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.

Is it me, or does it seem like reporters aren’t even trying to make sense anymore?

Tricia Nixon was risque in a sleeveless gown at her Rose Garden wedding.

Oh please. In 1971, this might have been fashion forward, very lovely and “different” (neither hippy-granny dress, nor blowsy meringue) but it was hardly “risque,” especially for a wedding held in a garden instead of a church.

Blah, blah, blah, Jenna is not having a White House wedding because blah, blah, George Bush isn’t running for election and he’s unpopular, blah, blah, blah. I’m sure if Jenna Bush wanted a White House wedding, she’d have had one. It seems to me President Bush is not intimidated by his low approval ratings, and he’s also not interested in pandering for that approval by dancing to “Thank Heaven For Little Girls” for the cameras. What is much more likely (and believable) is that the Bushes prefer to keep their family celebrations to themselves and not reduce their special occasions to fodder for the very press that hates them all.

What blather. Congrats to Jenna Bush and her intended. She’ll be teaching in Baltimore after the wedding.

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

[Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]
Vizzini: HE DIDN’T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
— The Princess Bride

Keith Olbermann is increasingly reminding me of Vizzini the Sicilian in The Princess Bride, who declares every event he does not foresee as “inconceivable.”

In Olbermann’s case, he seems to be misusing (or misunderstanding) the meaning of the word “fascist.”

Shall we help him out with it?

It’s an easy one, sir. Last week, you apologized “without limit” (your words) to Mrs Clinton for one of your co-workers using the phrase “pimped out” in a manner insulting to the former First Family. You offered this seriously respectful apology because the Clintons made a fuss and Mrs. Clinton suggested she would no longer grace your network with her presence, and - oh boy - heaven help you all if she made it back into the White House.

I assume, anyway, that that was the reason for your very emphatic apology, since - when you yourself used the “pimping” analogy yourself about President Bush and General Petraeus - no apology was later offered by you, or your network, and it must be said, no apology was requested or thought necessary, possibly because your target respects your right to free speech.

That example is not perhaps so convincing to you; I will offer a second: Last night you called the President of the United States not only a “terrorist” and a “liar,” but a “fascist.” You said:

If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend. You’re a fascist! Get them to print you a T-shirt with fascist on it!

A strong word to fling about. How daring and brave you are to direct it at President Bush - who is known for silencing dissent and demanding apologies for any imagined slight. You saw how he silenced Tim Robbins when that clever fellow wrote an essay and a play about the “chill wind” that blew against free speech in America, didn’t you? You must have noticed how your co-worker who recently called President Bush a “monkey” was made to grovel and endure a suspension from work, did you not?

Oh, wait…those things didn’t actually happen, you say? None of those dissenting viewpoints or insults resulted in arrest, imprisonment, silencing, firing…nothing?

But…but…President Bush is a terrorist and a fascist! Didn’t you see how he had all the Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan devotees dragged away from his ranch a few years ago? Don’t you remember those guys who celebrated the film imagining Bush’s assassination, or that other guy who wrote the novel where they imagine killing President Bush, didn’t they disappear or you know…never work again?

No? Oh. My bad.

You also said:

We will not fear the recognition of the manipulation of our yearning for safety. We will call it what it is: terrorism. We will not fear identifying the vulgar hypocrites in our government. We will name them. And we will not fear George W. Bush. Nor will we fear because George W. Bush wants us to fear.

How admirably brave of you! You must have really felt like you would be dragged off stage and “disappeared” after speaking “truth to power” like that!

After all - someone says something about the Clintons that they don’t like - for instance, Elizabeth Edwards says she is more joyful than Hillary Clinton, or Chris Matthews suggests Mrs. Clinton has benefited from her husband’s infidelities- and they are swiftly made to see the error of their ways, and to apologize and grovel. (Captain Ed says Matthews may soon be apologizing again, too.)

And if someone makes a movie the Clintons don’t like, why, they try to get the film shelved unseen.

You and your co-workers, on the other hand, routinely spit out words like “idiot,” “pimp,” “murderer,” “chimp,” “terrorist” and “fascist” toward the guy who has kept you safe for 7 years, knowing full well that the bastard Bush and has never in any way threatened your (or your colleagues) freedom of speech or livelihood, and has never demanded from you the apologies you so regularly offer to others. You say what you want without fear of reprisal from this president. There may be angry viewers or sponsors who demand apologies, but not President Bush. And yet he’s the one you like to call a “fascist.”

Inconceivable!

You keep using that word, fascist; I do not think it means what you think it means.

Related: The fascist is… whoever is trying to shut you up, shut you down, dis-employ you, silence you, cripple you or marginalize you for the crime of daring to fall out of step with the party and the conventional wisdom. Beware of them.

I thought Shuster’s comment re Chelsea was tasteless and classless and said so.

But I also think MSNBC’s groveling response to it is way overboard. An apology. A few days in the penalty box and a memo saying “grow up and class up, people” would have more than met the case.

Since the “pimp” remark, MSNBC, the most penitent sinner I’ve ever heard of, has already cancelled programming to promote Mrs. Clinton.

Now this apology - this “without limit” apology by Keith Olbermann is so over the top and emphatic as to be one step behind putting his own face in the mud. It rather reminds me of a king’s servant bowing down until his forehead is on the floor and his rear is in the air for kicking.

Thankfully, someone has interspersed his seriously grave and obsequious apology with other tape highlighting some rank hypocrisy most of us were probably not aware of - it’s brilliant. H/T Sister Toldjah.

Our discourse is too course, and I still say it. But I if it is going to be coarse, at least let the outrage be consistent. Did no one in the press apologize for Bush being accused of “pimping” Petraeus? No, Petraeus is not Bush’s daughter. But he is the honorable general who has served the nation and turned Iraq around, even as Mrs. Clinton declared, before hearing his testimony, that it would require a “willing suspension of disbelief.”

Petreaus deserves at least as much respect as Chelsea Clinton, of whom Shuster said - in his apology - “all Americans should be proud.”

No. We should be proud of our nation, our military and our ideals, and our own families…but of the first daughters? It’s a bridge too far.

I respect Chelsea Clinton. She is the daughter of a president and she seems to be a lovely young woman. But, like Ann Althouse, I do not think “all Americans should be proud” of her.

This thing has been apologized-for all out of proportion. As Mortman says: It’s hard to read about MSNBC’s relationship to the mothership Clinton campaign these days without being reminded of Vichy France.

It is starting to feel that way. Surber wonders why no one will tell Hillary to buzz off. Seems to me the only one who dares to do that is Obama, and he deserves some props for seeming to be utterly indifferent to her power or her reach. Good for him.

Shrug. Okay. Durable goods are 5.2%.

Orders to factories for big-ticket manufactured goods soared in December by the largest amount in five months, welcome news for an economy buffeted by talk of recession.

The 5.2 percent increase in orders was a surprise finish for the manufacturing sector at year’s end — a segment of the economy considered to have had a poor year.

The increase in orders, as reported Tuesday by the Commerce Department, was far larger than had been expected. The strength came from a big increase in demand for commercial aircraft, but even excluding the transportation sector, orders posted a solid 2.6 percent gain.

The December orders increase was more than double what had been expected. Analysts were looking for a much weaker performance, given that a key gauge of manufacturing activity had fallen to the weakest reading since April 2003. The Institute for Supply Management manufacturing index dipped to 47.7 for December. Any reading below 50 is considered recession territory for manufacturing.

“Experts” is there anything they can’t get wrong? Every projection in the last 7 years has been negative, and when the reports come in positive, they say, “well…we’re surprised….BUT.” There is always a “But.”

This is why I hardly ever listen to the economic news, except to see how wrong they get it, and how they seem to want things to go badly. I remember when Clinton was president, every week the news would give you the the economic numbers and the unemployment figures - they were never mentioned under Bush, unless they could insert a “but,” or a grimace.

My husband and I tried to go out to eat this weekend at one of those Applebee/Chili’s type places. Every one of them was packed, with an hour’s wait. We grabbed a few slices of pizza and ate at home. I gauge the economy by the restaurants, because to my way of thinking when things get a little tight, the first thing people do is start eating in. It’s not academic, it’s not a brainy way to gauge things…but minding how busy the restaurants are has always been pretty accurate, for me.

I know there are pockets of trouble with the economy - nothing ever hums along perfectly, and I disagree with the stimulus package the president and Congress rushed to, too quickly - but overall, let us remember, the unemployment figure is 5%. We were told, over and over again, while Bill Clinton was president, that 5.6% was “essentially full employment,” so…hey…we’re okay!

Blogging is fun but it don’t pay the rent. While I’m off doing what I have to do to get paid (note - my paypal/amazon buttons have moved to the right side column!) here is a round-up of things you might find interesting, in no particular order! Enjoy!

Say it again: Socialized Medicine does not work! Read this at Fausta’s and feel the chill wind. And the poor care.

Christopher Hitchens, oozing disdain for the Clintons and their race-baiting.

Pre-Dawn, February 3, be there, or be square: A lightshow in the sky. If you were a wise man, you might know what it means. I’m not one, and I don’t. But I want to see it, anyway.

Ed Morrissey says a sea change is taking place in how the press feels about the Clintons. I dunno. The press has invested 15 years into the “Clintons are practically perfect in every way” (just like Mary Poppins) narrative. If she takes the nomination, a lot of them will go scurrying back to her, so I would take their sudden awarenesses with a grain of salt. As we’ve seen with President Bush, the press certainly has the power to filter, marginalize, minimize and destroy a politician they don’t like.

If Hillary gets back into the White House there will be hell to pay for those who dared to write negative about her. So, the press needs to decide about Hillary: has Obama freed them enough that they can throw the Clintons onto the scrap heap of history? If so, they’d better be as thorough as a dentist drill about it, because if they clutch and chicken out, they will do her bidding once more and forever. Interesting…interesting. Also interesting that Obama is not trying to play the press.

So, Valerie Plame’s cover was blown even before Richard Armitage outted her. Interesting. Do you know how powerful the press narrative can be? I STILL regularly read people saying “Bush outted Plame,” even after Armitage has admitted he did it.

Remember when Toni Morrison called Bill Clinton “our first black president?” She’s endorsing Obama.

Fallujah, The Final Battle: Michael Totten takes you there Also, Pajamas Media has the much-missed Arthur Chrenkoff writing on good news and Iraq.

Also at Pajamas: Bob Owens writes about “the media blackout on the truth” in Gaza.

It’s the WORLDVIEWS, Stupid!: Bender sends along this very interesting article spelling out the difference between Obama and Hillary:

Hillary believes, to the core of her political being, that what changes people’s lives are government programs. . . . “Most Americans need a president—not everybody, probably not the two of you,” she said with a smile, gesturing to me and her press secretary, Jay Carson. “So you are free to vote however you choose. You can vote on a feeling, you can vote on a speech, you can vote on a debate, you can vote any way you want. But if you’re on the brink of falling out of the middle class, if you’re worried about health care, home foreclosures, and all these other problems, you need a president that you really can believe in and count on to deliver.” . . .

The unconventionality of Obama’s campaign is the source of its power—and of many of the frustrations and worries it incites. Like any presidential candidate, he has position papers up the wazoo, but his rhetoric is almost entirely devoid of programmatic specificity. This gaping hole can make his bid seem narcissistic, even messianic: La campagne, c’est moi! But behind it lies a rigorous conception of the presidency and a diagnosis of what ails the political system. Obama believes that a fundamental change in how Washington works—an end to the intense partisanship that’s reigned for the past two decades, in particular—is a precondition for major policy advances. He believes that, as he often says, “we can disagree without being disagreeable.” He’s convinced that unity is attainable through the right kind of leadership: his. [Emphasis mine - Admin]

Suicide attacks across Europe have been derailed. Terrorism? Still a problem?. It’s so easy to forget, when things are so awful here in the United States under George W. Bush.

Hillary and the Royal Blue Suit - seems like everywhere you look, that’s the picture, today. Is anyone in the world getting more press than her and her husband? When will they go away? I still think it’s going to take an “ill Bill narrative” to totally get him offa her stage.

Mickey Kaus thinks John McCain is lying about immigration. I’m plotzing, so shocked, I am.

Random Jottings remembers what I said about McCain a long time ago. I wrote a little snarkier back then, I think, and apparently…I was especially cranky that day.

Must get to work. Later, gators!

Peggy Noonan writes today, that President Bush has killed the GOP:

George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.

I have a great deal of respect for Ms. Noonan, but I’m not sure I can agree. Certainly President Bush should have used his veto power and curbed Congressional spending sooner than he eventually did, but let’s face it, the GOP in Congress helped build those spending bills and sent them to him. It seems to me that the entire congressional GOP needs to take some responsibility, there. And yes, he should have “surged” in Iraq much sooner than he did, but no one prosecutes a war perfectly.

Ms. Noonan cites “immigration” as a causal agent of Bush’s “destruction” of the GOP, and here I must strenously disagree and cite a piece of my own - which co-incidentally runs today over at Pajamas Media - in which I quote President Reagan, in his 1988 State of the Union Address, talking about meeting with the Mexican government about “make[ing] the border something other than a locale for a nine-foot fence,” and envisioning “a day when the free flow of trade — from the tip of Tierra del Fuego to the Arctic Circle — unites the people of the Western Hemisphere in a bond of mutually beneficial exchange,” or what some on the right lately refer to as “Bush’s North American Union.”

In the piece I demonstrate that President Bush has not moved very far away from President Reagan in 1988, and suggest that perhaps the big problem between President Bush and the GOP base is not that Bush has changed - the truth is, he has been very consistently himself while in the Oval Office - but that the GOP (or the conservatives who identify as GOP) have stepped a bit further right than perhaps they’ve realized.

As you can imagine, my argument is not being received well by “the base,” and some of my mail indicates that few have actually read the Reagan quotes before cocking their verbal shotguns my way, but that’s alright. I still believe that - as Mrs. Noonan herself put it so well, once, on Hardball - “people can disagree and still be decent people.”

Agree or disagree, there is a case to be made here that - while President Bush certainly was not a “perfect” conservative president - the Congressional GOP bears some of the blame for the shape the GOP is in; and a case may also be made that the advent and popularity of new media (talk radio and political forum echo-chambers) have moved the conservatives further right.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey is also writing about Noonan’s charge:

I love Peggy Noonan’s commentary, but this is a little over the top. The party has lost exactly one national cycle in the last four.
[…]
The seeds of Republican discontent took root in Congress, not the executive. It was the succession of Republican Congresses that refused to cut spending, and instead blew wads of cash on non-defense discretionary spending…
[…]
It may be fashionable for Republicans to cast all blame on the President, but that falsely absolves those who created the problems that plague us at the moment. It may also sound rhetorically spectacular to declare the party “destroyed” by having its constituent coalitions debate about its direction, but it’s both inaccurate and hyperbolic.

Sigh…Ed says it so much better than I do. That’s why he’s the Blog-father!

Other interesting questions and links around ’sphere:

Neo-neocon thinks some more about Bush and leadership

Dennis Clayson Two things to think about re Bush’s war and education.

Isn’t all this talk about apocalypse getting a bit boring.

Lorie Byrd has a bang-on-bang-up piece on The Clinton Reunion Tour. Is this what we wanted?

I had a feeling we would never get rid of him. When watching the inaugural ceremonies in 2001, when Bill Clinton lingered, and lingered, and lingered a bit longer, I knew that not only would he not go away, but that the media wouldn’t let him. This week the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy celebrated its ten year anniversary and the woman who coined the phrase looks poised to return with Bill Clinton to the White House. Considering how reluctant they were to leave it, it is no surprise they are fighting so hard to return. What remains to be seen is whether or not the public is ready for Clinton II.

Read it all. If any group had to make a “come back” I’d have preferred The Temptations!

EJ Dionne notes that Bill Clinton once praised Reagan, and it was much more clearly “praise” when he did it than when Obama mentioned the Gipper.

This pregnant mother of three, diagnosed with liver cancer, refused treatment and gave her son life. Probably by the time of diagnosis she was already past curing, but I’m sure some still won’t understand the heroic thing she has done. I’d like to think I would have the grace and courage to do the same, but I am always awstruck when I read such a story.

Are Democrats in Congress allowing a key intelligence element to lapse?

Can the GOP reframe the Illegal Immigration Issue?

Is Rudy DOA or is he hanging in there a bit more? Quite honestly, after the debates last night, I am putting up a RUDY sign in my front window today. It’s a leftover from his Senate campaign in 2000, but it’ll do.

You know, I might be better at this political analysis stuff than I knew. A few weeks ago I predicted Hillary’s Pre-New Hampshire Primary tears and a day later (maybe it was just the new year’s champagne) I wrote this:

Team Clinton has just given Team Obama the weapon which could well take Hillary down: mockery. Since it is unlikely that the mainstream press will ever cover the fundraising issues and shady connections that would bring down any politician other than Mrs. Clinton, her opponents cannot rely on “scandals” to whittle Mrs. Clinton down to size. Therefore, the candidate who can - by simply shining a humorous light on her own words, actions and tactics - get the country laughing at Mrs. Clinton, is the candidate who will defeat her.

Seems that the Obama campaign has come to the same conclusion:

Barack Obama has stepped up his campaign against Hillary Rodham Clinton, and he’s trying to use humor to bring her down before this weekend’s Democratic presidential caucus.
[…]
Obama began by recalling a moment in Tuesday night’s debate when he and his rivals were asked to name their biggest weakness. Obama answered first, saying he has a messy desk and needs help managing paperwork - something his opponents have since used to suggest he’s not up to managing the country. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said his biggest weakness is that he has a powerful response to seeing pain in others, and Clinton said she gets impatient to bring change to America.

“Because I’m an ordinary person, I thought that they meant, ‘What’s your biggest weakness?’” Obama said to laughter from a packed house at Rancho High School. “If I had gone last I would have known what the game was. And then I could have said, ‘Well, ya know, I like to help old ladies across the street. Sometimes they don’t want to be helped. It’s terrible.’”

“Folks, they don’t tell you what they mean!” he said. Obama chuckled at his own joke before riffing on another Clinton answer in the debate, when she said that she is happy that the bankruptcy bill she voted for in 2001 never became law.

“She says, ‘I voted for it but I was glad to see that it didn’t pass.’ What does that mean?” he asked, again drawing laughter from the crowd and himself. “No seriously, what does that mean? If you didn’t want to see it passed, then you can vote against it! People don’t say what they mean.

Oh, my. This is trouble. There is no more powerful weapon on earth than mockery founded on truth. If Obama succeeds with this, and I’m thinking with that voice, that timing and that charisma he very well may, then Hillary might be toast.

This man is no one to take lightly or toy with. And the Republicans had better pay attention to this. If the “people don’t say what they mean” meme catches on - and I do believe it may, because it is an articulation of how everyone currently feels about politics, but presented as a punchline, like “sock it to me,” or “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more” - then the GOP candidates better be ready to say what they mean or get creamed for doubletalking by an American public eager to use the new, buzzy line. Pop culture is, after all, simply the glamorous cousin of the mob mentality.

Obama finished his routine:

“Those kinds of tricks, that kind of approach to politics is what has to stop because what happens is then nobody believes anything,” Obama said. “The voters don’t believe what politicians say. They get cynical. Folks in Congress, they’ll tell you they’re looking out for you - they’re looking out for somebody else. We have to change that politics and that’s why I’m running for president.”

If any politician thinks that is not going to resonate with the American electorate, circa 2008, well…buh-bye, then.

Quick aside: Chris Matthews has apparently apologized to Hillary Clinton for saying the following, on January 8:

the reason she’s a U.S. senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around.”

His apology:

Was it fair to imply that Hillary’s whole career depending on being a victim of an unfaithful husband? No. And that’s what it sounded like I was saying

Well, it’s not what it sounded like he was saying - it was what he said. Probably what he had meant to say was something more along the lines of, “where would Hillary be without Bill Clinton? If she hadn’t married him, what would she be today, lead council for Ms. Magazine? Would she be defending Ms. Magazine for refusing an ad from Israel that didn’t follow the magazine’s narrative? Would she have any sort of political career without Bill Clinton?”

I can’t speak for Matthews, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what he meant to say. In any case, I’m not sure what it was he was supposed to apologize for - for being mean to Hillary, somehow? If implying that Hillary uses a victimhood strategy to succeed politically is hurtful to her and makes her such an victim that she needs an apology, doesn’t that sort of prove Matthews’ whole point? And if she can’t stand up to a really minor tweak from Matthews, how in heaven’s name will she be able to withstand a full-press onslaught (assuming they’d ever try one) in the manner of what President Bush has endured for the last 6 years?

I mean, I know Mrs. Clinton probably assumes - with sound reason - that she will not have a White House Press Corps demanding apologies and admissions of mistakes nearly every month, but just imagine if it does happen. What is she going to do, tell people to stop being mean to her and to apologize immediately?

Hillary gets apologized to a lot, and I don’t think it helps the public perception of her. When her minions demand apologies, and the sensitivity-challenged miscreant who displeased her does the public retraction/grovel, it doesn’t make Hillary look strong. It makes her look weak and hypersensitive, and it also makes her look remote and cold. When Elizabeth Edwards made the mistake of daring to suggest that she was a more joyful person than Mrs. Clinton, her apologetic retraction was swift, but to my way of thinking, it diminished both women by displaying their lack of artfulness, and politics is an art:

…If Mrs. Clinton had the political acumen of those who’ve gone before her - or of her husband - she might have…made a thoughtful and, if not self-deprecating, at least gracious statement, herself.
[…]
It’s not really that difficult. It takes a willingness to drop the imperiousness, think a thing through and be a little warm. Instead, Hillary did the silence, then the apology-acceptance, but she left us all with the same sense we’ve always had of her: Joyless, humorless, entitled, Godfather-esque. Kiss the ring and back out. Very good. You can go back to your little life, now, Mrs. Edwards, and when I need you, you’ll be there for me.

Can we stipulate that a president or a presidential candidate is entitled to a certain amount of respect, and that either of them should be apologized to for truly disgraceful remarks, such as Rep. Pete Stark’s recent burp that President Bush derived entertainment from the deaths of his troops. A stupid crack about race or gender might deserve an apology because it harms the society itself, but otherwise, honestly, Mrs. Clinton - and all the candidates - need to grow thicker skins.

As president, you have to live with it - you can’t shut everyone up, or spend a part of every day demanding apologies.

By the way, President Bush the big “nazi” who wants to “take away freedoms” and “silence dissent”? He’s not the one who does that. Never has been.

It’s going to be very interesting, in the day of the blog, hard-drives and alternative media, to watch how a more dictatorial president with a thinner skin will compare in the “free speech” columns, with this president. Assuming, of course, that such a one is elected.

UPDATED: I like this bit from Siggy:

A president of the United States of America must guide this nation without regard for appearances or immediate gratification or adulation. He must guide this nation based on the principles of freedom and the preservation of freedom.

A president of the United States of America must believe with every fiber of his being that ‘All men are created equal,’ not just those born here and that all people, everywhere, are best served if they are free.

The legacy of a president of the United States of America is not a list of achievements or accomplishments, but rather the health of the office he leaves. If the temporary occupant of the White House carries on the work begun by Washington or Jefferson and their successors, then the legacy is a good one. If the legacy tramples on the ideals of this ‘great experiment,’ then we are all poorer for the experience.

Great presidents are not born of the ideologies of one political party or the other. Great presidents are those who share the same values as the people they represent.

Protein Wisdom is thinking similarly to me.

As does Ann Althouse