So, let's see: two new data points.
First, here. On the eve of a possible indictment of John Edwards, the former Democratic Presidential candidate, for assorted campaign law violations, the Democrats are looking at replacing the federal prosecutor that has been following the leads and uncovering the problems. Another Democrat, the ex-governor, is also under investigation for illegal use of vehicles and the like as well. Just the usual corruption: it looks like Edwards used campaign money to pay off his girlfriend, and the ex-governor has free travel from supporters and a questionable real estate deal hanging over him.
The reason that the North Carolina Democratic Senator Hagan wants to replace the prosecutor? What else: he's a Republican and he's going after North Carolina Democratic politicians.
The second here. If you read here regularly, you know how ACORN is anything but some sort of innocent get-out-the-vote organization. It's behind the politicians who created the sub prime mess, and has a history of incompetence at best and, more likely, outright collusion with the Democratic party in direct contradiction to its charter as a tax-exempt organization (if that alone isn't a reason for reforming tax law...).
So, a disgruntled former employee was found. Here's a hint to those who aren't journalists: disgruntled former employees are the bread and butter of investigative reporters, one that they rely on heavily.
Except when the trail leads to something that would be a "game changer". Which any - any! - investigation into the campaign finances of the Obama presidential campaign would reveal: his huge campaign contributions basically bought the election, as he outspent McCain tremendously, raising $745mn to McCain's $368mn. That's close to a 2:1 differential, unique amongst US presidential elections.
But where did that money come from? Hint: the campaign failed to implement the control mechanisms it was supposed to, enabling all sorts of dubious and untraceable contributions.
But rather than go investigate this, rather than nail ACORN for the political organization it is, the New York Times, the paper that "Prints All The News That Is Fit", the newspaper whose investigative abilities are rivaled only by the Washington Post (also strangely silent, but no surprise there...), saw fit to kill the story because...
...it relied on a disgruntled former employee.
Right. The New York Times merely states "The Obama campaign has denied any connection with Acorn's voter registration drives."
And they accept that.
The New York Times, a paper I grew up reading, a paper that I dearly loved reading for several decades, isn't worth cutting down trees to print anymore. I suppose was can simply start referring to it as "New York Pravda", the paper that prints all the news that is politicallly fit.
It killed a story that would have severely damaged the Obama campaign to become President during the election in order to not "change the game".
Two more data points...