Just to further obscure things, it is far from guaranteed that I would have a key role should Riordan start a newspaper. But this, too, has always been true.

I'll further add -- and apologies for how inconsquential this boring B.S. is -- that my comment on Roger's site was based not on any thrilling inside information, but on watching Jill Stewart on CNN last night, when she made the same if-he-don't-then-he'll-pursue formulation. It was on the teevee, so it must be true!

Thanks for clarifying. At least someone was watching CNN!

Well, Emmanuelle said "Hey! Jill Stewart's on CNN!" She was great, too.

It is absurdly hilarious that Jill's piece on the recall -- which was fantastic, by the way -- ran, not in the LA TImes, but in the New York Times, on the Sunday op ed page. The NYT had slated for a Thursday run (a bird named Jill told me), but they apparently liked it enough to ask her to bump it up 400 words so they could run it on Sunday. Um, I forgot -- what's the reason we can't read her in the LA Times? Can someone at least make some good reasons up?

Whether or not he runs, Riordan will still be working towards launching a newspaper. I have heard this directly from him. His candidacy (if he decides to run) may not have a great effect on our efforts to lure investors, though his level of direct involvement in the actual paper would obviously change should he be elected.

Jill has made a huge and public point of groaning and moaning about how terrible she thinks the LA Times is since the minute she left there. They don't want her. She doesn't want them. As a friend of mine once said, "Sometimes a good divorce can bring everyone a lot of happiness."