Frank Rich writes:

You’d never know that [McCain's] new campaign blogger, recruited from The Weekly Standard, had shown his genuine affection for Mrs. Clinton earlier this year by portraying her as a liar and whiner and by piling on with a locker-room jeer after she’d been called a monster. “Tell us something we don’t know,” he wrote.

Which makes McCain's new campaign blogger different than Frank Rich in what way? In this way, at least he is praising Hillary Clinton now. Frank Rich can not even fake it. I tell you, with supporters like Frank Rich, Obama needs no enemies.

BTW, Rich was singing a different tune about a "Democratic Civil War" in March:

The question now is how much more racial friction the Clinton campaign will gin up if its Hispanic support starts to erode in Texas, whose March 4 vote it sees as its latest firewall. Clearly it will stop at little. That’s why you now hear Clinton operatives talk ever more brazenly about trying to reverse party rulings so that they can hijack 366 ghost delegates from Florida and the other rogue primary, Michigan, where Mr. Obama wasn’t even on the ballot. So much for Mrs. Clinton’s assurance on New Hampshire Public Radio last fall that it didn’t matter if she alone kept her name on the Michigan ballot because the vote “is not going to count for anything.”

Last month, two eminent African-American historians who have served in government, Mary Frances Berry (in the Carter and Clinton years) and Roger Wilkins (in the Johnson administration), wrote Howard Dean, the Democrats’ chairman, to warn him of the perils of that credentials fight. Last week, Mr. Dean became sufficiently alarmed to propose brokering an “arrangement” if a clear-cut victory by one candidate hasn’t rendered the issue moot by the spring. But does anyone seriously believe that Howard Dean can deter a Clinton combine so ruthless that it risked shredding three decades of mutual affection with black America to win a primary?

A race-tinged brawl at the convention, some nine weeks before Election Day, will not be a Hallmark moment. As Mr. Wilkins reiterated to me last week, it will be a flashback to the Democratic civil war of 1968, a suicide for the party no matter which victor ends up holding the rancid spoils.

This truly was one of the most scurrilous and appalling columns written in the campaign, but Rich feel qualified to discuss how Clinton supporters feel. Clueless.

Speaking for me only

< TalkLeft is Six Years Old Today | Olbermann Asked To Tone Down Hillary Hate, Refused >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    That was probably the sleaziest column (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:12:24 AM EST
    Rich has ever written. Essentially it's "nothing to see here, there is not problem!!!!"

    Looking back, I'm tempted to think that this is what he's always done. Add him to the list of media bloviators whom I used to enjoy but now no longer trust.

    It was also a nasty race-bating column (5.00 / 9) (#25)
    by tree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:06:12 AM EST
    One black woman, the former TV correspondent Carole Simpson, was given the servile role of the meeting's nominal moderator, Ed McMahon to Mrs. Clinton's top banana.

    and this:

    But once black voters met Mr. Obama and started to gravitate toward him, Bill Clinton and the campaign's other surrogates stopped caring about what African-Americans thought.

    and I could go on. The column is a textbook example of how to stir up racial animosity by insinuation. Remember this column when you read anything from Frank Rich.


    Somerby has been hammering him for years n/t (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by rilkefan on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:18:24 PM EST
    i remember when rich was a (none / 0) (#80)
    by sancho on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:22:09 PM EST
    theater critic. he could write a good pan (and was feared for it) but was not so helpful or shrewd in explaining why a play worked well. his skill set remains the same, imo.

    For Frank Rich to even think.... (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:17:15 AM EST
    that he has any credibility to write this piece is beyond belief.

    It has been clear for a long time that McCain and Clinton have warm regards for each other.  For him to suggest that Obama treats Hillary better is...well, beyond belief.

    The "funny" part for me is that it was because of a Frank Rich column in January or February where he spewed forth just hate - pure hate - for and about the Clintons that I began to feel an emotional attachment to her campaign.  

    Frank Rich has no shame.

    Frank Rich....just another opportunist.... (none / 0) (#62)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:46:43 PM EST
    has nothing valid to say, yet still has a voice...makes me ill.

    Most people are opportunists. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:18:18 AM EST
    They don't worry about being consistent or true to any particular set of ideals or ideas.  They move through time reacting to the moment and respond with a combination of cherry-picked facts and personal fantasies that reinforce their chosen narrative.  That's just the way most people are.

    Rich fakes "political analysis" (none / 0) (#72)
    by datadriven on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:59:45 PM EST
    It's akin to having the medical column written by a drama critic. He has no analytical skills and little knowledge of politics so he cobbles together gossip about politicians and spews it forth from his paper thone at The Times.

    I agree that people have all sorts of contradictory stuff in their heads when they construct what might be called "folk theories". But practicioners in the political science trade might have garnered some skills in socio-political explanation-- like asking, "What psychographic variables could mediate the impact of race/gender on vote?" There's one I've never seen asked or answered. They might also gain some consistency in their explanation of political events and social processes. Imagine Marx and Smith discussing the definition and explanatory potential of, say, social class.

    By the way, Rich isn't the only one faking analysis in the New York Times. Look at Blow's column yesterday-- we have fake epidemiology. His graphs are pretty but have unlabled and unscaled y-axes. He has what looks like hospital UB-90 admits broken out by race and admit codes, but we can make any sense of his summary of someone's analysis. Why doesn't the paper just reprint the genuine article? It's painful watching Blow try to summarize someone else's work.


    Blow has not written an intelligent (none / 0) (#73)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:09:09 PM EST
    column yet. Everything he's put together has been, to some degree, and embarrassment. Why the Times has their graphic designer writing op-ed I just don't know.

    bingo (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by kempis on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:18:24 AM EST
    Which makes McCain's new campaign blogger different than Frank Rich in what way?

    Rich was utterly shameless in his bias against Hillary throughout the primaries, ascribing to her the darkest of motives and repeating innuendo.

    He's simply a Krauthammer of the left.

    Worse (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:54:48 AM EST
    I think Somerby has called him the Coulter of the left. I'm not sure that's so off.

    John Aravosis has emerged as the Coulter (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Joelarama on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    of the left.  Or perhaps the Michelle Malkin.  Krauthammer is pretty dead-on for Frank Rich.

    God, what happened to Frank Rich? (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:19:15 AM EST
    What a bizarre transformation, exactly like what happened to Olbermann. It is really striking, and I don't understand the phenomenon.

    On another note, I really thought that once Hillary was finally buried, all these people would change their focus and things would move on. They just will NOT let go of the bashing. Rabid dogs.

    Ironically Clinton loyalists (5.00 / 9) (#9)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:25:27 AM EST
    are accused of not moving on.

    But you still see these wankers dragging Clinton in all the time.  Leno still can't let go.


    I can't put Leno in the same category (none / 0) (#35)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:45:47 AM EST
    with some of these guys.  

    Leno always liked Hillary and when her campaign was kind of stuck in a rut, he had her on his show.  

    Also, after her Saturday Night Live appearance seemed to help her, he ran more little humorous videos about her -- so I think he was more of a fan than anything.  


    Leno is a homophobe. nt (none / 0) (#57)
    by Joelarama on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:00:45 PM EST
    Most (none / 0) (#60)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:39:31 PM EST
    people would have a link supporting their well thought out missive when posting something like that.  

    I don't know how to do links on this site. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Joelarama on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:00:10 PM EST
    You can Google it.  The latest is Leno's insistence that Ryan Phillipe, who portrayed a gay man in a role a while ago, to give his best gay face.  Phillipe, who with his former wife has been a staunch supporter of gay rights, was definitely uncomfortable.

    You may also try a search at Pam's House Blend site.

    The man is a homophobe.  If you Google it and some to a different conclusion you are welcome to it.


    Too (1.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:44:40 PM EST
    lazy t0o link, eh?

    He's not a homophobe (none / 0) (#79)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:51:46 PM EST
    Look at the career boost he's given to Ross the Intern.  

    He's said some tasteless things without thinking but he's a comedian.  People get into trouble when they try to ad lib on their feet.


    Ross the intern? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:03:38 AM EST

    Actually..... (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by trillian on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:33:49 AM EST
    Rich has always spewed hatred on the Clintons, and Al Gore.

    Bob Somerby's archives are replete with examples



    Interesting (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:38:02 AM EST
    I didn't realize that about Rich. You know, your comment made me think - I guess the common denominator for much of the weirdness we've witnessed is truly hate. There are a lot of haters out there.

    Early on, I was shocked beyond belief at the hatred coming from the left blogs. I've not changed my opinion that a lot of Obama's support and success has been built by haters. It's fundamentally why I can't seem to get myself on the Obama Train.


    Hating Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:45:34 AM EST
    is good for ratings, both in the media and on blogs.  This is why they can't let it go.

    Just hate (5.00 / 8) (#26)
    by songster on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:07:02 AM EST
    has certainly been the theme of the campaign, more even than misogyny or racism.

    My eyes have been opened too, especially to how casually I amused myself with the clever, hateful rhetoric directed at those I happened to disagree with.  My self-respect is only weakly shored up by the fact that I renounced Maureen Dowd long ago.  But the nasty language to be found even outside the comments at "good" blogs like Digby's now repels me, no matter who it's directed at.

    The on-line "community" or whatever it is needs to grow up, and so does the punditocracy.


    Extremism repels me now. (5.00 / 9) (#30)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:22:40 AM EST
    I can't be sure, but I think I was one of those outrage junkies that DK seems to be full of now.  I look at the commenters and wonder if that's what I was like.  Could be, although I was probably railing at the Bush administration most of the time.  

    I just can't fire up the old outrage anymore.  I can't stand extremist rhetoric anymore.  I know how I feel.  I know why I feel that way.  I don't want to part of anyone's grand movement or conspiracy theory.  I just want to be a little statistical dot, a set of parameters, a data point.  And if there are enough people who feel the way I do, we'll show up as a trend, a bump here, a dip there.  So I'll be watching the better polls with interest, especially the state-by-state and demographic breakdowns.

    And if anyone wants to ask me what's going on in my head and why, I'll be glad to answer them.  I'm just tired of shouting.  


    I think (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:22:37 PM EST
    we were all outrage junkies honestly. I'm probably as guilty as anybody in a lot of ways. Then we got to the primary and I saw outrage over literally everything. Someone mentioning a factual statement about Obama was called a racist. Just too much. It became to obvious to me what the blogosphere had become in many ways. There's several things I have sworn to do this time around:

    1. Face the music early and often. I was so sure that Kerry was going to win in 2004 despite all the information that didn't support that opinion. It was a horrible letdown Nov 2004.

    2. Look at everything skeptically.

    3. Every candidate has flaws. Don't be afraid to discuss them.

    4. Be honest. Don't spin. Don't be a cheerleader and an ostrich.

    then you have not been paying attention (none / 0) (#16)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:47:57 AM EST
    Interesting (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:45:48 PM EST
    Under-the-wire smear tack.

    Why not just say they're all "haters" since they so obviously have a complete monopoly on that irrational emotion?


    Whatever (none / 0) (#81)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:25:42 PM EST
    I should know better by now than to talk to you, but it wasn't an 'under-the-wire smear tack', it was quite direct. I stand by what I said. I know what I saw and I know what I heard. And a lot of Obama supporters have behaved like haters and seemed to thrive on it.

    Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say they're all haters. You did.

    Now kindly p!ss off. You have a penchant for twisting people's words.


    Are You A Social Liberal? (none / 0) (#87)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:58:05 PM EST
    Just curious...

    Here (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:03:08 PM EST
    not that I know of (none / 0) (#91)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:50:35 AM EST
    and i don't understand your link.

    unless of course (none / 0) (#92)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:55:23 AM EST
    it's your usual recourse to name-calling.

    Did you notice this past week... (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:38:55 AM EST
    Obama and Friends were all asking "Where's Hillary?  She's dropped out of sight!"

    I hope Hillary and Bill and Chelsea are enjoying a great vacation and treating themselves very well.  And I hope they stay out of sight for the next few months.  Serves the MSM right that they no longer have her to bash around anymore.


    Leno is still at it. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:50:46 AM EST
    He's gotten almost twenty year out of this BS act.

    My brother in Boston (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by pie on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:10:37 AM EST
    just emailed me this column.  I was gobsmacked.

    Frank Rich certainly has a short memory, because he's obviously forgotten he used to be a republican operative.


    Essentially, A Case of Writer's Block (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:41:34 AM EST
    Frank Rich seems to have a form of writer's block--he cannot find anything in the political spectrum to cover without having Mrs. Clinton somewhere at its base.  Last week's column was not even up-dated to include Senator Clinton's  widely acclaimed concessionary speech on Saturday, but rather, relied on the shopworn media tirades of the previous Tuesday night's South Dakota/Montana primary. Mr. Rich seems to be having trouble with a zest factor in his writings at this point.  His over-the-top Obama advocacy is puzzling.

    So what you are saying, (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:15:23 PM EST
    in effect, is that Hillary Clinton is Frank Rich's muse?
    he cannot find anything in the political spectrum to cover without having Mrs. Clinton somewhere at its base.

    Someone should tell him, I am sure he would find it amusing, to say the least. I know I do...heheheh.

    Concern trolling and race baiting at its ugliest (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:53:14 AM EST
    There's simply no explanation or excuse to use a so-called legitimate media source for the level of malice, hatred and sheer venality Rich displays here:

    But does anyone seriously believe that Howard Dean can deter a Clinton combine so ruthless that it risked shredding three decades of mutual affection with black America to win a primary?

    A race-tinged brawl at the convention, some nine weeks before Election Day, will not be a Hallmark moment. As Mr. Wilkins reiterated to me last week, it will be a flashback to the Democratic civil war of 1968, a suicide for the party no matter which victor ends up holding the rancid spoils.

    The Clinton "combine" is responsible for the sentiments of black America? In what way?

    And when, pray tell, did running straight up against Obama become the AHA! piece of evidence of black America under assault that purportedly justifies Rich's tone and claims here?

    Citing 1968 is just more gasoline on the fire Rich himself has lit for his latest stupid ritualistic hop around the burning effigy of Bad Monster Lady aka The Clintons.

    I'd ask (rhetorically) that Rich return to being a critic of theater, but the arts don't need his buffoonery and his histrionics don't even rise to the level of farce.

    And yes, Frank Rich is an over-the-top feet-chewing face-tearing shameless hack.

    Well, it looks like Dean did... (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by santarita on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:20:53 AM EST
    what he said he was going to do.  Thanks, Mr. Rich for giving us the heads up back in March, when he wrote that column.  

    Variation on a Theme (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by santarita on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:29:54 AM EST
    Aside from the numbing statistics in the column, I took Mr. Rich's column today to be a variation on Obama's outreach to women, which is basically:  "I'm the Democratic nominee and you'll be better off with me than McCain, trust me.  So stop your whining."  This kind of courtship itself is a variation on the theme of:  "I'm God's gift to the world and I'm asking you to go with me to the prom.  Aren't you lucky."

    And hen Rich talks about media narratives, I had to laugh.  Can he be so unaware of his own role?

    If you read Rich carefully (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:50:05 PM EST
    you realize that the single goal of this column is to try to insulate himself from criticism that he was one among the media pundits who participated in the ugly, misogynistic Hillary-Hate Festival.

    He tries to pretend that there really is no problem with women voters being turned off by the primary process, by very careful cherry picking of polls, and results from those polls (linking, for example, to Amy Sullivan's idiot column that "demonstrates" Hillary had no important advantage among women, by choosing poll results that lumped African-American women with all women -- as if that did not distort the issue).

    It is in general remarkable how many pundits -- Olbermann, Rich, Dowd, as obvious examples -- seem to realize that they have been caught red handed indulging their hatreds and profound biases, and are, in their various ways, trying to weasel their way out of any responsibility for their actions.

    They can see the criticisms coming their way in particular, and are launching pre-emptive attacks to try to deflect them.

    To amplify a bit (5.00 / 9) (#68)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:09:21 PM EST
    what Rich is afraid of is that there will be a perception that there is a backlash effect because of the misogynistic Hillary Hate fueled by the media.

    He knows that this perception of a backlash will set people to hunting the culprits who perpetrated the hate-fest to begin with. He knows nobody deserves to be that bunch more than he.

    If many people jump on the Clinton-supporters-for-McCain bandwagon, and it is duly reported in the press, then that backlash can't be ignored, and can't fail to be addressed. Rich will be one of the causes of that backlash.

    I suspect that he's worried about his job. I suspect that he realizes that he's gone way overboard, and that his rantings really aren't exactly high quality political commentary, and that it's very easy for the Times to find other pundits to take over his position.

    Hence, his current column.

    And, while there are many bad consequences of a McCain Presidency, and therefore of Clinton supporters backing McCain, since they would help bring that about, a real, and critical question arises. Namely, which is the greater good: to stop McCain and the effects of his Presidency (which likely end in any case in 4 years and in ineffectuality with a Democratic Congress), or, on the other hand, to stop the misogyny, to get the media finally to clean house, to get the Democratic Party to treat women and older voters and the white working class with respect. For if Obama and his ugly, divisive "movement" comes into power, we can expect that what is already bad in the media will only have been encouraged; what is misogynistic in our culture will have only been ratified; what is viciously disrespectful and sneering in our Party, embodied nearly perfectly in the Obama "movement", will only have been elevated to the highest position of authority.


    Aye, that is the dilemma (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:19:48 PM EST
    Your last paragraph is a perfect summary of the dilemma so many face.

    I realize that many dems can never understand why a clinton dem might vote for McCain. But I understand why some are thinking about it. I won't able to vote for McCain, but I do understand why some will - they feel they have no voice, and frankly, they are right. They keep screaming about the sexism, the racebaiting, the hatefulness, and the power grabbing and everyone keeps denying that it happened. Indeed, most are still denying that it happened, and they will continue denying it forever. So, they feel they have no other choice if they want their voices to be heard. I get it.


    Which is why... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by AX10 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:36:39 PM EST
    I will support McCain.  He IS NOT Bush.  That is in his favor.  I will take him with his flaws.  Democrats will have the congress.  We will be fine.
    McCain will most likely govern how the elder Bush did (89-93).

    Elder Bush (none / 0) (#94)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:27:19 AM EST
    I always hated Bush Sr. until we got the Jr. version in the WH, then I positively longed for the days of dad.  W. made Bush Sr. look like the greatest president ever in comparison.

    it's no coincidence (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by boredmpa on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:23:43 PM EST
    that Rich's column pushes the idea, stated as fact, that misogyny was not a determining factor in the race.  It's also no coincidence that they ran a column by Susan "jumped the shark, again" Faludi yesterday that pushed the same theme.

    Faludi and Rich are silencing alternative viewpoints through reframing, and thus hoping to shape the narrative so they can write new books, get more page hits, etc.  That same sort of reframing is already ocurring on blog comments here, and isn't being challenged all that often.

    Anyway, at the time it has been and is an Editorial/Leadership/Management issue--NOT an Opinion issue.  (And I'm so sick of hearing that excuse).  Throughout the campaign they went full tilt with sexism and race-baiting in both columnist and op-ed pieces that were usually paired and frequently timed "well"  (the KKK piece was classic).

    So now, neither the columnists nor the editors want to be the focus of serious scrutiny for their actions during this campaign.  As a result, they're removing the discussion/silencing it, which is even worse than just not publishing opposing views.  And they might succeed in their rug sweeping; where is an op-ed, or critical piece of journalism, or an academic researcher going to be welcomed?  Msnbc? Fox news?  And what would the reception be?  Warm and cuddly like Chomsky gets?

    IMHO accountability for people like frank rich (or even a major discussion) is about as likely at the DNC reforming the primary process in december (as some have suggested). It's just not gonna happen.  And certainly not when people on leftist blogs are using the same talking points about clinton voters as frank rich (that is directed at commenters, not BTD/Jeralyn, who have done an outstanding job).

    at this point, (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:01:38 PM EST
    i truly don't care if someone calls me a racist, because i don't support sen. obama. if that's all it takes, the term's become meaningless.

    he is by far the weakest candidate out there. to  argue otherwise is to display total ignorance, or severe brain damage, take your pick.

    fortunately, the SD's have time to rectify their error, before the party self-destructs in nov. let's hope enough of them find their spines before august, and do the right thing for both the country and the party.

    contrary to both jeralyn's and BTD's assertions, sen. obama is not yet the official dem. nominee. both of them should know better.

    mr. rich and his evil twin, (4.75 / 4) (#41)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:44:34 AM EST
    "skippy" maureen dowd, have been doing this schtick since at least 1992, as they happily raped and pillaged the clinton administrations. they did it to al gore in 2000, and john kerry in 2004. both (but most especially ms. dowd) are basically nuts, but highly compensated nuts. therein lies the difference.

    be aware, once (assuming his entire campaign hasn't totally imploded by then) sen. obama is officially annointed prom king in aug., these two will turn on him with a vengeance, as will all their purportedly "liberal" media peers.

    they will happily provide grist for the repub 527 mills, along with that already made available by the senator's own past and present. one huge difference: the truth will be a harder issue to argue for sen. obama's campaign.

    like the man said, "you gets what you pays for."

    I don't know how many times I've written to NYT (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by zyx on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:57:49 AM EST
    complaining about their op-ed writers. Probably not Frank Rich so much, but regularly about Maureen Dowd's deranged columns. Why? Why? I say. Aren't you embarrassed? Don't you have higher standards?

    Do any of you write letters to them? These people are supposed to be opinion leaders or at least classy entertainers, and they write trash. When MoDo trashed Gore and then Kerry--Kerry! when the stakes were SO HIGH! she should have been shot.


    Only Their Mothers Can Tell Them Apart (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:19:44 PM EST
    Yes, Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd seem like twins, but not identical. For me, it is the opposite. Ms. Dowd is more tolerable since she purports to be a political anthropologist, which is humorous in itself. especially since her attempts at current culture references  are conspicuously  out-of-date.  She even surprises from time to time, in an attempt to be Fox News-like fair and balanced.  For example, she did report that Senator Obama  was "dragged across the line" by super delegates.  And, she has been a consistent Iraq war critic, even though, or maybe because, she was a Daddy Bush fan.  However, Mr. Rich occupies the high rent district of Sunday's op-ed page and, in the interest of one Democratic primary candidate, has come to offer  political screed rather than thoughtful op;inion.

    I have written letters to Dowd. (none / 0) (#49)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:08:26 PM EST
    Never received replies. I have received replies to lesser known (I use this word sparingly)columnists.

    x (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Mary Mary on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:19:20 PM EST
    I got a response from an email I sent once. She had been catty about Gore for attending Davos or something similar. She replied that I could disagree without being nasty. Hah! I wrote back, "so can you."

    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Daryl24 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:36:31 PM EST
    Because that's what they do to democrats. This honeymoon is going to end in August.  

    Rich imo wouldn't have cared if Mike Gavel got the nomination. The only thing that mattered to The Beltway nittwits was making sure Hillary lost.

    Problem is she didn't lose like they wanted her to. That doesn't sit well around the cocktail bar.  


    Excuse me but... (none / 0) (#2)
    by mattt on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:13:40 AM EST
    being able to "fake it" consistently is more virtuous than consistency?

    yes. (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:15:54 AM EST
    Although I do think Clinton earned the admiration of a lot of people who started out suspicious, angry and jealous of her.

    Growing admiration (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Blogblah on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:24:42 AM EST
    I was one of those whose admiration for Sen. Clinton grew over the course of the campaign.  I am an early (pre-Iowa caucus) Obama supporter.  From the Ohio-Texas primaries onward, my dislike of Hillary bashing grew, my admiration for the senator's grit and determination grew, and my sense that she would make a good president grew.  Even as I believed that the primary was, for all practical purposes, over after Wisconsin, I never wanted her to "drop out".  There's zero question in my mind that she has earned a leadership role for the nation and not just the Democratic Party.

    me too (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:47:50 AM EST
    it was the sheer injustice of the ridiculous claims like kos spreading the meme that she "plotted a coup by superdelegate" from early on, when neither candidate could beat the other to the finish line because it was too close.

    As I read more and more of the hatefull thuggish treatment of Hillary and her supporters, I started disconnecting from Obama as well and began to look at her more and see an increasingly strong and presidential contender.

    (The fact that the "coup" was actually plotted by those superdelegates who dragged Obama across the finishline has gone entirely unremarked.)


    What really got to me was the (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:48:16 PM EST
    claim that Hillary was trying to poach SDs from Obama, and the next day the announcement came out that two SDs had switched from Hillary to Obama after the Obama campaign had spent some time poaching them. No one thought that was a bad thing for some strange reason. I thought that really brought home the double standard prevalent during the primary.  As far as the media is concerned, IOKIYAO, It's OK If You Are Obama. When he does the things they accuse Hillary of doing he gets a pass, and is lauded for his political acumen.

    The final straw was when I read that the DNC is moving to Chicago. I am no longer a Democrat, not because I left the party, but because the party left me. In the dust, with tire tracks on my a$$.


    The move to Chicago increases control over $ (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:38:11 PM EST
    (read Anglachel's Journal this morning) and also prevents the DNC from hearing any dissent any more from all those complaining and sending $0.00 dollar checks as protests.

    I guess he will also "say or do anything to win!"

    Oh, wait...


    The members of the DNC still (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:49:12 PM EST
    have email. When sending a check for $0.00, photograph it before mailing and email the image to the DNC individually, with an explanation of why you are sending that amount. Obama can't erase their emails, right?

    You know (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:18:20 AM EST
    I lot of Clinton supporters are faking it even though they consider McCain to have more substance than Obama (experience, sacrifice, duty, honour) So careful there.

    If the Clitnon voters value expereince over change they will consistently vote for McCain.  Flexibility and expediency is a highly valued political comodity IMHO.


    Experience Over Change (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by daring grace on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:51:52 AM EST
    are broad campaign terms.

    Everyone I know votes on specific policy issues, i.e. jobs, taxes, national security, education, health care, reproductive choice, etc. So they'll vote for the candidate whose positions matches theirs most closely on whatever is their priority.

    After almost eight years of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Ashcroft/Gonzales/Mukasey, a change in the executive branch sounds pretty exciting. In that way, if Clinton, the "experienced" Dem candidate had gotten the nomination she could still have, in many peoples' minds (including this Obama suppoter's) also been the "change' agent.  That's something McCain cannot truly claim to be.


    Just pointing it out (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:01:48 AM EST
    Obama better hope Dems don't take a thin resume badly and that Dems are more ideologically committed to leftie policies than he appears to be.

    Hope is Up There With Change (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by daring grace on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:31:23 AM EST
    as one of Obama's keywords, isn't it? ;)

    As far as I'm concerned, we'd all better hope he can do what it takes to win. Another 4-8 years of Republican exec branch excesses is unimaginable...or maybe it is imaginable in our worst nightmares.


    To Salo and daring grace (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by stxabuela on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:32:19 AM EST
    You have expressed both sides of my conundrum.  I highly value experience, but I disagree with almost every one of McCain's positions.  I can not vote for McCain.  Obama has practically no experience and I'm really not sure where he stands on many issues.  Based upon the campaign, women's issues aren't even blips on the radar screen for Obama or the Democratic Party.

    I am 54.  I was in my 20s, married with a child, during the Ford and Carter presidencies.  Back then, we had had 5--6 years of ineffective presidential leadership (Nixon had been consumed with Watergate) and the economy was in the toilet.  I was backing Mo Udall, but happily voted for Carter, who ran as the outside DC, change candidate.  It was a year for Democrats--despite the infamous Playboy interview, Carter won.  The Georgia mafia's inexperience was a major factor in Carter's defeat 4 years later (I think Carter could have pulled it off, even with the October surprise, had he done better with economic issues.)  That was four long years of middle-class families just hanging on by their fingernails, and we gave the WH right back to the Republicans.  Because I remember how bad those days were, I can not vote for Obama.  

    I am now reduced to voting against someone, and I don't like that--at all.  I think we squandered our best chance to grasp a long Democratic majority by selecting the weakest candidate.  Sigh.  


    I know many Udalls. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:53:35 AM EST
    Thy all went to UofA  law it seems. That's a good VP pick btw.  No one ever mentions that Democratic clan.

    Udalls--look up "Udall family" in Wiki (none / 0) (#43)
    by zyx on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:49:53 AM EST
    wikipedia. Oregon's Republican Senator Smith is a Udall, too, and his brother is a Bush appointee to the US Ninth Circuit Court.

    "David King Udall was a Mormon polygamist, and he had children through two different wives. Most of the descendants of his first wife, Eliza, who have held political office, have been Democrats. Most of the descendants of his second wife, Ida, who have held political office, have been Republicans."


    there's a fe w more of the liberals (none / 0) (#44)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:54:51 AM EST
    over here.

    One possible plus (none / 0) (#48)
    by zyx on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:07:33 PM EST
    of an Obama candidacy, I have to admit--he IS pretty huge in Oregon. Oregon leans blue and Bush is very unpopular in Oregon, but Smith on his own merits would be hard to beat--though the Democrats would love to. We didn't recruit a really high-profile Dem to run against Smith this election, though it would have been our dream. A star former governor or one of a couple of very popular Dem congressmen said no, though in polls, they would have knocked Smith off, very likely. Instead, we have a statehouse guy running. But--it's possible that Smith has the fight of his life, and Obama may be help knock out our so-called "Hatfield Republican" senator.

    That would be a consolation prize...


    why is this a problem? (none / 0) (#90)
    by hlr on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:09:23 AM EST
    our nominee isn't that far removed from 'statehouse guy.'

    Consistent Hillary Hate is not virtuous (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:43:49 AM EST
    CG Jung: Fanaticism is overcompensation for doubt (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:12:21 AM EST
    I think you hit upon something here that speaks to the level of insane Clinton Derangement Syndrome that persists beyond the primaries, (and existed beforehand.)

    There was never a rational purpose to take the expected, perfunctory and gratuitous slam at Sen Clinton in order to support Obama.

    There's even less of a reason now that she has suspended her campaign, yet people like Rich and colleague in hackdom Keith Obamann and the usual Obama fan club are redoubling their efforts.

    Why this need to "prove" they're not racists instead of getting down to the hard work of seizing power from the Rethuggernaut and winning the election?

    All of these parties have ridiculed the unneeded risible Dems they can't stand -- sliced them out of the exchange entirely in fact -- yet still harp on them while time's a-wastin'.

    All the ridiculously ineffectual anti-smear sites in the world won't counteract the damage TeamObama has done to their own cause by turning off even supporters who may have been with them till now, silently appalled about the rapid coup, but whose effect in that respect won't be evident until the day after the election.

    Bradley effect? Well there's a term that will be rewritten.


    In Denial, perhaps (5.00 / 8) (#46)
    by santarita on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:59:16 AM EST
    In order to maintain the vision that Obama is Sir Galahad, there has to be a denial that Obama or his campaign did anything dastardly.  So instead of admitting to having run a negative campaign full of cheap shots and sexism and recognizing that Obama has some serious weaknesses (like lack of relevant experience) they believe that any such perceptions have to be due to failings of the electorate that didn't support Obama.  

    Too true (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:59:41 AM EST
    You could have a neologism in the making in this electon.

    Or not.  

    We will know what it is when McCain akes his bid for moderate Dems and paints Obama into a left wing


    That's going to be interesting (none / 0) (#84)
    by Daryl24 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:01:39 PM EST
    We will know what it is when McCain akes his bid for moderate Dems and paints Obama into a left wing



    The Myth of Democratic Disunity (none / 0) (#10)
    by 1jane on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:30:31 AM EST
    that Frank Rich wrote about in today's NYT column probably painted the McCain campaign strategy picture for some readers. Is there a working model designed to exaggerate the disappointment of primary voters. Does the McCain campaign realize McCain's massive contradictions on a whole host of topics are easily communicated to voters?  

    I have an anecdote. (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:59:15 AM EST
    I have a good friend in St Louis who works at a museum.  She goes to lots of professional dinner parties and when politics had come up Obama was the toast of the table and Clinton was damned.  She voted For Obama thinking that Clinton was not going to do well in the the midwest or the Rust belt and thought that he might do well there.

    But she became increasingly sickened by the hatred toward Clinton (expressed at these events), eventually she told a few people about it and others had privately agreed that the Obama fans at these functions were disturbing.

    So you may win public battles by shutting fellow democrats up , but you'l lose the underground war without knowing why.


    That is funny (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:02:33 AM EST
    Because I talk to people who go to such parties, and in my part of the world they were largely for Hillary at the end of the day. I think it's a regional thing.

    Your friend's experience (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:09:14 AM EST
    exactly mirrors mine in academic circles. It was plain sickening listening to all these smart liberal people engaging in right-wing hatred and lies. They all just assume that you're with them.

    There's some contratictory (none / 0) (#20)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:55:54 AM EST
    statements on both sides, imo. Not exclusive to just one.

    1jane also has (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by pie on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:18:20 AM EST
    a convenient memory.

    s/b contradictory (none / 0) (#21)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:56:18 AM EST
    Rich and his old partner MoDo are talented (none / 0) (#53)
    by Joelarama on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:56:55 PM EST
    writers, but sleazy reporters/columnists.

    When they are preaching to the choir and saying things I want to hear, it gives me a sick feeling to agree with them.

    Frank Rich to be creative consultant to (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:38:42 PM EST
    HBO.  But, he'll still have his op-ed column, with some restrictions, as noted in the article:

    Rich and HBO

    I used to like him a lot (none / 0) (#85)
    by denise on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:19:22 PM EST
    Read his column every week, until he started in on her. I haven't read him since & probably never will again.