"Woman Said to Have Felt Hostility at Work After Complaining About Cain."

That's a hell of a headline. For an article by Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny at the New York Times. If the woman had been named, it could have read:

Jane Doe Said to Have Felt Hostility at Work After Complaining About Cain.

There'd still be that "said to." So imagine if there had been direct evidence, and if could been:

Jane Doe Felt Hostility at Work After Complaining About Cain.

There'd still be that "felt." So let's add another degree of solidity:

Jane Doe Subjected to Hostility at Work After Complaining About Cain.

There'd still be a lack of agency behind the hostility. If we knew who was sending out that hostility, it might have read:

Co-workers Subjected Jane Doe to Hostility After Her Complaining About Cain.

There'd still be correlation without necessary causation. Let's eliminate that for the purpose of further demonstrating the vagueness of it all:

Co-workers Subjected Jane Doe to Hostility Because of Her Complaining About Cain.

Even the article were bolstered with information that would support these 5 added degrees of specificity, the weakness of the story would remain: Which co-workers? What did they know about the complaint? What form did this hostility take? For how long? And the all-important: What connection did any of this have to something Cain actually did?

"A conscious decision was made by certain groups to destroy this presidency the minute it started."

"People say it was the health care bill – no, it wasn’t. I go to every county every year and hold a town meeting. Within days of the president being sworn in, I had people showing up at my town meeting with hats on, with tea bags coming out, saying this is going to be socialism.”

That's Russ Feingold, answering one of 10 questions posed by Jeff Zelenzy in  the NYT. Feingold is, as you probably know, struggling to keep his place representing my state, Wisconsin, in the U.S. Senate. The question was "What explains the difficult political climate for Democrats, considering that President Obama has implemented many policies he campaigned on?" The quote above was the second of 2 explanations Feingold offered. The first was the economy and the tendency people have to blame whoever is in power when the economy is bad.

But it's not the health care bill? Some people think "it’s pretty obvious that the Democrats’ electoral woes are directly tied to the passage of the health care bill." Ironically, that link goes to Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake, who is criticizing the health care bill from the left, that is, hoping for socialism.

Another NYT question for Feingold is: "Are there a lot of undecided voters out there on issues like health care?" He says:

Here in Wisconsin, there’s 40 percent who are locked in on one side, 40 percent on the other and roughly 20 percent independents, they’re not locked in at all. They are holding back and as you calmly and rationally explain, most people say, "No, we don’t really want to repeal that."

"During these first 100 days, what has ... enchanted you the most?

Jeff Zeleny (of the NYT) asks a question somewhat flakily:

During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office? Enchanted you the most from serving in this office? Humbled you the most? And troubled you the most?

And the President responds... as if... well, as if the 2 of them were engaging in pillow talk....

OBAMA: Now let me write this down.

OBAMA: I've got...

QUESTION: Surprised, troubled...

OBAMA: I've got -- what was the first one?

QUESTION: Surprised.

OBAMA: Surprised.

QUESTION: Troubled.

OBAMA: Troubled.

QUESTION: Enchanted.

OBAMA: Enchanted, nice.

QUESTION: And humbled.

OBAMA: And what was the last one, humbled?

QUESTION: Humbled. Thank you, sir.

OBAMA: All right. OK.

Enchanting... inane... and enchanting.

Now, if you want to be bored out of your skull, go to the link and read O's answer to the question.