However, the UPI jumped on the story. It also went the route online, with Huffington Post, TruthOut and quite a few notable blogs. But mostly the network news focused elsewhere -- on the death of a Dallas police officer in a accident during Clinton's motorcade, as well as ongoing analysis of the Texas debate and developing security issues at the U.S.'s Serbian embassy, not to mention Jennifer Lopez giving birth to twins, the upcoming Oscars and other items of a tabloidy nature.

Some background on campaign security is helpful, to see what a tangled web it can become. Ordinarily the Secret Service doesn't provide protection for Presidential candidates unless their campaigns request it and meet certain criteria. According to a Washington Post story in May last year, the Dept. of Homeland Security did order the Secret Service onto security detail for Obama. The Post said, "The security detail was prompted by general concerns about the safety of a prominent black candidate. Although there was no direct threat to Obama, several factors raised concerns, including some racist chatter on white supremacist Web sites." This DHS decision, and other Secret Service commitments, have put a strain on Secret Service resources and budget, the Post said.

It's also important to know the different layerings of campaign security operations. The DHS would be concerned about overall security, including any terrorist threat directed at a crowd, not just the candidate. Secret Security is chiefly concerned with putting "suits" around a candidate's person. A lot goes on with hidden cameras and radio communications that the public never sees, as the Secret Service keep an overview on the area and people who might look suspicious to them. Additional security details can be done by private security firms hired locally by the candidate's campaign organization, to do things like operate metal detectors and check backpacks. Finally, an interface with local law enforcement is mandatory under DHS rules.

The Star-Telegram said there were reports that weapons security was similarly suspended at some previous campaign events as well, including other Obama appearances. The reason for doing this was allegedly that long lines of people had piled up, waiting to get into the building, and the weapons check was going slowly. So somebody made the decision to let people go in without checking them, ensuring that the house would be full before the event started. My business partner Tyler St. Mark, who consulted for political campaigns in past years, says that a candidate's campaign manager is most always a party to security decisions.

Late last night John Selig posted a comment to my original blog, including an eyewitness account from a friend of his, Barry Bragg, who actually attended the Dallas rally for Obama. Bragg also talked to me this morning. He said that the long lines had built up because the security forces (who wore badges reading TSA and looked to be a local security company) had only one check-point going. Bragg emailed John, "It seemed as if the huge crowd was going through one entrance and one metal detector, which was not nearly enough for that size group."

According to the Star-Telegram, the Dallas police told the paper that the order to stop checking came from "federal officials." However, according to Tyler St. Mark, a decision to hurry people to their seats could also come from someone in a campaign staff who was in charge there at the rally venue, and who was worried that TV cameras might show empty seats for Obama's appearance.

The Secret Service are denying that an order was actually given to halt weapons security. They insist that what they did was their routine MO for this campaign, part of a "comprehensive plan." Imagine the uproar around U.S. air travel if security checks were similarly suspended for the last few people boarding an airplane.

Perhaps certain major media have chosen to low-ball the story in hopes of not putting ideas into the head of some angry person with a gun out there. Certainly many Americans feel ouchy about even discussing violence against a Presidential candidate. For months I have been feeling a spooky underground attention on this subject, with politically minded friends expressing their concern to me in hush-hush tones but little being said about it in the media. Older Americans' have live memories of that horrific moment when candidate Bobby Kennedy was gunned down in Los Angeles in 1968. One Bilerico reader emailed me privately to say that he even hesitated to post something publicly, for fear of feeding into an atmosphere that might prompt violence against a candidate.

Obama's organization has not made any public comment, that I know of, so perhaps they are feeling their own reluctance to feed a news frenzy. Hillary Clinton has her own Secret Service detail, a courtesy provided for all former First Ladies, and I'm wondering what decisions have been made, if any, to suspend weapons checks at her own events.

When all is said and done, I note the OMG shock of many Americans when they first heard about this security lapse. Yesterday the Star-Telegram reported that "comments were flooding in." One person who contacted the newspaper said, "This is sickening and those in charge should be fired!!" The news has hit especially hard on the sensibilities of Obama's LGBT supporters, who are still feeling devastated by what an angry person with a gun did to 15-year-old Lawrence King just a week and a half ago.

My one personal experience with candidate security (running for city council in West Hollywood last year) certainly didn't have any life-and-death issues around it. But I'm flabbergasted that this routine MO, if that's what it was, happened to a Presidential candidate, given the volatile nature of the world we're living in. And I think we DO have to talk about it, to make sure that things get tightened up.

Whatever the reasons or excuses for the pullback of security -- routine, lack of resources, etc. -- this strange story comes back to one basic fact. The whole brouhaha started because some members of the Dallas police department were upset at seeing weapons security lifted during the last hour. The Star-Telegram got wind of their concerns and staff writer Jack Douglas went to work. Now that this security loophole is public knowledge, presumably things will get tightened up.

And one more thing. If funding for the government's end of campaign security is that tight, the Bush administration should scratch around and find some money that is being wasted on cronyism and pork somewhere, and divert it to the Secret Service budget. Security is one of those things that you can't dare to do halfway.