NYTimes on Valerie Jarrett

NYTimes on Valerie Jarrett by MSW.  MGB: I had heard it was Axelrod that picked the fight, but this makes much more sense.  When I saw the article in the Times at Starbucks over the weekend, I guessed that you would be commenting on it.  The bishops were definitely set up - but they agreed to pay their part by overreacting and ignoring the fact that their insurance policies have been covering contraception, like everyone else's, since December 2000 when the EEOC required them to do so.  While I would have preferred that neither side had decided to create this bit of unnecessary drama over a small issue of co-pays, I can see how it serves the organizational interests of both (not just those of the White House).  I would hope that in a second term, Obama makes good on his promise to deal with the issue of late term abortion, as he promised to do when debating McCain.  A legislative compromise here will go along way to defang the pro-life movement, which relies on demagoguery to exist more than a real agenda for the unborn.  If Valerie worked with the Bishops on this, rather than against them, it will send shivers down the spines of conservative operatives.