In the annals of sexual politics and odd couples, none could ever match the possibilities of mating Maureen Dowd and Rush Limbaugh, a power pairing that would have made Mary Matalin and James Carville look like America's Sweethearts.
The image comes to mind from Dowd's column today, recounting a four-hour dinner at Manhattan's 21 Club back when she was "a reportette" and El Rushbo's puss had not yet been carved on the Mt. Rushmore of the Rabid Right.
"He was charming, in a shy, awkward, lonely-guy way," Dowd recalls. "Not a man of the people. He arrived in a chauffeured town car and ordered $70-an-ounce Beluga, Porterhouse and 1990 Corton-Charlemagne."
Just another suave type trying to look good on a first date and apparently making some headway, impressing Dowd as "not a Neanderthal, though he did have a cold and blew his nose in his napkin. He talked about Chopin’s Polonaise No. 6, C.S. Lewis and how much he loved the end of the movie 'Love Story.'"
That last should have given Dowd pause if she recalled that the heroine of the 1970 weeper is "smart and poor," falls for a guy who is "stupid and rich" and dies an early death murmuring "Love is never having to say you're sorry."
But the chemistry apparently failed, depriving the world of a match that would have made media history.
Now Dowd is hammering her might-have-been mate with rueful memories:
"At our long-ago dinner, Limbaugh credited his success with being 'one-dimensional.' 'I’m totally concerned with me,' he said. And that was way before he got a contract for $400 million, so we can only imagine how one-dimensional he is now.
"But on Sunday, he ripped the president for having 'an out-of-this-world ego,' for being 'very narcissistic,' 'immature, inexperienced, in over his head.' (Isn’t immaturity scoring OxyContin from your maid?)
"It gives new meaning to pot, kettle and black."
Ouch. Love hurts.
Showing posts with label Maureen Dowd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Maureen Dowd. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Presidential Pillow Talk
In tonight's confrontation with Congress, Barack Obama will not be sweet-talking Republicans, who are locked into a long-term temper tantrum, but the Democrats and independents who embraced him last November and expected to live happily ever after.
Maureen Dowd, as usual, puts it in quasi-sexual terms, complaining that she "always knew he was going to be trouble...He was going to be the kind of guy who whipped you up and then, when you were all excited, left you flat, and then, when you were deflated and exasperated and time was running out, ensorcelled you again with some sparkly fairy dust."
This kind of couples-therapy talk masks a deeper problem for the President who moved into the White House on a wave of romantic promises about new politics and change, only to find the honeymoon cottage falling apart and that his hopes of working together to fix it were unrealistic.
Comparing Obama's dilemma with one-party autocracy in China, Thomas Friedman says, "Our one-party democracy is worse. The fact is, on both the energy/climate legislation and health care legislation, only the Democrats are really playing. With a few notable exceptions, the Republican Party is standing, arms folded and saying 'no.' Many of them just want President Obama to fail. Such a waste. Mr. Obama is not a socialist; he’s a centrist. But if he’s forced to depend entirely on his own party to pass legislation, he will be whipsawed by its different factions."
Two years ago, Dowd foreshadowed the current crisis by asking candidate Obama, "Do you worry that you might be putting yourself on a pedestal too much? Because people also want to see you mix it up a little.”
“When I get into a tussle,” he had answered, “I want it to be over something real, not something manufactured. If someone wants to get in an argument with me, let’s argue about how we’re going to fix the health care system...”
Tonight Obama will show us how well he can "mix it up a little" in the tussle of his presidency.
Maureen Dowd, as usual, puts it in quasi-sexual terms, complaining that she "always knew he was going to be trouble...He was going to be the kind of guy who whipped you up and then, when you were all excited, left you flat, and then, when you were deflated and exasperated and time was running out, ensorcelled you again with some sparkly fairy dust."
This kind of couples-therapy talk masks a deeper problem for the President who moved into the White House on a wave of romantic promises about new politics and change, only to find the honeymoon cottage falling apart and that his hopes of working together to fix it were unrealistic.
Comparing Obama's dilemma with one-party autocracy in China, Thomas Friedman says, "Our one-party democracy is worse. The fact is, on both the energy/climate legislation and health care legislation, only the Democrats are really playing. With a few notable exceptions, the Republican Party is standing, arms folded and saying 'no.' Many of them just want President Obama to fail. Such a waste. Mr. Obama is not a socialist; he’s a centrist. But if he’s forced to depend entirely on his own party to pass legislation, he will be whipsawed by its different factions."
Two years ago, Dowd foreshadowed the current crisis by asking candidate Obama, "Do you worry that you might be putting yourself on a pedestal too much? Because people also want to see you mix it up a little.”
“When I get into a tussle,” he had answered, “I want it to be over something real, not something manufactured. If someone wants to get in an argument with me, let’s argue about how we’re going to fix the health care system...”
Tonight Obama will show us how well he can "mix it up a little" in the tussle of his presidency.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Scorned Woman Scorecard
It's definitely not Stand By Your Man Month as Mark Sanford's wife and Bernard Madoff's mistress join Elizabeth Edwards in going public to take whacks at the cheating hearts in their lives.
After throwing out her lovesick husband, Jenny Sanford is posing for Vogue and telling an interviewer that the South Carolina governor, with whom she was not "madly in love" when she married him, “has got some issues that he needs to work on, about happiness and what happiness means...I think when a lot of men get to this midpoint in life, they start asking questions that they probably should have asked a long time ago.”
Meanwhile, a book by a married woman who had a fling with him reveals that Madoff, who was a powerhouse in grabbing other people's money, including her own, was otherwise "not well endowed" and a nervous lover to boot, avoiding her embrace in a hotel elevator on their first tryst for fear of being caught by surveillance cameras.
Such comedowns follow Elizabeth Edward's book about her husband's affair while using her terminal illness as an asset in his run for president and the news this week that he is ready to admit paternity of the child he fathered with the other woman.
There is "no such thing as a private affair anymore," Maureen Dowd writes today. "We live in a transparent era atwitter with indecent exposure."
True enough, but there are compensations. We can bury once and for all, the old adage about adultery that "it's always the woman who pays." Today there is some compensation with fashion magazine interviews, appearances on Oprah and book royalties.
After throwing out her lovesick husband, Jenny Sanford is posing for Vogue and telling an interviewer that the South Carolina governor, with whom she was not "madly in love" when she married him, “has got some issues that he needs to work on, about happiness and what happiness means...I think when a lot of men get to this midpoint in life, they start asking questions that they probably should have asked a long time ago.”
Meanwhile, a book by a married woman who had a fling with him reveals that Madoff, who was a powerhouse in grabbing other people's money, including her own, was otherwise "not well endowed" and a nervous lover to boot, avoiding her embrace in a hotel elevator on their first tryst for fear of being caught by surveillance cameras.
Such comedowns follow Elizabeth Edward's book about her husband's affair while using her terminal illness as an asset in his run for president and the news this week that he is ready to admit paternity of the child he fathered with the other woman.
There is "no such thing as a private affair anymore," Maureen Dowd writes today. "We live in a transparent era atwitter with indecent exposure."
True enough, but there are compensations. We can bury once and for all, the old adage about adultery that "it's always the woman who pays." Today there is some compensation with fashion magazine interviews, appearances on Oprah and book royalties.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Disparity in Marital Smarts
That new soap opera, "The Sanfords of South Carolina" revives interest in a subject that intrigued me over decades of editing women's magazines--the sexual politics of two-career marriages.
Working with ambitious women in their twenties and thirties, I was struck by how different their lives were from the Father-knows-best ethos of earlier generations. They weren't holding jobs, as most of their mothers did, only until they could start homemaking and procreating.
In those "dormitory marriages," there were fascinating variations of relationships between equals or, human nature being what it is, unequals on either side. In many cases, the wives were much smarter, sharper and more competent.
The Sanfords look like one of those couples. In a society that still gives power more easily to men (pace Todd Palin), however, a successful woman like Jenny Sanford has to morph from a New York investment banker to a helpmeet who "largely gave up her professional life and turned to helping her husband’s political career" even as she refused "to abandon her sense of identity, her direction, or her own opinions."
His wife successfully managed campaigns for Congress and the statehouse while rearing four sons, but for Mark Sanford, such a powerhouse performance may have been hard on the libido, leaving him vulnerable to "a dashing new version of himself," as Maureen Dowd puts it, in the eyes of an exotic stranger.
Sanford's downfall is a sad example of a society that is still struggling with the idea of powerful women (Hillary Clinton supporters had a lot to say about that last year and Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings may revive the subject next month).
Without making a Joan or Arc out of Jenny Sanford (her outward perfection may have been daunting to live with), however, it seems safe to assume that her husband's disappearance from the political scene won't deprive the nation of a strong, gifted leader. If and when she dumps him, Mrs. Sanford might think about running for something herself. When it comes to brains these days, Y chromosomes don't count.
Working with ambitious women in their twenties and thirties, I was struck by how different their lives were from the Father-knows-best ethos of earlier generations. They weren't holding jobs, as most of their mothers did, only until they could start homemaking and procreating.
In those "dormitory marriages," there were fascinating variations of relationships between equals or, human nature being what it is, unequals on either side. In many cases, the wives were much smarter, sharper and more competent.
The Sanfords look like one of those couples. In a society that still gives power more easily to men (pace Todd Palin), however, a successful woman like Jenny Sanford has to morph from a New York investment banker to a helpmeet who "largely gave up her professional life and turned to helping her husband’s political career" even as she refused "to abandon her sense of identity, her direction, or her own opinions."
His wife successfully managed campaigns for Congress and the statehouse while rearing four sons, but for Mark Sanford, such a powerhouse performance may have been hard on the libido, leaving him vulnerable to "a dashing new version of himself," as Maureen Dowd puts it, in the eyes of an exotic stranger.
Sanford's downfall is a sad example of a society that is still struggling with the idea of powerful women (Hillary Clinton supporters had a lot to say about that last year and Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings may revive the subject next month).
Without making a Joan or Arc out of Jenny Sanford (her outward perfection may have been daunting to live with), however, it seems safe to assume that her husband's disappearance from the political scene won't deprive the nation of a strong, gifted leader. If and when she dumps him, Mrs. Sanford might think about running for something herself. When it comes to brains these days, Y chromosomes don't count.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Presidential Libidos
The flogging today of John Edwards in the public square, aka the New York Times, raises the question of what relevance marital fidelity has to the qualifications of an American president.
Trust and truth-telling come to mind, of course, but it gets more complicated in looking back. JFK famously cheated on his wife, while Richard Nixon, as far as we know, was a faithful husband while betraying the country.
Jimmy Carter told Playboy he "lusted in my heart" but presumably overcame his desires to become a disastrously naive president.
Uxorious Ronald Reagan, Bush I (although there were rumors) and Bush II bracketed Bill Clinton, who couldn't keep it zipped but left office with a budget surplus and no wars.
Now the Obamas, as they have in so many areas, have upped the ante on connubial bliss, often holding hands and displaying a closeness most recently reflected in their sneaking out of the White House for a dinner date last Saturday night.
But how much do we need to know about presidential marriages?
Elizabeth Edwards has dragged her husband into the spotlight for, as Maureen Dowd writes, "a gratuitous peek into their lives, and one that exposes her kids, by peddling more dregs about their personal family life in a book, and exposes the ex-girlfriend who’s now trying to raise the baby girl, a dead ringer for John Edwards, in South Orange, N.J."
We could have all lived happily ever after without hearing the details of their marital wreckage and, more to the point, is it at all relevant to voters who did not otherwise sense that John Edwards was not to be trusted, even if he had never succumbed to the stalker who told him "You're so hot"?
Trust and truth-telling come to mind, of course, but it gets more complicated in looking back. JFK famously cheated on his wife, while Richard Nixon, as far as we know, was a faithful husband while betraying the country.
Jimmy Carter told Playboy he "lusted in my heart" but presumably overcame his desires to become a disastrously naive president.
Uxorious Ronald Reagan, Bush I (although there were rumors) and Bush II bracketed Bill Clinton, who couldn't keep it zipped but left office with a budget surplus and no wars.
Now the Obamas, as they have in so many areas, have upped the ante on connubial bliss, often holding hands and displaying a closeness most recently reflected in their sneaking out of the White House for a dinner date last Saturday night.
But how much do we need to know about presidential marriages?
Elizabeth Edwards has dragged her husband into the spotlight for, as Maureen Dowd writes, "a gratuitous peek into their lives, and one that exposes her kids, by peddling more dregs about their personal family life in a book, and exposes the ex-girlfriend who’s now trying to raise the baby girl, a dead ringer for John Edwards, in South Orange, N.J."
We could have all lived happily ever after without hearing the details of their marital wreckage and, more to the point, is it at all relevant to voters who did not otherwise sense that John Edwards was not to be trusted, even if he had never succumbed to the stalker who told him "You're so hot"?
Monday, April 20, 2009
Twaddle About Obama's Toughness
Lyndon Johnson's appraisal of Richard Nixon comes to mind in the growing debate about President Obama's toughness or lack thereof.
"Not much here," said LBJ, pointing at his head. "Even less here," touching his heart, then lowering a hand to below his belt: "But enough down there."
Now there is clucking on both the Right and Left about how much Obama has "down there."
"In some of his earliest skirmishes," the New York Times worries, "Mr. Obama eventually chose pragmatism over fisticuffs" and quotes a former Clinton official: “The thing we still don’t know about him is what he is willing to fight for. The thing I worry about is that he likes giving good speeches, he likes the adulation and he likes to make people happy. It’s hard to think of a place where he’s taken a really hard position.”
Say what? Ramming through a stimulus bill and budget that could make or break his presidency? Pushing auto makers to the brink of bankruptcy if they fail to shape up? Ordering use of force to rescue an American captain in the Indian Ocean (too much, by Rush Limbaugh's lights)? Making public the torture memos (risky, says Bush's CIA chief as those on the Left complain about his refusal to prosecute former agents)?
The critics are confusing bluster with toughness. Republican Sen. John Ensign huffs, "I think it was irresponsible for the president to be seen kind of laughing and joking with Hugo Chavez" this weekend, but Obama shrugs off such posturing as politics that makes "no sense."
During the campaign, Maureen Dowd had asked Obama, "Do you worry that you might be putting yourself on a pedestal too much? Because people also want to see you mix it up a little. That’s how they judge how you’d be with Putin.”
“When I get into a tussle,” he answered, “I want it to be over something real, not something manufactured. If someone wants to get in an argument with me, let’s argue about how we’re going to fix the health care system or where we need to go on Iraq.”
Critics of all persuasions will have to learn to live with the style of a President who doesn't puff himself up as the Decider but actually goes about the hard work of making decisions by consensus if he can but unilaterally when he must.
"Not much here," said LBJ, pointing at his head. "Even less here," touching his heart, then lowering a hand to below his belt: "But enough down there."
Now there is clucking on both the Right and Left about how much Obama has "down there."
"In some of his earliest skirmishes," the New York Times worries, "Mr. Obama eventually chose pragmatism over fisticuffs" and quotes a former Clinton official: “The thing we still don’t know about him is what he is willing to fight for. The thing I worry about is that he likes giving good speeches, he likes the adulation and he likes to make people happy. It’s hard to think of a place where he’s taken a really hard position.”
Say what? Ramming through a stimulus bill and budget that could make or break his presidency? Pushing auto makers to the brink of bankruptcy if they fail to shape up? Ordering use of force to rescue an American captain in the Indian Ocean (too much, by Rush Limbaugh's lights)? Making public the torture memos (risky, says Bush's CIA chief as those on the Left complain about his refusal to prosecute former agents)?
The critics are confusing bluster with toughness. Republican Sen. John Ensign huffs, "I think it was irresponsible for the president to be seen kind of laughing and joking with Hugo Chavez" this weekend, but Obama shrugs off such posturing as politics that makes "no sense."
During the campaign, Maureen Dowd had asked Obama, "Do you worry that you might be putting yourself on a pedestal too much? Because people also want to see you mix it up a little. That’s how they judge how you’d be with Putin.”
“When I get into a tussle,” he answered, “I want it to be over something real, not something manufactured. If someone wants to get in an argument with me, let’s argue about how we’re going to fix the health care system or where we need to go on Iraq.”
Critics of all persuasions will have to learn to live with the style of a President who doesn't puff himself up as the Decider but actually goes about the hard work of making decisions by consensus if he can but unilaterally when he must.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Baby-the-Banks Bailout
Making some amends for her newspaper's hyping yesterday, Maureen Dowd, bless her salty tongue, today pistol-whips Tim Geithner's baby-the-banks bailout plan:
"The problem is that the 'lost faith' that Geithner talked about...cannot be restored as long as the taxpayers who are funding these wayward banks don’t have more control.
"Geithner is not even requiring the banks to lend in return for the $2 trillion his program will try to marshal, mostly by having the Fed print money out of thin air, thereby diluting our money, or borrowing more from China. (When, exactly, can China foreclose on us and start sending us toxic toys again?)
"There’s a weaselly feel to the plan, a sense that tough decisions were postponed even as President Obama warns about our 'perfect storm of financial problems.' The outrage is going only one way, as we pony up trillion after trillion."
This cautious approach is in striking contrast to the Obama Administration's all-in attitude toward the stimulus bill.
“If folks are still unemployed," the President told a Florida rally yesterday, "then you guys won’t employ me next time I come down here...I expect to be judged by results. I’m not going to make any excuses. If stuff hasn’t worked and people don’t feel like I’ve led the country in the right direction, then you’ll have a new president.”
Putting himself on the line this way, why is Obama unwilling to take on the banks more directly, as some of his advisers apparently wanted him to do?
Geithner's cautious, sketchy "plan" even sent Wall Street into a swoon. No one expects government to control the banks forever, but as long as taxpayers pour trillions into their greedy little hands, someone should be making sure they are keeping their sticky fingers clean.
"The problem is that the 'lost faith' that Geithner talked about...cannot be restored as long as the taxpayers who are funding these wayward banks don’t have more control.
"Geithner is not even requiring the banks to lend in return for the $2 trillion his program will try to marshal, mostly by having the Fed print money out of thin air, thereby diluting our money, or borrowing more from China. (When, exactly, can China foreclose on us and start sending us toxic toys again?)
"There’s a weaselly feel to the plan, a sense that tough decisions were postponed even as President Obama warns about our 'perfect storm of financial problems.' The outrage is going only one way, as we pony up trillion after trillion."
This cautious approach is in striking contrast to the Obama Administration's all-in attitude toward the stimulus bill.
“If folks are still unemployed," the President told a Florida rally yesterday, "then you guys won’t employ me next time I come down here...I expect to be judged by results. I’m not going to make any excuses. If stuff hasn’t worked and people don’t feel like I’ve led the country in the right direction, then you’ll have a new president.”
Putting himself on the line this way, why is Obama unwilling to take on the banks more directly, as some of his advisers apparently wanted him to do?
Geithner's cautious, sketchy "plan" even sent Wall Street into a swoon. No one expects government to control the banks forever, but as long as taxpayers pour trillions into their greedy little hands, someone should be making sure they are keeping their sticky fingers clean.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
President Robespierre
Never mind "Bonfire of the Vanities," we are getting into tumbrels-and-guillotine territory here as the peasants rise up to overthrow the 21st century corporatocracy.
Today President Obama is playing Robespierre in a 1099 Reign of Terror to slice executive compensation of bailout recipients to a paltry half a million dollars while public shaming is taking away all their Versailles excesses.
Gilded commodes, gone. Monte Carlo and Palm Beach, off limits. Maureen Dowd, playing Madame Defarge, denounces Citigroup's 18-seat jet, "posh, with a full bar, fine-wine selection, $13,000 carpets, Baccarat crystal glasses, Cristofle sterling silver flatware and--my personal favorite--pillows made from Hermès scarves."
All this "off with their heads" theater and storming of the Bastille will no doubt draw cheers, but meanwhile members of the Commune in Congress are squabbling away about how to frame the new economic order to undo the damage of Bush's let-them-eat-cake regime.
There isn't much time left for playacting.
Today President Obama is playing Robespierre in a 1099 Reign of Terror to slice executive compensation of bailout recipients to a paltry half a million dollars while public shaming is taking away all their Versailles excesses.
Gilded commodes, gone. Monte Carlo and Palm Beach, off limits. Maureen Dowd, playing Madame Defarge, denounces Citigroup's 18-seat jet, "posh, with a full bar, fine-wine selection, $13,000 carpets, Baccarat crystal glasses, Cristofle sterling silver flatware and--my personal favorite--pillows made from Hermès scarves."
All this "off with their heads" theater and storming of the Bastille will no doubt draw cheers, but meanwhile members of the Commune in Congress are squabbling away about how to frame the new economic order to undo the damage of Bush's let-them-eat-cake regime.
There isn't much time left for playacting.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Sarah Palin Steps Up
Has it only been a week? The "My Fair Lady" metaphor, footwear and all, comes full circle with Maureen Dowd's column today:
"I hope John McCain doesn’t throw his slippers at Sarah Palin’s head or get as acerbic as Henry Higgins did with Eliza Doolittle when she did not learn quickly enough. McCain’s Pygmalion has to be careful, because his Galatea might be armed with more than a sharp tongue.
"For the first time in American history, we have a 'My Fair Lady' moment, as teams of experts bustle around the most famous woman in politics, intensely coaching her for her big moment at the ball--her first unscripted interview here this week with ABC News’s Charlie Gibson."
Last Wednesday I wrote:
"With a phalanx of Henry Higginses and Col. Pickerings, Sarah Palin is being prepped for her Eliza Doolittle debut at the Republican equivalent of the Embassy Ball tonight...
"But before we enjoy the catharsis of Eliza flinging slippers at Henry Higgins, we might want to keep in mind how that climactic scene would play in the Oval Office where something more substantial than slippers might be the nearest objects at hand."
That should do it for Palin in the Shoe Department, unless someone wants to go another round with Cinderella's glass slipper. Anyone for a few words on how it feels to be in Joe Biden's boots?
"I hope John McCain doesn’t throw his slippers at Sarah Palin’s head or get as acerbic as Henry Higgins did with Eliza Doolittle when she did not learn quickly enough. McCain’s Pygmalion has to be careful, because his Galatea might be armed with more than a sharp tongue.
"For the first time in American history, we have a 'My Fair Lady' moment, as teams of experts bustle around the most famous woman in politics, intensely coaching her for her big moment at the ball--her first unscripted interview here this week with ABC News’s Charlie Gibson."
Last Wednesday I wrote:
"With a phalanx of Henry Higginses and Col. Pickerings, Sarah Palin is being prepped for her Eliza Doolittle debut at the Republican equivalent of the Embassy Ball tonight...
"But before we enjoy the catharsis of Eliza flinging slippers at Henry Higgins, we might want to keep in mind how that climactic scene would play in the Oval Office where something more substantial than slippers might be the nearest objects at hand."
That should do it for Palin in the Shoe Department, unless someone wants to go another round with Cinderella's glass slipper. Anyone for a few words on how it feels to be in Joe Biden's boots?
Sunday, August 24, 2008
A Noun, a Verb and POW
In the Democratic debates, Joe Biden famously dismissed Rudy Giuliani with: “There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11...there’s nothing else."
Now, Biden may have the chance to do the same for his Senate friend as John McCain's campaign reflexively parrots POW to any questions raised--about how many homes McCain owns, about whether or not he was in a "cone of silence" at the Saddleback Forum, even the gaffe of suggesting his wife Cindy enter the topless Miss Buffalo Chip contest.
As Maureen Dowd puts it, "His campaign is cheapening his greatest strength--and making a mockery of his already dubious claim that he’s reticent to talk about his POW experience--by flashing the POW card to rebut any criticism, no matter how unrelated. The captivity is already amply displayed in posters and TV advertisements."
Giuliani abruptly discovered a voter expiration date for cashing in on 9/11. Will McCain's campaign discover that it is, in the World War II term, "a bridge too far" from the Hanoi Hilton to the White House?
"While McCain’s experience was heroic," Dowd asks, "did it create a worldview incapable of anticipating the limits to US military power in Iraq? Did he fail to absorb the lessons of Vietnam, so that he is doomed to always want to refight it? Did his captivity inform a search-and-destroy, shoot-first-ask-questions-later, 'We are all Georgians,' mentality?"
McCain has opened the door to such questions by putting his POW experience so close to the center of his campaign. He suffered for his country three decades ago, but does that qualify him to end its pain here and abroad in 2009?
Now, Biden may have the chance to do the same for his Senate friend as John McCain's campaign reflexively parrots POW to any questions raised--about how many homes McCain owns, about whether or not he was in a "cone of silence" at the Saddleback Forum, even the gaffe of suggesting his wife Cindy enter the topless Miss Buffalo Chip contest.
As Maureen Dowd puts it, "His campaign is cheapening his greatest strength--and making a mockery of his already dubious claim that he’s reticent to talk about his POW experience--by flashing the POW card to rebut any criticism, no matter how unrelated. The captivity is already amply displayed in posters and TV advertisements."
Giuliani abruptly discovered a voter expiration date for cashing in on 9/11. Will McCain's campaign discover that it is, in the World War II term, "a bridge too far" from the Hanoi Hilton to the White House?
"While McCain’s experience was heroic," Dowd asks, "did it create a worldview incapable of anticipating the limits to US military power in Iraq? Did he fail to absorb the lessons of Vietnam, so that he is doomed to always want to refight it? Did his captivity inform a search-and-destroy, shoot-first-ask-questions-later, 'We are all Georgians,' mentality?"
McCain has opened the door to such questions by putting his POW experience so close to the center of his campaign. He suffered for his country three decades ago, but does that qualify him to end its pain here and abroad in 2009?
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The McCain-Clinton Team Goes Gold
Cancel the conventions, call off the debates and go straight to the Election Night scoreboard to see how large McCain's margin of victory has turned out to be. The pollsters and pundits are wrapping the story into a neat package: The Republicans went to school on Hillary Clinton's last-minute Obamacide and are finishing off what she started.
At last weekend's Saddleback shootout, the Democratic nominee did not pull the sound-bite trigger fast enough to gun down McCain's prefabbed POW anecdotes and pithy gates-of-hell promises to protect Americans from Osama, the Russians and whoever else is lurking out there in their paranoid fantasies.
Maureen Dowd, insightful as ever but much less funny, wraps it all up imagining a dead-of-night celebration by Hillary and Mac the Knife of their joint victory over the Senate upstart who wanted to take away the country they have been pandering so hard to take over.
We can turn our full attention to the Olympics, where the competition is keener and the judges aren't announcing the results before the contestants start their routines. Then, during the next two weeks of convention blather, we can all go to the beach and get a nice tan instead of watching political volleyball when we all know the score.
At last weekend's Saddleback shootout, the Democratic nominee did not pull the sound-bite trigger fast enough to gun down McCain's prefabbed POW anecdotes and pithy gates-of-hell promises to protect Americans from Osama, the Russians and whoever else is lurking out there in their paranoid fantasies.
Maureen Dowd, insightful as ever but much less funny, wraps it all up imagining a dead-of-night celebration by Hillary and Mac the Knife of their joint victory over the Senate upstart who wanted to take away the country they have been pandering so hard to take over.
We can turn our full attention to the Olympics, where the competition is keener and the judges aren't announcing the results before the contestants start their routines. Then, during the next two weeks of convention blather, we can all go to the beach and get a nice tan instead of watching political volleyball when we all know the score.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
The Incredibly Shrinking Former President
Day by day, Bill Clinton is inducing more nostalgia for Ronald Reagan, whose post-presidency was a dignified retreat into Alzheimer's and public silence.
As Hillary and Barack do their reconciliation dance in New Hampshire, here is the former Leader of the Free World having a temper tantrum in London, telling friends that Obama will "have to kiss my ass" to get his support for the campaign.
This charming image evokes memories of previous anatomical inappropriateness on the part of the man for whom bands used to play "Hail to the Chief" but is now, in the words of Maureen Dowd, "in a self-pitying meltdown about not being Elvis anymore, trying to shake down Obama for more--more apologies for perceived snubs and more help paying off the $22 million Clinton debt."
Even Joe Klein, who must have thought he was telling the worst about the pre-presidential Clinton in "Primary Colors," seems taken aback.
"It's time for him to get over it," Klein says "or go off and do his charitable work. He knows the rules of the road. What's going on now is kind of strange. I think his behavior is really, really shocking."
In the 2000 campaign, Al Gore was criticized for keeping Bill Clinton in the closet. At the rate the former President's stature is shrinking these days, Barack Obama would be well-advised to try to keep him out of the continent.
As Hillary and Barack do their reconciliation dance in New Hampshire, here is the former Leader of the Free World having a temper tantrum in London, telling friends that Obama will "have to kiss my ass" to get his support for the campaign.
This charming image evokes memories of previous anatomical inappropriateness on the part of the man for whom bands used to play "Hail to the Chief" but is now, in the words of Maureen Dowd, "in a self-pitying meltdown about not being Elvis anymore, trying to shake down Obama for more--more apologies for perceived snubs and more help paying off the $22 million Clinton debt."
Even Joe Klein, who must have thought he was telling the worst about the pre-presidential Clinton in "Primary Colors," seems taken aback.
"It's time for him to get over it," Klein says "or go off and do his charitable work. He knows the rules of the road. What's going on now is kind of strange. I think his behavior is really, really shocking."
In the 2000 campaign, Al Gore was criticized for keeping Bill Clinton in the closet. At the rate the former President's stature is shrinking these days, Barack Obama would be well-advised to try to keep him out of the continent.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Withdrawal Symptoms
The pundits will have to go into rehab--the TV talking heads, newspaper columnists, the bloggers who have been overdosing on Obama-Clinton for more than a year and just can't quit cold turkey.
Maureen Dowd ransacks pop culture to describe Hillary as "less Blanche than Scarlett. 'Heaven help the Yankees if they capture you,' Rhett told the willful belle at the start of her rugged odyssey.
"And heaven help the Democrats as they try to shake off Hillary. On top of her inane vows to obliterate Iran, OPEC and the summer gas tax, she plans 'a nuclear option' during her Shermanesque march to Denver...get the Florida and Michigan delegates seated."
"Is Hillary Done?" Howard Kurtz asks in the Washington Post but scrounges for evidence that she isn't after citing the New York Post headline "TOAST" and Andrew Sullivan confesses that Obama's "patriotic message tonight...moved me to my core" while noting that "African-American voters killed the Clinton candidacy."
The reluctance to let go brings back memories of what the politicians said after Eisenhower had a heart attack before his reelection in 1956: If he dies, they'll run him posthumously.
The Clinton campaign is now entering its life-after-death phase.
Maureen Dowd ransacks pop culture to describe Hillary as "less Blanche than Scarlett. 'Heaven help the Yankees if they capture you,' Rhett told the willful belle at the start of her rugged odyssey.
"And heaven help the Democrats as they try to shake off Hillary. On top of her inane vows to obliterate Iran, OPEC and the summer gas tax, she plans 'a nuclear option' during her Shermanesque march to Denver...get the Florida and Michigan delegates seated."
"Is Hillary Done?" Howard Kurtz asks in the Washington Post but scrounges for evidence that she isn't after citing the New York Post headline "TOAST" and Andrew Sullivan confesses that Obama's "patriotic message tonight...moved me to my core" while noting that "African-American voters killed the Clinton candidacy."
The reluctance to let go brings back memories of what the politicians said after Eisenhower had a heart attack before his reelection in 1956: If he dies, they'll run him posthumously.
The Clinton campaign is now entering its life-after-death phase.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Irish Eyes
After President Kennedy was killed in 1963, Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, "To be Irish is to know that in the end the world will break your heart."
Growing up in the Bronx of the 1930s, almost everyone I knew was Jewish. In our apartment building, there was one Irish family whose men sat on the front steps in summer, drinking beer and joking. As the evening went on, their smiles got wider, their talk louder. They seemed to be breathing some other air. They were as poor as the rest of us, but so full of life.
As a young man in Manhattan of the 1950s, I would go after work to Costello's, a saloon where you could breathe that "other air" with writers, editors and artists, a place John McNulty had made famous in the New Yorker. Pat Moynihan was sometimes there, wearing an outdated straw boater, but no one seemed to think it odd.
Tim Costello was our Irish godfather, keeping us happy but grounded and civil. When Frank McCourt, who later wrote "Angela's Ashes," came over as an 18-year-old immigrant, Tim sent him to the New York Public Library to read Samuel Johnson.
It was Tim's policy to help the poor but never to buy drinks for anyone who could afford to pay for his own. When someone at my bachelor party told me he was coming and bringing a case, I said that, if so, a lawyer would be handling it. Tim came, empty-handed, but his presence was honor enough.
Over the years my life has been entwined with colleagues, friends and relatives by marriage who have leavened my Jewish gloom with Irish wit and cheer, so here's a St. Patrick Day's toast to Tim Costello et al, along with a new generation of Irish-American writers of all political persuasions--Peggy Noonan, Maureen Dowd, Gail Collins, Andrew Sullivan, P.J. O'Rourke and more--who are helping keep us sane as George W. Bush breaks our hearts.
Cheers to all.
Growing up in the Bronx of the 1930s, almost everyone I knew was Jewish. In our apartment building, there was one Irish family whose men sat on the front steps in summer, drinking beer and joking. As the evening went on, their smiles got wider, their talk louder. They seemed to be breathing some other air. They were as poor as the rest of us, but so full of life.
As a young man in Manhattan of the 1950s, I would go after work to Costello's, a saloon where you could breathe that "other air" with writers, editors and artists, a place John McNulty had made famous in the New Yorker. Pat Moynihan was sometimes there, wearing an outdated straw boater, but no one seemed to think it odd.
Tim Costello was our Irish godfather, keeping us happy but grounded and civil. When Frank McCourt, who later wrote "Angela's Ashes," came over as an 18-year-old immigrant, Tim sent him to the New York Public Library to read Samuel Johnson.
It was Tim's policy to help the poor but never to buy drinks for anyone who could afford to pay for his own. When someone at my bachelor party told me he was coming and bringing a case, I said that, if so, a lawyer would be handling it. Tim came, empty-handed, but his presence was honor enough.
Over the years my life has been entwined with colleagues, friends and relatives by marriage who have leavened my Jewish gloom with Irish wit and cheer, so here's a St. Patrick Day's toast to Tim Costello et al, along with a new generation of Irish-American writers of all political persuasions--Peggy Noonan, Maureen Dowd, Gail Collins, Andrew Sullivan, P.J. O'Rourke and more--who are helping keep us sane as George W. Bush breaks our hearts.
Cheers to all.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The Ferraro Flap
Signs of social progress can come in strange disguises, as the first woman to run for Vice President embarrasses Hillary Clinton with asinine remarks about Barack Obama.
Geraldine Ferraro, who, as Maureen Dowd points out, "helped Walter Mondale lose 49 states in 1984, was clearly stung at what she considered Obama’s easy rise to celebrity and electoral success.
"Last Friday, Ms. Ferraro, who is on Hillary’s national finance committee, told...a small newspaper in Torrance, Calif.: 'If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.'”
Sen. Clinton, of course, quickly disavowed her role model's remarks, but the heartening aspect of all this is the demonstration that old-pol foolishness has crossed the gender barrier.
Ferraro, who now labors as a lobbyist, was considered a daring choice for VP in the Democratic debacle to prevent Reagan's reelection, and she acquitted herself well in debating Bush I, even though he afterward was overheard by an open mike bragging that he had "kicked ass."
She encountered a little sexist flak when her husband balked at releasing his tax returns, a precursor of Hillary's woes over spousal behavior, which makes Ferraro's sensitivity about breaking barriers more understandable.
Now here she is, hurdling another one in forthrightly declaring her resentment over how easy it is for an African-American man to win over voters compared to those deep-rooted prejudices against women.
Geraldine Ferraro is still involved in kicking ass but, as the kicker, she may be hitting the wrong target.
Geraldine Ferraro, who, as Maureen Dowd points out, "helped Walter Mondale lose 49 states in 1984, was clearly stung at what she considered Obama’s easy rise to celebrity and electoral success.
"Last Friday, Ms. Ferraro, who is on Hillary’s national finance committee, told...a small newspaper in Torrance, Calif.: 'If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.'”
Sen. Clinton, of course, quickly disavowed her role model's remarks, but the heartening aspect of all this is the demonstration that old-pol foolishness has crossed the gender barrier.
Ferraro, who now labors as a lobbyist, was considered a daring choice for VP in the Democratic debacle to prevent Reagan's reelection, and she acquitted herself well in debating Bush I, even though he afterward was overheard by an open mike bragging that he had "kicked ass."
She encountered a little sexist flak when her husband balked at releasing his tax returns, a precursor of Hillary's woes over spousal behavior, which makes Ferraro's sensitivity about breaking barriers more understandable.
Now here she is, hurdling another one in forthrightly declaring her resentment over how easy it is for an African-American man to win over voters compared to those deep-rooted prejudices against women.
Geraldine Ferraro is still involved in kicking ass but, as the kicker, she may be hitting the wrong target.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
The Two Bill Clintons
Soon after he moved into the White House, Bill Clinton was tagged by Maureen Dowd as the first president who was still social-climbing.
After more than two decades of Republican rule, interrupted only by an ineffectual Jimmy Carter, Democrats were exhilarated in 1993 at the prospect of restoring the momentum toward a Great Society that had come to a dead stop after LBJ was undone by Vietnam. Even the early fiasco over health care reform was a sign that the new man cared.
But there was always another Bill Clinton, a Gennifer Flowers-chasing, low-rent undercurrent to his character that emerged to give Newt Gingrich and his merry men an opening for impeachment that hobbled the last years of the second Clinton term.
Then, for almost seven years of his post-presidency, we saw only the good Bill Clinton again, going all over the world to raise awareness and money to help the wretched of the world.
Now, in his wife's campaign for the nomination, here comes the other guy, trash-talking about Barack Obama and squabbling with reporters like a precinct pol rather than a former President of the United States.
Armchair psychology suggests he may be trying to over-compensate Hillary Clinton for the Lewinsky humiliation, but his behavior is not helping her campaign, only highlighting the difference between what he is doing and the dignified reticence of George H. W. Bush during his son's run in 2000.
What's even worse is that all this may giving voters pause at the prospect of having the two Bill Clintons back in the White House.
After more than two decades of Republican rule, interrupted only by an ineffectual Jimmy Carter, Democrats were exhilarated in 1993 at the prospect of restoring the momentum toward a Great Society that had come to a dead stop after LBJ was undone by Vietnam. Even the early fiasco over health care reform was a sign that the new man cared.
But there was always another Bill Clinton, a Gennifer Flowers-chasing, low-rent undercurrent to his character that emerged to give Newt Gingrich and his merry men an opening for impeachment that hobbled the last years of the second Clinton term.
Then, for almost seven years of his post-presidency, we saw only the good Bill Clinton again, going all over the world to raise awareness and money to help the wretched of the world.
Now, in his wife's campaign for the nomination, here comes the other guy, trash-talking about Barack Obama and squabbling with reporters like a precinct pol rather than a former President of the United States.
Armchair psychology suggests he may be trying to over-compensate Hillary Clinton for the Lewinsky humiliation, but his behavior is not helping her campaign, only highlighting the difference between what he is doing and the dignified reticence of George H. W. Bush during his son's run in 2000.
What's even worse is that all this may giving voters pause at the prospect of having the two Bill Clintons back in the White House.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
If Bill Had Been Faithful to Hillary...
How different would the American political landscape look today?
The question is raised anew by the sight of the former President taking over the spotlight to try to save his wife's candidacy with trademark meaning-of-is-is talk about Obama's inexperience and his own opposition to the war in Iraq from the get-go.
"Maybe," Maureen Dowd suggests, "the Boy Who Can’t Help Himself is simply engaging in his usual patterns of humiliating Hillary and lighting an exploding cigar when things are going well."
The conjugal question comes up, too, in the new issue of Newsweek. Sally Bedell Smith, author of a book about the Clinton marriage, writes about the health-car debacle in 1993: "When Bill tried to make the plan more flexible, he had to defer to her, in part because of their implicit marital bargain, in which Bill ceded her power as a trade-off for his history of infidelity."
It's impossible to talk about Bill Clinton's character without running into a polarizing political buzz saw--vast right-wing conspiracy vs. moral depravity in the Oval Office--but the connection between the impeachment, the failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in the late 1990s and Al Gore's narrow defeat in 2000 are too important to be swept into the dust bin of history, particularly with the prospect of both Clintons returning to the White House.
Today's New York Times notes that "during one of President Bill Clinton’s major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Mrs. Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal sizzled."
A year ago, the former President reacted with fury to a TV mini-series portraying him as so distracted then that he failed to focus on the emerging threat of Osama bin Laden. Yet, the program's advisor was 9/11 Commission chairman Tom Kean, and there is evidence that Clinton might have done more about bin Laden if not for fear of public reaction that attacking him might be seen as a "wag the dog" diversion from the impeachment.
Replaying Bill Clinton's record as a serially straying husband would be mean-spirited and pointless now if his wife were not now claiming spousal experience as justification and preparation for her own presidency.
But, in that light, it's not only proper but necessary to ask, how different might our lives be today if Bill Clinton had managed to be a faithful husband during those White House years? And what kind of distraction could he be if voters sent the Clintons back there for another four years?
The question is raised anew by the sight of the former President taking over the spotlight to try to save his wife's candidacy with trademark meaning-of-is-is talk about Obama's inexperience and his own opposition to the war in Iraq from the get-go.
"Maybe," Maureen Dowd suggests, "the Boy Who Can’t Help Himself is simply engaging in his usual patterns of humiliating Hillary and lighting an exploding cigar when things are going well."
The conjugal question comes up, too, in the new issue of Newsweek. Sally Bedell Smith, author of a book about the Clinton marriage, writes about the health-car debacle in 1993: "When Bill tried to make the plan more flexible, he had to defer to her, in part because of their implicit marital bargain, in which Bill ceded her power as a trade-off for his history of infidelity."
It's impossible to talk about Bill Clinton's character without running into a polarizing political buzz saw--vast right-wing conspiracy vs. moral depravity in the Oval Office--but the connection between the impeachment, the failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in the late 1990s and Al Gore's narrow defeat in 2000 are too important to be swept into the dust bin of history, particularly with the prospect of both Clintons returning to the White House.
Today's New York Times notes that "during one of President Bill Clinton’s major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Mrs. Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal sizzled."
A year ago, the former President reacted with fury to a TV mini-series portraying him as so distracted then that he failed to focus on the emerging threat of Osama bin Laden. Yet, the program's advisor was 9/11 Commission chairman Tom Kean, and there is evidence that Clinton might have done more about bin Laden if not for fear of public reaction that attacking him might be seen as a "wag the dog" diversion from the impeachment.
Replaying Bill Clinton's record as a serially straying husband would be mean-spirited and pointless now if his wife were not now claiming spousal experience as justification and preparation for her own presidency.
But, in that light, it's not only proper but necessary to ask, how different might our lives be today if Bill Clinton had managed to be a faithful husband during those White House years? And what kind of distraction could he be if voters sent the Clintons back there for another four years?
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
The Presidency as Dating Game
In her New York Times columns, Maureen Dowd has two recurring themes--the White House and the romantic woes of modern women.
Today she brings all the clichés about both together in relating Hillary Clinton's campaign to a new study showing the same old stereotypes: Men like women who are smart and successful, but not more so than themselves, and preferably with hour-glass figures (because, another "scientific" study suggests, "hips plumped up by omega-3 fatty acids could mean smarter women bearing smarter kids.")
So women still have to play down their smarts and success "to bolster the egos of the men they date.”
In the Clinton-era movie, "The American President," which led to the TV series, "West Wing," a widower in the Oval Office falls hard for a sexy, super-smart lobbyist and finds his approval ratings in free fall as a result. But love conquers all when he comes to his senses and gets macho over saving the environment and outlawing hand guns.
All good clean fun, but Hillary Clinton is not running for calendar girl or movie star so it might be a good idea to stow all the talk about dating, pants suits and cleavage for a while to concentrate on slightly more relevant issues, like present and future wars, the economy, health care and such.
If Ms. Dowd thinks Hillary is pushy and Barack is a stud, maybe she should tell it to her diary, not the rest of us.
Today she brings all the clichés about both together in relating Hillary Clinton's campaign to a new study showing the same old stereotypes: Men like women who are smart and successful, but not more so than themselves, and preferably with hour-glass figures (because, another "scientific" study suggests, "hips plumped up by omega-3 fatty acids could mean smarter women bearing smarter kids.")
So women still have to play down their smarts and success "to bolster the egos of the men they date.”
In the Clinton-era movie, "The American President," which led to the TV series, "West Wing," a widower in the Oval Office falls hard for a sexy, super-smart lobbyist and finds his approval ratings in free fall as a result. But love conquers all when he comes to his senses and gets macho over saving the environment and outlawing hand guns.
All good clean fun, but Hillary Clinton is not running for calendar girl or movie star so it might be a good idea to stow all the talk about dating, pants suits and cleavage for a while to concentrate on slightly more relevant issues, like present and future wars, the economy, health care and such.
If Ms. Dowd thinks Hillary is pushy and Barack is a stud, maybe she should tell it to her diary, not the rest of us.
Monday, October 22, 2007
The Comedy Central Campaign
Stephen Colbert, who is no Jon Stewart, is beginning to give irony a bad name. On Meet the Press yesterday he proved that (a) there is no way of parodying the jokers who are running for President in ’08 and (b) that putting on Tim Russert is too easy--politicians have been doing it for years.
Colbert told him he is running because “I think our country is facing unprecedented challenges in the future. And I think that the junctures that we face are both critical and unforeseen, and the real challenge is how we will respond to these junctures, be they unprecedented or unforeseen, or, God help us, critical.”
John Edwards or Mitt Romney could not have said it better, and they undoubtedly have.
The Sunday before, Maureen Dowd took a day off and let Colbert write her New York Times column. His sly wit made a reader long for Dowd’s invective.
About Hillary Clinton, he wrote, “I can’t remember if I’m supposed to be scared of her so Democrats will think they should nominate her when she’s actually easy to beat, or if I’m supposed to be scared of her because she’s legitimately scary.
“Or Rudy Giuliani. I can’t remember if I’m supposed to support him because he’s the one who can beat Hillary if she gets nominated, or if I’m supposed to support him because he’s legitimately scary.”
The Presidential candidates are doing a great job of making fools of themselves. They don’t need professional help.
Colbert told him he is running because “I think our country is facing unprecedented challenges in the future. And I think that the junctures that we face are both critical and unforeseen, and the real challenge is how we will respond to these junctures, be they unprecedented or unforeseen, or, God help us, critical.”
John Edwards or Mitt Romney could not have said it better, and they undoubtedly have.
The Sunday before, Maureen Dowd took a day off and let Colbert write her New York Times column. His sly wit made a reader long for Dowd’s invective.
About Hillary Clinton, he wrote, “I can’t remember if I’m supposed to be scared of her so Democrats will think they should nominate her when she’s actually easy to beat, or if I’m supposed to be scared of her because she’s legitimately scary.
“Or Rudy Giuliani. I can’t remember if I’m supposed to support him because he’s the one who can beat Hillary if she gets nominated, or if I’m supposed to support him because he’s legitimately scary.”
The Presidential candidates are doing a great job of making fools of themselves. They don’t need professional help.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Obama's Wrong Turn?
From the start, the biggest hazard for Barack Obama has been the inevitable “professionalization” of his campaign.
Obama came on the scene last year as a phenomenon, a “rock star” in the dopey shorthand of jaded political observers. Authenticity was his biggest asset, offering candor and thoughtful responses rather than sound bites as well as an attitude of respectful disagreement, even with the Bush Administration, rather than pugnacity. Obama’s avowed aim was to reject "the smallness of our politics" and "scoring cheap political points."
Early in the year, in the brouhaha over David Geffen’s calling the Clintons liars, the Clinton and Obama staffs started to mix it up, but Obama shut down the shouting match.
Maureen Dowd of the New York Times chided him: “I know you want to run a high-minded campaign, but do you worry that you might be putting yourself on a pedestal too much? Because people also want to see you mix it up a little. That’s how they judge how you’d be with Putin.”
“When I get into a tussle,” he answered, “I want it to be over something real, not something manufactured. If someone wants to get in an argument with me, let’s argue about how we’re going to fix the health care system or where we need to go on Iraq.”
Five months later, Obama is in a “manufactured” brawl after Hillary Clinton scored a rhetorical point in this week’s debate by making him seem too eager to meet adversarial heads of state without adequate preparation.
Instead of shrugging off her comments as too obvious to require rebuttal, Obama took the bait and is now in free fall off his pedestal. Today he accused Clinton of wanting to continue the "Bush doctrine" of only speaking to leaders of rogue nations who first meet conditions laid out by the U. S. and suggesting that being "trapped by a lot of received wisdom" led Congress, including Clinton, to authorize the war in Iraq.
Maureen Dowd and his more rabid admirers may be happy to see Obama on the attack, but the question arises of whether he is squandering his erstwhile uniqueness over a non-issue.
If he gets too far into “the smallness of our politics” and “scoring cheap political points,” what may be left is just another politician, and a not very experienced one at that.
Obama came on the scene last year as a phenomenon, a “rock star” in the dopey shorthand of jaded political observers. Authenticity was his biggest asset, offering candor and thoughtful responses rather than sound bites as well as an attitude of respectful disagreement, even with the Bush Administration, rather than pugnacity. Obama’s avowed aim was to reject "the smallness of our politics" and "scoring cheap political points."
Early in the year, in the brouhaha over David Geffen’s calling the Clintons liars, the Clinton and Obama staffs started to mix it up, but Obama shut down the shouting match.
Maureen Dowd of the New York Times chided him: “I know you want to run a high-minded campaign, but do you worry that you might be putting yourself on a pedestal too much? Because people also want to see you mix it up a little. That’s how they judge how you’d be with Putin.”
“When I get into a tussle,” he answered, “I want it to be over something real, not something manufactured. If someone wants to get in an argument with me, let’s argue about how we’re going to fix the health care system or where we need to go on Iraq.”
Five months later, Obama is in a “manufactured” brawl after Hillary Clinton scored a rhetorical point in this week’s debate by making him seem too eager to meet adversarial heads of state without adequate preparation.
Instead of shrugging off her comments as too obvious to require rebuttal, Obama took the bait and is now in free fall off his pedestal. Today he accused Clinton of wanting to continue the "Bush doctrine" of only speaking to leaders of rogue nations who first meet conditions laid out by the U. S. and suggesting that being "trapped by a lot of received wisdom" led Congress, including Clinton, to authorize the war in Iraq.
Maureen Dowd and his more rabid admirers may be happy to see Obama on the attack, but the question arises of whether he is squandering his erstwhile uniqueness over a non-issue.
If he gets too far into “the smallness of our politics” and “scoring cheap political points,” what may be left is just another politician, and a not very experienced one at that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)