. Perhaps to the flunkies who were led in after Saddam, corrupt, amoral little men like Tariq Aziz.

But to Saddam himself? Saddam isn't Eichmann. He's Hitler. Watching him snarl and snap on television, he didn't strike me as a bureaucrat dispensing death and torture like another might dispense rice and road improvements. No, this was the monster himself, and you could see it, see the evil, as he lectured the judge. Other than the gassing of the Kurds, he didn't even bother to deny anything, going so far as to say the Kuwaitis deserved it.

John Burns's article in today's New York Times is literary bordering on magisterial, and thus is what you should make sure you read.

But do we understand what's going on? Do we realize that this is a historic moment? Or will this blow by us, to replaced by another update from the Scott Peterson trial as soon as the novelty begins to wear off?

MORE ON MOORE. Media Log has such diligent readers. D.S. found the link to the Michael Moore quote that Joe Scarborough and Christopher Hitchens were kicking around on Wednesday. Here are the offending comments:

There is a lot of talk amongst Bush's opponents that we should turn this war over to the United Nations. Why should the other countries of this world, countries who tried to talk us out of this folly, now have to clean up our mess? I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle. I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe - just maybe - God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.

The transcript of Wednesday's Scarborough Country is now online.

This is much ado about not much, but it's MSNBC, so I'm being redundant. On the one hand, Moore is considerably to Media Log's left; though I think the war in Iraq was misguided, I can't imagine how anyone couldn't at least wish that it leads to a decent, stable new order in that country.

But the way I read Moore's piece, he's simply asserting that it's not going to happen, whereas Scarborough and Hitchens seem to accuse him of hoping that it's not going to happen. Two different things.

And how can anyone argue that French and German troops should lose their lives for our mistake? Mind you, I don't want to see anyone lose his or her life in Iraq. But this is our mistake, not theirs. Which, I think, is Moore's point.

MOORE AFTER THIS. Does anyone know what Joe Scarborough and Christopher Hitchens were talking about on MSNBC last night? I tuned in briefly during the closing moments of another putrid Red Sox-Yankees game. They were claiming that Michael Moore had posted some outrageous comments on MichaelMoore.com - something to the effect that more Americans must die in Iraq in order to wash away the sins of the Bush White House. Hitchens was of the opinion that Moore was taking the same line as the jihadi terrorists.

The transcript wasn't up this morning, so I don't know exactly what they said. But when I cruised on over to Moore's website this morning, I could find nothing remotely resembling what Scarborough and Hitchens were claiming. What is going on?

We already know that Hitchens doesn't like Moore.

Anyway, Media Log seeks elucidation. If anyone can point to Moore's alleged remarks, drop me a line.

IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE MEANING OF "READ" IS. Jack Shafer finds that not everyone who's reviewed Bill Clinton's turgid, endless My Life has actually, well, you know, read it. I have. On the other hand, I guess that's why my review won't appear until next week.

NEW IN THIS WEEK'S PHOENIX. The Seventh Annual Muzzle Awards. Bring a copy to Governor Mitt Romney - but be sure to tell him the Phoenix is a newspaper, not a leaflet!

TUNE IN THIS MORNING. I'll appear on The Connection, on WBUR Radio (90.9 FM), at 11 a.m. to talk about my book on the culture of dwarfism, Little People. Appearing with me will be Laura Zirpolo, who helped organize last year's annual conference of Little People of America.

MENINO SLAMS KERRY. Oh, my. Boston mayor Tom Menino is going public with his anger at Senator John Kerry. Kerry's been indecisive, to say the least, in trying to balance his desire not to offend the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association and his need to maintain a good relationship with Menino heading into the Democratic National Convention.

Today's Boston Herald lead story, by David Guarino and Noelle Straub, quotes Menino as calling Kerry's campaign "small-minded" and "incompetent." Menino, understandably, is exercised over Kerry's decision not to speak at a gathering of the US Conference of Mayors, hosted by Menino, rather than cross the police union's picket-line-that-isn't-really-a-picket-line. The mayor's also pissed at Kerry-camp leaks alleging that Menino hung up on Kerry sometime Sunday. Menino told the Herald:

Maybe they should use some of their energies to get their message across to the American people instead of trying to destroy the integrity of someone who is on their team, to try to discredit someone on their team. They have better things to do.

The only truly surprising thing is that Menino decided to unload even though media sentiment has been going his way, with most commentators castigating Kerry for refusing to stand up to a union whose aggressive tactics have been widely criticized.

In today's Boston Globe, for instance, Glen Johnson reports that Kerry's critics - and some supporters - think the senator's machinations over the mayors' conference were "protracted, messy, and guided by self-interest."

Globe columnist Scot Lehigh quotes Menino as saying that this could have been a "Sister Souljah" moment for Kerry - that is, an opportunity to stand up to an important Democratic constituency that's out of line, as Bill Clinton did in 1992 in speaking out against a rap singer who'd talked about killing white people.

With things going Menino's way, he could have just sat back and enjoyed it, and allowed Kerry to stew in a mess of his own making. But that's not how the mayor does things. He had to get it off his chest even though most people already agree with him.

ALAN SIMPSON ON THE "LIBERAL" MEDIA. Here at Media Log Central these days, it's all Clinton, all the time. Day and night, we slog through My Life, a project that's taking almost as long as it did for him to live it, never mind write it. Is it "eye-crossingly dull"? At times.

But I love a critique offered by former Republican senator Alan Simpson, of Wyoming, about the so-called liberal media. It appears on pages 692-693, and I quote Clinton at some length:

Simpson laughed at how willing the "elitist" press was to swallow anything negative about small, rural places like Wyoming or Arkansas and made an interesting observation: "You know, before you were elected, we Republicans believed the press was liberal. Now we have a more sophisticated view. They are liberal in a way. Most of them voted for you, but they think more like your right-wing critics do, and that's much more important." When I asked him to explain, he said, "Democrats like you ... get into government to help people. The right-wing extremists don't think government can do much to improve on human nature, but they do like power. So does the press. And since you're President, they both get power the same way, by hurting you."

Liberal in a way. That sums up what I've been saying about allegations of liberal media bias for years. There are critics who deny there is any liberal bias on the part of the media, or that if there was, it has long since burned itself out. In fact, there is a liberal bias on certain cultural issues - abortion rights, gay issues, and the social agenda in general.

But the media are moderate to conservative on economics (when was the last time you saw a positive story about organized labor anywhere except in the Nation?) and agnostic on foreign policy (if George W. Bush's Iraq misadventure had been an unqualified success, the media would be hailing him as a new Caesar).

Perhaps most important, journalists counter the accusation that they are liberal by going after liberal and/or Democratic politicians like crazed weasels. Just look at what they did to Clinton. And Al Gore.

Those distinctions are important to keep in mind as the 2004 presidential campaign moves ahead. The media should be tough on John Kerry - and Bush. But their coverage of the Gore campaign four years ago amounted to a wilding. That can't happen again.

LITTLE PEOPLE MAKES THE CONNECTION. Tune in this Thursday at 11 a.m., when I'll be a guest on The Connection, on WBUR Radio (90.9 FM), talking about Little People: Learning to See the World Through My Daughter's Eyes.

KERRY'S DIVORCE AND THE GOP. Get ready for the next John Kerry media feeding frenzy. Following the court-ordered release of Illinois Republican Senate candidate (make that former candidate) Jack Ryan's seamy divorce papers, anti-Kerry forces are now demanding the same treatment for Kerry and his first wife, Julia Thorne.

According to Drudge, the push may come from the Tribune Company, which was in the forefront of the Ryan case because of its ownership of the Chicago Tribune. The company also owns Boston's WLVI-TV (Channel 56), which would give it legal standing. Not to rely on Drudge, but does anyone doubt that the media and the Republicans would love to see Kerry's divorce records made public, just to find out what's in there?

I have to admit that I hadn't paid much attention to the Ryan's case, other than to share everyone's amusement at the sex-club allegations. Until this morning, I hadn't realized they'd been released by a judge, Robert Schnider. Good Lord - what was Schnider thinking? And of course, even though Schnider's ruling only pertains to his jurisdiction, it's going to be pretty easy to make the case that what's good for Ryan is good for Kerry.

If Ryan and his ex-wife wanted their sealed records to remain sealed, that should have been respected. Voters should have been trusted to make what they would of the Ryans' refusal to go public.

Same with Kerry and Thorne.

YOU SAY "AZZAWI," I SAY "AHMAD." A couple of Media Log readers pointed me to this excellent post by Juan Cole on the matter of that top official for Saddam Hussein who's been linked to Al Qaeda.

As I noted earlier, even promoters of this link, such as the Weekly Standard's William Kristol and Stephen Hayes, have conceded there was a possibility that they were talking about two different people with the same name.

Well, Cole shows that they don't have the same name. Never mind! He writes:

The al-Qaeda employee in Malaysia is named Ahmad Hikmat Shakir Azzawi.

The Iraqi intelligence agent is named Lt. Col. Hikmat Shakir Ahmad.

...

Do you notice how they are not the same?

Cole adds, "Isn't it a shame that we have these key people doing important things who are either incompetent ignoramuses or dumb as posts?" Well, uh, yes. More than a shame.

DUBYA AND ADOLF. This really is incredible. I wouldn't be surprised if this has been pulled before you can see it. But the Bush-Cheney campaign has put up an ad on its website that makes use of that spot comparing George W. Bush to Hitler that was uploaded to MoveOn.org some months ago as part of a contest, and that was yanked as soon as it was discovered.

Hurry! Watch it while you still can!

In a blast e-mail titled "Disgusting," Kerry-campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill writes:

Yesterday, the Bush-Cheney campaign, losing any last sense of decency, placed a disgusting ad called "The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party" as the main feature on its website. Bizarrely, and without explanation, the ad places Adolf Hitler among those faces.

The Bush-Cheney campaign must pull this ad off of its website. The use of Adolf Hitler by any campaign, politician or part is simply wrong.

Cahill is being just a tiny bit disingenuous, making it sound like the Bush campaign is comparing Kerry to Hitler. Actually, the Bush campaign is desperately trying to pretend that the Kerry campaign is comparing Bush to Hitler. Quite a stretch, given that we're talking about an unsolicited contest entry for which MoveOn.org apologized many months ago. That's disgusting, all right.

Here's how the New York Times covered the story today. But why didn't Adam Nagourney mention the Hitler pix? The liberal media would never soft-pedal the vicious negative campaign tactics favored by the Republicans, would they?

GUILT BY NON-ASSOCIATION. John Kerry today is fending off a smear launched from outer space. The Associated Press reports that Americans Coming Together (ACT), a liberal independent organization working to defeat George W. Bush, has hired some ex-cons to help with its door-to-door canvassing.

Is this a good idea? Well, giving former inmates a chance to earn a living certainly doesn't sound like such a bad thing to me. But that's not the point. You could think it's a terrible idea and still shake your head at this story. The AP's David Lieb calls ACT "crucial" to Kerry's hopes, and writes:

America Coming Together, contending that convicted criminals deserve a second chance in society, employs felons as voter canvassers in major metropolitan areas in Missouri, Florida, Ohio and perhaps in other states among the 17 it is targeting in its drive. Some lived in halfway houses, and at least four returned to prison.

But wait! Farther down, Lieb adds this:

Although it works against the re-election of President Bush, ACT is an independent group not affiliated with Kerry's campaign - federal law forbids such coordination. Yet ACT is stocked with veteran Democratic political operatives, many with past ties to Kerry and his advisers.

Allison Dobson, a spokeswoman with the Kerry campaign, said there is no coordination with ACT, and of the policy: "We're unaware of it and have nothing to do with it."

This isn't even guilt by association - it's guilt by non-association.

Not surprisingly, today's Boston Herald goes huge with this, blowing out the front with a headline that screams "CROOKS FOR KERRY." The story, by David Guarino, credits the AP, and treads pretty much the same path as Lieb - that is, sounding the alarm that a pro-Kerry organization is providing honest work to ex-cons, while at the same time noting that Kerry's campaign, by law, has nothing to do with the group.

And just to complete the circle, Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie issued this statement:

It is disturbing that the voter mobilization arm of the Democratic Party is proudly hiring felons convicted of sex offenses, assault and burglary to go house to house and handle sensitive personal information.

Democrat voters should be leery of opening their doors to political operatives until the Democrats can assure them that a convicted felon won't be on the other side.

I suppose Gillespie deserves at least a little credit for not using the word "Kerry." Would that the AP and the Herald could be so precise.

RADIO REMINDER. I'll be the guest host of Counterpoint this Saturday from 7 to 10 p.m. on WRKO Radio (AM 680). We'll be taking calls, so pick up the phone and punch in 617-266-6868.

WILL MITT ROMNEY TRY TO OUTLAW GAY PARENTHOOD? I'm sure he won't. (Although I'm not so sure he wouldn't try if he thought he could.) Which is what makes his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday a prime example of political hypocrisy, even by his low standards.

During his opening statement, he said this:

But marriage is not solely for adults. Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother.

Of course, even today, circumstances can take a parent from the home, but the child still has a mother and a father. If the parents are divorced, the child can visit each of them. If a mother or father is deceased, the child can learn about the qualities of the departed. His or her psychological development can still be influenced by the contrasting features of both genders.

Are we ready to usher in a society indifferent about having fathers and mothers? Will our children be indifferent about having a mother and a father?

But we already live in a society that is pretty much indifferent about having fathers and mothers, do we not? Single women choose to have kids. Gay and lesbian couples choose to have kids. For that matter, single women and gay couples sometimes adopt kids, suggesting not just indifference on the part of society but, rather, active participation. Would Romney stop any of this? Of course he wouldn't. (Again, maybe he would if he could.)

A few moments later, Romney said:

Scientific studies of children raised by same sex couples are almost non-existent. And the societal implications and effects on these children are not likely to be observed for at least a generation, probably several generations. Same sex marriage doesn't hurt my marriage, or yours. But it may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole. Until we understand the implications for human development of a different definition of marriage, I believe we should preserve that which has endured over thousands of years.

Preserving the definition of marriage should not infringe on the right of individuals to live in the manner of their choosing. One person may choose to live as a single, even to have and raise her own child. Others may choose to live in same sex partnerships or civil arrangements. There is an unshakeable majority of opinion in this country that we should cherish and protect individual rights with tolerance and understanding.

But there is a difference between individual rights and marriage. An individual has rights, but a man and a woman together have a marriage. We should not deconstruct marriage simply to make a statement about the rights of individual adults. Forcing marriage to mean all things, will ultimately define marriage to mean nothing at all.

I highlighted the part where the governor acknowledges that same-sex marriage doesn't hurt anyone else's marriage, and I'm glad to learn that he won't be sporting a "Protect Ma and Pa" button anytime soon. But again, the hypocrisy here isn't even hidden - it's shimmering right on the surface.

Marriage is about children. We don't know what the effects may be of raising children in gay and lesbian households. So we shouldn't rush into this. But Governor - much of what the legal definition of civil marriage is all about is making it easier to raise children. Tax incentives. Rights of inheritance. Joint medical insurance. And on and on.

Today's best take is by the Boston Globe's Scot Lehigh, who observes that Romney appears to be running against his own state in order to advance his fevered national ambitions. Lehigh writes, "Can Romney be an effective governor by continually taking on the culture and candidate of the state he leads? Or will Massachusetts voters eventually grow tired of watching their chief executive raise his national profile at the state's expense?"

AGAIN. I hope we're not getting inured to the horror of terrorist beheadings in the Middle East. Somehow, yesterday's execution of Kim Sun Il by terrorists allegedly tied to Abu Musab Zarqawi (who is believed to have personally beheaded Nicholas Berg) didn't seem like as big a story as it should have.

The danger is that each decapitation - of Daniel Pearl, of Berg, of Paul Johnson, and now of Kim - will make us progressively numb to the horror of what's taking place. We should remember each victim. You don't have to support George W. Bush misadventure in Iraq to acknowledge that these men gave their lives in the war against terrorism.

ZZZZZ. Right-wing journalist Mark Steyn hits me where it hurts. He's linked to my less-than-flattering profile of him, and adds this commentary: "Warning: May cause drowsiness. Do not attempt to read before operating a motor vehicle or heavy machinery." Oof!

MEDIA LOG ON THE AIR. Tune in to WRKO Radio (AM 680) this Saturday from 7 to 10 p.m. I'll be hosting Counterpoint, the station's liberal alternative to its 165 weekly hours of conservative and right-wing talk.

UNHAPPY FATHER'S DAY. There is something so raw and ragged in Jimmy Breslin's column about his daughter's death that reading it is nearly unbearable. His attempts to put some distance between himself and the tragedy he describes - "the daughter," "the mother" - only underscore what a terrible moment he is describing. I'm not going to quote one more word from it. Just read it. Read the whole thing. It will break your heart.

SADDAM AND OSAMA REDUX. Did Saddam Hussein have ties to Al Qaeda? No one has been dropping off any secret dossiers here at Media Log Central, so all I know is what I read in the press. But the current uproar, over the 9/11 Commission report, strikes me as weird on several levels.

For one thing, it would seem to me that if anyone was stacking the deck against the White House, it would be fairly simple to identify the culprit. Not so. Some conservatives - including Vice-President Dick Cheney - are blaming the media, claiming that they mischaracterized the findings of the report. "The press, with all due respect, [is] often times lazy, often times simply reports what somebody else in the press said without doing their homework," Cheney said on CNBC last week.

Yet New York Times columnist William Safire, who believes in the Saddam-Al Qaeda link just as fervently as Cheney, says the media are blameless, and that in fact it was the staff of the 9/11 Commission that played down the relationship. In his column yesterday, Safire reported that the commission's findings were written up by its staff chief, Philip Zelikow, who ignored evidence that contradicted the anti-Bush conclusion he wanted to reach, and who did this behind the backs of both the Republican chairman, Tom Kean, and the Democratic vice-chairman, Lee Hamilton. Wrote Safire:

Cheney's ire was misdirected. Don't blame the media for jumping on the politically charged Zelikow report. Blame the commission's leaders for ducking responsibility for its interim findings. Kean and Hamilton have allowed themselves to be jerked around by a manipulative staff.

Now it's true that Safire's column had the added advantage of exonerating his employer, which had come under particularly heavy criticism for its news reports dismissing the Iraq-Al Qaeda link. But Safire's evidence is pretty hard to contradict.

The Weekly Standard, the leading neocon magazine, decides not to decide this week, running a cover line that reads: "There They Go Again: Why the 9/11 Commission and the Media Refuse to See the Ties Between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda." (Yes, I know the subhead is too small to read; I've got the print version.) Hmmm ... if the media accurately reported what was in the commission's report, how is it their fault?

Inside, editor William Kristol and staff writer Stephen Hayes recycle some of the evidence regarding Saddam's alleged ongoing relationship with Iraq. Both Kristol and Hayes have been known to truck in some Chalabi-by-way-of-Feith fantasies, but they are serious people, and I don't take their findings lightly. I was particularly struck by the charge that the 9/11 Commission ruled out the possibility that terrorist mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a top Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, several months before 9/11, partly on the basis of Atta's cell-phone records. Hayes writes: "It is entirely possible that Atta would leave his cell phone behind if he left the country. In any case, the hijackers are known to have shared cell phones." No kidding.

But I'm always suspicious when the White House's supporters are willing to make a better case than the White House itself. Take, for instance, the matter of Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, who reportedly attended a January 2000 Al Qaeda planning meeting in Malaysia, who is known to have possessed contact information for top Al Qaeda officials, and who may have been a high-ranking officer in the Fedayeen Saddam. Now that's a pretty definitive tie, I think we would all agree.

Both Hayes and Kristol concede that they might be writing about two people with the same name. And, in fact, today's Washington Post reports that is apparently the case. After 9/11 Commission member John Lehman, a former secretary of the Navy, repeated the Shakir allegations over the weekend, a "senior administration official" was quoted as saying the apparent tie was the result of confusion over two similar names. Read Spencer Ackerman on this, too.

In any case, such evidence does not explain the Bushies' obsession with Iraq, especially given the finding that Al Qaeda had much closer ties with Iran and Pakistan. Of course, Pakistan is now our "friend," and Iran is too big and scary to invade. Iraq remains what it has been from the beginning - a war of convenience, fought because the White House thought it would be easy. Getting out the electron microscope to find evidence that Saddam and Osama bin Laden worked together doesn't change that.

CLINTON'S PSYCHE, TOO MUCH WITH US. Here's the thing, President Clinton: if you're going to write about your affair with Monica Lewinsky, and you're going to submit willingly to questions about it - as you did with Dan Rather on Sunday - then you've got to expect that not every interviewer is going to be as polite and understanding as Rather or, say, Oprah.

You could have set different ground rules. You could have made it clear that you weren't going to run around psychobabbling about your inner child. You could have talked about health care, or global debt relief, even though that would have cost you a few sales.

So don't throw a nutty when someone like David Dimbleby lets you have it on the BBC.