Tin ear?

Let's move political news to the Style section, how 'bout it? That's what we're getting, anyway. I guess the New York Times feels it has to keep up with Robin Givhan's vacuous pieces in the Washington Post. It's a race to the bottom all right, but who's bottom?

I suppose it's possible that Mark Leibovich has a pitch-perfect ear for politics and that everything he writes about the atmospheres of the Democrats' rallies provides us with deep insight into their meaning. I suppose it's possible that the Beltway conventional wisdom reflected by his story is 100% spot on.

Possible, but not likely. Here's the last paragraph, in regard to a conversation with Pervez Musharraf:

“We also talked about the importance of the upcoming elections,” Mr. Edwards said, meaning, presumably, in Pakistan, not Iowa.

Why would anyone presume that? Wouldn't it make more sense to think that Edwards was talking about both elections, that he was talking about change coming and telling Musharraf that he had better be on the democratic side of that change?

Or is that just too damn complicated?

Fire Robin Givhan

The morally bankrupt Washington Post has Robin Givhan assigned to snark the clothing of every Presidential candidate. They'll claim they're balanced, but Givhan is carefully inserting the Beltway consensus narrative into every piece of crap she writes. Here's the latest installment.

Of course, the person who most deserves to be fired is the editor who decided that Givhan could make a useful contribution to American political discourse.

Hair of a thousand cuts

Now it's Mitt Romney's hair the Washington Post wants us to hear about. Would someone please send Robin Givhan back to middle school.