You know how ladies, when they don’t get what they want, can go a little crazy? Am I right, fellas? Right now, they’re pretty upset about losing their first chance at a female president. This would have empowered little girls, shattered sexist beliefs about female incompetence and forced men around the world to view a woman as an agent of power instead of a sex object — all of which, it turns out, are important to women even though they buy Star magazine. Ladies are complicated.
Because women do most of the voting, and the shopping and the TV watching and the book reading — porn really must take up a lot of men’s time — they need to be placated. Which shouldn’t be hard. You know how when your dog dies, your wife wants to get a puppy right away? That’s what America has to do. We need a replacement Hillary.
This drivel is courtesy of the LA Times’s Joel Stein. And it gets worse from there.
Will a female vice president really satisfy women? Of course not. But what does? The point is that we’ll be showing them we understand that their frustration is legitimate, and that we’re hearing them, and that we’re ready to listen. That stuff will totally buy us until November.
Oh Joel, you’re so funny. You figure out how to turn a valid point — that both John McCain and Obama (if he is the nominee) might do well to consider a woman veep candidate — into a pile of misogynistic, patronizing bunk. Kudos to you.
I don’t agree with every particular of the argument — it’s a little problematic to tie Hillary Clinton too strongly with her husband’s administration (granting that much of the tying has been done by the Clinton itself), and it’s really time to stop citing Kathleen Willey as a credible witness — but overall Rosen convincingly makes the case that Obama has a significantly better record on civil liberties:
IF Barack Obama wins in November, we could have not only our first president who is an African-American, but also our first president who is a civil libertarian. Throughout his career, Mr. Obama has been more consistent than Hillary Clinton on issues from the Patriot Act to bans on flag burning. At the same time, he has reached out to Republicans and independents to build support for his views. Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, has embraced some of the instrumental tacking of Bill Clinton, whose presidency disappointed liberal and conservative civil libertarians on issue after issue.
Mr. Obama made his name in the Illinois Legislature by championing historic civil liberties reforms, like the mandatory recording of all interrogations and confessions in capital cases. Although prosecutors, the police, the Democratic governor and even some death penalty advocates were initially opposed to the bill, Mr. Obama won them over. The reform passed unanimously, and it has been adopted by four other states and the District of Columbia.
In the Senate, Mr. Obama distinguished himself by making civil liberties one of his legislative priorities. He co-sponsored a bipartisan reform bill that would have cured the worst excesses of the Patriot Act by meaningfully tightening the standards for warrantless surveillance. Once again, he helped encourage a coalition of civil-libertarian liberals and libertarian conservatives. The effort failed when Hillary Clinton joined 13 other Democrats in supporting a Republican motion to cut off debate on amendments to the Patriot Act.
That wasn’t the first time Mrs. Clinton tacked to the center in a civil-liberties debate. In 2005, she co-sponsored a bill that would have made it a federal crime to intimidate someone by burning a flag, even though the Supreme Court had struck down similar laws in the past. (Mr. Obama supported a narrower bill that would have satisfied the Constitution.) And Mrs. Clinton opposed a moderate proposal by the United States Sentencing Commission that would have retroactively reduced the draconian penalties for possession of crack cocaine — a proposal supported by Mr. Obama, and by liberal as well as conservative judges.
The expanded executive powers claimed by the Bush administration makes this issue important, and I don’t see a good argument that Clinton is better on civil liberties.
This is rather a surprise….
Northrop Grumman and European partner EADS, parent company of Airbus, beat out presumptive favorite Boeing for the U.S. Air Force’s $40 billion, 179-plane tanker deal, according to industry sources.
The Northrop team’s A330 variant, referred to by Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Duncan J. McNabb as the KC-45A, reportedly beat Boeing’s militarized 767 in four of the five criteria used to measure the bids and matched in the fifth, according to one source close to the decision.
Hope everyone dumped their Boeing stock this morning.
Some claim that robots will arise and destroy their makers; others fear the irrepressible menace of flesh-gobbling zombies.
Daniel Nexon, however, has been tracking a danger that just may outstrip them all.
We’re through the looking glass, people.
India and Russia have ended a protracted dispute over the cost of a Soviet-era aircraft carrier which will be now sold at a higher price to the Indian navy in 2011, officials said Feb. 28.
Indian Defence Secretary V. K. Singh, returning from Moscow, said a new undisclosed price had been agreed upon for the 44,570-ton Admiral Gorshkov.
Russian export firm Rosoboronexport in 2004 signed a deal to refurbish the carrier for $970 million but last year demanded India pay an additional $1.2 billion.
Singh declined to give details of the negotiations but conceded “there will be a substantial increase in the “reworked estimate” for the modernization of the 30-year-old ship.
I have to think it’s unlikely that either a) the Indians will back out of a deal that they made yesterday, or b) that the Indian Navy will want to deploy two carrier battle groups (likely with different aircraft) in the near future. So I’d have to say that the chances of the transfer look dim.
Brad actually lets the most amazing thing about Richard Cohen’s column slide:
She seems unknowable, and there is that melancholy Billie Holiday air about her — all those songs about a suffering woman. Most of us would prefer Fleetwood Mac’s “Don’t Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow),” the upbeat theme of Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign.
Apparently, this is supposed to be…an insult to Clinton? Wow.
Jeffrey Rosen brings up an interesting point about the judicial options for the next Democratic president. The recent Republican dominance of the White House leaves the Democrats with a very small group within the most desirable target candidates (relatively young, female or Hispanic, significant appellate court experience.) This will especially be true if the President has to appoint a justice quickly and doesn’t have time to install a future candidate as Bush did with Roberts. I definitely like the idea of perhaps going outside the appellate courts for a first nominee; as Rosen notes many fine justices have come from that background. Rosen also usefully reminds that Elena Kagan, a potentially strong candidate, “was nominated to the D.C. Circuit at the end of the last Clinton administration and never got a hearing.” Why, it’s almost enough to make me think that the Deeply Principled Republican arguments that Teh Constitution!!!!111One!!!1! requires nominees to get an up-or-down vote were a cynical ruse.
This is also an interesting point:
But a choice like this might be controversial among Democratic activists in the John Edwards wing of the party, who feel the current Democratic justices are already too sympathetic to business. The statistics here bear them out. On the Roberts Court, both Democratic and Republican justices have been remarkably pro-business: The Chamber of Commerce won 13 of the 15 cases in which it filed friend-of-the-court briefs last year, many by near-unanimous margins. In light of this, some Democratic interest groups may prefer a more populist candidate without an extensive resume as a corporate lawyer.
Yesterday’s oral argument in the Exxon Valdez punitive damages case starkly revealed Roberts’s slavish pro-business tendencies, but Breyer — who has joined (and written) opinions finding limits on punitive damages in the due process clause — at times also appeared sympathetic to Exxon’s arguments. Cases involving business interests is an area where the relative moderation of the current Court’s more liberal faction is particularly important.
I agree with everything Jill says here. This is about the most brazen campaign ad I’ve seen yet. And I don’t think it’s doing Hillary Clinton any favors (see Jill for more on that), especially given how different Hillary Clinton and Ann Richards really are. Where Richards was profane, Clinton is tight-lipped. Where Richards was a rabble rouser, Clinton looks to smooth ruffled feathers. Where Richards spoke her mind, Hillary speaks her tactics.
Also, it’s not as if Richards left the kind of statement that Molly Ivins did to speak from beyond the grave. Who’s to say Ann Richards wouldn’t have agreed with her fellow Texan? Certainly not the Clinton campaign.