THE VERY IMPORTANT MATTER OF THE SORE ON LAURA BUSH'S LEG

The New York Times' political blog The Caucus devoted two Tuesday posts (here and here) to a distinctly non-political but supremely important topic, a sore on Laura Bush's leg. The sore was no ordinary sore, you see, it was a squamous cell carcinoma that was removed in an "operation" under local anesthetic. Not only that, that the sore was cancerous was not revealed until over a month after its removal and, perhaps more importantly, more than a month after the mid-term elections.

In responding to reporters' questions White House press secretary Tony Snow summed up this non-story story quite nicely:

Yes, I talked to her a couple of minutes ago. She’s doing fine. And she said, “It’s no big deal, and we knew it was no big deal at the time.” Frankly I don’t think anybody thought it was the sort of thing that occasioned a need for a public disclosure. Furthermore, she’s got the same right to medical privacy that you do. She’s a private citizen; she’s not an elected official. So for that reason she didn’t disclose it. But she’s doing fine, and thank you for your concern.

The press corps, however, kept pressing him. Gee, it's not obvious the MSM is Bush-hostile, now is it?

Editing note: Barbara Bush, as in the original of this post, was meant to be Laura. Corrected. Duh.