Rudy's Choice

"After a few days, I decided I simply was totally uncomfortable with the concept of working for Lieberman, that his staff showed no signs that they were interested in being progressive team players, and that as a committed progressive, it would be wrong for me to go to work for Lieberman. So, via email and phone, I respectfully declined the offer to chat further with them."

Dick Polman

"We are tempted to ask why President Bush inveighs against The New York Times for publishing leaks, but said nothing today about Robert Novak publishing leaks. Perhaps the double standard can be attributed to the fact that Novak and Rove have worked together behind the scenes, going back at least 15 years. Or the fact that the Plame leak might have deemed a 'good' leak, since it was designed to aid the administration in its defense of the case for war. But back to Rove, and my remarks at the outset about promises and plain English. After the Plame flap erupted, Bush press secretary Scott McClellan promised this, on Sept. 29, 2003: 'If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.' A month later, on Oct. 30, Bush himself said this: 'If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it. And we'll take the appropriate action.' Well, Novak is now the latest source to say that, yes, Rove was 'involved.' Yet he remains in the administration, and Bush has declined to say anything publicly about the matter. An argument can be made that Bush is clearly in the wrong on this one -- but loyalists in the administration would dispute that, because they apparently believe that Bush is never wrong.

InstaPundit and his wife Helen interview John McCain for their Podcast. The senator does a very artful pander in explaining the chat: "Glenn is such a powerful and influential American I thought this would shore up any ambitions I might have for the presidency."

HuffPoster Michael Standaert didn't like Matt Lauer's interview with Vladimir Putin, but his real problem seems to be with the way network television works:

"First is the use of Lauer at all. This is a systemic problem in the mainstream media. Times were, as near as fifteen to twenty years ago, that major news networks would have correspondents permanently based in important foreign capitals: Moscow, London, Beijing, Paris, to name just a few. Now much of the news from abroad, like this G-8 Summit, is covered by 'face' reporters, the big name celebrity reporters making the big bucks. They parachute in ahead of the president a day or so before, set up their stories, report them, then get the hell out. We could name ten or so of these 'faces' or 'names' that get the top gigs around the globe, drop on in, report and leave, without much context or depth. They may as well be reporting from the Moon. This leads to a huge lack of involvement and knowledge about the situation on the ground, no matter how good a journalist might happen to be.

"Second, Lauer's interview with Putin falls into the trap of framing the debate about issues of freedom of expression and democracy in Russia as simply a U.S. v. Russia battle. . . . Why, for instance, didn't Lauer ask Putin ANY question about the situation in Chechnya? The question wouldn't even have to be terribly critical, but could be probing enough to be illuminating. Instead: nothing...Yes, he did touch on big issue items such as North Korea and Iran, but then this was framed in a U.S. vs. Russia context.

"But Lauer is just doing his job, and probably doing it the best he can, given his duties with the Today Show. It's the Today Show! It's a morning lifestyle program. Get your Putin interview one moment, a recipe for how to use whole-grain pasta the next."

Yes, but how is that Lauer's fault? And how is it his fault that the networks have few foreign correspondents these days? Lauer may do the cooking segments and even chat up Britney Spears, but he does very good news interviews--as does his former partner, the incoming anchor of the "CBS Evening News."

For the world's most famous head-butter, Zinedine Zidane, it's come to this: The Times of London hired a lip reader who says that Italian soccer player Marco Materazzi drew the retaliation by calling Zidane "the son of a terrorist whore." Betsy's Page is unimpressed with Zidane's post-butt explanation:

"Zidane said: 'I would like to apologize because a lot of children were watching the match. I do apologize but I don't regret my behavior because regretting it would mean he was right to say what he said.'

"What good is an apology if there is no regret. It's just words then. . . .

"Well, it's a shame that Materazzi was saying nasty things, but come on. Zidane is a grown man in a sport with lots of trash talk. I don't care what was said, no matter how atrocious, a strong man would have been able to tune out the obvious effort to provoke him, at least until the end of the game. Does Zidane think that his mother and sister are happy now that he defended their honor while dishonoring himself and harming his team?"

Finally, some foul-mouthed blogger--oh wait, it's the New York Times--ruminates on the word slut :

"'Slut'' is tossed around so often and so casually that many teenagers use it affectionately and in jest among their friends, even incorporating it into their instant messenger screen names.

"Like 'queer' and 'pimp' before it, the word slut seems to be moving away from its meaning as a slur. Or is it?...

"'Today, "slut," even "ho" -- girls use it in a fun way, a positive way,' said Atoosa Rubenstein, the editor in chief of Seventeen magazine, adding that a phrase such as 'you little slut' has become a way for girlfriends to bust each other's chops."

And to think this newspaper once waited years to allow Ms. in the paper.