Anna, Elizabeth, Hillary & Monica (No, Not That One)

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 27, 2007 7:40 AM

Anna Nicole was back in the news yesterday with the official finding that she died from an accidental overdose, and you could almost hear the groaning from television producers that there wasn't a more controversial outcome.

The press conference by the thick-accented medical examiner -- who almost seemed from central casting -- could not be covered by the cable networks, of course, without a cascade of split-screen pictures of the onetime stripper shaking her booty for the cameras. If you banned that footage, I believe the coverage would drop by 80 percent.

Anyway, that enables me to move right along to the Elizabeth Edwards saga, which actually matters and has generated more interest among ordinary folks than anything else that has happened in this presidential campaign. Who among us hasn't been touched by cancer in some form? Who hasn't grappled with the struggle between professional demands and family responsibilities? Even people who have little interest in politics are buzzing about this.

Time's Jay Carney, who has said he could not, as the father of young children, do what the Edwardses are doing, stays on the case:

"John and Elizabeth Edwards did very well on 60 Minutes. Katie Couric asked all the tough questions. . . . John was particularly strong, and right, when he said of those who disagree with or aren't sure about their decision to stay in the race: 'All of those judgments and questions are entirely legitimate.' Equally impressive was his answer to the (wrongheaded) accusation that he and Elizabeth were exploiting her cancer for political gain: 'Do not vote for me because Elizabeth has cancer. . . . This election is too important. . . . Do not vote for us because you feel some sympathy or compassion for us.'

"Elizabeth made a powerful point when she explained why she believed the campaign should go on. 'Either you push forward with the things you were doing yesterday,' she said, 'or you start dying.' . . .

"I am no doubt inviting more criticism for having the gall to feel uncomfortable with the Edwards' decision, and for suggesting that other Americans might also feel that way. It must be obvious by now that others do, in fact, have similar doubts -- especially about the issue of whether a father of two young children whose wife may be seriously ill, and may even die, might be too distracted to be effective as president. Those doubts are natural and legitimate, as John Edwards acknowledged. It's certainly not partisan, and it has nothing to do with being part of the MSM."

Ann Althouse, on the other hand, didn't like the way the interview was conducted:

"Couric asks Edwards a tough question about cancer. And then another and another and another. Oh, why not fill the entire space you have to fill with the only question you've got? Surely, the fact that it's an insensitive and awkward question won't make it any worse than all those other times you've repeated the question. A reporter's got to get to the truth, you know. And really, aren't you a power-mad lout, Mr. Edwards?"

Hogan's Alley defends the candidate's wife:

"The determination to continue with her and her family's life at full bore is the sanest and healthiest thing Elizabeth Edwards could do in the face of a cancer diagnosis that is not promising of a long life. It is highly unlikely that I would ever vote for her husband, but I admire enormously the couple's intent to live the life they have chosen for whatever time remains to them. It must be said that each of us must make our own adaptations to such terrible news. No one is entitled to criticize anyone's response, even if they choose to withdraw into the cocoon of family and friends. . . .

"Which brings us to the way this story is being covered on the TV networks. Each iteration of the story on the major networks and the cable news channels includes the statement that the Edwards are being criticized for their decision. Where are these critics? Where are their quoted criticisms? They are never provided."

For those saying the "60 Minutes" interview was somehow unfair, Edwards said yesterday: "My reaction was that Katie Couric asked questions that the American people are asking themselves, and I think they were completely legitimate questions. And I think the American people deserve answers from me and from Elizabeth to those questions. I mean, I'm asking America to support me and vote for me as their next president, and I think part of the evaluation of a candidate for president is a personal evaluation of the character and integrity and honesty of a candidate. So, no, I thought the questions were fair. Tough. I thought they were tough, but they were fair."

By the way, a USA Today poll says 58 percent back his decision to stay in the race, while 29 percent say he should call it quits.

For Hillary, the recent focus is not so much on her much-scrutinized marriage as on a certain 2002 vote. But the New Republic's Michael Crowley has trouble gathering information:

"Hillary Clinton's entire political identity has become defined by that vote and her subsequent refusal to apologize for it. To most observers, her positioning on Iraq is simply the latest example in a long career of venal political calculation. In a zeitgeist-capturing 'Saturday Night Live' sketch earlier this year, an actor playing Clinton appeared on a mock 'Hardball' segment. 'I think most Democrats know me,' the faux Hillary cloyingly explained. 'They understand that my support for the war was always insincere.'

"But was it? The truth about how Clinton came to support Bush's war (albeit with reservations), and how she has thought about it since, has always been shrouded in mystery. People assume that Clinton is playing politics, that she voted for the war to look tough or because Bush was popular and that she won't apologize now for fear of looking like a flip-flopper. . . .

"As one probes her inner circle and reconstructs her record, an alternative reading emerges: What if the hawkish Hillary of 2002 wasn't just motivated by political opportunism? What if she really believed in the war?

"It's hard to get a handle on Clinton's foreign policy. That's partly because it's hard even to get a handle on the identity of her foreign policy advisers. . . . The topic breeds deep paranoia, as Hillary's campaign has been known to rebuke those who speak publicly without explicit license. The result is a confounding omertà code: Whereas other politicians eagerly expound on their worldviews and policy deliberations, asking Democrats about Hillary's foreign policy consultations sometimes feels like inquiring after Whitey Bulger in Irish South Boston. 'Please don't take this conversation as confirming anything,' pleaded one person I contacted, who would only identify himself as being in the 'very distant, outermost, orbital region' of the campaign. 'I don't know how they want us to handle it.' Such nervousness is a testament to the continued belief, despite the rise of Barack Obama, that Hillary will probably be the Democratic nominee -- and that, if she wins, she'll have an administration full of jobs to fill."

And on that very subject, Kos asks:

"Are we too stupid to tell the difference between Obama and Clinton's war positions?

"That's what Bill Clinton seems to be saying.

"Former President Bill Clinton yesterday complained that 'it's just not fair' the way his wife, presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), is being depicted for her controversial Iraq war vote.

"Speaking to hundreds of supporters on conference call, the former president said, 'I don't have a problem with anything Barack Obama [has] said on this,' but 'to characterize Hillary and Obama's positions on the war as polar opposites is ludicrous.

" 'This dichotomy that's been set up to allow him to become the raging hero of the anti-war crowd on the Internet is just factually inaccurate.'

"Only if you ignore the fact that Hillary voted for the war. . . . Stupid me. I thought the way to express disapproval of going to war was to vote against authorization. I didn't realize the 'stark difference' between those who voted for the war and wanted the war, and those who voted for the war and didn't want the war.

"Look, everyone knew exactly what they were voting for when they cast that vote authorizing force in Iraq. And if they didn't, they're too stupid to be president."

Speaking of the Monica promised in the headline, she is Monica Goodling, Alberto Gonzales's senior counsel. And guess who doesn't want to testify in Purgegate:

"A lawyer for a Justice Department official involved in the controversial firings of eight United States attorneys said today that his client would not testify on Capitol Hill because she is convinced she would not be treated fairly."

I didn't know you got to pick and choose depending on the expected warmth of your reception.

The NYT report continues: "The official, Monica Goodling, the Justice Department's liaison to the White House, is invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and so will decline to answer 'any and all questions regarding the firings,' her lawyer, John M. Dowd, said.

"But Ms. Goodling's refusal does not signal that she has anything to hide, Mr. Dowd told the Senate Judiciary Committee's chairman, Senator Patrick J. Leahy. Rather, Mr. Dowd said, it is a recognition of the 'hostile and questionable environment' that has been spawned by the controversy."

Now hear this: Anyone who's still on the old talking points about how this is a non-story and a non-scandal and pumped up entirely by the press has to throw away that document right now. A senior Justice Department official is taking the Fifth rather than talk about how these U.S. attorneys came to be fired. (Maybe she's hoping for a secret, no-transcript deal like Bush wants for Karl Rove?) And that means even the fig leaf of cooperation has now been removed.

What does the public think? "Americans overwhelmingly support a congressional investigation into White House involvement in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, and they say President Bush and his aides should answer questions about it without invoking executive privilege.

"In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday-Sunday, respondents said by nearly 3-to-1 that Congress should issue subpoenas to force White House officials to testify. . . .

"By 53%-26%, respondents say the U.S. attorneys were dismissed primarily for political reasons, not because they weren't doing their jobs well -- as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has said.

"By 59%-30%, they say Democrats are investigating the dismissals mostly for political advantage, not because of ethical concerns."

Arianna Huffington invokes the specter of impeachment -- but not against Bush:

"In his weekend radio address, President Bush said of the investigation into the U.S. Attorney firings: 'Members of Congress now face a choice: whether they will waste time and provoke an unnecessary confrontation, or whether they will join us in working to do the people's business.'

"He got it half right. If his administration continues to thwart the ability of Congress to uncover the truth about the firings, there will indeed but a 'confrontation.' But it will hardly be 'unnecessary.'

"If the president continues trying to run out the clock on this scandal, Congress should immediately begin impeachment proceedings against Alberto Gonzales. It's the quickest way to the truth. . . . If Bush's game is to stall, Congress should play the impeachment card since, as Robert Kuttner points out, 'an impeachment inquiry could be completed in a matter of months.'

"Kuttner calls Gonzales the administration's 'point man for serial assaults against the rule of law.' And his sordid track record as White House counsel and AG bears this out: Guantanamo, the misuse of 'national security letters,' the abuse of the Patriot Act, the illegal spying on American citizens, and now his lies about his involvement in the U.S. Attorney firings.

"Bush has 21 months left in office. That's far too long to continue with an attorney general with such contempt for the law."

The Gonzo-Meter is at 75 percent, up from a 55 percent chance of departure last year.

Captain Ed also is looking at the issue of impeachment--but for Bush.

"Chuck Hagel floated the I-word during his appearance on ABC's 'This Week'. He warned that George Bush could face impeachment unless he adopted a policy on Iraq more to the liking of Congress. Hagel, who wants to run for the Republican nomination for President in 2008, has apparently learned the word impeachment in some other resource than the Constitution. . . . Only senators completely ignorant of the Constitution would consider impeachment a viable option for dealing with policy differences between the executive and the legislature. . . .

"This is just another example of Congress trying to abdicate its own responsibility on Iraq. Congress could end the war in Iraq tomorrow by cutting off all funds for the deployment. They do not need George Bush to take that step. However, it would then put the responsibility for everything that follows squarely on the shoulders of Congress, and the Representatives and Senators there largely want to avoid that. A handful of them would rather initiate an unconstitutional impeachment adventure, which would leave Dick Cheney in charge and result in no policy change whatsoever anyway, than accept the responsibility of their own actions.

"It's more than passingly strange that a man who wants to run for President seems so unfamiliar with the document that established the office. Hagel must be confused as to which party he proposes to lead. I don't think he's going to win much support in the primaries by running on the impeachment platform, at least not running as a Republican."

Blast from the past: For those who thought David Stockman practiced fuzzy math as Reagan's budget chief, he's just been charged with corporate fraud.

Great post about the media by CBS's Allen Pizzey from Baghdad:

"Trying to explain Iraq in a way that American viewers can relate to is a challenge at the best of times. It becomes even more acute when you start the day by watching American newscasts. Thanks to clever technicians who can pull down signals from European and other international satellite channels -- and access Arabic networks that like to carry the U.S. evening newscasts one after the other early the following morning -- [it's] possible to report from here and see what else is of interest to the viewers one is supposed to inform. How well we do that informing is for others to decide. What is depressingly clear is that what seems important here is far removed from what viewers in the U.S. seem to be concerned about.

"The pet food 'scandal' is a case in point. As far as I can tell from what is coming through the dust-encrusted TV monitors in our office, a dozen or so pets have died, apparently from eating well-known brands of cat or dog food. No doubt the owners paid premium prices for high nutritional value, so they have a right to be upset that instead of the glossy coats and tail-wagging promised by the ads they got organ failure. Being a pet owner, I can understand being upset when one dies. How 12 dead animals in a country the size of the U.S. rates with the sliding scale of mayhem here is what I'm finding hard to gauge. When only 12 human bodies are found on any given morning in Baghdad with marks of the kind of torture the ASPCA would quite rightly have a pet owner in court for, it is judged as 'progress' for the security plan."

He's barking up the right tree.