Daughter (voice dripping with sarcasm): You knew what you were getting into when you had me.The constitution has been suspended and the country is being run under a Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO). Seven judges of the Supreme Court — along with the media, a primary target of the constitutional suspension — have declared the PCO unconstitutional. Musharraf has sacked Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and another justice, Abdul Hameed Dogar (pictured on the left) — a Musharraf loyalist — has taken the oath to replace him. At this point, Dogar has only been joined by 3-4 other justices. Similar developments are occurring with provincial high courts.The army has taken control of the Supreme Court, surrounded the buildings of major news stations, and arrested or detained many politicians. Cable television operators have been ordered to shut the transmission of news channels. Some Pakistani channels (such as GEO), broadcast out of Dubai and so they are available to viewers not utilizing Pakistani cable (e.g. Internet/satellite in and outside of Pakistan)...
UPDATE: 2:42PM - List of arrested or detained political, judicial, and social figures:
* Iftikhar Chaudhry (Supreme Court Chief Justice);
* Aitzaz Ahsan (People’s Party Senator and President of the Supreme Court Bar Association);
* Imran Khan (President, Tehreek-e Insaaf);
* Various Baloch and Sindhi nationalist leaders...UPDATE: 3:35PM - Musharraf’s address: He then reads a passage from a text on Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeus corpus during the civil war. Then he reads from a letter written by Lincoln, “My oath to preserve the constitution imposed on me the duty of preserving by every indispensable means that government that nation of which the constitution was the organic law. was it possible to lose the nation and yet preserve the constitution? by general law life and limb but be protected but often a limb must be amputated to save a life…i felt that measures otherwise unconstitutional might become unlawful by becoming indispensable to the right or wrong I assumed this wrong and now avow it.” Musharraf says, “We are also learning democracy. We are going through a difficult stage. It is the nation that is important. Pakistan comes first. Anyone else’s considerations comes after Pakistan. With all my sincerity, whatever I’m doing is in the interest of Pakistan...”
...findings from the PEJ-Shorenstein study:* Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband.
* Democrats generally got more coverage than Republicans, (49% of stories vs. 31%.)...
* Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%)...
* There were also distinct coverage differences in different media. Newspapers were more positive than other media about Democrats and more citizen-oriented in framing stories...Taking all the presidential hopefuls together, the press overall has been more positive about Democratic candidates and more negative about Republicans. In the stories mainly about one of the Democratic candidates, the largest percentage was neutral (39%), but more than a third of stories (35%) were positive, while slightly more than a quarter (26%) carried a clearly negative tone.
For Republicans, the numbers were basically reversed. Again the same number as for Democrats (39%) were neutral, but more than a third (35%) were negative vs. 26% positive.
In other words, not only did the Republicans receive less coverage overall, the attention they did get tended to be more negative than that of Democrats. And in some specific media genres, the difference is particularly striking.
One other finding of this study is that the news media also appear to be preoccupied with the head-to-head contest of the first major African American candidate and the first serious female contender for a major party nomination on the Democratic side....There are other factors that may have tipped the press’ gaze more toward Democrats. The Republicans candidates with large war chests announced later than Democrats, and that would explain part of why Republicans received less news attention in the first five months of coverage. But it does not explain all of the difference, for even after the GOP race had begun, Democrats continued to get more exposure.
That tilt toward Democrats and elite candidates was truer of some outlets more than others. One news operation studied stands out as offering a contrast to these trends--The News Hour on PBS. It took a measurably different approach, focusing on all the candidates and offering audiences a broad look at their agendas for the country.
As for the more critical tone for Republicans, there are various possible explanations. The strategic context of the Republican candidacies did not always cast them in a positive light. On the plus side, Romney’s fundraising, like Obama’s, exceeded predications. The result was relatively positive coverage even though his national polling was in the single digits... But the failure of John McCain’s campaign to gain traction led to negative coverage for his candidacy.
A good deal of the negative coverage of other Republican candidates may well have resulted from press skepticism about their chances for the nomination... But if, in the early stages of the race, the 2008 presidential campaign represents a possible shift away from the Republican party of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and a generational struggle in both parties, neither of these more idea-oriented themes are heavily evident in the early press coverage. If American politics is changing, the style and approach of the American press does not appear to be changing with it.
It's very rare that I find myself in total agreement with Markos Moulitsas, creator of Daily Kos. But he calls John Edwards' response to Hillary Clinton's "pile-on" video "devastating," and I have to agree. It is the "I voted for it before I voted against it" moment, on three different issues - Iraq, Social Security, and Immigration.
My hat is off to Team Edwards. This is the toughest, most effective web ad I've seen this campaign so far. Somehow it manages to be simultaneously brutal and fair, contrasting Hillary's own words with herself, often only seconds apart.
It's not that she doesn't know what she believes; it's that she's afraid to tell us what she believes. She's afraid to tell us what she really wants to do. The Clintons want to appear to be for and against everything. They want to play both sides of every issue down the middle so you never really know, because the purpose of this is to cover the agenda, cover it up, and then prevent it from actually getting out. We know what the agenda is......one day she wants to be thought of as strong like a man, as a member of the boys club. Then the other times, she's just this victim... "They're beating up on a girl! ...It isn't fair! So I'm going to go play the gender card. I'm going to go back to Wellesley."
...this is not working out [for her]. It's not. She's blowing this big time, I'm telling you. Not with rank-and-file Democrats... but the undecideds, the so-called independents. ...So now she's a girl. Before she was just as good as a man, just as strong as a man. So what are we to do now? How are we supposed to treat and how are we supposed to react to Mrs. Clinton? Is Hillary equal to a man? Is Hillary a girl? What do her supporters want us to know now? What does Clinton, Inc., want us to think of her, and what are they going to want us to think next hour? Is she a girl now, or is she a man?
...Rather than rebut her rivals' charges or confront the issues with facts and details, Clinton accused her rivals of ganging up on her. So rather than answer the questions and rather than deal with the issues, "They're hitting me! I'm a girl! They're ganging up on me!"
9/11 an inside job? I hadn't heard. Tell me more.
Code Pink in a kaffiyeh: fashion faux pas.
I love the fall in San Francisco: Hamas flags waving among the leaves.
Your friendly, neighborhood terrorist supporters, Local 172.
Zombie's caption: The Holy Grail of protest photos: woman wearing a kaffiyeh while carrying a "9/11 Truth" sign!
You might think the fact that progressive mouthpiece Time Magazine is covering Hillary's Chinagate problem is somewhat surprising. Until you consider that it's busily engaged in damage control. Never mind the scores of Chinese dishwashers and busboys who have donated thousands each to her campaign.GOP Bloggers' Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan posted their FEC complaint against the Hillary Clinton for President Committee in response to the reports of donors who felt pressure to give money for fear for retribution and a number of poor donors who donated thousands of dollars each to her campaign.
Townhall.com's Patrick Ruffini reports:On the heels of the Norman Hsu scandal, the Clinton campaign was rocked by questions of even more Hsu-like shakedowns in connection with a $380,000 fundraiser in New York which saw contributions ranging from $1,000 to $2,500 from cooks and dishwashers. At least one donor admitted to being an illegal immigrant. Another said she was illegally reimbursed for her contributions. Others said they felt pressured to give.
Unlike the Hsu cash, Hillary's campaign has yet to return the bulk of this tainted money.
This complaint brings these charges into a formal FEC process. The Clinton campaign will have 15 days to respond and publicly defend itself from charges of illegal campaign fundraising.
The Corner's David Freddoso notes that one of Hillary's pretend donor's names, "Shin K. Cheng", sounds like "Ching! Ka-ching!"
Wake Up America's Spree adds, "I have seen comments elsewhere asking why they did not wait until after she was already officially named the Democratic presidential candidate after the primaries but as we all know, investigations take time and this is the perfect time for this."
Michelle Malkin thinks this story has legs: "Over the weekend, Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier asked me if the Chinatown story had traction. If conservatives stay on the story and liberal MSM outlets like the LA Times don’t cower before the p.c. police, the answer is yes."
Say Anything Blog's Rob questions the timing, and wishes this issue was saved for the general election campaign. Wizbang's Jay Tea disagrees with Rob.
The Campaign Spot's Jim Geraghty posts an interesting response from Allison Hayward, a former FEC staffer for Bradley Smith. Hayward argues that, "If they had as a policy the intent to obscure straw donors, they could. It would be criminal, but doable. Here, their reports are sufficient to track down the story. So I would suspect the problem with the campaign is nonfeasance, rather than an intentional effort to accept illegal contributions."
The New York Post reported earlier today that the Hsit has truly hit the fan:The feds are eyeing a Chinatown donor to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign to see if she was "coerced" into being a front for someone else's contribution.
Hsiao Yen Wang, who lives with her cook husband, David Guo, on the Lower East Side, got a visit from Justice Department probers in the last two weeks, she told The Post.
The criminal investigators asked her if she was "coerced" into making a donation...
Best Blog: Michelle Malkin (honorable mention: Captains Quarters)
