Whiskey Fire

Another Busy Day

Peggy Noonan, noted magical dolphin authority, discusses Scott McClellan's book. She does so with all her customary insight -- that is to say, it's a pretty worthless column. Except for this bit, which shows that while even a blind squirrel sometimes find a nut, it's more correct to say that squirrely Reagan-fetishist columnists are nuts, and can be pretty blind.

Noonan puts two paragraphs right next to each other. See if you can spot the flaw in her thinking.

The left, while embracing the book's central assertions, will paint him as a weasel who belatedly 'fessed up. They're big on omertà on the left. It's part of how they survive.

The right will—already has—pummel him for disloyalty. But those damning him today would have damned him even more if he'd resigned on principle three years ago. They—and the administration—would have beaten him to a pulp, the former from rage, the latter as a lesson: This is what happens when you leave and talk.

Yes, clearly it is the Left that survives on omertà, as opposed to the Right, and that is the logical conclusion to draw from the McClellan episode. The Bush administration, you see, is entirely composed of Legitimate Businessmen.

And then we get this:

[We need] More serious books, like Doug Feith's. More "this is what I saw" and "this is what is true."

Conservatism is not "out of ideas." It's full of lunatics.

The Worst Offense Is Intelligence

by Molly Ivors

(h/t to the wonderful noblejoanie)

Things have been busy here (and will be for the foreseeable future), but in and among all the wallpapering and weeding and end-of-semester tidying, I've had some time to think. Atrios is fond of posting "What Digby Said" as a link in and of itself, and I'd do that if it wasn't his thing.  Because what she says here cuts right to the core of why, exactly, I have found this primary season so troubling.

Cable news, MSNBC particularly,  has been a major contributor to all the sturm and drang of this campaign. One of the main sources of frustration among the Obama supporters has been the notion that it's been obvious to everyone for months that the race is over, and yet Clinton refuses to quit. But that hasn't been obvious to Clinton voters (who are highly unlikely to be MSNBC viewers at this point) since she is still winning primaries. There is a disconnect with the greater public on this that the cable networks have exacerbated, much to the chagrin of the Obama voters who are anxious to call the race and get on with it and the Clinton voters who are furious at the coverage of their standard bearer and are digging their heels.

I realize that this seems ridiculous to most Obama supporters who view the press' take on this as being correct, and I don't particularly blame them. (Indeed, I'm crossing my fingers that MSNBC's positive coverage doesn't disintegrate as soon as their nemesis is gone and they are forced to choose between Barack and the manly flyboy.) But to the loathed minority of people like me, who don't particularly love or hate either primary candidate, all this still makes MSNBC as unreliable as it was in the run up to the war. As Chotiner points out, since their friendly Democratic bias seems to stem from an idiosyncratic, personal basis, they are not behaving with any more journalistic integrity than they ever were, it's just that their corruption is benefiting our side this time.

I highly recommend reading the whole Digby post and its link to the genuinely thoughtful analysis of MSNBC's coverage of the primary. Chotiner, Digby's source author, is an Obama supporter, but that doesn't mean he's comfortable with the tone of the coverage from the likes of Olbermann and Matthews. This is personal for them, very very personal, and they just hate her. Not her policies, not even her campaign (though that's been bad, for sure, but this all started long before that)--just her.

Living here in upstate New York, we see a lot of Huck Fillary sorts of things from the bumper-sticker-and-bar-sign crowd. And it strikes me as weird, because she's been an objectively good senator, domestically speaking. Aside from the war (which her haters around here generally support), she's been right on a lot of things, or at least not more wrong than anyone else. And she's brought the first jobs to come to this area in literally years. But the hatred continues.

It's been especially perturbing to see the same lines of attack coming from the right and the left. One friend even said "Gee, I wonder if she really did kill Vince Foster?" in a bizarre recursion that proves that, if you dislike someone, no attack is off limits. I see sneering at those making less than $30K a year, at those without educations, even though they're registered Dems voting in huge numbers in the primaries, because they happen to support the "wrong" candidate, for what must be the wrong reasons. I see regular abuse of women, particularly older women, from people who know better: sly comments about the "Menopause Caucus" and idle banter about "The Pantsuit Riots." And I'm not getting into the accusations of racism, which started long before there was any actual evidence to support them. But then maybe I've been to too many rock shows to hear all those imaginary dog whistles.

I'm not a person who looks to be inspired or emotionally connect with a candidate: I want administrators, not heroes, running my government. (And no, I'm not using words like "cultists," though I do think it's a little weird that some Obama supporters cannot brook even the slightest bit of critique of their guy, whether from me or Paul Krugman.) I think there are genuine reasons to view Obama with caution, not least his cultivation of religious support which I, like anyone, would like to see on the side of progressive politics, but which all too often comes with the baggage of a Donnie McClurkin. And I want universal health care. And I don't think one person should centralize all the fundraising for all the candidates on their side of the aisle through their personal campaign. It's a bad precedent, even worse than the DLC, and yet no one wants to talk about this issue except to praise the amount of money being raised.

But even sensible caution about these issues is likely to get one tarred as a vaginista, and I admit, I'm becoming quite shy about sharing my primary support with those who don't already know it, and that I'm genuinely surprised when people express a preference for Clinton out loud to me. It's become like a secret vice, discussed on an as-needed basis, but otherwise not. And when we find each other, we all sigh in relief. Finally, we can talk about issues and not personalities. I've spent a lot of time this last week with people I don't know too well, and it's been enlightening to see how many people share my view.

I began this primary season as an Edwards supporter, and for me, class is still one of the key issues in this campaign. For better or worse, the only reason HRC is still in the running is because (belatedly, perhaps calculatedly) she has seized the fallen banner of populism and is waving it for all it's worth.  The economy is in freefall, and people who used to think they made a decent living are now finding themselves shopping at Aldi's with everybody else. Populism is more important than anything, even the war, at this point. Edwards has endorsed Obama, a decision I respect but find curious, given Obama's generally more centrist domestic program, but the amount of sneering at actual, you know, poor people among Obama supporters, at least in the left blogosphere, is disturbing. I recognize the distinction between the candidate and the virulence of some supporters, but plenty of otherwise sensible people become genuinely unmoored when talking about my senator, and it saddens me.

I'll support Senator Obama when he becomes the candidate. I'll do so more enthusiastically if his VP choice indicates that he understands the frustration of my various demographics: as a working woman in my forties, a mother and wife, two generations removed from Appalachia, one from the factory, with family in a wide range of blue-collar professions. I've seen all of these demographics trashed at various points in the last six months, because we tended to vote "wrong." I guess the Starbuck's drive-through by campus and the PhD mean I have a free pass into Obama's world, when it's time for me to go there, but it would be nice to go to a place where one is respected, not disdained.

But I may never watch Keith Olbermann again.

Squirrels Are My Friends

LOL Ents.

Trebeerd

I cn hz ork, huum hom?

I Moved Her from Room to Room

K-Lo wishes to inform us that the Catholic Church is not misogynist, despite the recent reaffirmation that women still cannot be priests (insert sour joke about lack of molesting skills here). Why not? Because of this:

In transforming culture so that it supports life, women occupy a place, in thought and action, which is unique and decisive. It depends on them to promote a "new feminism" which rejects the temptation of imitating models of "male domination," in order to acknowledge and affirm the true genius of women in every aspect of the life of society, and overcome all discrimination, violence and exploitation.

K-Lo bets you think Gloria Steinem says stuff like that, but the joke is on you, because it was actually a Pope! Ha ha! You are a total peckerhead, confusing John Paul II with Gloria Steinem! Fucking loser! Sucks to be you, asswipe!

See, in Catholicism, women have a Special Purpose, which is Very Important, and they should run along and do that... special... purpose thing, for which they can expect to receive, uh, some sort of Lovely Prize at some date to be later specified. As for actually being treated as equals here on Earth, bite it, sister. You can't get the gig -- and it's not you, it's the vagina. So don't take it personal that you don't get to wear the right sort of frocks.

As a student of 20th century Irish cultural history, I'm gonna go ahead and argue that the Catholic church as an official body has never been prepared to accept that women have autonomy until it has been shamed into it. Which is kind of backwards for an institution that claims a monopoly on moral pronunciations.

Which is also why I'm pretty damn lapsed. Anyway, dig K-Lo's post title:

Standing Athwart History Embracing Women (Yes, Embracing Women)

Women, you see, do not get to stand athwart, but may still hope to be embraced by those so a-thwarting. Watch out, though, as they'll probably grab your crotch while they thwart, oh, beg pardon, embrace you. Unless you slip through because their stance athwart is overly wide. Then you're golden.

And Their Postwar Stubble

BREAKING! Developing! MUST CREDIT THERS!!!! (Siren, etc.)

Tim Russert slams John McCain for his inability to recall how many troops were in Iraq before Teh Surge!

If somebody wants to be president of the United States [they need to] have a sense of the military.

Also piling on McCain is Kit Seelye, writing in the New York Times, who pulled a devastating quote:

Mr. Russert said: ''There's concern about your awareness and positions on national security. You must acknowledge that.''

And the chorus of denunciations is becoming deafening -- McCain's national security credentials are looking incredibly shaky:

Russert planted a seed that grew into a tree, casting a big shadow of doubt on McCain as the Post, the Times, and the Sunday morning pundits asked, "Is McCain Presidential material?"

The New York Times called the show a "debacle."   

Howard Kurtz, media critic for the Post, summed up a host of other bad reviews: New York Daily News columnist Zev Chafets called McCain's interview "perhaps the worst performance by a Presidential candidate in the history of television." The Dallas Morning News quoted unnamed Democrats comparing McCain to landslide victims George McGovern and Walter Mondale. ABCNews.com said, "The politico-media establishment continues to look at him as an antiwar pipsqueak ... decidedly not ready for prime time."

Amazing.

Oh, wait. My mistake. This was actually the ganging up that Howard Dean got in June of 2003.

Well, I'm sure we can expect the same treatment for McCain, because, after all, he's supposed to know this stuff and is a big old military expert, so everyone will see that he has no excuse, and all of Punditland will now wonder if McCain is Presidential material.

...  yeah, I know. Nah Guh Happa. 

Honestly, Russert loves these "gotcha" questions -- love to see him field this one, though I'm not holding my breath.

UPDATE: The always entertaining Don Surber looks at McCain's attempt to spin away his mistake as "verb tenses" and the non-nothing about Obama's uncle, and remarks, "That, hopefully, taught both campaigns a lesson."

In Greater Wingnuttia, this is "balance."

MORE. Media Matters, biting my lines.

The Shallow Manhole

A grouchy old man sends an email, and Wingnuttia erupts with joy.

Bob Dole yesterday sent a scalding email to Scott McClellan, excoriating the former White House spokesman as a "miserable creature" who greedily betrayed his former patron for a fast buck.

In an extraordinary message obtained and authenticated by Politico, Dole uses his trademark biting wit to portray McClellan as a classic Washington opportunist.

"Biting wit"...?

"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues," Dole wrote in a message sent yesterday morning. "No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique"....

"In my nearly 36 years of public service I've known of a few like you," Dole writes, recounting his years representing Kansas in the House and Senate.  "No doubt you will 'clean up' as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years."

That wit might bite a bit more if the dentures were in. I hope The Politico manages to likewise unearth and authenticate scoops like Dole's stern denunciations of those sickos at Modern Bride.

At least McClellan hasn't taken to the national airwaves to inform us of what medication he swallows to unshrivel his penis. Advantage, Scottie!

No Suspect, What Did You Expect?

Our new playmate, Rick Moran, contemplates the grim horror of an Obama presidency. He largely achieves a rather admirable stoicism, but at key points he sees certain downsides.

Would he attack Iran? Despite his bellicose comments about not allowing the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons, since there will likely be no evidence that the Iranians are constructing nukes, it is extremely unlikely that a President Obama would greenlight any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel, of course, doesn’t have that luxury and once it is clear that Iran could enrich uranium on an industrial scale to the 85-90% level, all bets are off and US support or no, they will hit the Iranians with everything they’ve got.

Admittedly, the fallout from such an attack could be extremely serious.

Could be, yeah.

I myself quite definitely agree that we ought to frankly put to the American people the question of whether or not we ought to elect as president someone so irresponsible as to cite a mere lack of evidence as a reason to refrain from starting a war over nukes.

No, no, I mean it.

I See Trailers Trail

Hey, nix! Check out Spencer Ackerman with the GBV lyric as a post title.

Brand new, you're retro, man.

He Sits Down and Circulates!

Wow. This wanks pretty hard.

What Obama has done for change represents what the Republican Revolutionaries did with the Contract with America. They married the Republican brand to the idea of Reform. Republicans may have won in 1994 without the Contract, but they would have governed a whole lot differently without it. Without a well-branded agenda, they would have more quickly drifted into a boring, piecemeal floor schedule.

The problem with the current “agendas” on offer is that they’re small-bore. They act as though we were still in the majority and our job was to fine-tune the workings of government. It’s not. In the minority, our job is to 1) make the majority’s life miserable, grinding the House and Senate floors to a halt, and building a narrative of the Democrats as broken and incompetent, and 2) offer big, bold alternatives to this mess like the Contract did in 1994.

Right...

[whistles]

Or else maybe the problem with the "GOP brand" is to do with the war based on lies, and then also the shitty economy?

I imagine that if you wake up in the last half of this year of Our Lord 2008 and realize that it is your job to make the GOP come across as Hip to Young Voters, you have perhaps gotten in over your head. Hint: I hear the young people, they love the YouTube. Really.

Fantasy Creeps

Via TS, Instadope asks a question:

Anyway, the Wall Street Journal has an excerpt, and some are noting the contrast between the press's reception of McClellan's book and the heavily-documented work of Doug Feith. What could account for the difference?

Feith was lying, and everyone knew it. And while Scottie is a twerp, his account corresponds with  what everyone knows is true.

What I've been saying the past few days about Conservative Thought?

It just can't handle the truth.

UPDATE: In more important national news...