Why would the New York Times admit to wrongly publishing classified information just two weeks before an election? Yes, it's that big because it is breaking Sunday and is going to take up a lot of ink and TV time this coming week, right before an election. And the tenor of the conversation is going to help the Republicans and George Bush while also motivating the conservative base.
Assuming there was even a remote possibility of prosecution for publishing classified material, the Times would be reluctant to put a mea culpa in print. But get conspiratorial and ask yourself who this really helps the most. The answer is Hillary Clinton.
While probably not the only motivation, I wouldn't be surprised if it entered into the calculus. Hillary is the NY Times dream, not Nancy Pelosi and the House.
As I recently posted, the worst thing in the world for a Hillary Presidential bid in 08 is two years of uber-liberal Democrats running wild through the halls of congress and a mid-term result that strengthens the also uber-Liberal Netroots.
Hillary would welcome near parity in the congress for now. But a majority threatens her ultimate ambition more than Karl Rove. If Dean and the Netroots crash, Hillary, the Democratic Leadership Conference and the Blue Dog Dems are the only ones around to pick up the pieces heading into 2008.
Unlike Patterico, I wouldn't want Calame to resign. Why throw out an Editor when you have him on record publicly acknowledging the mistake and that the NY Times doesn't like George Bush? I'd prefer having him right where he is.
Mr. Calamity resign? Heavens no!
Prosecuted for endangering the Nation and breaking the security laws on secrets? Damn straight! And the informants he rode in on.
Posted by: ajacksonian | Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 09:26 PM
Some time ago Ace (when he was still living in NYC) noted that Calame was at war with Krugman over Krugman's being an unrepentant serial liar in columns. Calame's irritation was enough that it emerged in his own columns.
At the time, I didn't think he'd last another 6 months given his dissing of the NYT's high priest of moonbattery, but he did.
For the moment, lacking other inputs, and given his past confrontation with Krugman, I'm willing -- for the moment -- to allow that the guy may have had a genuine guilty conscience about some of the stuff going on at the NYT and felt he had to come clean out of a sense of fairness to the public.
Its worth noting where Calame came from -- 40 years at the WSJ.
Its also worth noting how long his stint at the NYT will be -- a fixed two years starting May 2005.
So, Calame is in his last 7 months or so at the NYT, and will leave after that. Essentially, he's an editor with a 7 month life span left. He's on the clock, has nothing to lose, and nobody to impress anymore at this point in his career. That could make him a dangerous man for the next 7 months if this is an actual attack of conscience.
Posted by: Purple Avenger | Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 09:31 PM
Ummm... not 40 years at WSJ (that was his last posting) rather 40 years doing financial news.
Posted by: Purple Avenger | Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 09:32 PM
"the also uber-Liberal Netroots."
I'm pretty sure that was a typo and you meant nUtroots, right?
Posted by: tree hugging sister | Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 10:59 PM