I am also glad to see that the Times removed some of the more offensive parts of their story.

Thanks for clarifying that, Doug!

That phrase makes my head explode.

Make that an active verb and replace "uncomfortable" with "sexually harassed" and you get "the women who he sexually harassed" which seems to be much more accurate.

Please clarify, becuse you seem to be holding the Times feet to the fire while missing the whole point--which is that Sutherland is a skeezy old bastard who likes to fondle young employees.

She's expressed indignation at both the Times and P.I. regarding their reluctance to publish the story, and I think it's entirely justified. A public official sexually harassing an employee on the job should be reported for the sake of public interest, not shelved until someone from the blogosphere finally applies some pressure to break the story.

Why hasn't the accuser came forward? Why has she refused ALL requests for interviews? Why has she not agreed to speak off the record?

In the interest of fairness, the real scoop would be for Erica to get her on the record.

Until then it's all just posturing on Erica's part to show that she is better than her cross-town rivals, which is pretty trivial considering the sleeziness of the story to begin with.

And, Jeff, stop trying to cover up.