I think Gregg Easterbrook, put some interesting thoughts on this today on ESPN.com in his Tuesday Morning Quarterback column entitled "Evaluating a crowded playoff race"
A few excerpts:
Here, from an initial news report, is the phrase that chills me about the Petraeus affair: "Administration and congressional officials identified the woman as Paula Broadwell."
Petraeus needed to resign. But why did someone in government release the name of his paramour, along with copious details of her life? Broadwell is not accused of any crime. Petraeus was the one whose poor judgment threatened the public, not she. Petraeus could have quietly submitted a resignation letter. Instead every salacious detail is out -- and not from the National Enquirer, from Congress or the White House.
But the White House looks worst in this affair. During the campaign, Democratic operatives kept saying theirs is the party that respects women, including women's private choices, while asserting Republicans were engaged in a super-sinister "war on women." Just two days into his new term, Obama presides over the release of information calculated to humiliate Paula Broadwell. Her offense was what, being sexually active? Liking the military?
@6 "I think their angle is that they suspect her of using Petraeus to get access to classified information."
With her vagina?
I mean I've seen maybe one article that advanced the theory that Broadwell had also passed on classified information, but most either mention the FBI dismissed that theory or simply focus on the rumpy-pumpy.
@7 "Obama had nothing to do with it, take it up with the media."
As I understand it, the media didn't discover Broadwell's identity, it was leaked to them, by one of the two branches of the Federal government. While it is worth asking by what editorial measure was her name considered newsworthy, it is also worth considering who all in the government put it out there and to what end.
Ultimately, I don't think I agree with all of Mr. Easterbrook's points, but I do think they are worth examining.
I really like the Twins angle. It's my favorite soap.
A few excerpts:
Here, from an initial news report, is the phrase that chills me about the Petraeus affair: "Administration and congressional officials identified the woman as Paula Broadwell."
Petraeus needed to resign. But why did someone in government release the name of his paramour, along with copious details of her life? Broadwell is not accused of any crime. Petraeus was the one whose poor judgment threatened the public, not she. Petraeus could have quietly submitted a resignation letter. Instead every salacious detail is out -- and not from the National Enquirer, from Congress or the White House.
But the White House looks worst in this affair. During the campaign, Democratic operatives kept saying theirs is the party that respects women, including women's private choices, while asserting Republicans were engaged in a super-sinister "war on women." Just two days into his new term, Obama presides over the release of information calculated to humiliate Paula Broadwell. Her offense was what, being sexually active? Liking the military?
espn.go.com/
espn/playbook/
story/_/id/8624420/
tmq-evaluates-top-teams-heading-playoff-race
With her vagina?
I mean I've seen maybe one article that advanced the theory that Broadwell had also passed on classified information, but most either mention the FBI dismissed that theory or simply focus on the rumpy-pumpy.
@7 "Obama had nothing to do with it, take it up with the media."
As I understand it, the media didn't discover Broadwell's identity, it was leaked to them, by one of the two branches of the Federal government. While it is worth asking by what editorial measure was her name considered newsworthy, it is also worth considering who all in the government put it out there and to what end.
Ultimately, I don't think I agree with all of Mr. Easterbrook's points, but I do think they are worth examining.
espn.go.com/
espn/playbook/
story/_/id/8624420/
tmq-evaluates-top-teams-heading-playoff-race