Quick one: Why is Kagan not i.d.ed by the Washington Post

NOTE: C.I. did not work on this article.

"If Power Shifts In 2008: A Democrat Might Not Be as Different as You Would Think" is little Bobby Kagan's op-ed in this morning's Wash Post. Why is little Bobby allowed to weigh in (with his talk of those "left wing critics" (opponents to the war) in the Democratic Party?

It's not that little Bobby's useless, though he is. It's not that he can't even construct an argument with subtext -- it's all on the surface -- a cautionary tale for Dems to reign in those radicals. It is that his wife worked for Dick Cheney's office and currently holds a position (we believe in the UN) due to Cheney.

Little Bobby's going to blather. Expecting him not to is like expecting the 9 month old not to wet the diaper. In Little Bobby's case, take a big dump. But The Washington Post owes it to readers to note potential conflicts of interests. Now maybe if it's a high profile couple like Mary Matalin and James Carville, most know. But most don't know about Bobby and Vicky.

They should. The Wash Post needs to note Little Bobby's wife. It's an apparent conflict. Noting it allows the readers to decide how much weight they will or won't give to his stream of yellow urine writing.

For more on this marriage, and how the press allows Bobby to come off as a disinterested commentator, read C.I.'s "When NPR Fails You, Who You Gonna Call? Not the Ombudsman."

In closing, note, again, C.I. did not participate in the writing of this. (If C.I. had, we'd know Kagan's wife's current position.) Jess saw the article and wanted to write about it. C.I. bowed out because a) C.I. avoids critiquing that paper and b) C.I. knows Kagan. Ava, who did participate, has met Kagan at "two or three larger parties." She's dubbed him "Little Bobby" in this because her alternative is much more harsh.