Now I'm curious about why Brad is letting the conservative media off the hook on this one. Normally I have to give Brad his "props" for reporting, but to ignore the big issues raised here??

You think it's dodging the bullet on the casualty estimates? Nah, that's what we expect this White House to avoid, and lie about. I think the interesting issue on the Boxer-Rice exchange is the Republican response revealing that they honestly believe being childless is something to be ashamed of (or else why is Boxer's comment an "attack" or "insult"?). The demeaning attitude toward single professional women here is what surprises me the most; normally the conservatives cover their medieval attitudes better. To even THINK that Boxer's comments could be insulting implies that being childless is something to be quietly ashamed of, something so antiquated and offensive most "liberals" (and presumably Boxer herself) wouldn't even consider it.

Now this is aside from the slamming of the military- as though the military is so incompetent they are incapable of, and did not, plan casualty estimates for an important military plan. Is anyone likely to believe that? But more importantly, from a PR standpoint, what does this say the White House believes of the military (if you accept the lie at face value)? That the military is 1) so incompetent they didn't prepare such information and 2) so stupid they cannot come up with an estimate?(according to Rice)

I can come up with an estimate right now - let's see, troop increase, more targets to be hit by the enemy, but more security, I estimate no change in monthly casualty reports. See? Easy.

So the Republicans/Conservative media and White House manage to insult the military AND reveal their prejudice against those "worthless, barren professional women" but nobody calls on them it? Now that's a shame.

Appreciate your thoughts and (sorta) criticism, WS.

For my part, the reason I've focused on what I have (and what I haven't) is because I don't feel like falling into the White House's briar patch to debate the created-from-whole-cloth issues of "feminism" here.

The lack of appropriate WH planning, or the apparently lack of it, if one takes Rice at face value, or the lack of transparency in withholding such estimates from Congress and the public and what they might say about the policiy, is far more newsworthy in mind mind.

All the other nonsense, is little more than purposely planted distraction from that issue. Thus, the particular framing of my coverage.

Everyone else can (and, in fact is) prattling on about the other stuff which is not substantive to the question at hand, IMO.

We got your news agenda...right here.

I understand the choice of focus, but I think that's a red cape they are waving. After all, would we have believed their estimate at face value had they provided one? Instead of creating an issue to focus on that is irrelevant, they took away from the issue of estimates- BUT that issue itself isn't very relevant IMO, precisely because it would only be 1) an estimate and 2) an estimate we aren't likely to rely on without being independent anyway.

Reacting to the bait strikes me as a defensive media response to a set of non issues, since presumably you (and certainly I) wouldn't believe any estimates they released anyway. But the White House insulting the military, and Rice herself in a backhanded way, seems far more pointed and strikes at the heart of their desperate lies and the underlying disdain for others that drives them.

Good that you're keeping the issue alive long enough for reasoned debate, and great work in general Brad.

The bait is the phony "attack on Condi". The lack of casualty estimates (or willingness to make them public, take your pick) is what's being obscured.

With that in mind, I'm not taking the bait. Everyone else can (and has).

And beyond that, thanks for both the thoughts and the positive comments, WS.

If Tony Snow and Rush Limbaugh are defending Rice over Boxer, who pointed out that Rice has no children...does that make Snow and Limbaugh "feminists"???

Dan, if they are "defending" Rice then they accept that her not having children is somehow wrong, ergo they are certainly not feminists.

I disagree that the bait is the phony attack on Rice. I think the bait is the answer she gave, the extra distraction from Boxer was just a bonus for them, an extra twirl to the cape (presumably they could not have planned that in advance). Nobody believes that there are no estimates available, and concealing any estimate will just make the media want them. So they created a story where non existed, and they can give estimates you don't value (because coming from the White House, who can cherry pick the estimates they like and therefore aren't trustworthy) anytime and then they can wrap the story at their leisure. It's meaningless, it's a cape to chase around for information we neither need, should have (Senate oversight should, not the public in a war), nor will believe anyway, nor (being an estimate only) is especially meaningful in itself.

So if we chase the red cape around to get this useless information, we aren't attacking proactively, nor looking in potentially more interesting directions. And the proactive stance is to attack the weakness they just exposed, to punish the deception - the insults to the military and women in general. If they want us to ask a particular question, then we shouldn't be interested in the answer.

Another media figure had incisive insight too:

The president's New Way Forward in Iraq has split the GOP into three camps: the Triumphalists, the Just-Becausers, and the Realists.

The triumphalists are, of course, being led by the president himself. They are convinced that saying something is so can somehow make it so, and that any acknowledgment of reality is defeatist, cowardly, and un-American.

...
Marching behind the triumphalists are the "just becausers," their support a function of knee-jerk going-along-to-get-along. Think of them as dutifully self-lobotomized. This faction of the GOP has realized that there is no logic behind supporting Bush's war.
...
Then there's the third group, the newest one of the three. These are the GOP realists --- a growing collection of Republican office holders who actually acknowledge reality.

Foremost among them is Sen. Chuck Hagel, who, in a Senate hearing last week, said, "This speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out, I will resist it."

(Arianna Huffington).

That really is a concise and spot-on analysis of the power infected GOP.

WS: Yes, but another way to look at the GOP's arguement...is that they are DEFENDING single women/no children, in high powerful positions, true? And that is backing feminists.

Limbaugh rants and rants for 14 years about Hillary Clinton, he's obsessed with her, because she has too much power.

What if Boxer said that Rice should be "home baking cookies"???

WS averred:

Nobody believes that there are no estimates available, and concealing any estimate will just make the media want them. So they created a story where non existed, and they can give estimates you don't value (because coming from the White House, who can cherry pick the estimates they like and therefore aren't trustworthy) anytime and then they can wrap the story at their leisure.

There's a great flaw in your logic, WS. That is, that "they created [this] story". But, they didn't. Boxer did by asking the question (and perhaps, one could argue that I did by having brought it up in the first place and urging a Congress Member to ask it. Here a week ago Sunday, and here again just after Bush's speech.)

So the suggestion that somehow the Admin "created [this] story" for folks to ask about it simply doesn't add up. Further, there is no evidence they have either spoken about the substance of Condi's remarks (the lack of estimate, etc.) since then, but have done everything in the world to distract from it with the manufactured Rice/Boxer "dust up".

Had Snow (or anyone in the Admin) been the one to put out "the cape" as you describe it, you might have something.

Such as it is, unless Boxer or myself work for the Admin (and I've been accused of that and worse on occasion) --- Your otherwise common-sense-ish theory doesn't seem to have much evidence behind it in support. And, in fact, the actual evidence would suggest the opposite of your theory.

The "Republican Noise Machine" takes Boxer's comment, in which I think she rightfully "bitch-slaps" Rice's astounding disregard for others' lives, and they twist it into a talking point about Boxer being against "feminists". It's definitely the work of the RNM in the CMSM. The Hillary "baking cookies" was one, too.

The story in the CMSM could've been that Boxer finally was a politician who pointed out someone in Bushco's cabinet's total disregard for the lives of others. But that wasn't the story in the CMSM. Boxer's "guts" in representing what WE all know is going on, wasn't the story.

There's a big Media Reform special on Democracy NOW! today, featuring Bill Moyers and Jim Jeffords. Jeffords said, "We're all sick of the story in the mainstream media, on the growing gap between the rich and poor in our country...I'm joking."

Also, Kuwait and Russia both say we are attacking Iran:

http://www.rawstory.com/...14%2Fcontent_5604565.htm

http://www.rawstory.com/...F01%2F15%2Fadmiral.shtml

...I meant Bernie Sanders...not Jim Jeffords...

Actually, is the Media Reform conference even BEING COVERED in the CMSM??? I don't watch it...you tell me...

http://freepress.net/conference/=full_schedule07

http://www.niemanwatchdo...e.view&showcaseid=56

big dan #15

At the very least, C-SPAN should be covering the media conference, but, unless I'm crazy, they have been avoiding controversy lately.

I think the noise about Boxer's question isn't so much about the specifics as it's about girl-on-girl fighting and how you won't enjoy hearing from any 'girl' who's running for president (aka Hillary Clinton).

The press and Republicans are savaging both Hillary and Barack "Barat Hussein Osama" Obama.

Strangely, I think they'd somehow prefer Hillary to be president, so she might be beaten by the next Republican in 2012. But, I think at the same time they fear she might be good at the job and be re-elected. They respect, fear and loathe her all at once.

The interesting contrast is how they're NOT savaging any Republican candidate for president. I guess they love 'em all or they are ignoring them the way they ignore any candidate they don't think has a chance of winning. Suppose this means the Dem primary is THE election? It appears that way.

So, ABB (anybody but Bush) certainly isn't a policy we should follow in 2008. We have to pick the best candidate in the primary process, not just to win the general election, but to govern well.

I'm with Edwards for now (the entry of Gore would change that). I don't like Hillary's policies and I don't care for Obama's inexperience and stilted speaking style. Vilsack is a placeholder meant to take Iowa out of the equation and Kucinich has as much chance to win as I do.

Has the press said a word about Edwards? Not really. I wonder why. Do they want people to think he's irrelevant or do they truly not fear him (as a candidate)? It's not clear to me now, but I support him as an electable Southern White Male with respectability and a decent Dem standing. His Iraq War authorization vote is a slight hindrance, but he has said it was a mistake. I hope there aren't any more mistakes of that kind.

How hard is it really to ignore all the noise made by the Giant Wurlitzer, so we can really find the best leader for America?

"Damn that Bush. He told me if I swallowed that last load he'd protect me from this shit."

Give Rosie on the View kudos, she too pointed out the obvious...that Boxer's statement was not a 'childless' comment but a neither of us have direct loss potential loss comment, simple as that! Why don't the news media stop the GOP semantic flip flopping already!