In its sharp deconstruction of today's Maureen Dowd column--which attempts to make the case for Caroline Kennedy as U.S. senator--Gawker rightly notes that Dowd seems to have a double standard regarding the thin resumes of Kennedy and one Sarah Palin.
Undiscussed, though, is the bogus argument Dowd uses to close out her piece.
My buddy Dan Kennedy dimisses this NY Times Q-and-A with "Caroline Kennedy and her staff" (the paper's phrase) as "crapola," and argues that the Times shouldn't have run it.
His "crapola" assessment is dead on. But to my mind, that's exactly why the Times did the right thing in printing the interview.