Harry Reid, after many, many strident denials, has had to admit that yes, he did have "routine contacts" with Abramoff lobbying partners.

Ah, the process begins: first the denials, then the clarficiations, then the admissions.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, and the senator's staff regularly had contact with the disgraced lobbyist's team about legislation affecting other clients.

The activities -- detailed in billing records and correspondence obtained by the Associated Press -- are far more extensive than previously disclosed. They occurred over three years as Reid collected nearly $68,000 from Abramoff's firm, partners and clients.

Reid's office acknowledged Thursday having ''routine contacts'' with Abramoff's lobbying partners and intervening on some matters -- such as blocking some tribal casinos -- in ways Abramoff's clients might have deemed helpful. But it said none of his actions were affected by donations or done for Abramoff.

Harry Reid never would accept such qualifiers from a Republican with similarly extensive contacts, but isn't above special pleading--a Crat birthright.

Howard Dean may have got one right--Reid is in trouble. How do I know? When the left starts the pushback, its because there is something to be worried about.

The article mentions Abramoff associate Ronald Platt several times, describing him as a member of the "Democratic team" at Abramoff's firm, and quotes Reid spokesman Jim Manley saying that Reid met regularly with Platt to discuss policy issues. But while the story notes that Reid met with Platt in June 2001 to discuss the minimum wage bill, and reports that Platt "began billing for routine contacts and meetings with Reid's staff" in March 2001, it did not quote Platt at any point. Further, blogger Joshua Micah Marshall reported Platt's assertion that the AP reporters did not even attempt to contact him for the article.

Marshall elicits quotes by Platt to the effect that Reid never engaged in any untoward behavior, but whether that's true or not is besides the point--the Crats declared war on the basis of guilt by association--a culture of corruption based on taking $500.00 from a black hat, while Harry Reid got $68,000.00--albeit from the the black hat's bag men.. Reid can hardly complain about being judged by the judgment whereby he judges others.

On the other hand, if everything is as innocent as Marshall suggests then why the lies? Why cover up the "innocent meetings" with Abramoff lobbyists? Why does the AP have to excavate the facts?

The reality, as the Los Angeles Times has reported, is that Reid has had a long history of shady dealings in the lobbying game. At one point, five sons where involved in lobbying and trading on the Reid name. There is a hell of a lot of smoke here and the fire can't be far.

Reid appears to have almost single-handedly destroyed the Democrat campaign strategy of emphasizing a culture of corruption among Republicans. The fact that his defenders are pleading extenuating circumstances makes it hard to deny Republicans the same defense, and the vast majority may have far better stories to defend their 5 to 10 C-note Abramoff donations that Reid does his 68 Mbucks.