It serves Howells quite nicely that people are mainly just discussing that quote about Abramoff. What needs to be actively discussed, though, and what Howell should be forced to answer, is more about the whole tone of that column, particularly her final comments there. When the quote about Abramoff is put in that context, it becomes more troubling. This is what Howells says, at the end of her column on Abramoff, in response to (as she says) "Republicans, who say The Post purposely hasn't nailed any Democrats":

HOWELL: "So far, [Post Reporters] Schmidt and Grimaldi say their reporting on the investigations hasn't put Democrats in the first tier of people being investigated. But stay tuned. This story is nowhere near over."

"But stay tuned"? There's an obvious implication there. This is the shoddiest kind of journalism. Why is Howell insinuating, when she notes there's no evidence of it, that Democrats will soon be investigated? What does this kind of conjecture, or fortune-telling, have to do with her job as ombudsman?

To note how outrageous and slanted those particular comments are, I've made a slight change to her quote. See if you think this would be an ethical way for Howell to end a column:

"So far, Schmidt and Grimaldi say their reporting on the investigations hasn't implicated Mr. Smith as a man who beats his wife. But stay tuned. This story is nowhere near over."

or, how about:

"So far, Schmidt and Grimaldi say their reporting on the investigations hasn't linked Mr. Smith with the Mafia. But stay tuned. This story is nowhere near over."

Are we to take this kind of phrasing as simply another "ill choice" of words? exactly when does the "oops" defense run out for Howell? This kind of transparent and nasty insinuation is what Howell should be addressing. Her lame attempt to deflect the real controversies and make it all about her critics is shameful.

Way to go, guys. This is really what's going to defeat Karl Rove in November.

You know you're in trouble when you start adopting the tactics of the opposition.

Howell certainly makes a big stew about there being profanity in some of those reader responses, and profanity used as insults. One would think that Howell was someone shocked... just shocked!... at the use of salty language and that she'd never think of tossing around profane names at others. However, an interview of Howell, conducted by the Washington Press Club Foundation, that can easily be found on line (http://npc.press.org/wpforal/how1.htm) suggests otherwise. Note, for instance, how Howell, so upset by reader profanity that the Post shut down their online comments section, says she likes to refer to some of her male co-workers. Here's Deborah Howell, polluting the internet like a modern day Al Swearengen (I've demurely covered some of her cussin' and a'cursin' with an asterix or two):

(From Transcript of Videotaped interview, 01/11/94):

HOWELL: "I'm pretty straightforward, always have been, if somebody's acting out. If somebody tackles me in public, I'll tackle them in public. Otherwise I'm pretty careful about doing it behind closed doors. I probably get by with stuff that a white male boss couldn't get by with."

Moorhus [The Interviewer]: "What kinds of things?"

HOWELL: "Oh, putting my arm around somebody, calling someone an "as*hole." It may have been in jest, but if I was a male, I wouldn't be calling a female employee an "as*hole." And I may call one of the guys and say, "Aw, don't be an as*hole."

(From Interview, 04/22/93:)

HOWELL: "What I wanted to say, in Texas lingo, would be "AMF." You know what "AMF" is?"

Moorhus: "No."

HOWELL: "Adios, mother f*cker." [Laughter.]

(From Interview, 02/15/93:)

HOWELL: "I listened and I said a twelve-year-old's version of, "What is this sh*t?" I just got up and walked out... The only time I ever remember her giving me a total and complete batch of sh*t was when I lied to her about smoking, and she knew better."

And there's much, much more, if you'll peruse those interviews.

Let's look at the record.

Specifically, the record of the posts the Post deleted, still viewable via the magic of Google's cache, and collected by a blogger (that's what the kids call 'journalists' nowadays...)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/21/11010/7038

As should not surprise anyone, there is not much in the way of profanity in these posts - less than any PG movie. What **is** here is a complete and utter evisceration of Howell's illogical, dishonest and **lazy** arguments and defenses, from every single direction.

It seems very clear that the Post simply could not handle the embarassment of it's ombudsman being spanked for committing what is, at best, some of the worst journalism ever, in defense of what was previously some of the worst journalism ever.

One of my personal faves among these deleted posts:

' The "online graphic" that she [Howell] refers to, when compared to actual FEC filings, ( http://www.capitaleye.org/... )demonstrated precisely the opposite of what Howell claims. The list, which Howell says shows Abramoff "directing contributions" to Democrats, shows that....

1. While Abramoff supposedly "requested" $2000 each for Jean Carnahan and Max Cleland, and $5,000 for Tom Daschle, the tribe in question gave Carnahan and Daschle NOTHING, and Cleland on $500.

2. Every GOP incumbent who was running for re-election that is mentioned on the list got at least $1000 --- the total "contribution" to the GOP names found on this "graphic" exceeded $15,000. '

Can you imagine being so lazy that the evidence you cite points to the exact opposite of your argument?

Can you imagine paying someone to do this on your behalf?

Looks like the Post should hire some bloggers, rather than banning them for pointing at the Post's nakedness.

The Post has been only too eager to reprint every GOP discussion point as 'news', unverified and unquestioned, so no surprise that it tries to defend an ombudsman who has so thoroughly betrayed her duty of trust to the readers of the paper by taking a partisan stance on this issue.

That said, anger is a weapon to be used carefully if one wants to avoid collateral damage. As a blunt instrument, it can do far more harm than good and simply allows us to be portrayed as cranks.

Keep your language tight and your points precise. I find criticism is most devestating when delivered cold, clear and calculated. Like revenge, or schadenfreude.

But then, looking at the cached letters, the Post hasn't really got a lot to complain about. They've obviously never been on the pointy end of a right-wing hate campaign! They should see some of the stuff that's come through my letterbox. Then they'd have an inkling of what really *nasty* filth is like.

No, it's just another case of corrupt Bush boosters crying victim when called to account for their crimes. Like deLay in Texas claiming to be persecuted by the Attorney General. Patent nonsense to anyone who takes even a cursory glance at the facts. What a shame that simple task seems to beyond most 'journalists' these days..