Connie Schultz, the Plain Dealer's best-known (and Pulitzer-winning) columnist, has a column up where she apologizes for making a couple of mistakes in her Tea Party column.
Connie is in an awkward position. She's married to U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat running for re-election. It's a little difficult for her to pretend to be neutral about Democrat vs. Republican arguments.
In her column, Connie says she should have mentioned that Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, a possible opponent for Brown, showed up at the Tea Party rally she wrote about. She also says she shouldn't have taken video of Mandel after a Democratic cameraman was booted out.
Connie says she caused "anguish" for her editors.
I don't see why. Connie is a left-leaning opinion columnist. Nobody who reads her columns would expect her to gush with praise for the Tea Party. She shouldn't be expected to pretend to be "objective."
Obviously, if she wrote a column roasting Mandel as Ohio's most evil politician, that would show poor judgment. She should probably stay away from the Senate race. But I don't see where she's obligated to go out of her way to give Mandel free publicity.
If Connie had been a right wing columnist along the lines of Kevin O'Brien, her colleague at the PD, and suddenly changed sides after marrying Brown, she'd be open to criticism.
But as far as I can tell, her opinions are exactly the same as they ever were. Why should she have to change what she does, just because she got married?