By Blue Stockings | We already know there isn't enough shut up in all the world for Maureen Dowd. But John Edwards should probably be grateful to her. If there's one writer who can probably bring everyone together on his side, it's her. Certainly Dowd is one person everyone writing at this blog agrees on, even if we can't agree on anything else.
Every time I swear I'll never read her self-referential musings again, I find myself pulled in by curiosity to see whether she can outrage me further. So far, the answer always turns out to be "yes."
You know, I'm annoyed with John Edwards. I said so. He stands accused of hypocrisy at the very least. I draw the line at presuming to read his mind or to judge him based on this one act. Maybe he was carried away with himself. I easily believe that. But is there really no understanding anywhere for the pathos of the situation and its aftermath?
But it has occurred to me since then that men whose wives are seriously ill sometimes do very shocking and unbecoming things....out of fear. Men who fear losing their wives often seem to try to put some distance between themselves and the beloved. Who's to say that isn't what was going on with Edwards? It might be true and he might not even be consciously aware of it. And if he were, it's not really something he could ever say.
But yes, yes, yes: by all means. Let's all go ahead and sit in judgment on John Edwards. He's been a hypocrite---we would never do that. He's been disloyal to a spouse---we are all paragons of faithfulness and loyalty. He's betrayed his own standards---none of us have ever done that.
The first bothers me more than the second. It's not Elizabeth's fault. And Stranahan is as wrong as he can be when he implies that there would ever be a time when it wouldn't matter to Edwards' presidential bid. His rebuke to Clinton would have come back to haunt him no matter what.
Blue Stockings | I like Michael Moore, and some of what he says in this piece in The Guardian is dead on, but the following annoys me. It's flat out hypocritical.
[Y]ou would think, with more than 200 million eligible voters, the Dems
would be cleaning up, election after election. Obviously not. The
Democrats appear to be professional losers. They are so pathetic in
their ability to win elections, they even lose when they win! Al Gore
won the 2000 election, but for some strange reason he didn't become the
president of the United States. (Guardian)
Some of us think that Ralph Nader spoiled the election for Al Gore in 2000, bequeathing to us our present ills. And do you know who was standing right out there on a soapbox in the middle of the ring, banging his knee cymbals, and yelling through a megaphone about the uselessness of Al Gore and the importance of voting for Nader? Guess. Go on. Guess.
by Blue Stockings | It's much more like they think the public is really ignorant---or rather the part constituting their base.
Obama was talking about the tire gauge kerfuffle, but he could be describing the entire far right wing of the GOP. As skippy puts it, "they not only take pride in being ignorant, they take pride in preaching ignorance."
As usual they're picking on one miniscule point and basing a whole attack on it. They know their base better than I do, of course. Maybe that sort of thing works with Republicans. It worked with Michelle Malkin. These are people who don't have any tools but blunt ones to work with. Or rather, they don't need any tools but blunt ones to work with. You don't have to be subtle when you're dispensing ignorance.