I heard from several readers over the weekend who thought Sunday's A-1 centerpiece story about Bill Clinton's effect on the Democratic presidential campaign was misplaced effort.

"Shouldn't Senator Obama's win in the SC primary have been the lead story?" wrote one. "That's the news, not an analysis of the former president's role in the overall campaign."

"What does Obama have to do to get out from under the shadow of both of the Clintons?" asked another.

Coverage of Clinton vs. Obama has been the biggest generator of reader comments so far this election.

A sharp-eyed caller noticed that a photo of Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga on Page A-10 today has the men's names flipped.

I'm looking at the photo as it came to The Star from Getty Images, and the mistake is in the original caption from Getty. Still, The Star ran the bad info, so it needs to be corrected. Look for an item on Page A-2 tomorrow.

Is The Star available for readers with reduced vision? Yes. Happily, newspapers are more accessible today than ever before.

Since you're reading this online, the first option is one of the many computer-reader software packages out there. The Web has opened up a huge new world of reading for people with vision disabilities.

Second is the National Federation of the Blind's Newsline service. It's a toll-free phone line that offers the text from over 250 newspapers, including The Kansas City Star. Their information line is 1-866-504-7300 (toll free), and you can visit

An anonymous voicemailer takes issue with a Star story today referring to the Cato Institute as "libertarian."

"You don't use the 'liberal' label with groups like the Sierra Club," he said. "Let's have some consistency."

I agree consistency is important, and I'm always wary of labels. With Cato, though, I don't really see a problem. The institute's "About Cato" Web page says it prefers the terms "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." And a search of the site produces well over four thousand hits on the word "libertarian," overwhelmingly in a positive context.

I hear often from professionals who enjoy a Star story about the work they do, but find fault with how journalists misuse terms, especially when it comes to titles.

Reader Eric Prince recently e-mailed me about Star reporter Monica Watrous' story about her visit to the Kansas City Federal Reserve, which is portrayed in the movie "Mad Money." Price thought it was "a good article about a movie that will probably be best rented" (that's funny), but he hitched at the question "How many security guards work here?"

"...we are not security guards," he wrote, but "we are armed and commissioned Federal Law Enforcement Officers with the power of arrest for Federal Offenses. Our authority is derived from the US PATRIOT Act and signified on our badges with the text 'Federal Reserve Law Enforcement' and on our uniform patches that read 'Federal Reserve Police'. I was a municipal Police Officer in the St. Louis Missouri area for eight years prior to working for the Fed so I can assure you the training we receive is of the same or better quality and just as in-depth as that of any street Police Officer."

Several people have called me this week to report receiving a recorded phone call alleging that The Star is covering up a murder, with the assistance of the Johnson County DA's office -- and pinning the blame on both Paul Morrison and Phill Kline.

Just in case you wonder, no, the call isn't from The Star. And since the company making the calls isn't selling anything, it apparently is immune from having to obey the federal Do Not Call registry.

I've had several calls and e-mails this morning from supporters of Frances Semler who lay the blame for her resignation at the feet of The Star. Not just because of the editorial board's and some columnists' criticisms of her support of the Minutemen, but also because the news side has published several stories about the controversy, giving it a higher public profile than the critics think it deserved.

"This never would have happened if The Star hadn't been hammering us over the head with it every day," said one.

The controversy has made Page A-1 16 times, and B-1, the Local cover, 31 times. Too much?

I just spoke with a woman who says an item in today's Top 10 list on Page A-2 has a sequence of events from last night's Democratic debate out of order.

It says Hillary Clinton accused Barack Obama of representing a slumlord, with Obama "countering she was a corporate lawyer for anti-union Wal-Mart."

"It was the other way around," said the caller. "He was the one who brought up Wal-Mart first, and she was retaliating."

The Washington posts backs up my caller. I don't have time to review the entire debate this morning, but two video digests I've seen online go in this order, too.

An e-mailer today suggested that The Star cover an upcoming protest at a soldier's funeral by Fred Phelps and the members of his church. "Seems news-worthy to me," he wrote.

As I've written in the past, protests are always a problem, especially when they involve such a small number of people as Phelps' regular demonstrations. The Star's policy is not to cover any protest unless it has at least 25 participants - a bar the Phelps group rarely meets. 25 can, but doesn't have to, merit a brief, and there need to be at least 100 for a photo or a short story. If the reporter can't count the participants, the story shouldn't cite a number.

I just heard from a caller who thought Sunday's Page A-1 story about both parties' race to name a candidate contained loaded language.

"'The Republican Party limps out of South Carolina today unable to crown a clear front-runner for its presidential nomination,' this goes," said the reader. "But you read down, and I don't see anything about them having problems other than just not having a choice yet. That's how it always works. That isn't 'limping.'"

A senior editor in the morning meeting thought the same thing -- that "limping" was supported by the story itself. Another editor thought it was an example of the media's tendency to want to rush the process along and "crown a winner" early.