This campaign has developed the "how much longer can this drag on" tediousness of an Oscar show with one of the notable side effects being how many Clinton supporters have broken ranks. For months I haven't had a dinner where someone hasn't whispered, "I started out for her but switched to him." Both Clintons' ratings have suffered, and there's a good amount of speculation about what's perceived as Bill's ambivalence.
I was pleased, therefore, on Hillary's behalf, to read in today's New York Times that Richard Mellon Scaife, a former member of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" who'd worked to undermine the Clintons, is claiming to have new respect for the indefatigable, female contender.
But as I read on, I learned that Scaife's motivation may be suspect, that he could be praising Hillary because she's perceived as easier to beat by some Republicans. Equally unsettling is the reliability of The New York Times, which has, on page A4, no fewer than nineteen Corrections: For The Record.
It's entirely possible we will, later this week, read that it was Lanny David, not Scaife, who was praising Hillary. If there's one thing we can be sure of, it's that the paper is in need of additional fact checkers.