The Anchoress

Sure, it’s just a goofy, clumsy mispeak that could happen to anyone. The sort of thing I ordinarily wouldn’t even write about because we all misspeak. It happens.

But…I dunno…I’m not a spiteful sort but it seems like there just needs to be some balance, doesn’t it? If Bush had talked about visiting “57 states” we’d see it run on every channel, in an endless loop, for days on end. We’d be hearing “moron, moron, moron,” etc.

I don’t think Obama is a moron and I would never call him that. But hey, the guy talked about 57 states. Undoubtedly, the press will not be running an endless loop, so I might as well at least link to this custom made-57-state lapel flag.

If Obama supporters had a sense of humor, they’d actually make these things and wear them. If Bush had made the gaffe, I’d do it!

Meanwhile, Baldilocks notes that Obama don’t know much about history, either.

But I would never call him a moron. Only GOP mistakes and misspeaks count, though, it seems.

Beth has questions for Obama.

And…someone is cackling.

UPDATE: When I wrote this I had not heard Hillary’s “hard-working white Americans” blurb. Very stupid. I said earlier that her persistence might mean she was a psychopath - that was meant as a throwaway joke - but, well, as Peggy Noonan points out, this whole thing has become psychodrama. I am pulling back my “bravo.” “hard-working white Americans” is either very stupid or deliberately divisive. It cannot be cheered. ::: END UPDATE :::

I rarely read something that I really, really wish I’d written, but this is one of those times.

I just told my husband last night, “I would never, ever in a million years vote for her…but I must say I’m beginning to actually respect Hillary; she’s a tough little boat, and she’s not going to stand down or be controlled by anyone. It might be because she’s a psychopath, of course, but it might also just be because she’s a woman who believes she knows what she knows and will not ’stand down’ simply because it’s getting rough. You have to respect that. Dare I say, in that sense, she is reminding me a little of George W. Bush; he and Tony Blair had the entire world telling them to stand down, shut up and get off the stage. They plunged forward, at the risk of their political capital, because they believed in their mission - to depose Saddam, liberate Iraq and form an Arab democracy in the Middle East. Hillary’s mission is very different, of course - the acquisition of power (and a place in history) she believes is her due - but, she’s not letting the press, the pundits or the mood-warriors stop her. And you know, she actually looks like she’s loving the battle.”

My husband said, “of course she’s loving the battle. She’s a woman.”

Bingo. There was my lede, but I was too tired to write it.

Turns out, I didn’t have to, because Kyle-Anne Shiver (who also will never vote for Hillary) has written a piece that - almost word-for-word - expresses how I’m feeling about Hillary Clinton today. It is an appreciation of Hillary Clinton’s testicular ovarian fortitude.

Writes Shiver:

I will not vote for Hillary Clinton in November, no matter what.

Unlike Ann Coulter, I deem the makeup of the Supreme Court for the next 30 years of the utmost importance, and I know a little about what the “Progressives” want to do with the Constitution through the Court. I have (with my husband) raised children, unlike Ann, and I don’t play around with their futures.

All of those disclaimers are out of the way now.

And I’m so proud of Hillary Clinton right now that I could burst. Seriously.

If there is a single shred of grown-up quality left in the Democrat Party, it is only evidenced by Hillary Clinton’s refusal to let the Party blindly nominate a thoroughly wet-behind-the-ears, know-nothing candidate, who has gotten to this political height on the strength of a cowering, blind media elite (as Bill Clinton said earlier in this campaign), a bunch of hormonally driven college students, and the color of his own skin.
[…]
She started out feeling entitled and above our questions and has become now the candidate who is actually interviewing for the job. Fighting for it.

And she is actually demonstrating the kind of mettle needed in a President and Commander In Chief, while he, on the other hand throws inconvenient folks under his arrogant male bus. She has made it abundantly clear that Iran will be annihilated if it attacks Israel.

Bravo, Kyle-Anne, and yeah, bravo (little-b) Hillary, too! You’ll want to read the whole thing. H/T Larwyn

I said last night that I thought Hillary would be smart to “suspend” her campaign, take a breather (and rest up) and then come barreling back at the Dem convention, when the party has begun to have buyers remorse on Obama, and he is tired and punchy. I doubt she’ll do it; even to suspend would be too much like weakness to her. Meanwhile, this is pretty cute.

H/T Brian Saint-Paul.

I did it again! Opened up dozens of interesting stories and blog posts and now I have too much to write about, so I’ll just link you to them!

Siggy brings us the Heavy Metal Puppy: you won’t believe your eyes.

GM Roper says we ought to be smarter than we’re proving ourselves to be. He’s quite correct.

Remember Sandy Berger and his theft of Top Secret documents on terrorism? The Clinton library ain’t talking about it. It’s amazing how many things the Clintons get away with not talking about. Library donors, Hillary’s exceedingly radical past, physical examinations, money bundlers…all the ways the Clinton administration got palsy with China…

Bill never minds talking about himself, though, and he’s reminding me a little of Gloria Swanson, here: “Somebody faints at nearly every one of these things now. At my age, I didn’t think I could make anybody faint anymore.”

That makes my whole spine shudder the way it did when reading about Madonna rubbing against Justin Timberlake. You want to say, “for cryin’ out loud, get a room,” even though Clinton is only talking about himself.

This Australian is more worried about Clintonian fibbing and Chameleon-like behavior than most Americans seem to be.

Mighty Christopher Hitchens asks a great question: Can Obama’s Wright problems be laid at his wife’s feet? Hitchens is right to ask it and we do deserve to know.

Nicedeb says the Italian newspapers are wondering if Bush is crossing the Tiber I don’t know if it matters; I like his international day of prayer idea, though.

Meanwhile, Curt Jester answers the question: Is liberal Catholicism dead? I’d say it’s in extremis. But I also think that if the “conservatives” in the church overcorrect and overplay their hands, the “liberals” may be pulled out of their death throes. At some point, “love” and “law” will have to intertwine and nurture together.

Bobby Jindal: love him, always did, and if he’d beaten Kathleen Blanco in the Louisiana governor’s race the first time and thus had a few more years under his belt in the state office, I’d say, “veep, hell, make him the top of the ticket!” I’d love to see him round out McCain but I don’t think it can (or even should happen) when his state clearly needs him. But then again the way this crazy primary season is going…well, you know my feelings. Meanwhile Baldilocks fears it looks like pandering.

My Elder Son is graduating but not walking - he’s had enough of the school and does not wish to hear Chuck Schumer’s address. We’ve heard it twice already and Schumer always uses the same speech, uttering the deathless phrase “GO FOR IT!” Son said he’d rather just go for dinner. I figured he should get SOME graduation advice, though, so I sent him a commencement address from P.J. O’ Rourke. H/T Betsy.

One for all the good teachers: Butter and Standardized tests - you’ll like it. Heartwarming.

And one of the worst teachers I’ve ever heard about.

The Swiss are concerned about cruelty and immoral behavior toward plant life. But don’t worry; abortion is still okay over there.

Don’t Cry for Me? Here we have Fausta on the vagaries of Latin America and Gateway Pundit has Bad News for Hugo Chavez and some US Dems.

Are Global Warmingists pulling a fast one? Duh. I like this video.

Obi’s Sister looks at the fact-challenged press.

It’s Little League Season! I so miss having a kid at the games! Danielle Bean writes about League-mom bi-location.

Bring back movie execs who grew stars? There is an argument to be made. And the comments are interesting too, especially about Garbo.

An Interview with Anne Rice, On Benedict’s visit and more. An interesting comments section, too.

Video: Intelligent Design argued entertainingly. H/T Matteo, who probably thinks I never read him anymore, because I link so rarely.

Video: A dedicated warrior sews and shows his softer side.

Father/Son video games: I really love the picture.

Here is an interesting thought, but I must confess it comes not from me, but from a reader, Diane S, who reminded me of this piece (which I am reposting here) and wondered whether Jeremiah Wright, “in the thick of a white-hot media spotlight” is falling prey to the same destructive disease of ego expansion that has struck and deranged others.

I think perhaps Wright is not under the same spell. I have no doubt that he is enjoying the attention and his new-found prominence, but I don’t think he is finding “love” and “validation” in the media glare, as seemed to be the case with Cindy Sheehan, Gore, and maybe post 2000-primaries John McCain. They had each been lionized by media because they were convenient tools; they created necessary “distance” for the press, who supported their views but needed to maintain an “unbiased” illusion - Sheehan on the war, Gore on anything anti-Bush and McCain against conservatism. Each of them were treated to huge, almost absurd slatherings of vastly positive media goo, and I think it is the goo that can eventually muck anyone up.

Wright is getting a lot of attention, but it is not uniformly positive, and he is not being used as a weapon against anyone - at least not by the press. Rather, the man keeps running his open sore of a mouth and the press keeps saying, “home run!” while trying to downplay what the rest of us see and hear with our lying eyes and ears.

Perhaps Wright has spent a lifetime wondering why Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton got all the glory while he had the more rousing rhetoric. In that case, he might feel only that he is finally getting what he is due. That’s “validation” of a sort, but it hasn’t the same savor as love - which, perhaps, Wright crave so deeply. Or, considering revealing tidbit, maybe he craves it in ways we simply cannot comprehend.

Meanwhile, here is the repost - note I seem to have lost some of my earlier snark as the blog has evolved; or maybe I really was just in a bad mood on that day. Back then. In 2005. To be clear, today, in 2008, I feel mighty fine, if a little anemic!

MEDIA WHORES AND THEIR CREATORS
(orginally posted, September 2005)

So, it appears Cindy Sheehan has gone and gotten herself arrested while her supporters - proving definitively that they are permanently stuck in 1968 - shouted, “the whole world is watching!” (well, Al Jazeera was, anyway - note they got Sheehan with the “forlorn” expression)

Whoopee.

The woman, who this weekend kvetched because CNN et al were spending all of their time covering Hurricane Rita, which was “just a little wind and rain,” instead of Herself climbing all over Jesse Jackson, made certain she’ll be covered on all the channels tonight - that she’ll get the Drudge coverage and the number one spot on Technorati. She sat down where she wasn’t supposed to and, after three warnings, was “arrested.”

“Attention all you cameramen, I am about to be arrested, please focus!”

I can’t think of anything that seems to destroy people’s mental health faster than a few weeks or months of uncritical, gushing media hype. Think about the people you see in the news, day after day, gathering unconditional praise and coverage from the press. They lose themselves, lose their minds, and they are rarely ever the same after the adulation stops. In fact, I can only think of one person who got caught up in the destructive swirl of relentless positive press reportage and managed to find his way back to sanity, and that would be Sen. Joe Lieberman, and perhaps - I am only saying PERHAPS - his faith has something to do with his re-bound.

The rest of them, once courted, feted, promoted, celebrated, hyped and carried by the press have a very difficult time of it, post-praise.

Sen. John Kerry, a truly terrible presidential candidate, cold, stiff and barely articulate had months and months of uncritical love. Months of the press never asking him a single difficult question, months of the press scurrying to fight his battles, discredit his critics and pat him on the back after soft-ball interviews. He had the press basically promising him a 10-15% advantage for their coverage - a promise which it does seem they delivered on.

When he still lost, and lost soundly, and all of the microphones and cameras went away, he couldn’t seem to believe it. After a nearly silent 20-year career in the Senate during which he did little more than write bills recognizing special days for special people, Kerry was suddenly opining on everything, calling press conferences and issuing statements, and yet the press was not loving him as it had. They barely noticed him. He was back to being a “local paper” story instead of a national figure. He hasn’t been the same, since.

Sen. John McCain discovered he could make the press “love” him by criticizing his party and not merely working with the opposition but shoving his metaphorical tongue down their metaphorical throats. He became the media darling of 1999 and 2000, with endless magazine covers, endless gushing interviews with Katie and Diane and Oprah, endless furrowed-brow talks with Ted Koppel. The “Maverick” became the only acceptable sort of GOP candidate and - for many in the press - a palatable alternative to Al Gore, who was becoming problematic, what with Buddhist nuns, controlling legal authorities, Clinton-fatigue and spots of embarrassing exaggerations regarding his personal life and his “inventiveness.”

When the press reluctantly left McCain behind to cover the actual GOP candidate, McCain was smart enough to realize that all he ever had to do to call them back and bask in the warmth of their klieg lights was to step left-and-lively, and he has done it ever since. He cannot stop himself. Those lights, those microphones, those headlines and all that unequivocal approval - it’s heady stuff to a guy who crashed 3 planes.

Al Gore - well, what can be said about poor Al Gore? Told by the press, over and over, that he was gypped, even after a consortium of papers did themselves concede that he lost in 2000, he seems like a gas leak in search of a pilot light. But he’ll always have Paul Krugman.

I cannot even imagine what will happen to any Clinton for whom the uncritical praise ends.

And now, we see Mother Sheehan - an utter media creation who burnished her genuine tragedy with an ability to cry-on-cue, but who has long-since overplayed the “grieving mother” hand and become all about preening and performing for the camera. Yesterday people losing lives and livelihoods to a storm were mere peons interfering with her scheduled adulation. Today she got herself arrested, smiling the whole while and still quite certain that the constitution which guarantees her the right to self-destruct in an endless loop on CNN, is a constitution that is not worth dying for.

Can a posing session for Playboy be far behind? That’s where all the sad she-clowns go when they’re usefulness has ended, isn’t it?

Once again, repeat after me - it is amazing how much destruction is wrought because of a need to feel loved.

I didn’t get small! The protests got small!

Btw…I’m in a bad mood today. Blogging will be cloudy, with a chance of snark.

AJ Strata has an interesting link up over at his site - one that, if the thing pans out - suggests that it was a Clinton operative who invited Jeremiah Wright to (disastrously) address the National Press Club.

AJ wonders if Wright has been bought off by the “old school” black democrats - paid to essentially destroy Obama’s campaign - and what the price was.

I initially did not believe that. I thought of Wright as a simple exhibitionist unable to resist the lure of bright lights and headlines - a guy wanting to breath the rarefied air of “power and influence” currently enjoyed by those stale-but-still-strutting barnyard cocks, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton .

But now, it seems like perhaps Wright really has been bought and paid for; Obama’s team says they had no warning about this media-blitz, and that Wright has actually rebuffed them. It seems the coup is in fact, Clintonian.

The question is - does Obama have the guts and the cujones to make that charge against the Clinton campaign - that they’re exploiting the vast weaknesses of his father-figure for their own gain, and have apparently promised him the barnyard?

Upon the palpable implosion of his campaign, it may well be the only hand he has to play right now, and I’m not even sure how strong a hand it is. As I’ve written before, Obama has clearly established that he loves Wright, that there is a whole replacement-father thing going on there; “they dared to show you my daddy-figure full on and unedited” is not really a winner if he whines it. And since Obama does love the man, he’s bound to be feeling a bit raw and shell-shocked about it all.

So, what happens now? Does Obama lie down? Does he expose the cynical-but-brilliant scheme of the Clintons, and if he does, will America be revolted by the Clinton’s move or will they sit back rather admiring it and declaring “all’s fair in love and war?”

Do the Clintons continue the media blitz? Something to think about is whether the Clintons have factored in what this exposure will do to the Democrat party itself - moderate Democrats can’t rest easy with what Wright is spouting, which is why the Clintons have operatives do their work for them and keep their distance - but if the Democrats try to denounce this sort of mindset, they expose themselves as the purveyors of it for the last 50 years (both in terms of race and gender) and demonstrate the party’s own end-of-the-line emptiness

Of course, Hillary could use Wright to sabotage Obama, and then - with the party roiling - set herself up as the candidate of “unity” by offering the badly injured Obama the veep spot. Which would be profoundly ironic - she’d have taken the party to the brink of destruction in order to steal the “unifier” tag from Obama. This is almost a thing of beauty in its perverse way - if it can be pulled off.

If it can’t, well…we always knew that if the Clintons couldn’t control the party any longer, they would destroy it.

UPDATE: AJ suspects that the Wright media blitz is doing double duty; it both takes out Obama and focuses the press’ gaze on the “Fall of the Messiah” story, while diverting attention from the fact that Hillary is being forced to testify in a fraud suit involving her husband, the presumed “First Gentleman” but…she won’t have to do it until AFTER the election.

To do it before the election would surely sink her chances - it would remind America that we were fully sick of the scandals and the reek of corruption from that team by 2000. And we’re not going to be allowed to remember that, if it’s at all possible.

Can you imagine the president-elect testifying in a fraud case concerning her husband? It would never happen. This ball just got kicked down the road to an eventual oblivion, by a judge who told Clinton lawyer David Kendell to “say hello to my friend, Bill”.

Meanwhile, in a testament to the upside-down nature of this campaign, some are begging Obama to take Karl Rove’s advise! And I don’t know how either candidate is going to handle the SCOTUS saying dead people can’t vote!

Hugh Hewitt, of course, has all the audio you want.

More coverage:
Baldilocks gives us the view from under the bus
Tom Maguire feels bad for Obama’s Grandmother
Bulldogpundit is too.
Jonah Goldberg: Wright’s gonna need a bigger bus!
Ed Morrissey covers most of the major columnists on Wright
Classical Values finds an interesting old picture.
Dana Milbank with Wright video
Gerard Vanderluen covers the astonishing Wright-declared “information” on the difference between white and black brains
Michael Goodwin says Hillary is a Bully
Kim Priestap at Wizbang
Bookworm at The Bookwormroom
Allahpundit on Gingrich on Wright
Patterico on Andrew Sullivan on Wright

WELCOME: Hugh Hewitt readers. While here please take a look around. Today I’m also wondering, where the hell this version of President Bush has been hiding. If you’re interested in Catholic stuff, we’re tossing around the withholding communion issue.

see more crazy cat pics

The other day - for reasons I don’t understand - I tripped through the blogosphere Q & A style, and people seemed to like that.

So, here are some more:

Q: What is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s motto for this session of Congress?

A: Well, I am not privvy to the great-woman’s thoughts, but it would appear to be, “Mr. President, tear down any economic advantages you might be pursuing for us, and while you’re at it, please make us as vulnerable to the oil-producing nations as you possibly can. Also, get this stuff put into the bible, ASAP!”

Q: Bill Clinton said Saddam had nukes, but it turned out he didn’t. But that wasn’t a lie, like it was when Clinton and all Democrats Bush said Saddam had WMD…but now it looks like Syria had gotten ‘em, somehow and um…North Korea helped. But I thought North Korea was on board with the Clinton/Albright “framework” which was all “we give you nuke stuff and you stop making war noises and go dance a foxtrot with Maddy” or something and now…how…what?

A: I know, I know, it’s confusing. I don’t fully understand it either but Syria and NoKo were building something bad - heaven only knows how they got the materials - and Israel had to go over there and blow the thing up for us, which they did, Shalom, Israel! There is only one narrative you have to take out of this whole strange story: George Bush cannot pronounce the word “nuclear” and so obviously, this was, is and always will be his moronic fault and failing.

Q: If Obama has to talk about his Weather Underground pal, shouldn’t Hillary have to talk about her husband’s Weather Underground pardons?

A: Now, you stop picking on Hillary, she never knew what Bill was up to in that Oval Office because she was, you know, dodging sniper fire and solving the troubles in Northern Ireland! And besides, Bill pardoned a-lots of people and some other far worse terrorists, so, you know, you be cool. Nobody wants to hear that crap! Besides, the Clintons version 2.0 is totally transparent-like and Hillary’s all down with Mary and stuff, right now.

Q: If you don’t support Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy, does that automatically mean that you are suffering from a toxic form of cynicism?

A: Of course not. If you don’t support Barack Obama it means you are a racist; unless you are a woman over 55, in which case you are both racist and age-ist and a man-hating victim of oppression who wears comfortable shoes. And as far as I am concerned, and I don’t care who knows it - there is NOTHING WRONG WITH WEARING COMFORTABLE SHOES. I do so, myself, and I have pretty feet, with no corns or bunions.

Q: What’s the deal with these monks getting a recording contract and now these singing priests and all that? Are those damn Catholics fixing to infiltrate popular culture again? Is a remake of Going My Way in our future?

A: As to “Going My Way,” never having been a fan of Der Bingel, I hope not. As to the rest of it, I highly doubt that Hollywood will be expending any dough making inspiring or uplifting stories including beautiful and efficient nuns who impact wayward girls, or manly, faithful priests who make a difference, when the more negative and sensational stereotypes - though unprofitable - are so very tantalizing and much more in line with their bleak worldview, which permits neither wonder nor joy. Although, if a buck is to be made, all bets may be off. “Toxic Cynicism” is more rampant in the entertainment industry than in Washington DC, although it’s a near thing.

Q: Is there any good news coming out of Iraq? Or Afghanistan?

A: Yes and yes. And yes.

Q: Is Jimmy Carter (for whom you voted in 1976) the most repellent ex-president, ever?

A: Gosh, let me think. Bill Clinton went overseas and criticized our efforts in Iraq, but he’s still Bill, you gotta love/hate him; and Jimmy Carter has said much worse things and may be in violation of the Logan act, besides, so yes. I say yes.

Q: Are “peace” activists really peaceful people?

A: Some are. I have on my desk a review copy of a book by a Jesuit priest who is so pacific he’s making me feel clammy, but having lived through 1968 and that whole era where people went around glassy-eyed saying, “Peace! Love, man,” while saying and doing some profoundly graceless and unpeaceable things, I’d say, a lot of them are just phoneys looking to belong to something, or for something to be angry about.

Q: Is Cinnamon the new cure-all that’s “good for what ails you?”

A: I’m sorry, your urethra cannot like it!

Q: On a personal note: cats or dogs?

A: I like them both very much, but there are differences.

I’m kinda pooped from all the Benedict blogging of late. Meanwhile, a quick lookaround:

From the Dept. of Silly Quesitons:

Q: Did Laura Bush wear white to host the pope at the White House because she believes she is a monarch’s wife or because she is signaling an assent to the rampant rumors that President Bush will become a Catholic when he leaves office?

A: Cueing the Twilight Zone music, I’m going to hazard a guess: Mrs. Bush and Jenna Bush both wore black skirts to meet Benedict at the airport, and then Mrs. Bush changed to what I would call a creme-colored pantsuit. I’m betting she got back to her house and decided to slip into something more comfortable and that’s all it meant, except to snippy reporters desperate to snark.

Q: Why don’t we hear any more gnashing of teeth about the government not funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

A: Because ADULT Stem Cells are proving to be wildly promising and successful - so much so that the dismal and nightmarish failures of Embryonic SCR are going to simply be allowed to fade away from memory. Here is a simple rule to remember: once a bat is no longer useful for pounding on W, it is summarily retired and not heard from again.

Q: Does the whole nation hate President Bush?

A: Doesn’t seem like it. Not the whole nation.

Q: Who gave Bill Clinton the idea of putting his offices in Harlem?

A: Actually, it was Jonah Goldberg. Recall, Clinton’s first instinct was Central Park West.

Q: Does Rush Limbaugh owe Bulldog Pundit some props for the concept of Operation Chaos?

A: Well, he BP has been supporting Hillary for a while!

Q: Would you vote for Obama if he were Adlai Stevenson?

A: Well, I wouldn’t. My birth dad - a staunch Democrat and classical liberal - loved Adlai but voted Ike. Twice. E.J. Dionne asks a thoughtful question and Brian Saint-Paul takes it further.

Q: Have we really thought-through socialized medicine?

A: No.

Q: Does the NY Times have honest issues with their front page?

Q: Are bloggers prisoners of their venue?

A: Speaking only for myself, three days into going wall-to-wall on Benedict’s visit I felt like I would stroke out if I didn’t move around, get some fresh air and look at something different. For others, it appears to be worse.

Q: Is Stephen Colbert hard to make laugh?

A: This priest seems able to do it pretty easily.

Q: Hey, How ’bout those BoSox?

A: Bite me you miserable bastard!

Q: Do the rich snobs who support the likes of John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Obama realize how ironically this plays?.

A: What do you think?

Q: Is “Manmade” Global Warming still hoo-hah?

A: Why yes. Yes it is. And Entrepreneurial Gore still won’t suffer impertinent questions or debates over it. Terrorists, however are getting onboard with the greenies, while some greenies are jumping ship.

Q: How come you don’t post in crotchety prospector speech anymore?

A: So wearying. Maybe for Christmas.

Q: Heard any good jokes lately?

A: Well, only one, and maybe its not that good but I’m a little punchy, and I laughed:

From a Danish associate:

“We in Denmark cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an election. On one side, you have a b*tch who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer, and a lawyer who is married to a b*tch who is a lawyer. On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with a huge chest who owns a beer distributorship.

Is there a contest here?” H/T reader Pianogirl

My piece comparing and contrasting the press’ dire predictions about Pope Benedict XVI with the reality of the man is up at Pajamas Media today.

As if making my point for me, Newsweek has two pieces on Benedict, both falling rather heavily “pro” Benedict and “con” Benedict - I think perhaps the press is past understanding that balance means “a little bit of both.” The first piece, by George Weigel, I recommend to you because although it glows for Benedict, it also gives you an excellent sense of how deeply this pope may effect our age. The second, by Lisa Miller is your basic predictable condescension about how Benedict does not “connect” with Catholics…except for all the ones who love him, especially the young, but since they’re probably living in the woods with Barack’s “bitter” gunslingers, they don’t matter, do they?

Funnily enough, Sissy Willis manages to look at Benedict and Barack. You’ll like!

Related: Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes

Lots of good stuff over at Pajamas Media, btw, there besides my poor effort. Bill Bradley has two piece ups, both on “Bittergate”, with the second looking at how Obama’s stunning elitism will be used against him, Mohammed Fadhil says the Iraqi government has a golden opportunity if they’ll take it, and Glenn and Helen are talking to Michael Yon.

I like this ironic photo essay using Obama’s “bitter” words.

But it also reminds me that what Obama said wasn’t that far off from Bill Clinton’s trying to turn the Oklahoma City bombing into a narrative about middle Americans, incapable of thinking for themselves, being urged on to hate America by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

Both, in their way, were implying that middle-class Middle America is populated with easily-swayed, unintelligent rubes.

Slightly O/T, after the OKC bombing Bill Clinton used the words “evil” and “cowards” to describe the bombers/terrorists. And he didn’t get any of the flack for it that Bush did after 9/11.

So…Obama is not saying anything new. Neither did George Bush. Bill Clinton beat them both to it.

Maxed Out Mama has a great and substantive post about Obama and the delusions of some of his supporters.