The Washington Post weighs in on John McCain's dealings with the presidential primary matching funds, concluding rightly that the "matching system is woefully outdated," and chiming in on the in-or-out question without making a judgment.

This morning, columnist Richard Cohen of the Washington Post vigorously endorses publicly funded elections and calls on the presidential candidates to make it happen.

His main point is that identifying the problem and voicing a need for "change" will not, by itself, solve the problem.  A further implication here is that the "change Washington" message works so well right now because voters desire a real, fundamental change in the way our politics work--but that achieving that change will take tangible solutions and vision, not just a good message.

My only quibble with Cohen is that he fails to mention that a vehicle for this change is already in place: the Fair Elections Now Act, with bipartisan sponsors and a strong coalition behind it.

But Cohen's logic is right, he places the blame on the system and not the candidates trying to work within it, and he highlights that it's only getting worse without enacting public financing.  It goes without saying that it's especially significant to have Cohen, a columnist who positions himself as middle-of-the-road and holds court in one of the major newspapers in the country, choosing this overheated primary season to be a moment to make a stand for major campaign reform.  Bravo.

Here is what the New York Times editorial page said yesterday, in a piece titled "Running for Dollars," regarding the $129 million raised thus far in the 2008 presidential race:

Meanwhile, on the same day, the front page headline reads:
So the editorial page bemoans "handicapping of the race based on the ability to raise cash" while the front page, um, handicaps the race based on the ability to raise cash.

It doesn't take an editor-in-chief to see the hypocrisy here. And it's no wonder that the public--and, apparently, editorial writers--grow increasingly tired with the length, nature, and cost of campaigns.

Lest you think it's just one paper, here's the Washington Post editorial yesterday:

An eloquent and important point: A system "unhealthy for democracy" and in which the lesser candidates "never get a chance to have their messages heard."

Well, let's flip back to the front page above-the-fold headline on that same day:

Bravo. Your editorial page laments the focus on fundraising, the horse-race overwhelming both the dialogue on issues and the voice of the lesser candidates, while your front page screams "Horse Race! Obama vs Clinton! Who Can Raise the Most?!"

One way to avoid this would be to run front-page stories such as, "Where each candidate stands on health care" or "How the candidates spend their time on the campaign trail." But apparently we can't count on the New York Times or Washington Post for that sort of coverage.

The two-part series in Sunday's and Monday's Washington Post was riveting.  But like the missing limbs of the soldiers so ill treated at Walter Reed Hospital, the Post's series also was missing a limb.  It explained the WHAT of the story - the bureaucracy, unfeeling paperwork and meaningless rules that kept soldiers badly wounded in the Iraq War from getting the care and respect they deserved.  But the series largely failed to get to the why of the story.  The series was still worth doing.  The day after it was published, the Army announced it was renovating the patient building on the sprawling Walter Reed campus that most needed fixing up.

And a second Post story reported that an investigation was being launched into the possible unethical conduct of a Walter Reed official who, critics charge, was so preoccupied with founding his own soldiers relief foundation, that he neglected his duties managing a system that was supposed to match up soldier families to donors wishing to help. And Walter Reed is increasing staffing to better deal with the flood of the wounded, a flood that the anticipated "surge" in Iraq will only make worse.

I belong to the Committee of Concerned Journalists, and last night attended a preview of "News War: Secrets, Spin and the Future of News" that Frontline will begin airing on PBS at 9 p.m. tonight. I can't tell you much about the series, because Frontline opted to show us a very small slice of the series, which will be aired in four segments this month and next.  What I can tell you is that the panel discussion to promote the series reminded me once again, of why I left mainstream journalism.  The panelists seemed totally oblivious to the huge fight to totally corporatize our media, including the Internet, and its implication for diversity of viewpoint, freedom of expression, and innovation.

Indeed, when I asked a question about net neutrality -- the right of individuals to access any information and use any lawful application on the Internet without the interference of an Internet Service Provider -- the panelists were almost totally unresponsive.  Dana Priest, a very big-time Washington Post reporter, asked: "What's net neutrality?"  The fact that she asked the question truly is an indictment of her own newspaper, which continues to cover media issues as business stories, and buries them in the business section of their paper.

But far more disappointing was the response of Scott Moore, vice president for Yahoo! News, who explained net neutrality to his colleagues on the panel, but then claimed it was "a tempest in a teapot," offering the bogus argument that in a competitive media marketplace, any company that withheld content that people wanted would find those individuals choosing another cable or broadband provider.  Of course, that argument is so fraught with inaccuracies, it is pathetic.  First of all, everyone knows that when a consumer contracts with a cable or telephone company for a bundle of services, it is extremely difficult to switch services.  Secondly, companies are not going to cut off access to information, they are just going to make some information way more difficult to get to.  You won't be able to find www.commoncause.org on a search engine, or when you try to access us, it will take far longer to reach us.

It is no secret that cable and phone companies want to make the Internet a vehicle for selling things and entertainment, a replica of cable with all its lack of choice and big profits.

After years of multimillion-dollar deals and living the gilded life of a well-connected Washington lobbyist, Jack Abramoff's next job will pay far less: 12 cents an hour.

The Associated Press reports that the former lobbyist at the center of an influence-peddling scandal in Washington entered a minimum-security prison in Cumberland, Md., this morning.

Abramoff arrived at the prison about 6:30 a.m. today. He's expected to serve nearly six years after being convicted in Florida earlier this year on charges stemming from a fraudulent, multimillion dollar deal to buy casino ships.

He's awaiting sentencing in Washington for corrupting government officials and their staff members. The charges arose from years of work on Capitol Hill in which Abramoff gave out tickets to sporting events, meals and trips. He's also under investigation for bilking Indian tribes he represented out of  $82 million.

If you look at the surface of last week's overwhelming vote by the House in favor of extending the protections of the Voting Rights Act, you would think that everything was all right.  Despite the presence of four amendments that would weaken the act, the House actually got a higher number of members to support reauthorization this time around (390) than it did 24 years ago (389).  Even today's Roll Call signaled an easier time in the Senate:  "VRA Moves Into Calmer Waters
Senators Expect Smooth Sailing," the headline over today's story read.

But then consider this: The House vote flew in the face of Speaker Dennis Hastert's plan to move only legislation supported by a majority of the 230-member House Republican caucus. It's true that a majority of both parties voted to pass the bill, but a majority of Republicans supported each of the amendments that would have seriously damaged, if not gutted, the Voting Rights Act. Only a strong showing of House Democrats' discipline kept the amendments out of the bill.