If journalism were a game of how many distortions you can pack into a single paragraph, Amy Wilentz's profile of Jimmy Carter in New York Magazine would win a Pulitzer.

It’s always been Carter’s nature to avoid the political fray. He likes to engage in intelligent conversation with powerful parties, he likes to resolve things in a mannerly, civilized way—but he doesn’t do politics, he doesn’t do down-dirty, he doesn’t do low-level horse-trading: no my-bowlegged-nag-for-your-glue-factory-gelding. Carter deals only in thoroughbreds. He insists on taking the high road, and he’s not about to change his plans—say, to cancel his visit to see Hamas—because it might somehow hurt the Democrats in 2008.

Despite Wilentz's curious assertion to the contrary, Jimmy Carter's conduct in the last 8 years has been more directed at entering "the political fray" than any former president in history. Never has a former president criticized a sitting president and vice president with such frequency and such vitriol. While most former presidents refrain from such judgments, Carter has shared his observations about the Bush administration as a matter of routine. He even threw a temper tantrum after Pope John Paul II died, claiming he wasn't invited to participate in the U.S. delegation -- despite the fact Andy Card twice invited him and he twice declined. And what to make also of Wilentz's characterization of Carter's meeting with Hamas? Since when did meeting with a ringleader of suicide bombers constitute the "high road"?