U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Present Tense) has routinely refused to rule out a 2016 presidential run, saying only “I am not running for president.” Here’s a typical exchange, from yesterday’s interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep, who brought up all the people urging Warren to run.
Would you tell these independent groups, “Give it up!” You’re just never going to run.
I told them, “I’m not running for president.” You’re putting that in the present tense, though. Are you never going to run?
I am not running for president. You’re not putting a “never” on that.
I am not running for president. You want me to put an exclamation point at the end?
Fabulously non-responsive, no?
But in today’s edition the Boston Globe’s Noah Bierman came up with a clever way to shift Warren to the future tense.
Warren has answered the question more definitively before. Last year, the Globe asked her at a news conference in Boston whether she would make a a more ironclad pledge to serve out her Senate term, which ends in January 2019.
“I pledge to serve out my term,” she said at the time.
On Monday, Warren’s spokeswoman, Lacey Rose, was asked by the Globe in an e-mail whether the senator stood by that pledge.
“Yep, nothing has changed,” Rose replied.
Of course, everything is different in the Boston Herald. Top of Page One:
Inside, there’s Hillary Chabot’s piece (with Matthew Stout) about Warren’s local political posse.
Bay State heavyweights eye Warren bandwagon
U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III — whose late uncle Edward M. Kennedy famously snubbed Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential contest — kept the door open yesterday to another game-changing Kennedy endorsement should U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren enter the 2016 race.
“He has no doubt she will continue to be a tremendously effective leader wherever her career takes her,” Kennedy spokeswoman Emily Brown said yesterday when asked of the congressman’s thoughts about Warren as president.
The comment comes after U.S. Rep. Michael E. Capuano (D-Somerville) offered his support to Warren if she jumps into the presidential contest, despite the likelihood that former Secretary of State Clinton will enter the field.
As the hardreading staff has previously noted, the local dailies have differed on whether Mark Wahlberg’s racist-fueled 1988 assault on two local Vietnamese men resulted in his blinding one of them in one eye.
The Boston Herald said Wahlberg “reportedly left one of the victims blind in one eye,” while the Boston Globe has never mentioned that particular fact.
For the past 26 years Hollywood superstar Mark Wahlberg has believed he left a Vietnamese man blind in one eye after brutally assaulting him during his wayward teenage years.
He spent 45 days in jail for the attack but has now made a plea for the crime to be pardoned having turned his life around to become one of the most famous actors in the world.
His victim has never spoken about the vicious assault in 1988 but has broken a more than two decade long silence to reveal that the actor did not actually cause him any serious harm – and that until he was told by MailOnline, he had no idea his assailant had become a famous actor.
In his first ever interview since the attack Johnny Trinh revealed to Mail Online he was already blind in one eye after being injured while fighting the Communists in the Vietnam War.
So, to recap:
Mark Wahlberg racially assaulted two Vietnamese men in 1988 but blinded neither of them in either eye.
Crosstown at the Boston Globe, the story – not surprisingly – gets buried at the bottom of today’s Names column.
But it’s not just story placement that distinguished the two papers. It’s the language they use that really sets them apart. Just a few examples (feisty tabloid on left, stately broadsheet on right):
The feisty local tabloid has been something of a Wahlflower in the past week’s Marky Mark rumpus, but today’s edition jumps into the pool with this column from Jessica Heslam.
Clean slate requires coming clean
Wahlberg’s records still sealed
Mark Wahlberg wants the commonwealth of Massachusetts to wipe his violent, racially fueled criminal record clean — but the state won’t let you see what’s in his court files.
The Dorchester thug turned Hollywood star’s criminal and civil files in Boston courthouses have been sealed shut as the former rapper known as Marky Mark seeks a pardon.
It’s not surprising. His crimes are disturbing.
To detail just how disturbing those crimes were, Heslam draws on court papers posted on The Smoking Gun website in 1997. But we’re not like to see any more, Heslam reports.
The Probation Department couldn’t say when or why Wahlberg’s cases were sealed, citing privacy laws. The Parole Board said his criminal records are protected by the state’s Criminal Offender Record Information law.
Crosstown at the Boston Globe, those zany Namesniks add yet another wrinkle to the Ballad of Marked Mark.
Huh. Life imitates art, eh? Or at least melodrama.
Dorchester-born Holly-wood heartthrob Mark Wahlberg is asking the state to wipe his record clean of a 26-year-old assault rap and other convictions, arguing that by “formally” forgiving his dark past, it could inspire troubled youths to turn their lives around.
The 43-year-old actor/producer/restaurateur served 45 days of a three-month sentence for an April 1988 crime he says he has spoken “openly and publicly about” during his rise to stardom.
With the request, filed Nov. 26, he’s asking the state to expunge it from his record, in part, so he could become “more active in law enforcement activities.”
Note: The Globe does not include the “reportedly left one of the victims blind in one eye” that the Herald does; the Herald does not include the racial slurs and the NECN credit that the Globe does.
Regardless, only one of them follows up on the story today.
The report by Maria Cramer and Nestor Ramos starts with the 1988 racial incident, but also includes this:
In a separate episode, some from a class that was harassed in 1986 by a group of teens that included Wahlberg were not impressed with his request for a pardon.
Mary Belmonte, the class teacher, remembered leading her terrified elementary school students down a side street to avoid the hail of rocks. “I’m sure he’s sincere and he wants to clear his name,” Belmonte said. “It would be nice if he could apologize and really own up to what he was.’’
Huh.
Curiously, today’s Globe piece also says nothing about Lam losing his sight in one eye.
Double huh.
But the Globe website does include an archive of its coverage of the allegations from 1988-2000. Well worth a look.
Former First Lady/U.S. Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D-Bill’s Not Here) is in town today to pick up a few bucks and drop a few pearls of wisdom.
In spirit of holidays, go see poor Hillary Clinton
Ex-first lady needs all the help she can get
It was a speech for the ages. Hillary Clinton’s rousing oratory at Georgetown University yesterday brought the packed house to their feet.
The problem? Their feet were elsewhere.
In fact, it was a humiliating day for Madame Secretary as many, many seats remained empty, a feat which at this moment in time could only have been matched with a cameo by Bill Cosby.
Shattuck goes on to say, “[I]n the spirit of the holiday season, I implore you to attend [today’s event]. In the words of her home state predecessor, Robert F. Kennedy, ‘I dream of things … and ask why not?’ Seriously, why not?”
Uh . . . because it’s sold out? Not to get technical about it.
There was some fierce competition at The Home for Little Wanderers’ annual Gingerbread House Decorating Competition, held Tuesday at Showcase Cinema de Lux at Legacy Place in Dedham. Among those constructing homes worthy of Hansel and Gretel were former TV anchor Bianca de la Garza, “American Hustle” actresses Erica McDermott and Melissa McMeekin, actress-producer Christy Scott Cashman, Magic 106.7’s Candy O’Terry, Summer Shack’s Jasper White, and baseball scribe Peter Gammons. The event raised $30,000 for The Home for Little Wanderers, which is one of New England’s largest child welfare agencies.
That’s okay, but the frosting local tabloid gave a clinic on how to hit the sweet spot.
I was lucky enough to judge the competition with Joan Wallace-Benjamin, the president of the Home, our very own Kerry Byrne, Celtics mascot Lucky, Boston Magazine’s Leah Mennies and Magic 106.7’s Chris Shine.
For months in late 2001, the Globe’s Spotlight Team chipped away in secret at a story that at first seemed unimaginable — that a succession of cardinals and bishops in the Boston Catholic Archdiocese had for decades covered up the sexual abuse of countless children by priests. In many cases, Church leaders took no action to deny their Roman-collared child molesters access to children.
When the Globe began documenting the extensive abuse and the cover-up in January 2002, the story exploded, first in Boston, then nationally and in countries around the world. In the Boston Archdiocese alone, an estimated 200 priests abused children. Nationally, it is at least 7,000 priests. The escalating disclosures continue, and have shaken the very foundation of the Church.
In September, director Tom McCarthy (“The Station Agent,” “Win Win”) and a cast of Hollywood names including Liev Schreiber, Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, and Stanley Tucci began shooting a movie titled “Spotlight,’’ about the Globe’s investigation. The filmmakers used locations in Boston and in Toronto, where they re-created the Globe newsroom and the Spotlight Team’s offices. With camerawork expected to wrap in the Bay State on Sunday, the film is scheduled for release late next year.
Oddly, Kathleen Conti’s Globe South/West piece in yesterday’s edition about the financial value of local movie productions failed to spotlight Spotlight.
Maybe because most of the film was shot in Toronto?
Well the hardreading staff was checking out Politico Playbook (yes, Mike Allen is crazy enough to post on Thanksgiving and, yes, we’re crazy enough to read it on Thanksgiving) when we came across this:
TODAY’S PLEASINGLY PLUMP WashPost has 34 Black Friday circulars in the blue bag (and doubles the usual weekday cover price to $2.50). The Raleigh News & Observer, with 43 inserts, triples the normal price to $3. The garish cover of the Richmond Times-Dispatch promises “up to 900 pages of savings” (and profit for the paper), and raises the price from $1.25 to $3.50 (even gouging subscribers with a surcharge). The Dallas Morning News bills today’s paper as “Biggest issue, biggest deals of the year … SPECIAL PRICE $3” – twice the usual price for a weekday issue.
Hmmm, we bethought ourselves – wonder what the locals did on the pricing front. So we went to the front pages.
Today’s Boston Globe:
Regular weekday Globe:
Notice that the snowbirds get the same price both days, likely because they didn’t get the umpteen Doorbuster! inserts.
Crosstown at today’s Boston Herald:
Yesterday’s Herald:
In case you’re wondering, the catchpenny local tabloid was chockablock with inserts. But it was no Pursebuster! The stately local broadsheet should take notice.
ends in January 2019.
Posted by Campaign Outsider 
It's Good to Live in a Two-Daily Town 