A Bug in Her Blouse

by Molly Ivors

Thers observed the other day that if life were a romantic comedy, it would end with Hillary and Barack married . (And Bill and Michelle, who would probably have more fun.) But life isn't  romantic comedy, thanks largely to stalking laws and the surprising lack of Meg Ryan in most people's daily lives. So what is it?

MoDo this morning provided my answer.

I felt guilty, because I had been covering his speeches urging parents to make their kids give up chips and Popeyes. I hadn’t yet come to grips with the notion of giving up Popeyes when Obama — slender, chewing Nicorette* and perfectly groomed in his crisp white shirt — came upon me. I was splattered with so much red sauce it could have been a scene from “Saw IV.” Not only on my face and hands but all over the candidate’s picture in the U.S. News & World Report I was reading.

“It’s on my ear,” he complained, looking down at the magazine.

Feeling cocky after 11 straight wins, he called me “MoDowd” and tweaked me for my many columns suggesting he would need to toughen up to beat the Clinton machine. “She’s trying to give me hair on my chest,” he said mockingly, plucking at his shirt.

What we have here, apparently, is not a romantic comedy, but a coming-of-age comedy in the mode of the The Graduate, or perhaps the proto-Brat Pack vehicle Class. Because then, of course, the narrative is much, much clearer. A young man, anxious for maturity and experience, allows himself to be seduced by an older woman. It surpasses his wildest dreams, but he finds that when he wants to escape her, he cannot do so. Her desperation becomes palpable, creepy, as he either slips away, naturally to another, younger, better woman in the mode of Catherine Ross, or falls back into her inevitably disastrous clutches.

In either case, now that we know the story, the path ahead is clear: Hillary's job is to make a man of Barack and then get the hell out of the way.

We who are weary of the constant fighting and name-calling have been cautiously hopeful that Howard Dean would step in at some point and smack these two crazy kids' heads together and then create the dream ticket we know would garner an easy 60% of the vote. Senator Clinton has said she's willing to consider it, Senator Obama says he is not. Eh, people say things in campaigns that they don't really mean, as Samantha Power reminded us this week.

But if Maureen has her way, the dream ticket will never, ever happen.

The superdelegates are watching to see if Obama can stiffen his backbone. After seeing their candidates lose races they should have won in 2000 and 2004 because they flinched at Republican political waterboarding, Democrats do not want to watch the bully swipe their lollipop a third time.

Obama, you see, can be bullied. If he can't stand up to A Girl, how can he stand up to Grampa John? Or Osama bin Laden? Or Angela Merkel?

But what he really fears, according to MoDo, is not The Girl, but The Big Dog.

If he thinks Hillary has cut him down to size lately, he’d better imagine what his life would be like as the Clintons’ vice president.

Fuck off, MoDo. We have an election to win and a country to pull out of the shitter. These two candidates, running against each other now, would be a fucking juggernaut together, and you know it. They're both married to brilliant, articulate people, and you know it. Just because Bill Kristol will have to take an extra Viagra to get it up for you in Clobama's America doesn't mean you should sink it for the rest of us.

So shut up. Don't you have some cheers to practice or algebra homework?

*This, of course, answers the disappeared paragraph story of a couple of weeks back: it was because she called him a starlet, not because she mentioned the gum.

Comments

[trifecta]

Mo Dowdy is the ultimate narcissist. She genuinely doesn't give a shit.

That is the key to understanding her. Rome could be burning, but as long as her villa in Castelseprio was fine, who gives a crap?

[SteveB]

Obviously, Ms. Night Shift does not want to reveal the details of the fortune that Bill Clinton has made, sometimes through dubious associations.

Here's an idea, Maureen: you've got a column in the New York Times. Why don't you use some of that space to clue the rest of us in on Bill Clinton's fortune and where it came from?

Oh, sorry - that would be actual "reporting", wouldn't it? Never mind.

[The Kenosha Kid]

The superdelegates are watching to see if Obama can stiffen his backbone.

His backbone. Heh heh heh heh heh.

[julia]

Just because Bill Kristol will have to take an extra Viagra to get it up for you in Clobama's America doesn't mean you should sink it for the rest of us.

See, I don't agree. Just because she frames her political biases in braindead prattle doesn't mean she isn't every bit as invested in keeping Republicans in power as the most rabid chittering wingnut at the Weakly Standard.

Maybe even more so - if Kristol were running the USS Caine, he would have punished a random sailor he didn't like for stealing the freaking strawberries and moved on. If she's going to jumpstart her stalled trajectory, Modo's just got to find those keys.

[MikeJ]

Bill Clinton's fortune and where it came from?

Big ass book deals and super huge fees from speaking engagements. Who really doesn't already know that?

[SteveB]

Big ass book deals and super huge fees from speaking engagements. Who really doesn't already know that?

Speaking engagements where, and for how much and paid by whom? Sorry to pry, but the fact that Hillary Clinton can loan her campaign $5 million has me wondering where the $5 million came from. But I'm sure if it was a Republican, you'd be similarly uninterested?

[Mo MoDo]

I make the case in my blog, that Dowd is like a horror movie fan that has seen the left-for-dead Clinton campaign spring back to life to attack poor naive Obambi. She's just throwing popcorn at the screen trying to get him to drive a stake through her heart. Only she doesn't have one.

There's also the scene in every teen comedy where the geeky girl embarrasses herself in the cafeteria in front of the cute guy she has a crush on. Said cute guy being Obama in this case and the cafeteria being his campaign plane.

No matter what, someone needs to cancel Dowd's Netflix account before she abuses some more movie metaphors.

[MikeJ]

But I'm sure if it was a Republican, you'd be similarly uninterested?

Actually yeah, I wouldn't care. If the Klan offered me a jillion bucks to speak to them, I'd take it. All former presidents make fortunes speaking to groups they may or may not agree with. You don't have to agree to take their money.

[Roxanne]

Dude. In this and all things, MoDo is Looking for Mr. Goodbar. Think about it.

[SteveB]

You don't have to agree to take their money.

Yes, and that's why it's useful to know who a presidential candidate (or an ex-president) chooses to take money from, and who they won't accept money from.

Here, we're faced with an unusual situation, with a presidential candidate whose husband is a former president. Obviously, that opens all sorts of avenues for the wealthy to buy influence. That doesn't matter to you?

And I think it's interesting that even though Maureen Dowd imagines that Hillary Clinton wants to keep the source of her family's wealth a secret, and even though Dowd has greater means to get this information out to the public than 99.999% of Americans, it never occurs to her to use the tools at her disposal to do some, you know, actual reporting. The whole impulse to find some of those things called facts is just missing from her. What a waste of newsprint she is.

[MikeJ]

that opens all sorts of avenues for the wealthy to buy influence. That doesn't matter to you?

Not at all. You can always bribe somebody's spouse, it's nothing new.

And who Bill spoke to doesn't tell you anything about who he won't accept money from. That's just silly.

[SteveB]

Here's some more news from the ho-hum, everybody-does-it department:

Clinton bucks the trend and rakes in cash from the US weapons industry

The US arms industry is backing Hillary Clinton for President and has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party. Mrs Clinton has also emerged as Wall Street's favourite. Investment bankers have opened their wallets in unprecedented numbers for the New York senator over the past three months and, in the process, dumped their earlier favourite, Barack Obama.

An analysis of campaign contributions shows senior defence industry employees are pouring money into her war chest in the belief that their generosity will be repaid many times over with future defence contracts.

Yawn... anything else on the TeeVee?

[GOPmurderedconscience]

Today is Sunday.

The first thing I asked myself was: Did Muareen Dowd write anything incredibly silly (Duh...)?

To find out I turned to the only MoDologist I know (for you people out there, that is a MoDo scholar).

I usually don't read the article, only Molly's analysis. That shoud do it.

[Bob]

SteveB: Don't forget big Pharma and the health insurance industry. Sen. Clinton has received huge donations from them. I'm quite certain the donations are motivated by a desire to open access to health care for all.
Nothing to see here America, go watch American Idol.

[¡El Gato Negro!]

¿Dream Ticket?

Were Obama to get on a ticket weeth Hillary, would eet not geeve lie to everytheeng about wheech he has spoken, over the last half a year or so?
Would eet not cause Obama to be percieved, not just as "just another politician" but as a hypocrite?

¿Also, por favor, can someone point me to the numbers wheech purport to show that an Hillary/Obama or an Obama/Hillary ticket would get 60% of the vote?

The request ees sincere, because the idea has been inculcated een my furry leetle brain that such a ticket would be just too outré for the undecided (i.e. scared, bigoted, and of low information) voters to accept.

I would be happy were I to be proven wrong on thees matter, no?

so.

[LA Confidential Pantload]

I've seen Mody Doody once on the teevee. Never read her column. Ms. Ivors, why do you put yourself through this?

[flory]

I read this excrescence yesterday and was just waiting for you to get your hands on it.

Even tho it's abundantly clear that she's never going to be able to recognize her pattern of trivializing whichever Dem happens to be winning at the moment, you'd think her fucking editors would be getting tired of it.

I have a suggestion -- next week?
Write her column for us. In advance. I bet you can nail it.

[Molly Ivors]

EGN,
Clarify your question for me: you think that, were they to run together, they would actually hurt each other's numbers?

I'm making the 60% assumption based on the fact that Dem turnout has consistently been twice that of Republicans, across the board in these primaries, even when they were (presumably) faced with real choices, early on. Part of the reason this has been so vexed, I think, is that this funcionally *is* the GE--whoever comes out on top here, comes out on top there.

[Bob]

Molly, not intending to speak for EGN here, but I had the same response as he did. I assumed you might be engaging in a touch of hyperbole to make a point. Ronald Reagan received 58% in his reelection bid. Nixon hit 60% against McGovern. If you really want to go back in time FDR polled 60% against the hapless Alf Landen in 36. Most presidential elections are much closer than that. The notion that the winner in 2008 is going to get anywhere near 60% of the popular vote is one I find awfully to swallow baring some last minute scandal or catastrophe.

[mb]

FYI- Last week in her column Ms Dowd references 3 older women from Boston who met another New York Times reporter in a parking lot in Austin- Well- I'm one of the older women but one of the other "older women" was a 31 year old male. So much for her twisting the facts to fit her story-
I've suggested she may need medication-
Someone has done her wrong-but why do we have to suffer?

[¡El Gato Negro!]

Molly,

I guess that my question ees not so much about numbers as popular perception, although Bob graciously covers some of my worries towards the percentages.

The perception side of eet hangs on the fact that Obama has run on a "new politics", and a call to go beyond what he and hees followers call "same-old stale partisanship" and Sen. Obama (and/or hees supporters) ha(ve) used Sen. Clinton as an example of the "old politics" that he would have us all transcend.

My question then: ¿Wouldn't Obama violate hees own campaign narrative were he to accept a ticket w/ Sen Clinton?

The rest ees just worrying that a HRC/BO ticket might just be too "new" for the American Tee Vee viewin- er, uh, Voting Public to embrace sufficiently, and I would absolutamente love to be wrong about that.

(Gracias to Bob for helping to elucidate sometheeng wheech I expressed poorly)

[Pug]

If he thinks Hillary has cut him down to size lately, he’d better imagine what his life would be like as the Clintons’ vice president.

MoDo may be a whack job, but truer words than those above have never been spoken.

Obama would be a fool to take the job of vice-president should Hillary win the nomination. The Clintons will never forgive his insolence for actually running against Hillary.

He can come back from a close loss in this primary battle if he returns to the Senate. He would never recover from a stint as the Clintons vice-president.

[Jangles]

I do not think that Hillary and Bill are totally sincere in posing a "dream ticket". They have to deal with the reality that BO supporters will not take defeat lightly or well. I think they know BO is not going to take this deal in any form. For Hillary, the good is that she has made the offer very publicly. She can not be accused of "dissing" this splendid candidate. She has made several very public gestures to him. If she can prevail, she needs to have those AA voters back; maybe even some of those latte liberals. If this comes down to a Superdelegate decision in Denver, the candidate who has reached out to try to build unity is Clinton, not Obama. Clinton has played with her eye on the GE throughout this primary; hence her MI and FL stance and many other positions. There have been some Clinton misfires but some very strategic positioning. jangles

[Pug]

If this comes down to a Superdelegate decision in Denver, the candidate who has reached out to try to build unity is Clinton, not Obama.

Well yeah, except for that "kitchen sink" strategy and positing that Obama is not ready to be commander-in-chief but John McCain is. Very unifying, with good foresight toward the general election there.

Dissing Obama is exactly what she is doing by offering the vice-presidential slot while he is in the lead.

If this does come down to "a super delegate decision in Denver", you can forget about the African American vote. It's gone.

The most dependable Democrats in America won't be there on election day. Hillary will have to depend on all those pick-up driving, gun-toting rural white men that, according to Bill, are such a strength for her. If he actually believes that, he hasn't talked to any real good ole boys in a long, long time.

[Jangles]

Also note the Dallas News article concerning the big drop off in down ticket voting of BO supporters compared to Clinton voters. It will do no good for Dems if huge #s show up at the polls to vote for BO and then ignore the rest of the Dem ticket---this is the antithesis of the argument that he will help the party down the ticket more than Clinton. This should be a big concern of Dems when they make their decision in Denver. Jangles

[Jangles]

Superdelegates in Denver...I think we are already there. Neither one is going to have the pledged delegates to carry this. Remember that such a decision could go either way. Jangles

[¡El Gato Negro!]

jangles,

there may be some confusion here, thees:

Also note the Dallas News article concerning the big drop off in down ticket voting of BO supporters compared to Clinton voters.

and thees:

It will do no good for Dems if huge #s show up at the polls to vote for BO and then ignore the rest of the Dem ticket

...are not congruent, and at any rate, that's not exactly what the story says .

Downticket races are handled briefly, primero, here:

The beefed-up voter lists are good news for Democratic candidates running in the November general election.
Presidential contests generally outpace primary elections, so it's conceivable that Democratic primary voters could return to the polls in November.
That would help the local, down-ballot candidates who piggyback the national candidate at the top of the ticket.

and here, about Sens. Clinton and Obama's effects on those races:

Mr. Obama was the overwhelming choice of Dallas County Democrats. If he's on the ballot in November, it could create another wave of voters at the polls looking to be a part of history. If elected, Mr. Obama would be the first black president.
Some Republicans say that if Mrs. Clinton is the nominee, the party would lose some black voters and the new energy brought to the process.

But the last few elections cycles have seen national Democrats do well in Dallas County, including 2004 presidential nominee John Kerry and 2000 nominee Al Gore.

The DMN story would seem to cause difficulties for jour assertion that Obama voters will stay home eef Sen Clinton ees the nominee, and as to the other assertion, perhaps we can find an example...

¿Could joo show me an instance een a political race where large numbers of democrats voted een the election and refused or seemply neglected to vote een downticket races? I am not aware of such an occurence.

Gracias.

[CB]

Republicans could register to vote for the Dem nomination in Texas. Most will vote for McCain in November, of course. One white male who was interviewed in his pickup truck said he voted for Obama. Why? "He's inspirational." (stated with a flattened affect). And who will you vote for in the General Election? "Don't know."

Maureen Dowd does appear to be a woman for whom some man who reminds her of Bill did wrong. She has really gone bonkers. It's sad that a newspaper of "record" would publish such slanted attacks. Speaks more about the low standards of the NYT than her. Did they have to publish the article about Kerry's wealth (through his wives) on the front page of the Sunday times just before the 2004 election? They weren't capable of covering the transmitter than enabled Bu$h to not fall on his face during the Kerry-Bu$h "debates." A cowardly paper to say the least.

[CB]

I've read a breakdown on Hillary's campaign contributions from the health care industry--mostly from nurses and others who benefit from having the insurance companies out of the equation.

Wall St. interests have thrown themselves to Obama.

As for weapons manufacturers, don't they throw money to everybody?

[SteveB]

As for weapons manufacturers, don't they throw money to everybody?

Interesting point. If I, as a dues-paying Green, were to suggest that both parties are equally in the pay of the military-industrial complex, I'd be accused of rank Naderism, told that I put Bush in the White House, and that the Blood of A Million Iraqis is on my hands. Outraged Dems would cry, "How dare you suggest that both parties are the same!"

But (and here's the ironic part) "Both parties are the same" is the preferred line of defense when any Dem gets caught taking loads of cash from military contractors, big pharma, or Wall Street.

Funny, huh?

As for your question, Clinton is leading McCain in defense industry contributions right now - probably just a reflection of their estimate of who's most likely to win. With these guys, that "Duty, Honor, Country" bullshit doesn't carry much weight. They just want to be sure they've got an in with the winning side.

[spencer]

And who Bill spoke to doesn't tell you anything about who he won't accept money from. That's just silly.

Also, Bill isn't the one who's running for president.

[spencer]

Could joo show me an instance een a political race where large numbers of democrats voted een the election and refused or seemply neglected to vote een downticket races? I am not aware of such an occurence.

Well, there was (if you believe the official story, which I do not) the 2006 race in FL-13 between Christine Jennings and Vern Buchanan, in which approximately 18,000 voters who cast a ballot simply skipped the congressional race . . .

Of course, that being a mid-term election, the relevance of this example to what you're talking about might be minimal. But it's there anyway, if you want it.

[SteveB]

Bill isn't the one who's running for president.

Right. So someone who makes a large contribution to Bill's presidential library, or gives him $50k for a speech, is expecting absolutely nothing, in terms of policy change, or access, from a future Clinton administration.

And when have the wealthy last had a similar conduit for bribery? When was the last time Laura Bush got $50k for a speaking engagement? If she did, don't you think people would look askance at that, and suspect she's getting paid for more than her speaking abilities?

But with the Clintons, you get to throw cash at them (as long as you aim it at Bill, and not Hillary) and it's all on the up and up. Because, as you say, "Bill isn't the one who's running for president."

[madamab]

I think the combined ticket is the only solution. Everyone is getting crazy about this primary. They should get together with Howard Dean and get over themselves. 16 years of Democratic dominance would seem to be guaranteed with this approach.

[actor212]

Women over thirty five who don't support Hillary Clinton ought to turn in their ovaries.

Men over thirty five who don't support Clinton ought to trade for them.

[Bob]

SteveB: You have so much to learn about politics in America. I suggest reading Lawyers, Guns and Money to gain an understanding of how a vote for Nadar was a vote for killing puppies, and kitty cats, and babies, and being pro-Hitler and secretly wanting Bush in the White House....

[Bob]

cb wrote: "I've read a breakdown on Hillary's campaign contributions from the health care industry--mostly from nurses and others who benefit from having the insurance companies out of the equation."
I found that real hard to believe and spent 2 minutes looking before finding this (a big thank you to Michael Moore - it's on his "Sicko Truth Squad" page:
SiCKO: Hillary Clinton became the second largest recipient in the Senate of health care industry contributions.

"As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership." Raymond Hernandez and Robert Pear, "Once an Enemy, Health Industry Warms to Clinton," New York Times, July 12, 2006.
If you have evidense to the contrary please post it.

[E.]

Hillary Clinton = hidebound, feckless, triangulating Dem establishment

Barack Obama = 50 state strategy, post-partisanship, new ideas

Hillary Clinton + Barack Obama = hidebound, feckless, triangulating Dem establishment

No way. Placing Clinton's arrogance at suggesting Obama at the bottom of the ticket, when at no point in this electoral season has she been the leader, for the moment in the hopper, there is no reason on God's green earth Obama should place her on the ticket beside him. Why tie the ticket down with backwards-looking self-interest?

More transparency, please. Not less.

[lovesick alien]

Katharine Ross, FWIW - and even thinking "Are you trying to seduce me, Mrs. MoDowd" makes he oogly.

Nick in Florida