What are journalistic best practices?

1 - Does anyone know where this message came from? Is it really from the Clinton campaign?

2 - Do I read it correctly that the "scandalous" conversation was between an Obama staffer, wanting to help out an important Nigerian, and a person at the State Department that might have the needed info?

3 - If this message is what it seems, what went wrong that NPR interviewed a talking head and led him to conclude that the "scandal" illustrates the kind of access to power that ordinary people don't have? (That is, the e-mailer to the staffer, not the Nigerian to the oval office.) If this message is what it seems, I think NPR owes the public a retraction.

We're seeing why Hillary's decades of experience...

... dealing with ridiculous smears is working. She's right not to engage. It would take over the whole campaign. This week just shows how desperate the right is with their ridiculous, substanceless attacks about State Dept/Clinton Foundation collusion and Hillary's health. I wouldn't be surprised if the stupidity of their attacks isn't beginning to come clear to people who might have been inclined to believe them.

Who are the 4 to 5 senate candidates...

... we can most count on to take back the senate?

I expect this info has been posted before, but I don't recall.

TIA
LAS

Media justify anti-trump bias.

For me this argument against "bias" is like the argument that both pro and anti human-caused-climate-change should get equal coverage. That is nonesense, and I think asking the MSM to not pay attention to the moral extremes of Trump's candidacy is to ask them to not be part of our society.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/09/media-justify-anti-trump-bias-claim-hes-too-dangerous-for-normal-rules.html

What does the up arrow in the RealClearPolitics...

battleground states list mean?

Elizabeth Warren sticks it to Rachel Maddow yet again.

".@realDonaldTrump makes death threats because he's a pathetic coward who can’t handle the fact that he’s losing to a girl."

Remember when Maddow dissed Bill Clinton because he said "I met a girl?" Then Warren a day or two later, in an interview with Maddow, said she'd be the happiest girl alive if blah, blah (something about Trump.) She hasn't forgotten!

I'm OK with the strategy of just not spending time on...

... negative stuff. Hillary has a long history of learning how to deal with smears.

But if she's going to spend time addressing an issue, why doesn't she just tell the good story that she has? "Look, there were 30,000+ e-mails. Plus that many more on the classified network. Do YOU read ALL your e-mails through? None of them were marked classified in the prescribed way. The State Department did not agree with all other departments' classifications. What the fuck is the problem??? So I didn't notice that some people didn't notice/agree with someone else's classification. None of them impacted security. Give me a break!"

I've been a Hillary follower/supporter since she was at Wellesley. I have no problem at all with her handling of classified info.

But I do wonder why she just doesn't tell her good story.

How come no reporters give Clinton the benefit of the doubt?

Since there were NO e-mails that were marked properly with headers, and only 3 that were marked at all (with little (c)'s buried in the text... which Comey agreed anyone might miss), why is it not a possibility that she genuinely did not think that any "classified" e-mails had been received?

Why would she lie, for crying out loud, when she knew the FBI was looking at them?

What's wrong with the system when the positive interpretation is verboten?

Why now?

Trump has been making awful gaffes for months! Why are they suddenly being heard?

Super page on HRC's web site. Pass it around! Buy in America!