I don't think it's entirely necessary for me to explain, once again, why I believe that Rashid Khalidi is not a danger to the Republic. I also don't think I have to rehearse the controversial idea that Barack Obama was not, in fact, the Hyde Park chapter president of the PFLP-GC. (That was Rahm Emanuel.) But there's a video out there of Obama saying kind things about Khalidi, and on the general principle that information in an open society shouldn't be kept secret and that the voters should make up their own minds about whether or not they trust certain candidates, this video should be set free. But a pro-censorship organization called the Los Angeles Times, which has the tape in its possession, is hiding it, for reasons it won't fully explain. And it's looking more and more ridiculous each passing day.
I understand that the tape was leaked to the Times by a source or sources unknown, and that an agreement was struck with that source to keep the tape hidden, but the tape has been described in a Times story already, and it quite obviously contains no state secrets. I also suspect that the tape could be posted in such a way as to obscure its origins. The Times, however, won't discuss in detail why it's keeping the tape from its readers, and the newspaper's "readers' representative," Jamie Gold, has lined up against the readers, and argued against the release of the tape.
There is another reason why the tape should be posted: It might actually create interest in the L.A. Times. From what I understand, the mainstream media is in a bit of trouble these days. Perhaps -- this is just a thought here -- the L.A. Times could better its position in the world by drawing readers to its website.
Like I said, just a thought.
UPDATE 4:50 P.M.: Welcome, Drudge readers. Except for the guy who just emailed to tell me that I have "even less honor" than John McCain. Whatever that means. Also, I'll take the opportunity to make clear something that I didn't make clear at all up above: The first move, one I hope the L.A. Times has already made, would be to press the source to agree to allow the video to be posted. This sort of pressure is brought to bear on sources all the time. One other point, to those of you who think I'm interested in seeing this innocent source burned: We're not dealing with a wallflower here. The source already leaked the video to the Los Angeles Times. One final thought: The L.A. Times could give us a hint why it agreed to the conditions set by the source. That would certainly help clear the air. And clearing the air is important here: I'm willing to bet that the video does not show Barack Obama wearing a keffiyah. But the anti-Obama conspiracists, who all seem to have my email address, believe it shows something nefarious. Trying to serve the truth here would be a good thing.