Elections '08 National Politics

HILLARY and the Winning XX Factor

hillary-duo-2.gif
Note: This is another one of those that’s also posted at Huff Post’s OFF THE BUS section.

The best line of the night in Thursday’s Las Vegas debate
–in terms of zinger value, anyway–came when CNN’s Campbell Brown asked Hillary Clinton about a recent speech that Hil gave at Wellesley College. Evidently Hillary told the crowd at her alma mater that Wellesley had “…prepared me compete in the all boys’ club of presidential politics.”

“What did you mean at Wellesley when you referred to the boy’s club?” asked Brown.

It was, frankly, a really stupid question. What the earnest Ms. Brown clearly meant to ask had to do with this month’s slew of accusations coming from Hillary’s camp alleging that the male presidential contenders had been mean to poor HRC at the at the last Democratic debate….because she was a girl.

But instead Brown unintentionally handed Clinton the perfect opportunity
to exploit the gender-specific element of her candidacy, an opportunity she could not have otherwise managed without Brown’s soft ball. If Hillary wins, it may easily be this very gender-specific element–let’s call the XX factor–that provides the added edge needed to propel her to victory.

Clinton first responded to the question with an artful riff about the historic challenges women have faced, and the “…great movement of progress that includes all of us but has particularly been significant to me as a woman….”

Then she spoke about mothers driving their daughters
hundreds of miles to meet the person who might be the first woman president, followed by a heart-tugging story of a grandmother, born back when only men had the right to vote, who told Hil, “I want to live long enough to see a woman in the White House.” Yeah, it was cheesy, but it worked. I even got kind of teary. (Hey, we have come a long way, baby, even in my lifetime.)

Finally Clinton wound up for the pitch: “I’m not playing, as some people say, the gender card here in Las Vegas, I’m just trying to play the winning card,” she said, smiling her most perfect, cat-ate-the-canary smile. “I understand very well that people are not attacking me because I’m a woman…” (pause for effect) “They’re attacking me because I’m ahead.”

Oh, SNAP!

Was it disingenuous?
Yes, of course. But nobody cared.

For the past two weeks, Hillary and her proxies had been playing the gender card in any game that would have them. The proxies ranged from Bill-the-huz, to the head of the Feminist Majority, Eleanor Smeal, who, in all seriousness said that when the other Dem candidates’ played hardball with Hillary at the October 30, Philadelphia debate, it was reminiscent of the Congressional Republican attacks on …ANITA HILL!

(Elie, honey, that’s exactly the sort of idiotic claptrap
that persuades young women not to call themselves feminists.)

But, here’s the deal: Hillary plays the girl card
because, every time she does, it has a very good chance of resonating with half the American population. Heck—as I said above–it worked with me, and I don’t much like the broad. So, let’s not kid ourselves, if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination it will not be in spite of the fact that she’s a woman, it will be, in a weird way, because of it.

All things being equal, that isn’t such a bad thing.
As a country, we are more than ready for such a gender breakthrough. I just wish the person with the best shot at smashing that “highest, hardest glass ceiling” she mentioned in Las Vegas, was someone other than poll-driven, hawkish Hillary Clinton.

58 Comments

  • The gutless journalists and opposing candidates need to grow a set and challenge Hillary Clinton when she is lying through her teeth and avoiding answering the questions. It amazed me the way that she said that she wasn’t playing the gender card while she was playing it at that very time–and, she gets away with it! She sure proved that she was female when she wouldn’t shut up after Wolf kept trying to get her to stop the filibuster.

    People need to consider, if they think that they are in effect re-electing Bill Clinton, that if Bill dies (and the chances are great given the history of people around Hillary), then she’s still President and there is no succession to the Vice President. Heck, we won’t even be able to impeach him again, and I’m sure that he’ll give us some reason.

    There’s not one Democrat that I like, but I’ll take anyone over that power-mad socialist. If it matters, I may participate in the Democratic primary and vote for Edwards just to keep her from getting our state delegates. This is one time that I’m on the same side as radical, left-wing Democrats, even if for different reasons.

  • I didn’t think Hillary performed as well as pundits said. Edwards essentially called her on her hypocrisies and her rebuttal was “you’re mudslinging.” I thought that demonstrated weakness. I thought it was the old white men of the party who kicked ass in last night’s debates!

  • Look what Hillary is pulling out of the mud bag now. I love these tactics of “We’re so nice that we’re not using something bad against someone else that we could, so you can only suspect that it was really bad, and we look good by not really saying it (assuming that it even exists) although it still hurts him. But, remember, we’re being the good guys!”

    Hillary vs. Obama
    by Robert Novak
    Posted: 11/17/2007

    Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party’s presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed.

    This word-of-mouth among Democrats makes Obama look vulnerable and Clinton look prudent. It comes during a dip for the front-running Clinton after she refused to take a stand on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s now discarded plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.

    Experienced Democratic political operatives believe Clinton wants to avoid a repetition of 2004, when attacks on each other by presidential candidates Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt were mutually destructive and facilitated John Kerry’s nomination.

    Well, I’m not going to say anything about Hillary being a lesbian, because I’m so nice and, anyway, no one would care except the press, the voters, and the Democrats who cared about Dick Cheney’s daughter–and, oh yeah, Janet Reno.

  • I’ve stopped watching these things. I’m not sure how many people do, or if they are very influential – but they are an embarrassment to the profession of journalism. Nothing of substance is debated. Crap like shows of hands or questions that are premised as tripwires rather than to bring serious discussion of issues and policies before the public make these things less than useful forums. They aren’t even a good measure of how folks perform “under fire” because the guys in charge are almost completely acking in gravitas or intellect. I guess if you care about how your candidate would perform on a game show, these are a great test. Obama has come up with a media policy that is excellent – far superior to the rest with a task force who can back up the rhetoric. The question of health care mandates deserves serious discussion at length – because it’s an idea that make sense on paper but isn’t viable in a “reformist” health care pacakage that doesn’t simply dump the current (bad) insurance system – which nobody’s electable is willing to propose at this point. These are issues of utmost importance to our democracy and are tests of which candidates can move us forward and which are the same-old-same-old. What we get from these alleged “journalists” are questions deliberately framed to forestall serious debate and an opportunity to hear Hillary on “diamonds or pearls”.

    Personal Semi-Random Rant – I’d like to hear a real debate on the issues and broad perspective between Obama and Clinton – the only two with a real shot at the nomination. Or any of them one-on-one so that there can be coherent discussion and follow-up. The presence of Biden and Dodd in these things is a farce within a farce. Richardson is apparently running against them for Secretary of State or VP. The huge field means that distinctions and policy discussions are blunted to the point of incoherence because nothing is followed up or discussed more than superficially by soundbite. And I’m not interested in who can best attack Hillary – my support for a candidate isn’t based on who they can attack but what they actually stand for that can take us in a positive direction and shape the future rather than stumble into it. (I’m not some insane wingnut of the right – or nattering crank of the “left” for that matter – who thinks that Hillary is a “bitch” or totally corrupt or even kills people, as the tale told by idiots goes, or whose main mission is to keep the immensely popular agenda of Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader from being realized by an awakening working class. I just think she’s a blast from the past who happens to be terribly unoriginal and compromised. Compromised not because she’s a horrible person, but precisely because of her “experience” and her proximity to an undistinguished – albeit reasonably competent – adminsitration that we need to be over and done with.)

    Also Edwards has run a primary campaign that is so predictable, constricted and ultimately disingenuous that I find him to be a sad figure. He can’t run for President of the United States on a platform that’s tailored soley to Democratic party interest groups in the primaries. I wonder what folks are smoking who think that Edwards could run in the general election without drastically trimming his sails on the left. Which makes the entire rationale for his candidacy – that he’s the most “overtly progressive” (despite his thin “progressive” resume as a Senator and VP candidate) – a false hope. Clinton, of course, will move right in the general election and even further right “in order to govern.” Obama is the only guy who I feel there’ any reason to believe you are actually seeing what you would get – a man with a consistent progressive background and progressive values who understands what the office of the Presidency requires – which is neither inflated rhetoric nor political cynicism predicated on an “insider” mentality. He’s also the only one who tells Democratic constituencies things they don’t want to hear but probably need to. Personally, I’m sick of the pandering or the notion that a Democrat can’t reach out beyond the clusters of true believers who already are locked into place.

    Speaking of true believers, although they play a vital role in mobilizing a relatively independent base, the netroots are getting to be almost as encrusted and smug as their predecessors. I hate to se Kos becoming a columnist for Newsweek with Rove as his “twin”. Neither one is, frankly, someone who’s opinions I value as anything other than partisan strategists – the main difference being that Rove is a “has-been” while Kos is still heating up. But drawing him into the “old media” circle will diminish the kid. He’s a decent, bright guy with a lot of fire, but I don’t think anyone is immune to the arteriosclerosis that runs rampant through the elite punditry – the lack of any seriousness combined with taking oneself too seriously. Krugman’s an exception because he had his epiphany about Beltway politics and the perfidy of BushCo AFTER he was given a column for reasons that had absolutely nothing to his being the Krugman we’ve come to know (and love.)

  • I should also note that Krugman is probably as good and principled and serious as he has become because he’s the only one of these guys with a day job and any real skills beyond dishing out fleeting opinion of superficial phenomena. I mean, where does David Brooks go if he gets deservedly laughed off the stage ? To write another book about the social significance of people who buy their coffee at Starbucks ? Motivational speaking ? A combined social engagements/school board meetings/police beat for the Daily Planet in Darien Connecticut ? I’m not sure he’s even good enough to get a sinecure at the Manhattan Institute.

  • Kinda sad to see the obviously terminal stages of Clinton Derangement Syndrome (above). What’s worse is that a candidate like John McCain should overtly incorporate this type of pathetic, deranged juvenalia and vitriol into his campaign strategy. The country deserves better. And again, the media disappoints by giving McCain a pass as he fundraises off of some wingnut bitch’s bitchiness. Increasingly I hate most of mainstream “punditry” and political journalism…even more than I hate braindead wingnuts who, at this point, one would have no reason to expect anything from other than defecations in public.

  • Finally something Woody and reg can agree on — that Hilary is “a bitch.” Well, she’s forging consensus in that way, I guess, even if you two think she’s one for opposite reasons.

    Actually, I like her more than in her old shoot-her-mouth-off snotty incarnation as the public face of the failed single payer healthcare plan. Sure she’s a two-faced bitch — so is Pelosi, so are any of the women (or men) who rise that far. But her becoming more hawkish over the war is precisely what I like about her more — not that I favor the war, but that she’s aware you can’t just pull out without leaving a bigger mess than we have now. Sure she’s turning more conservative — she wants to win. What’s too conservative for the commenters here (except of course, Woody) may still be too liberal for the general public. As pundits noted, she’s been running in the general election for some time, not risking saying stuff to get support from the Dem left that will cost her later. When it comes to international relations, I think she can kick any guy’s butt.

    I do agree this melodrama of fund-raising and debates have gone on too long — we should have a two-month cycle like in England, have them debate hot and furious, then it’s over. And I agree there should be more serious one-on-one debates. The current time structure has them looking like the too- pushy smart kids in class, always jumping up, “pick me! I’ve got the answer!”

    Kucinich being there is ridiculous, he should stick to researching UFO’s; Dodd just wants to show off his Spanish (since it’s an underappreciated skill in Connecticut), Edwards is a wimp, Biden a smart policy wonk, but no chance — but he’s useful as a foil to Hilary, makes her look moderate to the average voter. Richardson is a foil to all of them, and comes off as clever. (But is the country ready for a female pres and a half-hispanic vice-pres? Maybe knowing that, he doesn’t play up his Spanish as much as Dodd from waspy Ct does.) Paring the debate of anyone who isn’t showing at least 10% in the polls by now would help the remaining candidates focus.

  • “Personal Semi-Random Rant – I’d like to hear a real debate on the issues and broad perspective between Obama and Clinton – the only two with a real shot at the nomination. Or any of them one-on-one so that there can be coherent discussion and follow-up..”

    Reg, yeah. No kidding! This giant group grope is so ungainly, thus the debates pretty much come to nothing. I enjoy Biden, personally. But we need to pick a candidate.

  • From the site that Celeste linked in #13, you gotta love the classic Clinton attack response.

    Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s campaign communications director, said she has “no idea” what the item is about.

    “Once again Sen. Obama is echoing Republican talking points, this time from Bob Novak,” he said in an e-mailed statement.

    “This is how Republicans work. A Republican-leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games. Voters should be concerned about the readiness of any Democrat inexperienced enough to fall for this. There is only one campaign in this race that has actually engaged in the very practice that Sen. Obama is decrying, and it’s his. We have no idea what Mr. Novak’s item is about and reject it totally. Instead of pointing fingers at us, Sen. Obama should get back to the issues and focus on what this election is really about.”

    The Democrats trusted Novac on the Valerie Plame issue. Now, Clinton says that he is a Republican liar and that Obama is a fool to believe him.

    Our country deserves better than her–even if it turns out to be another Democrat.

  • “Finally something Woody and reg can agree on — that Hilary is “a bitch.”

    What are you talking about. I consider this crap poisonous. I’m not a Clinton fan, but the stuff being slimed out there by these wingnut creeps totally disgusts me. The upside of a Clinton presidency would be watching these people’s heads explode. If Hillary can light that match, it’s well worth it IMHO.

  • …McCain fundraises off of some wingnut bitch’s bitchiness.”

    “obviously terminal stages of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.” This one doesn’t call her a bitch, but a wacked out nut job?

    Are you talking about someone else here?

  • I was talking about the crazy “bitch” who fronted for McCain, calling Hillary a “bitch” in a spate of nauseating wingnut public bitchiness, and the total, pathological idiocy of one of the commenters who has perched his crazy ass here who accuses Hillary of killing people. Pardon the intemperate language, but that smartass woman at the McCaiin press conference was a real piece of work and earned having the mirror of her own vulgarities held to her own face, if she wants to start pissing contests. And the dumb links to stuff like “Would you rather America be hit by terrorists or Hillary be elected President?” speaks for itself as terminal “Clinton Derangement Syndrome.” People should be held – at the least – to their own standards when they start slinging mud. These folks are very low indeed.

  • And the dumb links to stuff like “Would you rather America be hit by terrorists or Hillary be elected President?” speaks for itself as terminal “Clinton Derangement Syndrome.”

    Which, once again, shows that radical leftists have no sense of humor–unable to discern comedy from reality.

  • If the “non-humor” stuff wasn’t steeped in the same depraved sensibility, the humor might actually stand out as such.

    Also, people who have to keep reminding everyone when they persist – even compulsively – in crossing certain lines that “it’s just a joke” are on a slippery slope – and obviously know it. I’ve heard the Vince Foster crap from this same source so many times that I can only assume it’s taken as a matter of faith.

    One more thing – Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Louis Black, George Carlin, Bill Maher, Larry David, etc. etc. are all very, very funny and all, broadly, of “the left.”. I think that Garrison Keillor is a terrific humorist “of the left” as well, but maybe that’s an acquired taste if you’re not from the Midwest. It would be very difficult to compile an equivalent list of contemporary humorists who think George Bush is one of our better Presidents. Jackie Mason and Larry Miller ? Even P.J. O’Rourke seems embarrassed by the GOP these days. But I’ll grant him…and that’s about it. Pretty unimpressive. Meanwhile our resident “humorist” is a boor and a bore. And terrorist attacks aren’t high on my list of inherently humorous premises for “political humor” – especially when all you can offer is an inane “worse than Hillary?” payoff. (I’ve got a great “Who would you rather unwittingly pick up in a bar? Ann Coulter or a transvestite prostitute with HIV?” routine if you think the “Hillary as President vs. a Terrorist Attack ?” bit was hilarious. If you take a pass, it just proves you don’t have a sense of humor.)

    That’s my last on this because I don’t want to degrade the discourse here by feeding the troll. Sorry it took me so long to help Maggie “get it” – thought my meaning was clear – because I wanted to limit this issue to one comment and be done.

  • Dennis Miller and the aforementioned P.J. O’Rourke are humorists who tend to lean right (although I agree with the Bush embarrassment factor that’s set in).

    But all the people mentioned—Stuart, Colbert, George Carlin, Lewis Black, Miller, O’Rourke, etc.—whether politically left of center, or right of center are equal opportunity humorists who slam whoever they think deserves slamming. For instance, Stuart’s repeated skewering of Dem spinelessness is a running theme on his show.

    Yet, the thing that distinguishes all of these people mentioned is that they’re humorists first, pundits, second.

    The Ann Coulters of the world are not remotely in the same category, although Coulter repeatedly tries to claim humor as her cover. She (and others of her ilk) base their entire commentary around a single note: Liberals are the enemy, and as such we are permitted to say anything, no matter how vicious, including the fact that we’d like to see many of them dead or, at the very least, recognized as traitors to America. And then, when challenged, all the decidedly un humorous bile is disingenuously excused under the banner of “It’s Only-A-Joke.” To say that you think someone ought to assassinate a particular Supreme Court Justice whose views you don’t like and then, when taken to task, to shrug and say, “Oh, hey, don’t you get the humor?”—- doesn’t make you a comedian, it makes you a sociopath.

    PS: And I don’t mean that as a joke at all.

  • Bob Novak was not “believed” bu the so-called left over Valerie Plame. He was reviled for violating the Intelligence Agent’s Identies Protection act – a Reagan era law passed to go after Phil Agee and COVERT ACTION BULLITEN. Novak was a person yopu read to find out what GOP operatives were thinking but lately he’s been off the mark there as well.

    The attacks on Hillary are having thedesired effect – for Hillary. Check the poll data, she is now doing very well among women. Many of whom may not support her but are tired of being put down by the “Boys Club” that exists. I’d think she was paying them if I didn’t know the trolls do it for free!

    Oh, and anyone who thinks Bill Clinton isn’t a HUGE advantage for her hasn’t been watching the polling data. Frankly, the more people are reminded that they get the big dog as part of the package the more they like Hil. After Shrub the Clinton years look very good.

  • Reg you’re beginning to suffer form “Obama Deraingement Syndrome.” Edwards was first with the Iran statement. First with Health Care and first with his critique of the Lobbyist/Campaign contribution nexus. Yes, Barack has talked about Media and Net Neutrality buyt he’s made his “Big Issue” Social Security “Reform”. Touting a phony GOP issue does him no credit except to suggest that he’s not ready. And if he’s so concerned about foreign policy how about showing up in DC, like Dodd, Kucinich, and Biden, and actually voting on the damn things. Or is he emulating John McCain?

  • Obama’s plan for Social Security happens to be the right and ultimately necessary thing to do. Atrios and even Krugman are carping on this and in denial that it need ever be an issue again. Obama has made his positions clear on all votes he’s missed and he hasn’t missed any that were close. Also Harry Reid is responsible for bad communications on a couple of the vote schedules. If you think Edwards isn’t a guy who’s pandering in the primaries and will, predictably, shift to the right in the general, you’re kidding yourself. And speaking of missing votes in the Senate…where is Senator John Edwards since his glory days of voting for the Iraq war ? Oh, right…didn’t bother to run again.

  • Also Edwards may have been “first with Health Care” in this primary season, because he’s been running for President for a couple of years, but he opposed universal health coverage in 2004. Obama is the only guy in the race who has been an active progressive advocate for decades – not a couple of years – and a track record that tells me who the guy is down deep and what direction he fundamentally wants to take the country, which matters more than throwing some positions together on paper for the primary season.

  • So, Al Franken is not a comedian but a sociopath. I knew that.

    Clearly, conservatives have a much better sense of humor than agenda-driven leftists, whose whole lives are consumed with causes, conspiracy theories, and hate. The humor of conservatives is rarely used as a cover, and anyone who took Jackie Broyles and Dunlap seriously in their skit might fall in the psycho category.

  • The Clinton’s do so many crooked and disgusting things that every time something new comes up it just seems like “ho-hum, business as usual,” and the impact is minor and forgotten.

    Another Hillary Clinton donor fraud gets busted.
    Mauricio Celis was indicted on Friday. He has donated more than $415,000 to Democratic political campaigns since 2002.

    Hillary Clinton Heckled During Forum in Los Angeles
    Clinton heckled the Code Pink antiwar demonstrator right back.

    Guess where this story originates.

    Clinton News Network = CNN

    I’m glad someone has been listening to the conservatives and agree with us.

  • I’m trying to stay neutral here, but I will say that, e.g., after Cheney accidentally shot his hunting buddy in the face, there were a lot of jokes about that all around, from Jay Leno etc. etc., from virtually everyone of all political bends. As for whether or not that stuff is funny, it’s just context. Bill Maher attacks the right in ways that are just hiss, other times he’s actually funny — but I respect the fact he’s trying to make a legitimate difference in the national dialogue.

    And it’s common by pundits on the left, like Rosa Brooks in the L A Times, to call Bush/ Cheney worse terrorists and murderers than Ahmedinijad or Hugo Chavez, sociopaths/ psychopaths, etc. (That woman must be kept around just for psycho-left balance, not that the paper has anyone on the right anywhere near as whacked out.) So I do think it’s much more common to call the Admin. and the right the worst things imaginable, and get away with it. (When Bill and Carter were Presidents, people made fun of them, but not to the degree Bush is getting: evil, psychopathic, terrorist.

  • One of the Rosa Brooks articles I refer to: Oct 25, 07:

    One Flew Over the White House

    Forget Impeachment. LIberals, put it behind you. George W Bush and Dick Cheney shouldn’t be treated like criminals who deserve punishment. They should be treated like psychotics who need treatment. Because they’ve clearly gone mad.”

    She’s specifically talking about threats to Iran, that “we cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions.”

    Are these sentiments even remotely justified, to her? Of course not, and she quotes one Fareed Zakaria, “a solid centrist,” that Bush/Cheney are insane because… “Iran has an economy the size of Finland’s…It has not invaded a country since the late 18th C (except surreptitiously in Iraq, Lebanon through Hezbollah, etc.!)…Israel and every Arab country except Syria and Iraq (which part of Iraq?) are allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overrun the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order?” (Well, yeah — because it’s Iran’s leader in his funny suits who’s a nutcase, in denial of reality, and hence liable to do anything.)

    Rosa Brooks adds her own insight, that “you could read Bush’s remark as a madman’s threat rather than a madman’s prediction — as a warning to recalcitrant states, from Germany to Russia (which just happens to be doing arms business with Iran, as are Venezuela and at least formerly, France and China) that don’t seem to share his crazed obsession with Iran.”

    She goes on and on about how the courts should just declare them certifiably insane, and commit them. Some letters to the Editor noted it’s Brooks who sounds insane, but she gets a pass from her editors and goes on and on. To “provoke debate,” I guess. (I seem to recall some of her other items are as bad or even worse.)

    But if anyone raved on like this about Hilary (who I actually think has become reasonable) or Obama, there would be the hugest hue and cry from the left media. (I don’t and can’t listen to Ann Coulter’s rants, but she writes on her own, not as a sanctioned opinion writer for a major paper.)

  • Looks like Rosa Brooks has been reading from the republican playbook.

    Back in the 60’s and 70’s if you were against the Vietnam War, the republicans favorite attack phrases were “American Love it or Leave it” and “Communist Sympathizer”. I wonder what we should have called the critics of Richard Nixon???

    Now critics of Bush and HIS Iraq war, are labeled by Republicans as, “supporting the terrorists”, “hating America”, “Kool-Aid drinker” and “Bush haters” (although this is correct, I don’t like the moron).

    Rosa Brooks should be more like Bill O’Reilly, who has a nationally broadcast television show and always act with the infamous republican decorum.

  • L A Res, fact that you’re actually defending a nutcase like her, and conversely, her wacked-out justifications in favor of Ahmenijad (since anyone who opposes Bush has to be right) tells more about you than any of your convoluded attempts to somehow, pin Brooks’ lunacy on Republicans from the Vietnam War era. And what the hell does Bill O’Reilly have to do with this? You’ve only proved the argument that Woody is always making about you and how your “logic” operates.

  • Glad you’re “trying to be neutral” Maggie. At least admit you’re deep in the NeoCon tank with your Norman Podhoretz talking points on Iran and your consequent attack on Rosa Brooks as the “nutcase”. “One Fahreed Zahkaria” is about as centrist and sober a commentator as one can find unless you believe FOX is the epitome of “fair and balanced”. I’m not going to debate Iran with you, because frankly, your smug confidence that Brooks is wrong as to whether “Iran is about to overrun the international order and replace it with an Islamo-fascist system” is borderline insane and I’m determined to spend as little time as possible debating with people who don’t have a clue. (See – I can “be neutral” too.)

  • Incidentally, if you really want to read something that’s completely crazy, read Michael O’Hanlon and Fred Kagan’s “plan” for securing Pakistani nukes if the political situation there deteriorates that was published in yesterdays NYTimes. It’s one of the finest examples of wishful thinking and crackpot, armchair strategizing I’ve seen since…the plan to invade Iraq and bring democracy to the Middle East. The ideologues and incompetents who brought us the debacle in Iraq really should just sit down and shut up for a couple of years – if not decades.

  • Incidentally, Maggie. Just so you don’t think I’m a complete prick, the “not insane” response to the rhetorical question, “Are we to believe that Tehran is about to overrun the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order?” isn’t “Yeah!” Because that’s totally crazy. A more credible line of defense would be to suggest that the administration doesn’t believe it’s own rhetoric and there’s likely a “behind-the-posturing” strategy in place to deal with Iran at least as rationally as we dealt with a vastly more powerful, totally-controlled and militaristic Maoist China. Because if this administration itself believes some of the rhetoric it’s tossing out there – like Ahadinejad’s Iran is as potentially dangerous, totalitarian and regionally aggressive as Josef Stalin’s Soviet Union or Mao’s China, it is indeed completely and demonstrably crazy.

  • More Fuzzy Logic ….
    L A Res, fact that you’re actually defending a nutcase like her, and conversely, her wacked-out justifications in favor of Ahmenijad

    I’m not defending anyone, I’m merely pointing out that using personal attacks has been a tactic of republicans for decades and not the brain-child of Rosa Brooks. Your reading comprehension is atrocious, you must have been in school with too many of those damn illegal aliens. But at least you are “trying to be neutral”.

  • You guys are beyond help. Whatever happened to stunt your development back in the 70’s, it’s clear you haven’t been able to get past it. All you do is twist everything around to blame it on Republicans of that era, and drag your outdated and irrelevant leftists prejudices into everything.

    “Norman Podhorettz talking points,” “admit you’re deep in the neocon think tank,” “see, I can be neutral, too,” after your snotty slings…Bill O’Reilly, “your smug confidence about whether Brooks is wrong…” enough, it’s all too biased and stupid to address.

    (Reg, I never said Tehran was going to overrun…but Fareed’s /Brooks’ arguments that it isn’t because it’s GDP is the same as some tiny Scandinavian country’s (like that’s relevant, they have so much else in common), that it hasn’t invaded a country since the earlth 1800’s (like it hasn’t been doing so surreptitiously), looking to Putin’s Russia for validation… all this idiocy, while spewing endless bile and attacks of Bush/Cheney insanity. I never compared Iran to Maoist China or Stalin’s Russia — but Putin’s Russia as an arbiter is crazy. Brooks’ rant and arguments are stupid and bile-filled — no wonder L A Res loves her, a woman after his own heard.

    You’re what Obama is trying to get past in the party, but talking to you or engaging you people is pointless. Thanks for the compliment, L A Res, about my lack of comprehension and education — which I’m not going to lower myself to describe or identify, but it’s light years past your illogical ramblings. No wonder you don’t understand the value of education here in L A, and love to just insult anyone who has the insane idea that paying taxes on among the most expensive real estate in the country entitles one to at least some semblance of quality schooling — something any sane person anywhere else agrees on, talking about insane — since you never had anything resembling quality education, just political indoctrination. All you have is political bias which I’m not even going to bother to read again. At least East Coast leftists aren’t as stupid and sometimes have manners (with some notable exceptions) — something you clearly don’t have.

    The only saving grace is you’re passe, and becoming ever more so, especially to young people. You are utterly irrelevant and your sense of that, is making you lash out angrily like dying scorprions. I hope Woody continues to haunt your days, and Ann Coulter your nightmares.

  • Maggie: And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overrun the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order?” (Well, yeah — because it’s Iran’s leader in his funny suits who’s a nutcase, in denial of reality, and hence liable to do anything.)

    Sorry, but your response is there in black and white. If you spoke hastily or thoughtlessly, don’t lash out at me for making the point that this is not a rational view of Iran’s potential danger.

    As I suggested before, I don’t consider your outburts on these issues worth serious discussion if your best shot is to call Zakaria’s dissection of the administration’s words and actions re Iran “idiocy”.

    Now go find somebody who gives a shit.

  • reg, you’re the ones who chose to respond to me in a snotty, vindictive, ignorant way, defending illogical and bile-filled slings, and no, I don’t “give a shit” what you two sling. My only relief is I haven’t been forced to sit next to you at some wretched dinner party, where the hostess drags some rabid and rude, loud leftist from the sixties into the mix, just to mix things up and ruin everyone else’s mood and the meal. Since you are ensconced in your own political and geographical oblivion, at least it’s unlikely I’ll ever have to endure you in person. I’m sure you’ll be found wherever aging radicals wearing Che Guevara t-shirts congregate, and think they’re actually cool.

    As I said, I’ll never again read you on this blog, either — being predictably illogical and reading your prejudices into what anyone not left of Castro says, is one thing; but you’re too uncivilized and downright rude to dignify with one’s attention. (At least Woody doesn’t even bother to engage you anymore — he just talks in his parallel universe.)

  • “I never compared Iran to Maoist China or Stalin’s Russia” but Bush did, which is what Zakaria’s entire point about the “craziness” was founded on. And it’s this careening from what LA Resident calls “fuzzy logic” to vitriolic (and voluminous) hysterics when you’re called to defend statements that are ill-considered at best that makes the prospect of discussing serious issues with you seem beyond pointless. Add to that the protestation of “neutrality” and it’s a bit too much to stomach.

    I’ve been through this with you before – although not quite as monumentally hysterical on your end – and regret dipping back into it.

    Sorry, “RD” for the brouhaha. Great blog, but as my wife tells me, I don’t suffer fools well at all, so I’ll pull back from the comments thread.

  • reg, you had to add your bit of bile, just what I expect from you. You and L A Res are the fools one has had to suffer, happily too irrelevant to matter on a national or any level, but most of all, nasty and utterly rude. The points Brooks quotes Fareed as making to justify Iran’s innocence are laughably biased and unfounded, and any graduate of a second-rate high school debating class could see that, but you don’t. “Pull back” from comments or continue your lovefest w/ L A Res under the false impression you’re scoring points: As he charmingly says, “go find somebody who gives a shit.”

    Woody, I don’t often agree with you or have time to follow your links, but you’re right that it’s these guys who have gratuitously been starting personal attacks on you — any ideas outside their way-left realm, in particular anyone who doesn’t say Bush/Cheney are insane psychopaths, like their heroine Brooks does (boy, I hit a nerve there) causes them to lash our in hatred and fury. They’re all yours, Woody.

  • Don’t flatter yourself that you hit any nerves…except your own which appear to be pretty frazzled and on edge.

  • reg, your hatred and bile, maybe L A Res,’s require serious mental help. It’s you two who are not only stupid and ill bred, but psychotics — enough already, go play on a freeway.

  • Celeste, I figured that, if reg and I were at a dinner table at the same time, he would be the server. However, if I ever had the opportunity to serve him, the main course would be crow.

  • Celeste, I think I’d decline the invite, but if you have him at any dinner party, don’t forget the Tums — no, make that Prilosec, Benefiber, and of course Beano. With all that hot and unpleasant air going around…

    Reread Allan Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind, about your gen and what they did to academia and society. Title = apt.

  • I hope there is plenty of wine at the dinner party, a certain lady sure needs to “chill” with a few glasses of wine. There is nothing like going ballistic with those imaginary terrorist loving, and radical leftist of the 70’s in the age of cyber-space.

    Oh yea, I almost forgot ……..
    Que Viva Che Quevara y Fidel Castro, Que Viva la Revolucion !!!!!

  • Muchos gracias, senor Los angeles, y por favor, recuerdiese de mi amigo y compadres, hugo chaves y el hermano, el jefe de Iran, Sr. Ihmanehisad — lo siento, no me recuerde el nombre exactamene. Pero uno punto, tengo con seguridad: Presidente Bush y la segundo, Cheneey, estan locas. Y quieres, conoce que los Bushes, padre y el doce, estan diablos y locos, Ahora, por favor, dame la comida libre que usted me promese? Tengo doce en las esquelas, y tengo que irme, hay muchos trabahos manana, y es manana ahora. Pero, es mejor de todos los ciudades de “Latinismo,” donde, mis jefes no les gustan los idiocas. Los idiocas tienen casas y casandos, solamente aqui.

  • Lo siento, mi hermano Che no sabe informacion de el jefe Bush exactamente. Por favor, revolver manana. Todos los locos revuelen acqi, tu hermana, una “hermana wack job,” yo, juana de sepulveda del toro de sanchez y perez, yo, promiso que voy a volver manana.

  • Regarding Allen Bloom (not that this has anything with the utterly indefensible crap sputtered above about Iran, Rosa Brooks, Zakaria or anything else), I’ve read him and, while he was obviously a bit of a crank whose life and demise was steeped in irony – given the uses and agendas his name has become routinely attached to – I don’t simply reject his perspective. The biggest difference is that I probably have far less concern for academia than Bloom does. I’m often thankful that I’m unburdened by a university education. Many of those least capable of critical thinking I encounter have university degrees – generally in things like marketing, management, business administration or “communications” (whatever that is). The smartest, least agenda-driven review of Bloom I’ve read is Jim Sleepers from a few years back in the Times Book Reveiw:

    Far from being a conservative ideologue, Bloom, a University of Chicago professor of political philosophy who died in 1992, was an eccentric interpreter of Enlightenment thought who led an Epicurean, quietly gay life. He had to be prodded to write his best-selling book by his friend Saul Bellow, whose novel ”Ravelstein” is a wry tribute to Bloom. Far more than liberal speech codes and diversity regimens, the bêtes noires of the intellectual right, darkened Bloom’s horizons: He also mistrusted modernity, capitalism and even democracy so deeply that he believed the university’s culture must be adversarial (or at least subtly subversive) before America’s market society, with its vulgar blandishments, religious enthusiasms and populist incursions.

    ”The semitheoretical attacks of right and left on the university and its knowledge, the increased demands made on it by society, the enormous expansion of higher education,” Bloom wrote, ”have combined to obscure” the universities’ mission ”to maintain the permanent questions front and center” and ”to provide a publicly respectable place . . . for scholars and students to be unhindered in their use of reason.”

    Some conservatives may insist they are saying exactly that. But Bloom warned that liberal education is threatened as well by ”proponents of the free market,” whose promise of social well-being ”no longer compels belief,” and by religious belief that, ”contrary to containing capitalism’s propensities, as Tocqueville thought it should, is now intended to encourage them.”

    Bloom argued that our capitalist economy and liberal-democratic order turn civic virtue to mercenary ends. To cultivate ”the use of reason beyond the calculation of self-interest,” he contended, ”it is necessary that there be an unpopular institution in our midst that . . . resists our powerful urges and temptations.”

    (snip)

    Bloom wanted liberal education to resist both ”whatever is most powerful” and the ”worship of vulgar success.” True openness, he said, ”means closedness to all the charms that make us comfortable with the present.” He disdained professors who strive to become counselors to the king and forget that ”the intellectual, who attempts to influence . . . ends up in the power of the would-be influenced.” (end clip)

    (Perhaps his student Paul Wolfowitz should have taken Allen Bloom’s counsel more seriously. The right-wing hacks who tout Allen Bloom only read about half of him.)

  • I didn’t read it, except anyone who calls my reasonable objection to the fringe job Brooks and her comments “indefensible crap sputtered,” is such a fringe nutcase himself, that I’ll never read anything he says again. Just looking at his “name” conjures up an ill feeling, of some bitter person whose glory time was when they were marching with the Black Panthers and taking over student unions (like the one at Cornell Bloom writes about) with guns, imprisoning professors… Ah, the glory days that sputtered out as soon as MOST of them grew up.

    His “being unburdened by a university education” says a lot.

    Seems to ramble about college grads being illiterates based on his random sampling of those with marketing and business degrees (or engineering) — exactly where you turn if you can’t put three sentences together. And no decent Ivy League university has a “communications” major (those are all from second-rate places for aspiring newsreaders etc.): they have rigorous English and philosophy training, with demands for proficiency in modern foreign languages and often Latin. So many of these people go on to law school for a “real job.”

    None of them would sit through any of reg’s incoherent, bitter slings, either.

  • By the way, Gabriel makes about as much (non)sense as reg does and he probably is also unburdened with a college education. — Honestly, “reg,” if it weren’t for the nature of your comments, I’d give you high marks for taking the time to read (obviously a lot) and analyze politics and society. But in your case, it’s like a would-be violinist who’s never had any training, it’s just a lot of noise. And my ears hurt, so I’ve put on those earplugs you mentioned.

    Your last 2 paras under 55 are a real classic, though — in no way reflecting Bloom’s clear, plain and organized English.

Leave a Comment