Monthly Archives: February 2008

Today in Wingnutland

Posted on by

If you watched last night’s debate, you might remember that Senator Obama spoke of an Army captain whose rifle platoon was sent to Afghanistan short of men and munitions. Today the Right has been on a foaming-at-the-mouth rampage about it, calling Obama a liar. Well, some people did some fact checking, and confirmed Obama’s story. See, for example, Jake Tapper and Phillip Carter. Not that actual facts will sway the wingnuts, of course.

Update: See also Balloon Juice and Hubris Sonic.

Update 2: NBC News also confirms Obama’s story, but the Pentagon denies it. See also Hilzoy.

Disadvantaged

Posted on by

Two op eds in today’s Boston Globe provide two fascinating points of view on the Democratic nomination race.

In one, Ellen Goodman writes that Hillary Clinton is disadvantaged by being a woman:

Women of Hillary’s generation were taught to don power suits and use their shoulder pads to push open corporate doors. In the 1970s, the lessons on making it in a man’s world were essentially primers on how to behave like men. As University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee political scientist Kathleen Dolan says, “They had to figure out a way to go undercover. They could only be taken seriously if they filled the male model with XX chromosomes.”

But the next generation of advice books urged women to do it their own way. The old stereotypes that defined women as more compassionate and collaborative were given a positive spin. They were framed and praised as women’s ways of leading.

Today’s shelves are still full of titles – from “Seducing the Boys Club” to “The Girl’s Guide to Being a Boss (Without Being a Bitch)” to “Enlightened Power” – that tell us to act like a man or act like a woman. But in many ways, the transformative inspirational, collaborative, “female” style has become more attractive. Especially to a younger generation. And – here’s the rub – especially when it is modeled by a man.

Dolan sees Obama as “the embodiment of the gentle, collaborative style without threatening his masculine side.” But she adds, “He’s being more feminine than she can be. She is in a much tighter box.” …

…This too is a bit like what’s happened in business. Whatever advice they follow, women are still only 3 percent of the CEOs in Fortune 500 companies. Meanwhile, it’s become more acceptable for a man to take an afternoon off to watch his kids play ball than for a woman.

Ilene Lang heads Catalyst, which surveyed more than 1,200 senior executives in the United States and Europe. This research calculated the tenacity of double binds and double standards. It showed how hard it still is for a woman to be seen as both competent and likable. And it led her to the conclusion that “What defines leadership to most people is one thing. It’s male.”

As for the Obama style? “Both men and women are much more likely to accept a collaborative style of leadership from men than from women. From women it seems too soft,” she adds ruefully.

I think there’s a lot of truth in that. I’ve seen social-psychological studies that show, for example, that when a man displays anger he’s seen as “strong” but when a woman displays the same anger she’s seen as shrewish or bitchy.

On the other hand, it might be telling that Senator Clinton’s most successful moments in the campaign are when she is most “feminine.” I’m thinking of the famous weepy episode in New Hampshire, and also of last night’s debate closing statement, which justifiably is being touted as her finest moment so far. The 1970s model may have passed its shelf-life date.

Derrick Jackson points out that Barack Obama also has a built-in disadvantage that turns out to be an advantage:

It was not just Hillary Clinton’s welling up in New Hampshire, and Bill Clinton’s racial put-down of Obama in South Carolina. Hillary Clinton has displayed a periodic reliance on white women as her safety net in town halls, saying things like “being the first woman president is a very big change.”

That would be no big thing, except that the nation’s demographics and racial history dictate that Obama dare not employ a parallel tactic by saying “being the first black president is a very big change.” Obama has automatically had to run as a more universal representative of the people, with one fruit being his current 10-state streak.

Further — y’know what I said above about angry women? I believe a whole lot of white America doesn’t take well to angry black Americans, either. Note that Obama is relentlessly cool and positive.

And, with respect to Ellen Goodman, let’s not forget that we’re not talking about Generic Woman. We’re talking about Hillary Clinton, who for many is baggage personified.

Eugene Robinson points out another distinction:

Humor me while we conduct a little thought experiment. Imagine that Barack Obama had lost 10 contests in a row. Imagine that he now trailed Hillary Clinton substantially in the number of Democratic primaries and caucuses won, in total votes cast, in pledged convention delegates, in the overall delegate count, in fundraising and in the ineffable attribute called mojo. Imagine that Obama was struggling, at this late hour, to come up with the right message. What would the conventional wisdom say?

That it was over, of course. That Obama was toast. That staking everything on the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas was a starry-eyed hope, not a plan, and that it was time to smell the coffee.

Today, however, I’m seeing a lot of pundits advising Clinton to smell the coffee. The Associated Press gives Clinton a small lead in Ohio, and in Texas they’re dead even. Conventional wisdom says Clinton must win both Ohio and Texas decisively to remain a credible candidate. She might do it, but at the moment it looks doubtful.

McClatchy is running a Clinton campaign postmortem. Steven Thomma writes,

Democrats say that Clinton, whose central theme is her readiness to be president, also made blunder after blunder. She chose an inexperienced campaign manager, crafted a message that didn’t match the moment, fielded poor organizations in key states and built a budget that ran dry just when she needed money most.

Michael Luo, Jo Becker and Patrick Healy write in today’s New York Times that the Clinton campaign mismanaged money rather badly. In particular, she’s been overpaying consultants who have given her bad advice.

Nearly $100,000 went for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucuses, even though the partying mood evaporated quickly. Rooms at the Bellagio luxury hotel in Las Vegas consumed more than $25,000; the Four Seasons, another $5,000. And top consultants collected about $5 million in January, a month of crucial expenses and tough fund-raising.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s latest campaign finance report, published Wednesday night, appeared even to her most stalwart supporters and donors to be a road map of her political and management failings. Several of them, echoing political analysts, expressed concerns that Mrs. Clinton’s spending priorities amounted to costly errors in judgment that have hamstrung her competitiveness against Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

“We didn’t raise all of this money to keep paying consultants who have pursued basically the wrong strategy for a year now,” said a prominent New York donor. “So much about her campaign needs to change — but it may be too late.”

The high-priced senior consultants to Mrs. Clinton, of New York, have emerged as particular targets of complaints, given that they conceived and executed a political strategy that has thus far proved unsuccessful.

The firm that includes Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist and pollster, and his team collected $3.8 million for fees and expenses in January; in total, including what the campaign still owes, the firm has billed more than $10 million for consulting, direct mail and other services, an amount other Democratic strategists who are not affiliated with either campaign called stunning.

See also Richard Adams, “Death by Xerox.”

Update: Also see Pam’s House Blend.

Debate

Posted on by

I watched a most of the Clinton-Obama debate tonight. They both handled themselves well, although Clinton got some boos for belaboring the plagiarism thing. Other than that, I’d say it was a tie.

McScandal?

Posted on by

I’m still trying to piece together the backstory on this morning’s near-allegations that maybe John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist eight years ago. What I’ve seen of the backstory is a lot more interesting than the story, which does seem a tad thin.

Marc Cooper writes,

Everyone who knows anyone has been hearing about this story for some months. Back in December, Matt Drudge got wind of it from inside the Times and teased it at the top of his site. We all waited, but the shoe never dropped.

Under what is said to be intense pressure from McCain and prominent D.C. criminal attorney Robert Bennett, who was hired to help deal with the matter, the Times capitulated and held off on publishing the story – offering no explanation, then or now. And if you read through the piece just published, there doesn’t seem to be any new information that the Times couldn’t have had two months ago.

So what, you ask? Just one small detail: In the intervening weeks between the moment when the Times was first going to publish the story and finally did publish the story, the same New York Times endorsed John McCain! And while he’s described in the endorsement editorial as a “staunch advocate of campaign finance reform” he’s tagged in this Wednesday’s news piece as having accepted favors from those with matters that came before the very committee he used to push that reform. And many, many other favors.

More importantly, if the Times had published its expose when it first had it over Christmas, it would have preceded all of the Republican primaries and caucuses. To say it would have changed the dynamic of the GOP race is perhaps the understatement of the decade. You can bet Mitt Romney and even Mayor Rudy are up late tonight gnashing their teeth and pounding their heads against the wall over this one.

The Right, of course, is in Maximum Victimization Mode and whining that the New York Times is mean and out to get them. But Cenk Uygur argues that the New York Times is afraid of the Right.

Conservatives are now charging that the New York Times held off on the story until after McCain had wrapped up the nomination, so they could ruin his chances in the general election. First, this is wrong because if they wanted to hurt his chances of getting elected, they would have revealed this fact much closer to the general election. They couldn’t have done McCain a bigger favor than by waiting to release the piece until after the primaries and way, way before the general.

Since they endorsed McCain in January despite knowing this story – and the clear implications of hypocrisy on campaign finance reform, let alone the other implications – the most likely conspiracy would be that they favor McCain in the election. But I don’t think there is a conspiracy.

I think the far simpler answer is the correct one. The McCain campaign threatened and intimidated them as the Bush team has done on countless occasions and they gave in until someone else was about to release the story. The only thing worse than being bullied by Republicans is getting scooped by your competitors.

The story here isn’t that the NYT is trying to hurt conservatives, it’s the exact opposite – they’re afraid of them. On every occasion that they have had a major story like this, they have held it after being badgered by Republicans. They only print the stories when there are no other options left and the story is about to get printed elsewhere anyway.

See also Gabriel Sherman at The New Republic.

You’ll like the letter sent out by the McCain campaign —

Dear McCain Supporter,

Well, here we go. We could expect attacks were coming; as soon as John McCain appeared to be locking up the Republican nomination, the liberal establishment and their allies at the New York Times have gone on the attack. Today’s front-page New York Times story is particularly disgusting – an un-sourced hit-and-run smear campaign designed to distract from the issues at stake in this election. With John McCain leading a number of general-election polls against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the New York Times knew the time to attack was now, and they did. We will not allow their scurrilous attack against a great American hero to stand.

The New York Times — the newspaper that gave MoveOn.org a sweetheart deal to run advertisements attacking General Petraeus — has shown once again that it cannot exercise good journalistic judgment when it comes to dealing with a conservative Republican. We better get ready for more of the Democrats’ attacks over the coming months as the Democrats pick their nominee, MoveOn.org starts spending their unlimited soft money, and the liberal media tosses standards aside in an attempt to stop our momentum. We need your help to counteract the liberal establishment and fight back against the New York Times by making an immediate contribution today.

John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has led the charge to limit the money and influence of the special interests in politics and stomp out corruption. His life and his record prove just how preposterous the smear by the New York Times really is.

Objective observers are viewing this article exactly as they should – as a sleazy smear attack from a liberal newspaper against the conservative Republican frontrunner. Sean Hannity said, after reading the article three times, “It was so full of innuendo and so lacking of fact, and so involved in smear, I came to the conclusion that the goal here was to bring up a 20-year-old scandal.” Washington attorney Bob Bennett, who was the Democrat counsel during the Keating investigation, said, “This is a real hit job.” Joe Scarborough called the allegations “outrageous.” Even pundit Alan Colmes — not known for his conservative leanings — concludes “this is a non-story.”

Yet, it is there, right on the front page of the New York Times. It is now dominating the cable news coverage. We can only expect these sorts of baseless attacks to continue as we move into the general election cycle. We are going to need your help today, and your continued help in the future to have the resources to respond. We’ll never match the reach of a front-page New York Times article, but with your immediate help today, we’ll be able to respond and defend our nominee from the liberal attack machine.

Sincerely,

Rick Davis

Rick Davis, Campaign Manager

In brief — whine, self-pity, resentment, paranoia, more self-pity, the Times always picks on us. Pathetic.

Joe McCarthy Is Alive and Well and Writes for AIM

Posted on by

This is too funny. At the hilariously misnamed Accuracy In Media (AIM), Cliff Kincaid is on a tear about Barack Obama’s connections to international Communism.

In “Obama’s Communist Mentor,” Kincaid charges that Obama was imprinted with the cause of Communism by a “mentor,” Frank Marshall Davis. Back in the early 1950s, Davis (along with about half of the population of North America) was identified as a Communist by the House Un-American Activities Committee. Now it comes to light that this same Frank Marshall Davis was a friend of the family who gave young Barack fatherly advice before he went off to college. Hence, Obama is a Communist dupe.

Somehow, I don’t think Red-baiting is going to work on the young folks.

Yet, it gets crazier. Lisa Schiffren writes at The Corner (hat tip Too Sense):

… Obama and I are roughly the same age. I grew up in liberal circles in New York City — a place to which people who wished to rebel against their upbringings had gravitated for generations. And yet, all of my mixed race, black/white classmates throughout my youth, some of whom I am still in contact with, were the product of very culturally specific unions. They were always the offspring of a white mother, (in my circles, she was usually Jewish, but elsewhere not necessarily) and usually a highly educated black father. And how had these two come together at a time when it was neither natural nor easy for such relationships to flourish? Always through politics. No, not the young Republicans. Usually the Communist Youth League. Or maybe a different arm of the CPUSA. But, for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics. (During the Clinton Administration we were all introduced to then U. of Pennsylvania Professor Lani Guinier — also a half black/half Jewish, red diaper baby.)…

… Political correctness was invented precisely to prevent the mainstream liberal media from persuing the questions which might arise about how Senator Obama’s mother, from Kansas, came to marry an African graduate student. Love? Sure, why not? But what else was going on around them that made it feasible? Before readers level cheap accusations of racism — let’s recall that the very question of interracial marriage only became a big issue later in the 1960s. The notion of a large group of mixed race Americans became an issue during and after the Vietnam War. Even the civil-rights movement kept this culturally explosive matter at arm’s distance.

It was, of course, an explicit tactic of the Communist party to stir up discontent among American blacks, with an eye toward using them as the leading edge of the revolution. To be sure, there was much to be discontented about, for black Americans, prior to the civil-rights revolution. To their credit, of course, most black Americans didn’t buy the commie line — and showed more faith in the possibilities of democratic change than in radical politics, and the results on display in Moscow.

Time for some investigative journalism about the Obama family’s background, now that his chances of being president have increased so much.

In other words, race mixing is subversive. Lisa — racist, much? See also the good Roger Ailes (’tis a hoot).

BTW, those Gen-Xers who think the ruination of American politics came about at the hands of Baby Boomers — read up on the late 1940s and early 1950s, folks. That’s when it went crazy, IMO. The Flower Children were just reacting to the insanity.

And for those of you who enjoy looking back on the Good Old Days, here’s an oldie but goodie — highlights of the Army-McCarthy Hearings from That Wonderful Year, 1954.

Wisconsin for Obama

Posted on by

I just got back home and learned Obama won Wisconsin fairly decisively. This surprised me; I figured it would be close. The Associated Press is calling the Clinton candidacy “fading.” I don’t think it’s over yet, though.

John Dickerson at Slate says that Obama was able win over blue-collar workers, previously a key Clinton bloc. He’s also getting more votes from white women.

Say Cheese

Posted on by

It’s Wisconsin primary day. I’ve seen poll numbers all over the map, and I’m making no predictions. Given this campaign season, a pretty even split of votes and delegates wouldn’t surprise me.

The biggest significance of Wisconsin (other than the alarming number of mounted trophy fish in the bars) is that if one candidate does end up with a significant lead over the other — or if Clinton does Better Than Expected (BTE) — it will shape the news coverage of the campaign going forward. The Big Mo, and all that. In particular, if Clinton does BTE, some probably will credit the plagiarism charge against Obama by her campaign made yesterday. See James Fallows for why the charge is so bogus and might even backfire.

On the other hand, Clinton’s plan to deal with the mortgage crisis is being ridiculed by the free-market guys, which means it’s probably very good.

And Jeff Fecke finds a good reason to oppose Obama — Ann Althouse is voting for him. That does give one pause.

Fecke also writes,

There are good reasons to support Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and good reasons to oppose them. Both candidates are flawed, and both candidates are nevertheless far better than the average Democratic candidate over the past forty-odd years.

I think reactions to Obama and Clinton often say more about the person doing the reacting than the candidate themselves. If you see in Barack Obama the Second Coming of Kennedy, Jesus, and/or Lincoln, you’re probably Andrew Sullivan or Ann Althouse — someone desperately hoping that a lone figure “unity” to our country, despite all evidence to the contrary. Similarly, if you see in Hillary Clinton the second coming of Richard Nixon, well, you’re a credulous fool who’s been suckered by Richard Mellon Scafie.

I have argued before that one person, even a POTUS, cannot heal the nation’s sick political culture. But I believe healing the nation’s sick political culture is not only possible (although not easy), I think the life of our nation depends on it. That healing will take a movement, an overwhelming crush of public opinion that will chase the wingnuts back under their rocks. I think Obama gets that; I don’t believe Clinton does.

Second, I certainly don’t see Hillary Clinton as the Second Coming of Richard Nixon. However, as Russ Wellen says,

Were Hillary’s vote for the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq her only flagrant foreign policy misstep, we might be inclined to overlook it. But she not only supported it, she was the only Democrat to accept all of the Bush administration’s claims at face value. …

… Hillary also supported military aid, including missiles capable of being nuclear weaponized, to countries like Israel, Pakistan, and India, all of which had failed to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. At Foreign Policy in Focus, Stephen Zunes compiles the whole dismaying chronicle of her martial heart as a presidential advisor and as a senator.

But we’d be remiss if we failed to single out two instances in which Hillary’s overcompensating to prove herself tough on defense went well beyond the bounds of decency. One, she refused to support the international treaty to ban land mines. Two, she voted down a Democratic resolution restricting U.S. exports of cluster bombs to countries using them against areas populated with civilians.

One doesn’t have to be duped by Richard Mellon Scafie to find that worrisome.

The Stench of Desperation

Posted on by

I’ve spent way too much time the past few days in futile email arguments with Clinton supporters who are certain (1) Obama supporters are not thinking rationally; (2) Obama supporters don’t realize how nasty the GOP will be on him in the general election; (3) Obama supporters aren’t real Democrats.

Let’s take the first one. The phrase “cult of personality” is getting applied to Obama supporters because many are young and enthusiastic. (Jeez, let’s just shoot them now. ) Cora Currier has a good response to this at The Nation. See also Michael Tomasky:

Any time you get millions of young people involved in a project, it takes on the feel of a movement. It becomes a little idealistic. Its defining features do tend to include optimism – even perhaps a somewhat unrealistic optimism – and do not tend to include steely pragmatism.

I would have thought these were good things! Would it be better that young people were once again floating along on the usual currents of dissolution and apathy? Would dark pessimism about the country be a preferable state? And most of all, is it incumbent upon the candidate, having inspired this reaction in people, to tamp it down?

Only Democrats could get themselves overwrought because a Democratic candidate inspires too much enthusiasm.

Jim Sleeper has a lovely essay at TPM Cafe called “Obama, Crowds, and Power” that I urge you to read. It begins:

As a political movement gathers what seems to be irresistible force, it rides currents of anger as well as affirmation. How it balances and channels those currents determines its fate. A movement can be fired up by outraged decency, but it will come to little — or worse — if its participants spend more time and energy venting the outrage than advancing the decency.

I can understand why us lefties might be a bit squeamish about big, loud, boisterous, and enthusiastic mass movements. In recent years all of the mass moving has been coming from the Right, fueled by resentment, hate, and fear. “Movement conservatism” has always seemed nakedly negative and destructive to me. But Sleeper steps back and takes a broader view. He provides examples of big, emotional mass movement that did good — mostly because their leadership kept them focused on creating something positive, not just tearing down what they hate.

As for item #2 — please. Like they’re not going to be nasty to Hillary Clinton?

On to item #3 — Paul Lukasiak argues that Clinton has more primary and caucus votes than Obama. Really? John Cole explains,

Apparently, if you only count votes up to Super Tuesday, discount every state that had a caucus, only go by the exit polling, and eliminate any voters who weren’t registered Democrats, then Hillary Clinton actually has the popular vote lead. In other news, based on exit polling and early voting from 2004 President Kerry will be running for reelection.

Robert Farley:

Apparently, pledged delegates totals are illegitimate, because some states have open primaries. Consequently, it is the responsibility of the superdelegates to overturn the preferred pledged delegate candidate if another candidate wins the national popular vote among “self-identified Democrats.” When caucuses are excluded, Michigan and Florida included, and overall totals determined by evaluating exit poll data rather than counting votes, Clinton wins!

To say this aloud is to refute it, but it is nevertheless generating excitement at TalkLeft. For good measure, Lukasiak throws in the “but can Barack Obama REALLY win California and New York?” meme. Christ, the stench of desperation is sickening.

I don’t know about California, but New Yorkers will vote to elect a Democratic potted plant before they will vote for a Republican.

Today the Clinton campaign is calling Obama a plagiarist; see Jeff Fecke to see why the charge is bogus.

This is not what the Democratic Party needs. First, it’s creating charges that will be used against Obama by the Right if he’s the nominee. Second, I am damn tired of politicians who can win campaigns only by telling lies about the other guy.

The Clinton campaign may be in trouble in Texas, which is a must-win for Clinton if she’s going to stay in contention. Matthew Mosk writes at WaPo:

Supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are worried that convoluted delegate rules in Texas could water down the impact of strong support for her among Hispanic voters there, creating a new obstacle for her in the must-win presidential primary contest.

Hilzoy:

When I read this, I dissolved in giggles after the first sentence. It was that part about the Texas delegate selection rules “creating a new obstacle for her” that got me. In what sense are the Texas rules a “new obstacle?” Were they only recently passed? Not as far as I can tell — here, for instance, is a pdf about them from August 2007, which should have given the Clinton campaign ample time to get up to speed. While I was having fun thinking of possible analogies — would I describe the existence of the Pacific Ocean as “creating a new obstacle” for my plan to walk from Baltimore to Beijing? or the fact that five is a prime number as “creating a new obstacle” to my proving that it is a multiple of two? –my co-blogger publius was actually writing the post I might have written, only funnier:

“Good lord, let’s see if I have this right. The Clinton campaign decides to cede every post-Super Tuesday state to Obama under the theory that Texas and Ohio will be strong firewalls. After – after – implementing this Rudy-esque strategy, they “discovered” that the archaic Texas rules will almost certainly result in a split delegate count (at best).

While they were busy “discovering” the rules, however, the Obama campaign had people on the ground in Texas explaining the system, organizing precincts, and making Powerpoints. I know because I went to one of these meetings a week ago. I should have invited Mark Penn I suppose. (ed. Maybe foresight is an obsolete macrotrend.)”

Note to self: If I ever run for office and base my campaign on the idea that I am ready to lead from day one, I must remember to actually run an effective campaign.

That last part is what gets to me. Hillary Clinton’s primary selling point is that she’d be a better manager of the nation’s business than Barack Obama. But the way the campaigns are being run says otherwise.

Russ Wellen of Scholars and Rogues says that the Clinton campaign is trying to guilt-trip the Obama supports into voting for Clinton.

The questions beg to be asked: Where do Hillary’s supporters get off trying to foist a candidate on us whose foreign policy sell-by date has expired? And whose strategy seems to be based on calling in markers on her husband’s administration?

Furthermore, how dare they make women who choose not to vote for her feel like they’re letting all women down? Shame on you, Hillary supporters, for shaming them.

If Hillary is nominated, Obama supporters will be expected to fall in line behind Hillary just because she’s a Democrat. But, no doubt, they’ll still be licking their wounds from the defeat of a candidate whose ambition was leavened by what looks, for all intents and purposes, like genuine idealism.

A defeat borne of strong-arming superdelegates, as well as an after-the-fact certification of the Florida and Michigan primary votes, will leave many Obama supporters in no mood to vote for Hillary. But pressure from not just Hillary supporters, but Democrats at large who are preparing for such an eventuality, has been ongoing.

How dare Democrats desperate to regain the White House at any cost guilt-trip reluctant Obama supporters into voting for Hillary? The onus isn’t on the latter if the Democrats fail to take the White House — it’s on the party for driving a lemon of a candidate out of the showroom.

Also, do read Wellen before you leave a comment here telling me how bleeping accomplished Hillary Clinton is and how you can’t understand why I might have doubts about her. He sums it up pretty well. See also Gary Younge, “It’s up to the superdelegates to prove Democrats believe in democracy.”

A (Cracked) Pot Gazes Into the Kettle’s Shining Surface

Posted on by

Every now and then one comes across a bit of punditry that is so colossally pathological it defies commentary. I want to just link to it and say, Read this. It’s better than a freak show.

Today Bill “the Everwrong” Kristol gives us such a specimen. When I read it, I didn’t know whether to laugh, cry, or call the guys with the butterfly nets.

You have to read the whole thing to glimpse the bottomless pit that is Kristol’s brain. In a nutshell, he’s saying that Democrats don’t know how to govern because they can’t weigh actions and consequences. No, really. And all the more surreal that it’s Kristol saying this.

Echidne:

Get it? The ruling power is the Republican party, and they are really good at running the government because they have spent so much time asking themselves: “If such and such were to happen then what?” For instance, lots of this self-examination took place right before the Iraq invasion, I’m sure, and also when deciding on how the government should respond to the disasters caused by hurricane Katrina, and also when the Republicans decided to make the Food and Drug Administration go on a starvation diet, just in time for all the dangerous foods and medications entering this country. All that careful thinking, all that responsibility! Though the responsibility tends to come with retroactive immunity these days.

Connecting the Dots responds to Kristol’s suggestion that Dems should read Kipling:

… the New York Times’ newest sage adapts the wisdom of the author of “White Man’s Burden” to belabor opposition to the war in Iraq and illegal eavesdropping as the acts of decadent Democrats who have forgotten how to take responsibility for the use of power.

Cheerfully ignoring the fate of the British Empire that Kipling celebrated, Kristol advises Bush detractors to step up and emulate those men of action who muddled up the Middle East a century ago.

James Fallows:

We all delude ourselves about ourselves. But I wonder if Bill Kristol can imagine how this line — criticizing scholars for a descent into hackdom, and for being comfortably ensconced in sinecures — will strike many of his readers.

No, he can’t imagine. I do believe nobody on the planet is more oblivious than Kristol. He’s even more oblivious than David Brooks.

Update: Kristol speaks.