Quote

Sure, some journalists use anonymous sources just because they're lazy and I think editors ought to insist on more precise identification even if they remain anonymous.

I don't think the candidate would be directly responsible for things that their supporters say, but when it gets to a certain level, they ought to say, 'Cut it out.'

I think we have a high responsibility to base any criticisms that we have on a fair and honest statement of the facts, and that nominees should not be subjected to distortions of their record, taking things they've done out of context.

Calling out people for not voting, what experts term 'public shaming,' can prod someone to cast a ballot.

Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office.

Obviously a candidate has to be held responsible for the words that come out of his mouth, regardless of where they came from.

I understand that the nature of politics sometimes involves fending off frivolous, anonymous allegations.

I think people are distrustful of politicians and are looking for someone who is telling the truth with no hidden agenda.

I know a lot of reporters certainly will go to jail to defend confidential sources. Some have even gone to jail for an issue like this. But I can't say that's the norm.