Derpthroat

John Cook, at Gawker writes:

This is a story, of course, that those decent and wise stewards generally want told—even if it requires the publications of the odd embarrassing "insider" detail—which is why Woodward has been able to waltz in and out of every administration since Carter with impunity. The trade-off—access in exchange for an implicit pledge to judge his subjects by the polite rules of Washington—has essentially defined Woodward's journalism. Even when it came to Nixon, his bete noir, Woodward was willing to bow to his head and submit a list of pre-screened questions in exchange for an interview (it never happened). But the spell has broken. The Obama White House has, it appears, been as receptive to Woodward's bargain as its predecessors were, but for some reason he's gone off the grid and begun firing wildly and without provocation. Who knows why. The changes to our politics over the last five years have obviously been hard on him. It's more difficult to tell stories about good men working out their honest differences when one half of the equation has foresworn compromise and committed itself to total political warfare. The comfortable subroutines of his brain have gone haywire, and he's kicking out garbage. But the simplest explanation for this episode is that he wants people to buy his book about how the president is an effete asshole who's in over his head. How would one go about marketing a book like that, I wonder? During the entirety of the Bush Administration, Woodward made 11 appearances on Fox News Channel. Last year, he showed up 10 times. This year, he's been on three times so far. Guess where he's going to be tonight. This just in, Bob Woodward is a hack (and this isn't news if you'd been paying attention for the past 13 years). The general consensus amongst the White House Press Corps seems to be in agreement. Credit for the title of this post goes to @delrayser.

Calling Radicalism by Its Name

An editorial, at The New York Times:

President Obama’s fruitless three-year search for compromise with the Republicans ended in a thunderclap of a speech on Tuesday, as he denounced the party and its presidential candidates for cruelty and extremism. He accused his opponents of imposing on the country a “radical vision” that “is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity.” More of this please.

Rick Santorum For President?

Rick Santorum just tied Mitt Romney in the Iowa Caucuses last night, which is hilarious for dear old Mittens. What's even more hilarious (and you're probably aware of already), is that whenever you search for Rick Santorum in Google or Bing, the website spreadingsantorum.com is usually featured in the top few results. If a concerned conservative (or liberal) voter tries to learn about Rick Santorum's policy platform or Rick Santorum for president, or even Rick Santorum's family values, said voter is instead subjected to a mental association likely to hurt Santorum's chances of winning the Republican nomination and the White House. And that is a problem for America. Why? Because spreadingsantorum.com isn't the top result. But we can fix that. This post contains a handful of keywords and phrases Santorum needs to own if he's going to direct curious voters from Google or Bing to Santorum-friendly websites. This post probably needs more (and should probably contain hostile keywords Santorum will likely buy in order to bury spreadingsantorum.com in search results), and you can add them by editing the post when you reblog it. Which you should probably do now. Go to work, Internets. via Geoff Barnes.

What Happened To Obama?

A fantastic Op Ed in Sunday's New York Times by Drew Westen:

A final explanation is that he ran for president on two contradictory platforms: as a reformer who would clean up the system, and as a unity candidate who would transcend the lines of red and blue. He has pursued the one with which he is most comfortable given the constraints of his character, consistently choosing the message of bipartisanship over the message of confrontation. But the arc of history does not bend toward justice through capitulation cast as compromise. It does not bend when 400 people control more of the wealth than 150 million of their fellow Americans. It does not bend when the average middle-class family has seen its income stagnate over the last 30 years while the richest 1 percent has seen its income rise astronomically. It does not bend when we cut the fixed incomes of our parents and grandparents so hedge fund managers can keep their 15 percent tax rates. It does not bend when only one side in negotiations between workers and their bosses is allowed representation. And it does not bend when, as political scientists have shown, it is not public opinion but the opinions of the wealthy that predict the votes of the Senate. The arc of history can bend only so far before it breaks.

The President Surrenders

Paul Krugman, writing for the New York Times:

In the long run, however, Democrats won’t be the only losers. What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation’s economic security, gets to dictate policy? And the answer is, maybe it can’t. So disappointed in my party.

Mr. President: What Twitter Users Asked vs What The Press Asks

Boston.com analyzed the Tweets sent by Twitter users from 2 p.m. on Monday and the transcripts from White House press briefings for the past few weeks and compared them. I think a lot of Twitter users do a better job than the press at asking questions. See the results.