MediaBloodhound

Story of the Day: Russert in the Morning

Finally, members of the mainstream media are tiring of lavishing too much attention on John Edwards' hair. It appears they've latched on to a new topic of concern for American voters.

Hillary Clinton's cleavage.

Yes, our attorney general appears to have lied (multiple times) under oath to Congress, our surge in Iraq gives every sign of futility, our president and vice president continue to push to further abuse executive power, genocide beats on in Darfur, residents displaced by Katrina are all but forgotten, our healthcare system is broken, and our national security is being defended by a "gut feeling."

While we're used to the journalistically brain-dead Sunday morning discourse that passes as news each week, Tim Russert's "Meet the Breast" roundtable debate today may have broken new ground.

In case you don't already know, the following topic was inspired by Washington Post fashion writer Robin Givhan's July 20 article "Hillary Clinton's Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory," in which Givhan referred to Clinton's "cleavage on display" during a recent Senate floor speech. Givhan also described the experience as "unnerving" and said, "But really, it was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!" (Unfortunately for Givhan, Clinton decided to leave her chastity belt back in Chappaqua that day.)

Here are host Tim Russert, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood and NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell discussing this serious news story (to see it to believe it, here's video):

RUSSERT: I want to give Gene Robinson equal time for barber shops.

EUGUNE ROBINSON (Washington Post columnist): Well, I'll take equal time for barber shops. I think [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] needs to find some barbershops in New Hampshire to visit. And, you know, you won't have a lot of hair left if he gets it cut there many, many times. It's pretty short right now. I also -- let me jump in and offer a word in defense of Robin Givhan, the Washington Post columnist who wrote the cleavage column. As her former boss, you know, you either cover fashion or you don't. And I think it's legitimate to argue that you shouldn't worry about fashion, but, you know, it's the way we present ourselves to the world, to others. We make decisions every morning on what we put on and how -- what sort of image we want to project. And unfortunately in our society, women are scrutinized in a way that men aren't. I mean, what did John Edwards wear at the YouTube debate? What did Barack Obama wear?

MITCHELL: Eugene, arguably, if you look at the Senate floor any day of the week, if you look at the floor of the House of Commons when a new cabinet minister was speaking, who had a far more low-cut neckline, this was so marginal. This was like microscopic evidence --

HARWOOD: I'm going to defend that column too.

MITCHELL: --of inappropriate attire.

HARWOOD: I'm going to defend that column too. When you look at the calculation that goes into everything that Hillary Clinton does, for her to argue that she was not aware of what she was communicating by her dress is like Barry Bonds saying he thought he was rubbing down with flaxseed oil, OK?

MITCHELL: Sometimes a blouse is just a blouse.

[crosstalk]

Yes, Andrea, sometimes a blouse is just a blouse. And sometimes - actually, all too often - the Beltway pundits in Washington unwittingly reveal why they are such frequent targets of derision and genuine criticism.

Like an old Imus in the Morning show (on which Russert and Mitchell were recurring guests) no one questioned the inanity and offensiveness of the discussion. It was chuckles all around. While Harwood's observation is obviously the most absurd and asinine statement of the bunch, everyone at that table is complicit because not one of them had the courage and integrity to say, "Hey, can we talk about something that matters?" or even a less confrontational but soul-protecting, "I'll take a pass on this one, thank you."

Moreover, Mitchell's reaction to the discussion is an apt distillation of the twisted priorities in much of our mainstream media: it's not the stupidity of the topic or the patriarchical and puritanical overtones that Mitchell responds to; rather, it's that Hillary actually showed only "microscopic evidence of inappropriate attire."

That's the kind of attention to detail we can count on from NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent.

Throw in Don Imus muttering a barely veiled lesbian reference about Hillary, and his former sidekick Bernard McGuirk barking, "She's a dyke," and it's like Imus never left.

Thanks, Tim. Now all you're missing is the cowboy hat.

Op-Ed Column: Impeachment Edited Out of CNN/YouTube Debate

(updated below)

Revolutionary? Breakthrough? Hardly.

Beyond the surface, a televised repackaging of YouTube’s format and technology in which “real people” – hell, even snowmen – ask real questions, Monday’s CNN/YouTube Democratic debate offered nothing substantively new.

Why? Because Anderson Cooper and CNN brass took it upon themselves to vet those real questions from real people and chose the ones they saw fit for primetime. As a consequence, one of the most popular questions (as voted on at David Colarusso's site Community Counts), one about impeachment, was left adrift in cyberspace. (John Edwards and Senator Chris Dodd did answer the question in a post-debate format via Community Counts and they should be commended. Though it would’ve been nice of them to make clear to all citizens during the debate that this question had been smothered by CNN.)

Prior to the debate, Anderson Cooper explained CNN’s decision to vet the videos themselves rather than let real people vote on which questions should be asked. Said Cooper, "You would see campaigns going out there and having all their people click on the questions that they wanted to be asked." On their screening process, he assured us, "The best stuff separates itself from the rest. It really is not a top-down process. It really is a bottom-up process."

Yeah, look at all those Democratic candidates waiting with bated breath to tackle the issue of impeachment. Yet that was one of the most popular questions outside of CNN’s walls and inside of George W. Bush’s America. This question about impeachment did separate “itself from the rest,” but it couldn’t wrench itself free from CNN’s establishment bias.

Moreover, impeachment has undeniably seeped into our mainstream culture. To couch the issue as "fringe" has, in reality, become fringe. Just a few weeks ago, a poll showed 45% of Americans favoring impeachment for Bush and 54% favoring the same for Vice President Cheney.

And it's not difficult to understand why.

Everyday Americans, just as our Founding Fathers intended, recognize that impeachment is a sensible tool to restore the Constitution - in this case, to prevent future presidents from applying and building on Bush and Cheney’s abuse of executive power, hold our current leaders accountable for breaking domestic and international law, and preclude further disastrous actions, such as an attack on Iran, before the end of the Bush administration's second term.

This is of great concern to millions of Americans who now see the writing on the wall in big bold letters: President Bush and Vice President Cheney are the most criminal White House duo in history and will not succumb to the rule of law unless forced. And even that remains to be seen. Millions of Americans also recognize how this duo’s legacy threatens to further dismantle our democracy and lead us headlong toward an irreversible totalitarianism.

Quite frankly, it’s laughable this question didn’t make the cut. A sham and a shame. It’s July 2007 and CNN is still covering this administration’s ass, further recasting the Fourth Estate as a quaint cottage tucked away comfortably on the outskirts of the castle grounds.

What made YouTube innovative and revolutionary wasn’t so much that regular people uploaded amateur videos but that regular people decided which of those videos were worthy of viewing. This inherent democratic principle was cynically and undemocratically subverted by CNN brass, turning what should have been a watershed moment in journalism and politics into a gimmicky co-opting of technology and pop culture. If Cooper and CNN feared that silly questions would be asked, you wouldn’t know from some of the questions they selected.

Rather, what they really feared was any question that might shake the status quo. In this case, the elephant in the room deserving more than any other to be broadcast around America and across the globe, to finally be given the mainstream platform it warrants, if only, given the YouTube context, for the widespread discussion it’s receiving among everyday citizens.

Instead, Cooper and CNN obfuscated their censorship by wrapping it in the Real People narrative. And who better to host this debate than Anderson Cooper? He’s made his name as The Journalist Who Cares, a leader in the ever-burgeoning Journalism of Emoting, so popular in mainstream news today, where empathy is often more important than uncovering the facts. Here’s how Cooper heralded the debate:

"You're actually kind of getting a window into people's lives. These are people who are living the topics, who are not just asking a theoretical question. There is an intimacy that you don't normally get. And I think it adds really another dimension to the debate."

Yes, it does, and did in some cases, as with the two lesbians from Brooklyn, New York, who asked the candidates if they would allow them to get married…to each other. But even at its best, as with this question, it’s a nominal added dimension. Certainly it’s an important issue to millions of Americans, but it has been asked in dozens of debates for years. The question itself was hardly groundbreaking and neither, for that matter, were the answers.

Of course it puts a human face on a question if those posing it have a personal stake. Yet, personalization aside, all such questions were little more than a repackaging of old ones made to appear new. I guess I’d rather see those two women pose a question about same-sex marriage than, say, David Brooks. At least, for example, you feel they really care about the answer. But in the end, does it have any significant impact on the outcome? Did it do anything to compel the candidates to answer differently?

Aside from the enhanced visual stimulation and less stuffy atmosphere – and there’s something to be said for that if it actually gets more Americans involved in the political process - the CNN/YouTube debate did little else than make some Americans feel their voices were heard. Yet, truthfully, the only voices heard were the ones CNN wanted us to hear.

In the end, the medium certainly was the message. Just not the medium advertised.

UPDATE: Just to be clear, the question ignored by CNN was not simply, "Are you for impeaching this president?" The full question was: "Given George W. Bush's manipulation of pre-war intelligence to enter America into the conflict in Iraq, given his spying illegally on American citizens through the NSA wiretapping program, do you believe that this president should be impeached? And further, do you believe that this is a necessary action to prevent future presidents from abusing presidential powers?"

Watch it here.

UPDATE II: Incidentally, it should be noted that in his post-debate session John Edwards summarized this question before answering it rather than playing back the full question. In his summarization, he made no mention of the second part of her question, which pertained to the use of impeachment to prevent executive branch abuses of future presidents - what many now consider the most important reason for this action. 

Story of the Day: Olbermann's Extra Special Comment

In case you missed Keith Olbermann's special comment from Thursday night, I highly recommend you watch this and/or read the transcript. It's simply extraordinary. Rather than present a commentary at the end of his program as he usually does, Olbermann kicked off Thursday's Countdown with another searing, layered indictment of Bush administration folly and fascism.

I was going to post and comment on related news items as well but am currently overseas and having some technical difficulties. In the meantime, soak up Olbermann's commentary and once again imagine the potential of mainstream news if he were not an anomaly.

The Wounded-Courier: Edwards’ Hair Takes Over in Campaign Shakeup

CHAPEL HILL, NC – Just a couple of weeks ago, John Edwards’ campaign staff made some changes. A new shakeup looks to have far greater impact.

John Edwards’ hair, which has received much more media attention than Mr. Edwards, stepped forward Sunday to officially take over the public face of the campaign. Known among staffers as simply “The Hair,” Edwards’ charismatic coif was fed up with garnering the lion’s share of press coverage while Mr. Edwards, his albeit more experienced yet less substantive counterpart, fought to downplay The Hair’s role in the campaign, opting instead to focus exclusively on the issues.

“It’s nothing personal against John,” The Hair said during a press conference yesterday outside the campaign’s headquarters. "He’s treated me very well over the years, which I’m sure you all know. But he was not exactly what you would call a team player. Meanwhile, who do you think inspired the ‘Breck girl’ label? I’ll tell ya one thing, it sure wasn’t that transplant on Joe Biden’s head.”

Mr. Edwards will continue to make campaign appearances, stumping for The Hair with his wife Elizabeth, whom insiders say was influential in her husband’s decision to relinquish the leadership role. Should The Hair win the Democratic presidential nomination, speculation is that Mr. Edwards will likely to join the ticket as The Hair’s vice presidential running mate. Yet talk of tension between Edwards and The Hair, reminiscent of the strained relationship Mr. Edwards shared with his former running mate, Senator John Kerry, may preclude such a partnership.

One anonymous staffer from the Edwards’ campaign revealed that The Hair considered leaving altogether and running as an independent, alluding to a meeting on Saturday between The Hair and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg at Bloomberg’s sprawling getaway in The Hamptons. The staffer believed it was, in fact, this meeting with Mr. Bloomberg that compelled Mr. Edwards to ultimately cede control of the campaign to his formidable locks.

“We’ve been struggling to keep pace financially with Obama and Clinton,” the staffer explained. “John knew the campaign couldn’t withstand a defection like this. The vacuum of press coverage would be political suicide. Think about it – what would Maureen Dowd write about? We’d completely disappear from the pages of The New York Times, vanish from the Sunday morning talk shows.” Pausing a moment, the staffer said, “Look, if The Hair wins, then John by association will get in there. However unorthodox, I think the ends certainly justify the means.” Though he admitted, going forward, it’s unclear how much control Mr. Edwards will have even behind the scenes.

A New York Times/CNN poll today shows that with The Hair throwing his hat into the ring, the competition among Democratic front-runners has been turned upside-down. In a three-way race, The Hair receives 54% of the vote, Barack Obama 26% and Hillary Clinton 20%. 

Speaking to Tim Russert on Meet the Press Sunday, The Hair, like Mr. Edwards before him, said he planned on keeping his campaign above the fray of personal attacks. Russert, however, did get under The Hair’s skin when he mentioned what critics have called excessive, and possibly illegal, campaign contributions by natural hair care giant Aveda.

“Look, Tim” The Hair said, shaking his head, “these are rumors started by Republicans who are deep in the pockets of establishment hair care products – what I like to call the ‘Pert Plus Party.’ Folks who still want us to believe that, in 2007, lather, rinse and repeat is all Americans need to know when they step into a shower. Frankly, it’s appalling and I think the American people see right through it. They’re beginning to understand how damaging sodium laureth sulfite is to their family’s scalp. They yearn, Tim, for a forward-looking approach to the health of their hair. And I believe I’m the guy who can supply that necessary vision - one that includes incorporating the benefits of sap, Icelandic moss, flaxseed, organic sage and ylang ylang into a daily regimen.”

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd is currently working on a new column about this latest shift in the Edwards campaign, but she and her editors are at pains over whether to call it “Good Hair Day” or “Split Ends.” She also plans on interviewing The Hair for an upcoming piece. “I’m delighted to play a part in improving the quality of political discourse,” says Dowd. “You know what they say - the cream rinse always rises to the top. [She chortles at the joke for several minutes.] But seriously, all that posing about healthcare, human rights, civil liberties, poverty. Oh, heavens. You know, call me jaded, but I think most Americans just want to have fun and who am I as a journalist to stand in their way.”

Special Report: What's Behind Gupta's Spat with Moore

(updated below)

We all witnessed “Sicko” film director Michael Moore verbally body slam a flatfooted Wolf Blitzer on Monday.

We know what set Moore off: CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s factually challenged “reality check," to which Moore had alerted Gupta in an email sent to his staff before it first ran on June 29, 10 days before Blitzer played again prior to his interview with Moore. Nevertheless, Gupta ignored it, changing nothing. Moore's “Sicko” truth squad then posted a reality check, eviscerating Gupta’s claims. Last night, Gupta joined Moore on Larry King Live, where, in one of the most revealing moments, he responded to Moore’s point that the “one expert” in his report has deep ties to big pharma and conservative allies in government. Gupta replied, “His only affiliation is with Vanderbilt University. We checked it, Michael.” That, too, turns out to be utterly false.

On Monday, Wolf Blitzer had defended Gupta, saying he "is not only a doctor and neurosurgeon, but he's also an excellent, excellent journalist." To borrow Gupta’s John Stossel rhetoric, “but hold on.”

First, we also realize that Gupta is a rising star at CNN and that CNN, of course, is sponsored in part by the ad dollars of big pharma, which is aligned with big government to ensure the widest profit margins rather than exceptional and available healthcare access.

But what else would compel Gupta to pick this spat with Moore? To thrust himself so visibly into this story that he's become part of the story.

It’s as if he bent over backwards to contrive this fight. What reason might he have for ignoring Moore’s email? In addition to Gupta’s only admission of fault, which he dubiously blames on an “error of transcription,” how could he have gotten so many things wrong, either through misquoting, omitting necessary context or presenting false equivalences (yes, America has the highest rate of patient satisfaction among those with the opportunity to be patients, but not the 47 million without insurance)? Why would Gupta knowingly lean on a big pharma player for his facts and then lie about it? (If he’s not lying he’s an almost inconceivably incompetent journalist.) And finally, why would he continue to be so unrelenting after failing to justify even one viable instance where Moore had “fudged the facts”? Especially when, in the end, Gupta’s most vehement criticism of Moore is he used more than one source for his facts (perfectly sound as long as each source is accurate, which Gupta couldn’t prove otherwise); then Gupta admits to liking the film and applauding its importance.

Hmm.

Well, Dr. Gupta, who’s been steadily shaping a lucrative brand name for himself, wanting desperately to attain a one-man media empire akin to his pal Deepak Chopra, published a book this spring. The thing is, even with CNN simultaneously airing a complementary two-day documentary to coincide with the book’s release, it’s currently ranked an impressive 3,725 on Amazon’s list and 1,940 on Barnes and Noble’s. Regardless of his burgeoning brand name and ubiquitous face on CNN and part-time spots with Katie Couric over at CBS as well, Gupta’s book, to put it mildly, is not exactly flying off the shelves.

You don't need to be a neurosurgeon to do the marketing math.

Moore’s film is one of the most popular in the country and it’s about the healthcare system and it’s highly controversial. What better opportunity for Gupta to nurse his ailing book sales to health than to pick a fight with Moore? Don’t be surprised to see Gupta’s Chasing Life: New Discoveries in the Search for Immortality to Help You Age Less Today (good grief, he doesn’t disguise his desire to follow in Deepak Chopra’s footsteps, does he?) begin to climb out of the basement.

And then there’s the matter of the good doctor’s journalistic integrity, of which Blitzer defended with the blind loyalty a father might show a son.

But Gupta, “America’s Doctor,” is largely what you would expect. A bright man? Sure. A capable neurosurgeon? Apparently, yes. But, most assuredly, a company man. And an exceedingly opportunistic climber at that.

As an embedded reporter for CNN with the U.S. Navy’s medical unit, the "Devil Docs," Gupta was supposed to report the story but became the story. Sound familiar? As his CNN bio boasts, he “performed brain surgery five times” during that assignment.

As Frank Rich noted at the time, in the op-ed "The Spoils of War Coverage":

At CNN, a noble effort by Dr. Sanjay Gupta, an embedded medical reporter, to rescue an injured 2-year-old Iraqi boy by performing on-the-scene brain surgery was milked for live reports. Lest anyone not grasp the most important moral of this incident, Dr. Gupta himself declared that ''it was a heroic attempt to try to save the child's life'' after the child had died.

One year later, in a 2004 interview in Emory Magazine, this is revealed:

He has written a pilot for a television series about his experiences in Iraq that he just sold to ABC. The series, he says, is “M.A.S.H. on speed.”

Ironic, isn’t it? How many episodes of M.A.S.H. were there where Hawkeye exposes a character for being a grandstanding self-interested phony?

Oh, by the way, the interview also relates how much Gupta “enjoys driving his Jaguar XK8.” Of course. And my point isn't that he drives this car, but rather the mentality of someone who feels the need to mention this in an interview without any awareness, or care, of its elitist overtones - especially when he owes much of his fame to those experiences in Iraq, a place from which he seems to have blithely moved on with his life while leaving our soldiers behind. So, you see, when Michael Moore also blamed Dr. Gupta for helping to sell the war in Iraq, he was on the money. Literally and figuratively. It would be unseemly enough if Gupta mentioned such a thing in an interview today, but, remember, he said this back in 2004, just a year after his stint there. 

The spoils of war, indeed.

To give you a better idea of Gupta’s style as a journalist, check out these embarrassing reports (some, again, reminiscent of ABC hack John Stossel, the “myth-busting” journalist who also built a brand name on disingenuous and inane reporting):

Blinded by Science (Columbia Journalism Review, December 2004):

Nevertheless, a media frenzy ensued, with journalists occasionally mocking and questioning the Raelians while allowing their claims to drive the coverage. CNN’s medical correspondent, Sanjay Gupta, provided a case in point. When he interviewed Boisselier following her press conference, Gupta called Clonaid a group with “the capacity to clone” and told Boisselier, credulously, “We are certainly going to be anxiously awaiting to see some of the proof from these independent scientists next week.”

Childhood Obesity – Blame It on Mom (CNN report, July 2005):

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, good morning, Kiran. I was a little -- talk about blaming women. I have to be a little careful here.

Women have been blamed for everything going back to the Garden of Eden for sure. But we're taking a look at some -- some people believe that working mothers may actually be contributing to the childhood obesity epidemic. We decided to take a look at this controversial theory.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SINGER: Working 9 to 5, what a way to make a livin' --

GUPTA (voice over): Working 9 to 5 was a movie and a mantra in the 1980s, as American women entered the workforce en masse. That's about the same time that American kids started packing on the pounds.

[...]

GUPTA: So, did working women lead to chubbier children? Well, 16 percent of children six and older are overweight. That is triple the number from 1980.

Women Like Sex! Jobs Are Hard Work! Menopause Is No Fun! (Columbia Journalism Review, April 2006):

Yesterday, in a groundbreaking report on CNN's American Morning, senior medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta delivered some startling news: women like sex. They like love. And -- brace yourself -- they want intimacy.

In his report, "Sex and love starting at 30" -- part of CNN's series on life in the 30s, 40s and 50s -- the good doctor found a knowledgeable psychologist who helped him greatly in rehashing a number of surprising truths about adult women.

Anchor Soledad O'Brien got viewers warmed up with some self-evident generalities. [...] After O'Brien declared "All right, let's talk about sex" to the tune of the 1991 Salt 'N Pepa classic, Dr. Gupta took charge, relying heavily on the practiced observations of one Linda Klaitz.

"Popular TV shows like Sex & The City suggest women in their 30s are open to talking about sex," Gupta said. "But Dr. Linda Klaitz says a lot of women in their 30s are also interested in falling in love and settling down." Cue Klaitz: "In their 30s, I think there's a huge focus on procreation and finding a partner and having children." (People having kids in their 30s? Who knew?)

Making long-distance video diagnoses (NY Times blog Screens, February 2007):

Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s dashing doctor, talked to Screens about whether playing doctor on your laptop is ethical or, failing that, even possible.

It’s not ethical. As Dr. Gupta said, “One of the basic tenets of medicine is that we can’t make a diagnosis without physically laying hands on a patient.”

I asked about how Anna Nicole often looked a little out of it.

“You can’t say, ‘She was slurring her words with Entertainment Tonight a week ago; that’s why she died,’” Dr. Gupta replied. “I will say I saw the video where she was getting her picture taken with Hulk Hogan and Don King. She didn’t look ill and she doesn’t look like someone who suffered from a long-lasting illness.”

“An excellent, excellent journalist”? Talk about fudging the facts.

UPDATE: On July 9, the day Gupta's "reality check" set up Moore's interview with Blitzer, his book sat at #3,725 on Amazon's sales list. On July 11, following that initial setup and then Gupta and Moore's debate on Larry King Live, the book jumped to #1,399. Today, it's dipped back a bit to #1,982. Though that's still mountains above its previous plateau. Maybe Moore should request a royalty check from the good doctor.

Op-Ed Column: Maureen Dowd Unintentionally Writes Self-Parody

Outside the mainstream vacuum, much has been written about New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd's obsession with John Edwards' hair and "Breck girl" smears, not to mention her emasculating character assassinations of Al Gore ("so feminized that he's practically lactating") and Barack Obama ("Obambi"), all of whom, in Dowd's eyes, fail to fill her "daddy" shoes.

What else can one say of her insipid, junior high, quasi-homophobic missives that hasn’t already been said? At this point, Dowd has come to resemble a substance abuser who refuses to admit she has a problem, in her case an addiction to the intoxicating schadenfreude she seems to derive by depicting top Democratic pols as fey girly men.

And it's not as if there hasn't been a chorus - an electronic Greek chorus - of Dowd interventions in alternative media circles and across the blogosphere.

Yet from the most influential news platform in America, Dowd continues to desperately seek this fix, injecting these inane ramblings into our national political discourse like an addict ever eager to turn on new users.

Occasionally, Dowd has shown a capacity to write clever columns based on fact. But when she strays from the facts, she often stumbles headlong into a fugue of petty, offensive and anachronistic projections, the kind of breathless banality you might expect to find in a sheltered gossip columnist's page. Absolutely cringe-worthy, she becomes the transparently repressed social observer at the dinner party, relishing in her captive audience, before which she unwittingly, and embarrassingly, reveals the depths of her narrow and wormy mind.

Today, Dowd is back, blurting out more buffoonish observations about her favorite piñata John Edwards. On this drive-by, however, she spends the bulk of her time (and ours) reciting a laundry list of Edwards' most trivial thoughts. There’s no point in thoroughly dissecting this op-ed. If I did I would wind up exerting ten times the amount of effort it took Dowd to phone it in. She presents her piece as though it's based on an interview with Edwards (and I have to assume it is), but it reads as if, while poolside or toe in the tide, Dowd opened a box of clippings titled "Banal Edwards Quotes," cut them up, mixed them around, and typed up the result. So hackneyed and vapid is this op-ed it resembles a deft spoof of Maureen Dowd’s worst writing.

If I were Dowd’s editors at The Times, I would’ve suggested holding her paycheck until a rewrite was submitted. David Brooks might be wrong 99.9% of the time, but at least he goes to fantastical lengths to justify his intellectually dishonest views. You can feel the smoke pouring from his ears as he attempts to twist the laws of logic.

I’d wager that Dowd put more effort in applying sunscreen than in the production of this piece.

Abysmal from start to finish, the following is just a glimpse of her probing column.

She begins:

Here are five things you might not know about John Edwards:

¶He never saw a single episode of “The Sopranos.”

¶He doesn’t like the opera, but his favorite musical is “Phantom of the Opera.”

¶His first date with Elizabeth was dancing at the Holiday Inn in Durham or Chapel Hill — he can’t remember which — sometime after which she made an ironclad rule that politicians should never dance.

¶He became a lawyer because as a kid he loved watching “Perry Mason,” “The Defenders” and “The Fugitive.” (Richard Kimble really needed a lawyer.)

¶His top sex symbol is a fellow North Carolinian, Andie MacDowell.

Don't worry, Dowd digs deeper, revealing what we need to know about a presidential candidate:

Asked about his Hollywood dream girl, natch, she’s a North Carolinian. “She’s in those skin commercials,” he says. “She was in ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral.’” And his favorite actress is Glenn Close, who had to dub Andie MacDowell’s lines in her first big part, “Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan,” because her Southern accent was so thick.

[...]

He doesn’t watch much TV, he says, except when his son Jack gets him to watch “Jimmy Neutron,” or Elizabeth gets him to watch “Boston Legal” and “Brothers & Sisters” (a show he likes).

He loves Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who once defended the right of rich pols like him to talk about poor people. [Cute dig. Dowd genuinely applies Colbert's satirical O'Reilly take on Edwards. In other words, she bases her cutting comment on the views of a fictitious fascist newsman who's driven by "truthiness." Well done. Even more preposterous, this is the most substantive line in her column; as if by accident, Dowd provides us a peek between the lines to glean an actual issue in Edwards' campaign: poverty.] He says he’s seen his fellow Southern lawyer Fred Thompson on “Law & Order” a time or two when flipping channels to get to sports. “I’m a huge Tar Heels fan,” he says. “I know way too much about basketball and football.”

Having already exhausted discussion of Edwards' views on the most pressing issues of the day - TV shows that influenced him to become a lawyer, TV shows he watches with his son and wife, TV shows in which he's seen Fred Thompson act, a couple of his favorite books and poems, and his "Hollywood dream girl" - Dowd returns to that telling dance at the Holiday Inn and then ends her illuminating portrait by reinserting the knife as he's walking out the door:

Recalling his first date with Elizabeth, in law school, he says: “I was such a classy guy, I took her to the Holiday Inn to dance. It was loud. Elizabeth made fun of me for weeks for taking her there. Elizabeth thinks the two rules you always use in politics are: Don’t dance. And don’t wear hats.”

Especially not if you’ve got such a fabulous haircut to show off.

Say it with me, Maureen. I am Maureen Dowd, and I am an addict.

Story of the Day: Keith Olbermann Asks Bush and Cheney to Resign

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann continues to be the only television journalist (aside from CNN’s Jack Cafferty) who consistently speaks the unvarnished truth on the air.

But make no mistake about it: though Olbermann is tagged a "liberal" or "Bush hater" (not to mention “traitor”) by his whiny detractors - mostly extreme right-wing media bullies who in the rare light of such truth-telling recoil like vampires on a day pass - his views on the Bush administration are neither liberal nor libertarian nor conservative. Neither right, left or middle of the road.

He simply presents the facts and applies the outrage that any American who is truly aware of what’s occurred here over the last seven years, and how it has catastrophically affected the rest of the world, would and should feel.

It is a journalist's job to hold leaders accountable for their actions. Especially if leaders are breaking the law. Repeatedly. Or taking actions to cover their tracks. Repeatedly. Olbermann's special comments have received so much attention because of their eloquence, passion and sharp observation, but also because, even during the most felonious and bungling administration in our nation's history, similar utterances of truth and justifiable outrage remain rare in our mainstream media in general and even more scarce on television.

On the eve of July 4th, Keith Olbermann also reminded us what true patriotism sounds like. And it's a far cry from the jingoistic sloganeering and fear mongering this administration and its lapdogs have promulgated, to the undeniable detriment of our country, since 9/11.

Olbermann’s special comment follows (video and transcript via Crooks and Liars):

Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on what is, in everything but name, George Bush’s pardon of Scooter Libby.

“I didn’t vote for him,” an American once said, “But he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

That — on this eve of the 4th of July — is the essence of this democracy, in seventeen words.

And that is what President Bush threw away yesterday in commuting the sentence of Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

The man who said those seventeen words — improbably enough — was the actor John Wayne.

And Wayne, an ultra-conservative, said them, when he learned of the hair’s-breadth election of John F. Kennedy instead of his personal favorite, Richard Nixon in 1960.

“I didn’t vote for him but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

The sentiment was doubtlessly expressed earlier. But there is something especially appropriate about hearing it, now, in Wayne’s voice.

The crisp matter-of-fact acknowledgement that we have survived, even though for nearly two centuries now, our Commander-in-Chief has also served, simultaneously, as the head of one political party and often the scourge of all others.

We as citizens must, at some point, ignore a president’s partisanship. Not that we may “prosper” as a nation, not that we may “achieve”, not that we may “lead the world” — but merely that we may “function.”

But just as essential to the seventeen words of John Wayne is an implicit trust — a sacred trust:That the president for whom so many did not vote, can in turn suspend his political self long enough, and for matters imperative enough, to conduct himself solely for the benefit of the entire Republic.

Our generation’s willingness to state “we didn’t vote for him, but he’s our president, and we hope he does a good job,” was tested in the crucible of history, and far earlier than most. And in circumstances more tragic and threatening.

And we did that with which history tasked us.

We enveloped “our” President in 2001.

And those who did not believe he should have been elected — indeed, those who did not believe he had been elected — willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.

And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and sharpened it to a razor-sharp point, and stabbed this nation in the back with it.

Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers.

Did so even before the appeals process was complete…

Did so without as much as a courtesy consultation with the Department of Justice…

Did so despite what James Madison –at the Constitutional Convention — said about impeaching any president who pardoned or sheltered those who had committed crimes “advised by” that president…

Did so without the slightest concern that even the most detached of citizens must look at the chain of events and wonder:

To what degree was Mr. Libby told: break the law however you wish — the President will keep you out of prison?

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental compact between yourself and the majority of this nation’s citizens — the ones who did not cast votes for you.

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you ceased to be the President of the United States.

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the President… of a rabid and irresponsible corner of the Republican Party.

And this is too important a time, sir, to have a Commander-in-Chief who puts party over nation.

This has been, of course, the gathering legacy of this Administration. Few of its decisions have escaped the stain of politics.

The extraordinary Karl Rove has spoken of “a permanent Republican majority,” as if such a thing — or a permanent Democratic majority — is not antithetical to that upon which rests: our country, our history, our revolution, our freedoms.

Yet our democracy has survived shrewder men than Karl Rove.

And it has survived the frequent stain of politics upon the fabric of government.

But this administration, with ever-increasing insistence and almost theocratic zealotry, has turned that stain… into a massive oil spill.

The protection of the environment is turned over to those of one political party, who will financially benefit from the rape of the environment.

The protections of the Constitution are turned over to those of one political party, who believe those protections unnecessary and extravagant and “quaint.”

The enforcement of the laws is turned over to those of one political party, who will swear beforehand that they will not enforce those laws.

The choice between war and peace is turned over to those of one political party, who stand to gain vast wealth by ensuring that there is never peace, but only war.

And now, when just one cooked book gets corrected by an honest auditor…

When just one trampling of the inherent and inviolable “fairness” of government is rejected by an impartial judge…

When just one wild-eyed partisan is stopped by the figure of blind justice…

This President decides that he, and not the law, must prevail.

I accuse you, Mr. Bush, of lying this country into war.

I accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people, a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

I accuse you of firing the generals who told you that the plans for Iraq were disastrously insufficient.

I accuse you of causing in Iraq the needless deaths of 3,586 of our brothers and sons, and sisters and daughters, and friends and neighbors.

I accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but instead to stifle dissent.

I accuse you of fomenting fear among your own people, of creating the very terror you claim to have fought.

I accuse you of exploiting that unreasoning fear, the natural fear of your own people who just want to live their lives in peace, as a political tool to slander your critics and libel your opponents.

I accuse you of handing part of this republic over to a Vice President who is without conscience, and letting him run roughshod over it.

And I accuse you now, Mr. Bush, of giving, through that Vice President, carte blanche to Mr. Libby, to help defame Ambassador Joseph Wilson by any means necessary, to lie to Grand Juries and Special Counsel and before a court, in order to protect the mechanisms and particulars of that defamation, with your guarantee that Libby would never see prison, and, in so doing, as Ambassador Wilson himself phrased it here last night, of you becoming an accessory to the obstruction of justice.

When President Nixon ordered the firing of the Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox during the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre” on October 20th, 1973, Mr. Cox initially responded tersely, and ominously:

“Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men, is now for Congress, and ultimately, the American people.”

President Nixon did not understand how he had crystallized the issue of Watergate for the American people.

It had been about the obscure meaning behind an attempt to break in to a rival party’s headquarters; and the labyrinthine effort to cover-up that break-in and the related crimes.

But in one night, Nixon transformed it.

Watergate — instantaneously — became a simpler issue: a President overruling the inexorable march of the law. Of insisting — in a way that resonated viscerally with millions who had not previously understood — that he was the law.

Not the Constitution.

Not the Congress.

Not the Courts.

Just him.

Just - Mr. Bush - as you did, yesterday.

The twists and turns of Plame-Gate, your precise and intricate lies that sent us into this bottomless pit of Iraq; your lies upon the lies to discredit Joe Wilson; your lies upon the lies upon the lies to throw the sand at the “referee” of Prosecutor Fitzgerald’s analogy… these are complex and often painful to follow, and too much, perhaps, for the average citizen.

But when other citizens render a verdict against your man, Mr. Bush — and then you spit in the faces of those jurors and that judge and the judges who were yet to hear the appeal — the average citizen understands that, sir.

It’s the fixed ballgame and the rigged casino and the pre-arranged lottery all rolled into one — and it stinks. And they know it.

Nixon’s mistake, the last and most fatal of them, the firing of Archibald Cox, was enough to cost him the presidency.

And in the end, even Richard Nixon could say he could not put this nation through an impeachment.

It was far too late for it to matter then, but as the decades unfold, that single final gesture of non-partisanship, of acknowledged responsibility not to self, not to party, not to “base,” but to country, echoes loudly into history.

Even Richard Nixon knew it was time to resign

Would that you could say that, Mr. Bush.

And that you could say it for Mr. Cheney.

You both crossed the Rubicon yesterday.

Which one of you chose the route, no longer matters.

Which is the ventriloquist, and which the dummy, is irrelevant.

But that you have twisted the machinery of government into nothing more than a tawdry machine of politics, is the only fact that remains relevant.

It is nearly July 4th, Mr. Bush, the commemoration of the moment we Americans decided that rather than live under a King who made up the laws, or erased them, or ignored them — or commuted the sentences of those rightly convicted under them — we would force our independence, and regain our sacred freedoms.

We of this time — and our leaders in Congress, of both parties — must now live up to those standards which echo through our history:

Pressure, negotiate, impeach — get you, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, two men who are now perilous to our Democracy, away from its helm.

And for you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task.

You need merely achieve a very low threshold indeed.

Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed, on August 9th, 1974.

Resign.

And give us someone — anyone – about whom all of us might yet be able to quote John Wayne, and say, “I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

Good night, and good luck.