Blogoland

Leave it to Hugh Hewitt to have the most nitwitted response to the Hillary-is-a non-disclosing-charitable-woman story:

I am sure the Washington Post would have handled the McCain Foundation in exactly the same way, tipping the senator to the story so that the necessary dmaage (sic) control could get done before the story ran.

Actually, you dolt, that's exactly what they would have done. See, this is how journalism works -- even the shoddy type on display here. You report the story, then you contact the target of your reporting to get some kind of comment or response. You give them ample time to do so. If, in the meantime, they correct the problem, you report on it, which is exactly what The Post did:

Her office immediately amended her Senate ethics reports to add that information late yesterday after receiving inquiries from The Washington Post.

But, see, in Hugh's world, this is "tipping off" Hillary Clinton. Apparently, it's unconscionable to allow the target of your investigation to respond to your charges.

Remind me again why people take this guy seriously?