-
sponsorship
It's funny, Samantha, because when I read Barbara and Jenna Bush's letter to Sasha and Malia, I scoffed at the latter part of the sentence, "Our dad, like yours, is a man of great integrity and love; a man who always put us first." Really? The president of the United States always put his children first? I have no ability to assess the parenting skills of Bush or Obama, but I think that being president necessarily entails putting the country before your children. I don't know how to answer Samantha's question of whether it's a worthwhile trade for the parents or the children, and I can only thank the people who are willing to give up so much to serve the United States, but the assertion that the president always puts his (or, someday, her) children first strikes me as impossible. I think the president gives up that ability when he takes the oath of office.
-
sponsorship
Susannah, I'm surprised at you: Can't you see how much we've accomplished in Iraq, that Bushie was pelted with shoes and not IEDs? ("We will be hailed as liberators. They will throw flowers. Or boots; stuff happens.'') Can you imagine footwear flying at any other world leader, and the only response being laughter all around the world? I am for peaceful demonstrations, and in these tough economic times would not waste any Louboutins on our soon-to-be ex. But used Payless sandals, maybe, left in front of the White House? Barefoot for Bush could really catch on.
-
sponsorship
Pipeline points out that a pair of women's spiked Louboutins would have made for a better shoe-weapon to be hurled at Bush in Iraq, rather than a simple pair of men's loafers. They suggest a Burberry studded heel or Louboutin for Rodarte with gold spikes, although I, myself, might have selected an Alexander McQueen's crystal-heeled boot for its goring potential. Elsewhere, Fighting Liberals suggests sending your old shoes to the George W. Bush Presidential Library, and Boing Boing has a roundup of amusing Shoegate GIFs.
-
sponsorship
Ann, don't you love how we've all turned into headhunters for Hillary, eager to pitch in and help her locate just the right job? State wouldn't be the best possible platform for her diplomatic and managerial skill set. But Hillary as war czar isn't quite the ticket, either. (Because nearly everything reminds me of a scene from a musical, what I'm thinking is "May God bless and keep the czar ... far away from us.'' In the Senate, for example.) Obama has created a problem for himself by dangling a major cabinet post as an option; if he doesn't offer it to her now, her partisans won't be happy. But it would be even worse to begin his bright new day in Washington with a confirmation hearing starring all the ghosts of Clinton scandals past. And Defense doesn't work as a Hillary landing pad any better than State does; her initial and lingering poor judgment on Iraq wasn't a plus in any way. Where did rewarding those who were wrong about the war ever get us? Truly, I never followed the '04 reasoning of those who argued that since Bush made the mess, he should be the guy on cleanup. During the run-up to the war, I remember talking to a top Clinton foreign policy person who patiently explained to me that, in fact, the Clinton and Bush administration's views vis-à-vis Saddam and invading and coalition-building were just not that different: "Together if we can, alone if we must.'' Which is why Clinton at DoD would not be different enough for me.
-
sponsorship
It wasn't at the top of my mind, but I did wonder how the incumbent would respond last night—just as I've found myself wondering over the last two months what it could possibly feel like to be a sitting president whose eight years are now almost universally prefaced by the adjective "disastrous." Bush's opponents use it, and so do his supporters, and even if he never reads any newspapers—and seems barricaded out of sight these days—it's hard to believe he has been insulated from the devastating verdict.
Yet to carry on, I suppose he has to be, on some level, deaf to it and to the drama of a succession that is about, front and center, his own failure. Certainly his congratulatory message to Obama last night sounded singularly out of tune—and not just because it was a night on which the candidates themselves so eloquently captured the spirit of historic significance. "What an awesome night for you, your family, and your supporters. You are about to go on one of the great journeys of life. Congratulations and go enjoy yourself.'' From the adolescent "awesome" to the self-actualizing bromides to the flippant "go enjoy yourself" (what phrase did he really have mind?), the well-wishing was unsettlingly off-pitch. So off-pitch that I wonder if we could be hearing the deep bitterness of a man belatedly aware of how derailed his own journey has been.
But-how disorienting is this: We don't have to think about him anymore.
-
sponsorship
Like W., I squint when I'm puzzlin' -- and so have whole new frown lines from trying to make sense of the McCain-Palin game plan. Last night, though, while watching Saturday Night Live, the light finally dawned: They have either a) totally given up; b) lack the common sense God gave a moose (a creature that will forget you are there if you duck behind a tree for three seconds); or c) have a vice-presidential nominee more interested in her close-up than in closing the deal with voters.
Only that last one would explain how much Palin was enjoying grooving on TV while Amy Poehler did the "Sarah Palin rap,'' to lyrics like "I'm Jeremiah Wright cuz tonight I'm the preacha, I got a bookish look and you all hot for teacha.'' For me, this shined a whole new (softer, but also dimmer) light on all her mugging and smiling while whipping crowds up with hateful distortions about Barack Obama. Because there she was, mugging and smiling while Poehler stopped just short of grabbing her crotch, Eminem style, and rapped that McCain's "smile be creepy.'' So...maybe girlfriend just likes the camera? Like you, Emily, I was squirming through the whole first skit, too -- only I was thinking oh, how demeaning for Alec Baldwin.
Remember when Al and Tipper Gore did that hot tub skit on SNL - and how clear that made it that he really wasn't going to run in ‘04? I had that same feeling watching Palin - that no one who thought they had a serious shot would be so comfy so far over the line.
-
sponsorship
Please tell me that this conversation re: the "small-town mentality'' and presumption of intellect based on proximity to the great minds of the Ivy League is some kind of parody; the whole smarter-than-thou thing is part of why people at those McCain-Palin rallies are so angry. (Well, that and the shameless fear-mongering.) It's why the GOP's Lee Greenwood and pork rinds schtick stuck—and why until the disaster of the Bush years, the little guy had been trending Republican for quite some time. What I never understand is why smart people don't see that, so feel free to fill me in.
I don't agree with Palin on most matters, or think her qualified for the presidency, but why would I assume that's because she "never heard of the books that Bush didn't bother to read'' or surrounds herself with those "just dumb as her''? Those who knew young Sarah, the teacher's daughter, in fact remember her as a voracious reader. (And dumb as she we too can be; misunderestimating her is a whopping error, and one we should have learned to steer clear of by now.) Anti-intellectualism and elitism are both unattractive, but only one of them is damaging the Democratic Party.
-
sponsorship
Juliet,
I think this is going to turn out to be a real crisis moment for the conservative movement. The difference between Palin and Bush is: He was just pretending to be regular folk from the heartland, whereas she actually is. Bush was perfect for the conservative movement. (As was Reagan, in a different way.) Bush could masterfully pull off the act of being a struck-by-the-light evangelical from Texas. But the Buckleys and the Frums and the Brookses of the world all knew that actually, he was safe--an Ivy Leaguer from the landed gentry who was just playing a necessary role.
Palin, on the other hand, really tests this faux populism the party leaders have been peddling for so long. Now, the elder Buckley's test--faculty of Harvard or first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book--is real. Palin comes from the latter category, and it ain't looking pretty.
Before his column today, Brooks told a luncheon crowd that Palin was a fatal cancer on the Republican Party. A week earlier, he'd praised her debate performance as fluid, confident, energetic--piled on the compliments. Either he is just hoping for the best and can't make up his mind. Or he said at a private luncheon what he really believes. Either way it seems the movement is headed for a brain freeze, as all its best thinkers desert.
-
sponsorship
Juliet,
I hate to be in the position of defending President Bush, especially when it comes to his level of intelligence, but I have to say I disagree that he and Sarah Palin are cut from the same aptitude cloth. As you noted, Bush does have more executive experience, (He actually came into office after having been governor of Texas for two consecutive four-year terms.) but beyond experience I think the two have other fundamental differences. Despite his narrow-mindedness, his inability to admit mistakes, his mangling of the English language, and his not always being able to communicate effectively to the public, Bush can on occasion string together coherent sentences. I also get the sense that he does understand complex policy issues even if he's not good at articulating or managing them. I know he was a C student (and so was John McCain, by the way), but the man did go to Harvard and Yale, even if it was by way of a legacy acceptance. And even if he spent most of his time in college boozing and cheerleading, he had to have learned something at these institutions even if it was through osmosis/diffusion by being around all those great minds.
Bush also comes from a political family and understands politics on a much more sophisticated level than Palin. Judging from news reports about Palin's administration, she is clearly a lightweight with a very small town mentality who, instead of surrounding herself with people smarter than herself (which would have been the intelligent thing to do), surrounded herself with friends who are--how shall we say it delicately?--just as dumb as her. (Think of Palin's agriculture secretary who said her love of cows qualified her for the job.) Bush's team was dangerously ideological, wrongheaded on so many issues, and not good for the country, but no one can argue that they weren't smart and well-educated. I don't get the sense that Palin can grasp complex policy issues. I think Bush understands full well what's happening with the economy; I don't think Palin does.
Though I may disagree with Bush's worldview, at least he has a worldview. He understood immigration coming into the White House, he knew a bit about Latino culture, he tried to learn a little Spanish. He knows a handful of people of color and even put some of them in his Cabinet. What gives me pause about Palin is not her limited executive experience, it's her limited education (six colleges before she finally got a degree), her almost absent worldview, the fact that she has not traveled anywhere (gassing up in Ireland notwithstanding), and has not been around a whole lot of people different from herself. For god sakes last weekend she spoke of "our neighboring country of Afghanistan." And just because she can deliver prepared zingers at debates and rallies like a pro, I don't believe for a minute that her dismal interview performances were isolated events. What's worse is that she believes the Republican hype about herself and that is the ultimate example her lack of self-awareness. I think part of being intelligent is knowing your shortcomings and limitations, and being able to admit what you don't know, and what you're not qualified to do. Palin doesn't have a clue.
We in the "liberal media" are always accused of condescending to the conservatives and smearing them for being all of one mind, I'm actually glad to see that some of them have not drank the Kool-Aid and are thinking out of the box and, dare we say it, acting on principle instead of politics.
-
sponsorship
Kathleen Parker says her fellow conservative Sarah Palin has exhausted her cringe reflex, and I hear her on that. Mine has been overtaxed for years. Remember the presidential debate for which some malevolent (or high, maybe?) makeup artist painted Al Gore orange? In the privacy of my living room, I listened to most of that one with my sweatshirt pulled up over my eyes because it was too painful to watch. At the first presidential debate in '04, in Miami, I even had to look away from George W., about whom I am not aware of ever having had an admiring thought, because watching him flounder around babbling that being president, well, "it's hard work ... it's hard work ... it's hard work'' just felt cruel. So am I hoping that both Palin and Joe Biden do well enough tonight that I won't have to avert my eyes? No, because my comfort level isn't the point; their competence is. No, because even the most lopsided debate can help the perceived loser more than the supposed winner; there are no straight lines between cause and effect in politics, which I have to admit is part of the attraction, warped as that may be. No, because women have the same right to be underprepared that men have always had. And no, because voters make me even more nervous than candidates do, so whatever happens tonight is still just the prelims.
-
sponsorship
Update: As it turns out, Sarah Palin didn't actually visit Iraq - but she did see it, from Kuwait, just like she sees Russia from Alaska. (Hey, I saw Margot Fonteyn once - in Paris! Didn't make me a ballerina.) As the Boston Globe reported today, that whole been-to-Iraq thing was even more of a stretch than counting Ireland among the countries she's visited because her plane stopped there to refuel.
Know what, though? Even recognizing that McCain is an awfully high-mileage 72, I don't know how many McCain-Palin supporters will be put off by her lack of experience out in the world. And while I'm sure you're right, Rosa, to doubt whether Palin could pass a Foreign Service Exam, it will be interesting to see whether, even after everything we've been through, voters really care.
They were perfectly aware that Gore knew more than Bush. (In fact, I'm not kidding when I say that compared to Bush in '99, Palin was a regular Madeleine Albright with Charlie Gibson.) Yet voters held that against the know-it-all in the race, rather than the know-nothing. In '04, Kerry lost more points for speaking French than Bush did for knowing so little about the country we were about to invade that it was news to him that Sunnis and Shiites were from two different sects. ("I thought the Iraqis were Muslims,'' he said when this was pointed out to him, shortly before we went in. Which has nothing to do with intelligence; it's what comes of not caring enough to bother to learn.) After eight years of living with the result of such callousness, will we hold Palin to a higher standard? Perhaps so. But with familiarity about the world beyond our borders still considered suspect, put me down as not so sure.
-
sponsorship
It's not just the foreign policy chops; he brings some blood (and flab!) and jaw-flapping to a sometimes too-cool-for-school campaign. Voters actually liked it when Bush tripped over his own tongue; when he failed in his battle with blurting, they could relate, and that is the beauty of the Biden choice: He's got the smarts, the experience, and without question could be president. (In fact, watching the Democratic debates during primary season, I always thought that a viewer who came to the exercise cold would have assumed Biden was the front-runner.) But he also brings the humanity that Democrats have not always seen as important. It is.
Though no one has a more heart-breaking personal narrative than he—his first wife and their baby daughter died in a car accident soon after he was elected to the Senate—he sure never talked about it during primary season, showing an Irish Catholic restraint that will be familiar to a lot of the voters Obama needs to win over. And his working-class roots aren't just nice; they're why I fully expect him to know how to play rough and be plenty comfortable in the role of bad cop, taking on the Republican ticket in a way the candidate himself cannot. A guy who commutes home on public transpo every day taking on Mr. Can't Keep Track of His Houses? As we say in the Democratic Party, pas de probleme.
-
sponsorship
Go, Ruth! In her column in the Post this morning, she says there isn't a wife in the world who doesn't want to slap "99 percent'' Honest John Edwards silly right about now. And on account of the senator's perfidy, are husbands across the land enduring conversations about what kind of dumb you'd have to be to fall for that "in my eyes, you are Gandhi'' silliness? But here's a question: Do we really know anything about John Edwards' vanity, hubris, and self-indulgence now that we didn't know after the $400 haircut he expensed to his campaign? I still say every canyon in Bill Clinton's moral landscape was mapped out in the New Yorker piece on how he let a mentally disabled man—so uncomprehending he saved the cherry pie from his last meal for later—be executed to prove how tough he was and distract from revelations about Gennifer Flowers. And was there any question at all about George W. Bush's capacity for empathy that was not answered by Tucker Carlson's piece about him having a good old time imitating Carla Faye Tucker's pleas that he spare her life? There are plenty of unsexy windows into virtue, too: When I spent some time around Kofi Annan for a profile, the detail that spoke to me most clearly about his character was that he was exactly the same with waiters and clerks as with heads of state. People tell us who they are every day, often even when fully clothed.
-
sponsorship
Now this is interesting: Obama might pick a Republican woman as his running mate. It's hard to know how seriously to take a trial balloon like this; some of the people rounding out these lists are obviously there for courtesy's sake, or in the hope of attracting some of his or her supporters on the cheap. (And Sen. McCain, sir, if you are really considering that Joe Lieberman fella, I know someone you should speak to without delay—a guy you used to work with, actually. Joementum notwithstanding, I'm not sure he will hold up under pressure, is what I'm saying.)
If Obama did choose former Bush ag secretary Ann Veneman, who served during W's first term before going to work for UNICEF, it would definitely send a great message about bringing Americans together. Maybe it would close the sale with those Hillary fans who are still playing footsie with McCain, and draw in some independents, too. But according to Politico, Veneman "was close to food and agriculture industries'' and "clashed with farm-state Democrats and environmentalists,'' and I'm not sure how many people would view the selection of an anti-enviro, pro-industry Bush retread as the kind of "fundamental change'' he is promising. Wonder if Caroline Kennedy is considering putting herself in contention, as Dick Cheney did when he ran Bush's vet-the-veep team?
-
sponsorship
If Obama is really lucky, Jesse Jackson will curse him every day from now until November—and keep right on apologizing. The candidate himself shouldn't issue any more needless apologies, though, as he sort of did in second-guessing his decision to let his little girls be interviewed on television. It's easy to understand how he came to that conclusion, though his girls were nothing but charming. But as LBJ said, Americans will forgive you anything except looking weak. For a long time, they loved it that Bush never seemed to second-guess himself on anything. And though I happen to think the ability to admit a mistake is a sign of strength, Obama should do nothing to validate the Republican suggestion that he's got a little Jimmy Carter in him.
-
sponsorship
Just received this e-mail from a friend, a Washington lawyer who is a lifelong Democrat and a generous donor to the party. She supported Hillary in the primary and is undecided about what she'll do in November:
I just read your XX column, and I wanted to share a couple thoughts. Even though Hillary characterized her campaign as a big feminist movement in her exit speech, I'm not sure all her supporters saw it that way. I also think the risk of defection to McCain is very real, and not limited to uneducated, working class types. Just in my office, I know 6-7 women, all lifelong Democrats from VA who are now planning to vote for McCain. They are all highly educated people who follow politics closely, and a couple even worked for Dems on the Hill at one point or another. The decision to defect to McCain has nothing to do with Hillary as a woman or Obama's personality. They like Obama enough as a person, but they think he's an empty suit—rhetoric with little record behind it. Even if they agree more with Obama's positions, it seems risky to put such an inexperienced person in the White House—especially after what happened last time. I think the media misses this. It is not all about feminism.
Having said that, I know there is a bit of truth to the feminist argument. I also know a strong, pro-choice Democrat from Maryland—someone who regularly hosts NARAL dinners—who is defecting to McCain, even though she understands his views on abortion. I doubt if this woman ever even voted for any Republican before in her whole life, and she just contributed to McCain's campaign. Truly amazing! I think Obama will have a real problem in the Electoral College if he does not find a way to reach out to the people who voted against him—for whatever reason. For now, I'm undecided and I'm planning on staying that way for a while. My big issue is the economy and both Obama and McCain are weak in that area, so it probably doesn't matter much.
I answered her that the experience issue doesn't resonate with me, especially as Cheney and Rummy had been around since the last ice age, and where did that get us? Hillary has been in the Senate only four years longer than Obama: big whoop. If you count his time in the Illinois Senate, he's actually had more experience as an elected official. (And while of course her experience as first lady counts for something, would we give Laura Bush full credit for those years—even though, as she belatedly tells us, she, too, had a big policy role all along?) The whole experience question just feels like a stand-in for race, or maybe something else I'm missing. Because when someone says they would slit their wrist before voting for Obama, that is NOT about Clinton having been in the Senate longer.
And here's my friend's response, which shows that hurt feelings cut both ways during the primary season, and opened some wounds that Obama must now work hard to help heal:
I think her years as first lady count for something, but regardless, she has a much better command of the issues. He was a back-bencher in the state senate, not committee chair, etc. ... He improved during the debates, but even at the end he was flubbing basic tax, economic, and foreign policy issues. Maybe I've been dealing with those issues for too long, but honestly, he is constantly struggling for answers and contradicting himself. I think it would help if he gave voters a sense of who he would appoint to his Cabinet. If he is just going to be an inspirational figurehead, I'd like to know who's going to be advising him. ... Bottom line—the divisions here are very, very deep for all sorts of reasons, and Obama has got to find a way to reach out. Many people are hurt by all the name calling in the campaign. [My son] was repeatedly called a racist at school for supporting Hillary, and I know they have had to address similar issues in [a private school in Washington]. I've heard that some African-American women who supported Hillary were subjected to threats and taunting. Of course, it's not Obama making those comments, and people need to realize that there is a downside to all that young voter passion, but it does not make you want to switch to the other team. Five years ago, I would have voted for McCain in a heartbeat because I've always liked him. He's definitely sold out to the right in those five years, though, and that's what gives me pause.'
That she's even thinking McCain should give her party pause, too.
-
sponsorship
It's interesting that Ruth and Rachael both used the word evil—as in, what Hillary said about RFK's assassination was unfortunate but not evil. Now, I wouldn't use that particular word to describe Clinton or what she said about Bobby Kennedy, either. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever described anyone on this side of—let's give Adolf the day off—Idi Amin that way, at least in part because it brings to mind Margo Channing's wonderful mocking of "Eve Evil, little Eve Evil,'' in All About Eve, and you shouldn't say that word and grin. But another way in which we in the media have not learned all we might have from the fiasco of 2000 is in our peculiarly American determination to see strategery everywhere but no evil, ever.
Which is why we bat down any impugning of motives with that sobering word: To question intent at all is to ascribe evil, and only nuts go that far. Paul Krugman did this just yesterday when he explained that Clinton's invocation of RFK's assassination is actually Obama's problem: "One more trumped-up scandal won't persuade the millions of voters who stuck with Mrs. Clinton despite incessant attacks on her character that she really was evil all along.'' So, there is nothing in between A-OK and ... that word he said? What an odd paradox in which we assume we are always being played—but never with really bad intentions. Especially since it was fear of appearing to be too hard on Junior that got us this president in the first place. And, as even his former press secretary Scott McClellan says outright in his new memoir, that's also how we marched off to his purposeless war. The assumption was that Bush (and even more to the point, Colin Powell) would never have told us the war was necessary if that weren't the case -- because who would do that? No one we'd put in charge. Just as Hillary would never have stirred the pot on purpose—because that would be evil and she isn't evil, thus she couldn't have done it. For a bunch of skeptics, we really have a weirdly high opinion of human nature.
-
sponsorship
A couple of years ago, my son remarked that President Bush seemed to think every day was Opposites Day, which would explain how he always wound up listening to the wrong people and giving the best ideas the boot. That's how I feel now, listening to Hillary's down-is-up take on why Obama can't win in November. And I am so invigorated by—which on Opposites Day means weary of—hearing her describe his greatest strength as his biggest liability.
No question he's made mistakes. But his fatal flaw, according to her, is that he is not as skilled as she in answering Republican attacks (with more of the same). Watch her gleefully practice on her fellow Democrat, with Republican-style ads evoking such GOP golden oldies as the red phone, Pearl Harbor, and, OMG, Khrushchev? I never expected her to be leading the proverbial Million Mom March, but doesn't it bother any of these old-school feminists to see her painting her rival as the girl in this race—yes, as if that were a bad thing—just as every Republican since Richard Nixon has done to every Democrat since Adlai Stevenson? No doubt the former Goldwater Girl will never be outdone on the mushroom-cloud front. But at what point does one turn into what one fears? If I wanted Karl Rove for president, I would have voted for him the first time.
To me, Obama's appeal is rooted in his view that we have more in common than we might realize—and can't afford to go on tearing each other to shreds in this polarized, cartoon world where if your views are two degrees north or south of mine, then U R evil and must die. It was his refusal to play the same old zero-sum game that got him where he is today—ahead by every measure and, barring the kind of collapse that won't happen unless he betrays his own best instincts, on his way to becoming the nominee.
So, why can't Obama close the deal? In a way, it's his strength in November that is his highest hurdle now. I always thought he would have a harder time winning the nomination than the general, because the Clintons have defined and dominated the Democratic Party for a long, long time. And it's the very same "Let's stand on common ground, together'' appeal—which will win him the support of independents and Republicans in the fall—that makes him so suspect to Democrats who don't want to stand anywhere with those people; they want payback for the Bush years. And while that's understandable, it's not a way to win. Even Bill Clinton, with all his superior political skills and peekaboo triangulating and solemn vows not to act like a real Democrat, would not have won without Ross Perot in the mix. We can't get there on our own —which, again, is Obama's message.
Another reason he can't close the deal: We are never satisfied! Republicans settle for the good-enough candidate, go on about their lives, and show up on Election Day, but not us. I took my children to an Obama rally where people were screaming and swooning and speaking in tongues they were so excited—and on the way home, my daughter sniffs and says she wonders if he's focused enough on global warming. And what can I do but swell with pride? My baby really is a Democrat.
-
sponsorship
Two things dominated my psyche yesterday: that excruciating Max Moseley video showing the famous son of Nazis engaging in some concentration camp orgy, and Steve Coll's The Bin Ladens, which I am currently reading. Coll's book is like an epic Russian novel you can't help but follow to its tragic end. The book is amazing for many reasons, and one is the way in which it describes Osama Bin Laden in terms of his lifelong search for a father figure to replace his own father, who died when he was young. Jacob Weisberg's book, "The Bush Tragedy," takes a similar approach, exploring Bush's personality as a reaction to his distant, waspish father. This triumvurate of seemingly unrelated psychological probings, plus an offhand comment from Tim Noah, led me to an insight about great men and the burdens they inherit through the paternal line: Osama's daddy complex led him to blow up the World Trade Center, and Bush's led him to launch the Iraq war. Compared to that, Moseley's method of working out his Oedipal issues seems pretty harmless.
-
sponsorship
Last weekend, I finally got the chance to finish watching Frontline's excellent two-part, four-hour series, "Bush's War," which recounts in excruciating detail the events leading up to the Iraq war and the events of the war itself. I'm sure some will dismiss the series as radical, far-left propaganda.
But can someone please remind me why Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the lot of them aren't in prison?