Not really sure how the MSM got this one so wrong.

In March 1997, the Washington City Paper published an in-depth profile of Holder and concluded that although popular, he had done little to crack down on one of the city’s biggest problems — widespread public corruption.

Stephanie Mencimer, author of the profile, wrote:

“For all the love Holder has engendered in the community as U.S. Attorney, he has had precious little impact on the city’s endemic municipal corruption. [Ex-convict and Mayor Marion] Barry has returned to his old tricks, nudging contracts and city jobs to old cronies and new girlfriends. Holder is apparently leaving, and he hasn’t thrown a punch.”

Mencimer rattled off a list of investigations into government corruption and fraud on Holder’s watch and lamented, “Not one of these cases has resulted in an indictment so far.”

Mencimer went on to quote city councilwoman Kathy Paterson, who complained, “If [Holder] left tomorrow, I don’t think the D.C. government would be any stronger for his having been there. There comes a time when you have to say, ‘What’s your track record?’”

Today, the City Paper’s Ted Scheinman examines Holder’s record on corruption under the headline “A.G. Appointee Eric Holder Soft on Corruption.” He is right in pointing out that Holder’s role in President Bill Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich deserves some scrutiny, but his headline strikes me as a bit strong. (Scheinman is also my roommate, so I suspect we’ll debate this amply tonight.)

If the reports are correct, we’ll see how all of this plays out in the confirmation hearings.

DC is the least swingy state — or non-state — in the country (fivethirtyeight projects a 63-point margin for Sen. Barack Obama; RealClearPolitics doesn’t even bother to project), so we district folk have to move beyond our narrow borders to see a place where the election matters. Two WCP reporters did just that, and they found sharp differences between the campaigns.

The view from an Obama rally in Leesburg, VA., is vast — and unsettlingly inauthentic, writes Franklin Schneider:

His speech, like most stump speeches, is the rhetorical equivalent of a girl with breast implants, peroxide blond hair and a fake tan — all the most obvious notes are engineered to appeal to the widest possible demographic. “Believe in yourselves! Believe in the future! Together we can’t fail! We can change the world! We’ve got a righteous wind at our backs!” This isn’t Professor Obama; this is Barry Six Pack, a canny PR construct calibrated to ignite an electorate that insists on treating presidential elections like the season finale of “American Idol.”

The crowd loves it.

On the McCain side, things look a bit different. Justin Moyer writes that a Super Saturday McCain conference call at the home of one Naran Murthy in Sterling, VA., is less than bustling:

I look around Murthy’s living room and see only Murthy and myself. Why haven’t a roomful of McCain supporters shown up in Naran Murthy’s living room? Even Murthy’s mother has gone upstairs.

UPDATE: For those interested, the City Paper links to this quantitative analysis of how likely your vote will make a difference in the presidential election. For residents of the District — “nearly zero.”