As a general rule, Democracies don't need no fucking leaders...It is better for them if those who are elected to wield the power of the People do NOT regard themselves as 'leaders.' They're not. They're just one (or several) among the millions.
Fuck our "Leaders."

It's typical newswriting style not to repeat specific nouns in the space of a few sentences if you can find something you think is a synonym. It's the same reason they wouldn't write, "Clement will serve as acting Secretary of Justice until a new Secretary is confirmed by the Senate."

The word it should have used is "replacement," as in "Clement will serve as acting Attorney General until a replacement for Gonzales is confirmed by the Senate."

BTW, the AG is not a constitutional officer. The text of the Constitution doesn't mention any specific Cabinet officers or departments, only that there may be "executive Departments" and their heads. The specifics are all determined by Congress in the US Code, from the number of departments to the order of the Presidential Succession Act. If it were otherwise, changes like the Department of Education, or Department of Energy, or making the VA Secretary a cabinet-level position, or DHS, could require amending the Constitution.

Thanks for the clarification, on both counts. I updated the post accordingly.

The larger, essential point at issue is what they "think" "leader" is a synonym for, as you understand.

Once you start noticing this one, you see it everywhere, each occurrence gradually sapping the immune system of the Republic and the ability to resist or even perceive tyranny.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

The editors I worked for tore strips off their reporters for what Matt suggests is "typical" nowadays. It's laziness, pure and simple; besides, the AP Stylebook shows that it's INACCURATE.

Matt wrote:It’s typical newswriting style not to repeat specific nouns in the space of a few sentences if you can find something you think is a synonym.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!-- Xan

—

We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18

so I can't from it. (I should have waited to respond on the AP stuff, since it now occurs to me that the blog has not one, but two Hildy Johnsons on it, whose expertise is even greater than my own [dodges zucchinni]. So Xan, don't hold back...)

In any case, Matt's suggested wording is better than mine.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

If I were on the desk for the original story it would have gone back to the reporter for rewrite, though. My Stylebook dates to 1989 (yeah, I have the spiral wirebound blue cover!)
Over time though I've noticed in every dead-tree paper I read that AP Style is honored more in the breach than the observance, especially since about 2000.
I wonder if "liberal bias" in the "news media" included attention to things like grammar, spelling, and proper usage? Certainly other "facts have a liberal bias", as we've been told before.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!-- Xan

—

We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18

With all due respect to Matt:

The U.S. Attorney General is a “Constitutional Officer.”

U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 2, clause 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law;…

28 U.S.C. Section 503:

The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, an Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney General is the head of the Department of Justice.

The Supreme Court has determined, by well settled decisions, the definitions of what an “officer” is:

From United States v. Hartwell, 73 U.S. 385 (1868):

"An office is a public station, or employment, conferred by the appointment of government. The term embraces the ideas of tenure, duration, emolument, and duties.

The employment of the defendant was in the public service of the United States. He was appointed pursuant to law, and his compensation was fixed by law. Vacating the office of his superior would not have affected the tenure of his place. His duties were continuing and permanent, not occasional or temporary. They were to be such as his superior in office should prescribe."

Further in Burnap v. United States, 252 U.S. 512 (1920):

"The distinction between officer and employé in this connection does not rest upon differences in the qualifications necessary to fill the positions or in the character of the service to be performed. Whether the incumbent is an officer or an employé is determined by the manner in which Congress has specifically provided for the creation of the several positions, their duties and appointment thereto."

I realize that many on the Right have made the argument that Alberto Gonzales is (was) not a “Constitutional Officer” – maybe consider their motives...

The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb