The Race Debate

The Nation's John Nichols, writing when John Edwards was the first to pull out, questions the ex-senator's logic:

"Edwards was flat wrong to decide to announce that he would not participate in a Congressional Black Caucus Political Leadership Education Institute-organized debate [planned] for September 23 on the Fox News Channel.

"It's nothing against the CBC, says the Edwards campaign, which promises the candidate will appear in another CBC-organized debate that is set for CNN. Edwards is objecting to appearing on Fox -- just as he did when he declined earlier to join a August 14 debate in Reno, Nevada, that is to be co-hosted by Fox News and the Nevada Democratic Party. (Plans for the Reno debate were ultimately cancelled.)

" 'We just called the CBC to let them know that we're looking forward to their debate with CNN but we're not going to participate in the proposed debate with Fox. There's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending to be objective,' explains Edwards for President deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince. 'If there was any uncertainty as to Fox's objectivity, it was put to rest when they attacked Democratic candidates, Democratic constituency groups, and the Nevada Democratic Party when their last proposed debate was canceled for lack of support.' . . .

"Nothing that the Edwards campaign is saying about Fox is untrue. The network is over-the-top in its Republican partisanship. Its hosts attack Democrats on ridiculous grounds. They defend the Bush administration even when leading conservatives part company with the White House. But Democrats need to get a whole lot better at dealing with conservative media."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff isn't happy with Newt calling the U.S. attorneys business "the most mishandled, artificial, self-created mess that I can remember in the years I've been active in public life":

"Although Gonzales certainly mishandled the matter, Gingrich's claim is a gross exaggeration. If he really believes what he's saying, then the former Speaker has been unduly influenced by the huffing and puffing of the Senate Democrats and their friends in the liberal media."

Newt, influenced by the liberal media?

"I will shed no tears if President Bush decides to sack Alberto Gonzales. But Gingrich's suggestion that the adminstration can get a fresh start with a new Attorney General is silly. The Dems aren't declining to cooperate with the Bush Justice Department because Gonzales mishandled the firing of eight prosecutors. They are making a mountain over this molehill because they wish to undermine the Bush Justice Department. Those who think differently should ask themselves how much Democratic cooperation the administration obtained by appointing Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense and changing course in Iraq."

The spat of the week involves law professor Ann Althouse and blogger Amanda Marcotte, who resigned from the John Edwards campaign amid controversy over past inflammatory writing. This time, Marcotte, who was upset about criticism of Nancy Pelosi's attire in the Middle East, mistakenly accused Althouse of criticizing the House speaker, then pulled back:

"Wingnuts have manufactured a controversy about Nancy Pelosi wearing a headscarf in a mosque in Syria, even though it's pretty standard operating procedure for politicians to dress diplomatically in foreign countries. My first post on this was a mess because I wanted to take a dig at Ann Althouse for her routine obsessions with picking at what women wear and was unfair to her."

Althouse is less than satisfied:

"Here's Amanda Marcotte's summary of this post: 'Ann Althouse wants Pelosi to be a little bit more of a sexbot.' Whaa? Marcotte seems to be pulling in signals from outer space. Just flat out nutty, Amanda. Or did you even read this post?

"After I wrote that, she got a clue and tried to cover up her embarrassment, by inserting a parenthetical (without noting that it was a later insertion):

"(To be fair, she does grant that it's done out of politeness, but generally revolts against covering. I agree with her that mandatory covering is crap, and that's why I dislike it when she tells women to hide our breasts in public. I typed this up a little fast, and got lazy. Apologies. I recommend the first link on this page if you want to read some non-lazy blogging on this subject.)

"Oh, yeah, Amanda, that's really fair. How did I 'generally revolt against covering' other than in exactly the way you have to be opposed to it too? Or is it 'fair' because you hate the old Clinton-and-the-bloggers post so much you're entitled to lie about me whenever you feel like it? When did I ever 'tell women to hide our breasts in public'? Clue: I never did. You are simply a liar. Or is that okay because you were in a hurry?"

Line of the day, from Barack Obama on Letterman: "I'm not getting back to Chicago very often . . . my wife is starting to refer to me as her first husband."