Fuel economy ledes about Obama announcement

Here’s a survey of today’s ledes from some of the nation’s top newspapers about President Obama’s intentions to toughen fuel economy standards for automakers. The Wall Street Journal offers the most specific opening graf, while the Washington Post and New York Times do a good job of contextualizing the announcement. The Los Angeles Times lede, on the other hand, is syntactically jarring, sacrificing clarity and accessibility for conjecture and information that could have been included further down in the article:

Wall Street Journal:

The Obama administration plans to order auto makers to increase the fuel economy of automobiles sold in the U.S. to 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, four years faster than current federal law requires, people familiar with the matter said.

Washington Post:

The Obama administration today plans to propose tough standards for tailpipe emissions from new automobiles, establishing the first nationwide regulation for greenhouse gases.

New York Times:

President Obama will announce tough new nationwide rules for automobile emissions and mileage standards on Tuesday, embracing standards that California has sought to enact for years over the objections of the auto industry and the Bush administration.

USA Today:

The Obama administration is set to announce Tuesday what will amount to a sweeping revision to auto-emission and fuel-economy standards, putting them in the same package for the first time.

Los Angeles Times:

The agreement that the Obama administration will announce today forcing dramatic reductions in vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and improvements in auto mileage marks a potentially pivotal shift in the battle over global warming — and a vindication of California’s long battle to toughen standards.

Why Jindal's speech tanked

At Huffington Post, Howard Fine explains why Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal did so poorly during his Republican response to President Obama’s address to Congress. Here’s an excerpt:

He wanted the audience to think that he is a good guy, so he adopted a general demeanor of kind and empathetic. This is why he came off as condescending. No matter what he talked about the the pose was the same. He was trying to project his idea of a warm and friendly guy. Therefore he came off as patronizing.

Mickey Kaus dissects Obama's speech

Mickey Kaus has a nice post up at his Kausfiles blog on Slate that critically analyzes President Obama’s address to Congress. Here’s an excerpt:

How, exactly, did failure to find new sources of energy cause the recession? Obama could be right, but he didn’t make the logical link clear. After listening, it sure still seems to me the problems begin when the housing market collapsed and the stock market sank! The people who helped produce the collapse–e.g. Jim Johnson, plus whoever had the bright idea of securitizing risky mortgages and insuring everything through AIG–are more to blame than governments that failed to invest in wind power. … Not that Obama’s three long term crises aren’t really long-term crises. But they seemed unconnected to the short-term crisis–they’re just things he’d (rightly) like to address.

Greenwald on the Left's love affair with Obama

This being Valentine’s Day, I’m sending out some journalistic love to Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald for his  analysis that the Left’s unqualified allegiance to President Obama is politically counterproductive for them both:

During the 2008 election, Obama co-opted huge portions of the Left and its infrastructure so that their allegiance became devoted to him and not to any ideas.  Many online political and “news” outlets — including some liberal political blogs — discovered that the most reliable way to massively increase traffic was to capitalize on the pro-Obama fervor by turning themselves into pro-Obama cheerleading squads. …

Greenwald gives Ambinder a lesson in journalism

Glenn Greenwald,  a former constitutional lawyer who writes for Salon.com, has been giving The Atlantic‘s Marc Ambinder a rather harsh public lesson in journalism for the past few days.

First the context: Before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Obama administration asserted the same state secrets privilege as the Bush administration in the case of Mohamed et al v. Jeppesen Data Plan, Inc. Here’s the gist of the case, as reported by ABC News:

Sunday paper reads

From the New York Times:

Frank Rich on Obama’s dubious choices to lead the nation out of economic turmoil:

The new president who vowed to change Washington’s culture will have to fight much harder to keep from being co-opted by it instead. There are simply too many major players in the Obama team who are either alumni of the financial bubble’s insiders’ club or of the somnambulant governmental establishment that presided over the catastrophe.

From the Wall Street Journal: