Not out of the Woods

"Getting married and having children only added to Woods' marketability. I'm divine and monogamous and the center of a happy nuclear family. And we ate it up.

"So now that the 'real' Woods has been revealed as a wild bone-daddy who behaves more like your out-of-work, alcoholic brother-in-law than an object of worship, we feel cheated."

Newspaper in trouble

The Washington Times is drastically downsizing and cutting 40 percent of its staff, as I report here.

War over the war

A mixed reaction to the Obama plan on the right, as we see in this David Frum post:

"Having urged the president to honor his commitment to the Afghan war, we Republicans must honor our commitment to support him as he fights it. Given the public unenthusiasm for the conflict, there will be political temptations to "go rogue" on the president, if not now, then in the summer of 2010. That will be our test, for us to pass as the president has passed his. I know many Republicans and conservatives will say: 'Hey -- the Democrats did not give President Bush support when he most needed it.' Correct. They didn't. And the country suffered for it. The right way to react to that dereliction of duty is not by emulating it, but by repudiating it. 'For it before I was against it' has deservedly become an epithet for shameful wavering. Let's not inflict it upon ourselves."

The left isn't thrilled either. Here's Michael Crowley in the New Republic:

"Even in March, Obama was employing a variation of George Bush's old "as they stand up, we'll stand down" formulation -- except he didn't mention specific dates at the time. Tonight's date-specific language sounds like a sop to voters and members of Congress fed up with the war and understandably convinced that we have no clear exit strategy. But the pledge is a largely empty one: In a conference call, White House officials made it amply clear that the extent and pace of any drawdown would be based on conditions on the ground. Theoretically, Obama's promise tonight could entail withdrawing 100 troops in July 2011 and pulling out the rest ten years later. Much as the White House wants to deny it, what we've got here is an open-ended commitment.

"That will make for rough sledding ahead in Congress. Liberal Democrats like Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold are already hinting at plans to impose timelines on upcoming war funding bills."

The president had a luncheon Tuesday for Tom Friedman and various other pundits. Atlantic's Marc Ambinder was there:

"President Obama said he is 'painfully clear' that his revised Afghanistan strategy is 'politically unpopular' -- especially within his own party -- and that he expects to be held 'fully accountable' if the strategy fails.

"Obama, speaking with a group of columnists and reporters at a White House lunch, conceded that Americans 'are right to be concerned' about the additional expense of blood and treasure in Afghanistan. 'But that's not how I make decisions. If I were basing my decisions on polls, then the banking system might have collapsed and you probably wouldn't have GM or Chrysler, and it's not clear that the economy would be growing again.'. . . .

"If it doesn't work, said Obama: 'I think there is going to be enormous interest on the part of the American people and on the part of Congress in keeping me to my word that this is not a constant escalation.' "