I just spent a bit of time recently in Mexico, reporting a few stories (one of which was, tragically, killed). Anyway, I've been following politics there for the past few months. So I feel comfortable when I say the Wash Post should find a better fucking Mexico writer.
Here's a few choice lines from Mary Jordan's effort to detail the emerging constitutional crisis over Congress's likely move to effectively bar Mexico City's popular (and populist) mayor from running for president:
Many officials in Washington are concerned about the uncertainty and division the case is causing, with vast numbers of Mexicans being either fervently for or decidedly against the mayor.
Actually, Mary, 80 percent of Mexicans polled oppose their Congress's move against Obrador. It shouldn't be too hard to find that stat; your paper cited it Tuesday. Moving on...
Lopez Obrador, 51, from the Democratic Revolutionary Party, is the latest in a string of rising political stars in Latin America who disagree, to varying degrees, with the U.S. formula of democracy, open markets and free trade as a way to help the poor.
Obrador's economic policies are one thing. But, Mary,in what way exactly do you think he disagrees with "the U.S. formula of democracy"--whatever that is?