Can anyone remember the last time anyone praised a Dowd column for offering anything even remotely interesting in the way of reporting, context, knowledge, or genuine insight? We sure can't

Dowd was right to say HRC is a "flawed science
experiment," a "flawed feminist test," and she was one of the first to come out saying this.

But Hillary is not the best test case for women. We’ll never know how much of the backlash is because she’s a woman or because she’s this woman or because of the ick factor of returning to the old Clinton dysfunction.

[...]

As a possible first Madame President, Hillary is a flawed science experiment because you can’t take Bill out of the equation. Her story is wrapped up in her marriage, and her marriage is wrapped up in a series of unappetizing compromises, arrangements and dependencies.

She also might have been the first to suggest HRC made Obama a better candidate.

Whether or not she wins, Hillary has already given noble service as a sophisticated political tutor for Obama, providing her younger colleague with much-needed seasoning. Who else was going to toughen him up? Howard Dean? John Edwards? Dennis Kucinich?

Obama had not been hit hard until this campaign; he sailed through his Senate race. Without Hillary, he never would have learned to be a good debater. He never would have understood how to robustly answer distorted and personal attacks. He never would have been warned about how harmful an unplugged spouse can be. He never would have realized how a luminous speech can be effective damage control.

Posted at June 23, 2008 12:52 PM in response to Times Public Editor Hammers Maureen Dowd's Coverage Of Hillary

My fellow commenters:

It do not think it wise to belittle someone who is "real" about his spirituality. It makes some of you look like arrogant, elitist, "godless" liberals.

Note this comment in the original post:

The state Dems did make an issue in 2007 out of Jindal's extreme Catholicism and his view of Protestant tenets as heretical, but the effort provoked a backlash among voters who thought the assault was religious bigotry.

Much about the attitude I see here will provoke the same kind of backlash. The people Gov. Jindal would help shore up for McCain are quite happy to "cling to religion." It would be no less unhelpful to accuse them of being "bitter." Whether they are nor not, and whether there's anything wrong with that or not, is beside the point.

Posted at June 11, 2008 9:08 PM in response to Is Bobby Jindal -- Who May Be On McCain's Veep Shortlist -- An Exorcist?

Whatever her motives and whatever her rationale, the race is over. Back when that was not a given and she still said things like about how she and McCain have passed the commander-in-chief test and Obama hasn't, that was just rude, crude, hardball politics. Now the only way she could win would be for something terribly to happen to Obama. She should recognize this fact and step down because anything she says at this point isn't helpful to anyone.

Posted at May 27, 2008 11:30 AM in response to In Defense of Hillary Clinton

I say this as an Obama supporter.

"Cowboy diplomacy" is exactly the kind of language Obama doesn't need to be using right now. It sounds elitist and isn't going to help him with the kind of people he needs to impress most.

Cowboys cling to their guns and religion (and what's wrong with that?), but they're also honorable and never pick a fight that isn't their own or isn't for a really, really good moral cause.

Gotta wonder... would "gangstah diplomacy" be racist? If so, how can "cowboy diplomacy" be okay?

Posted at May 5, 2008 12:56 AM in response to Obama: Hillary's Tough Talk Towards Iran Is "Reflective Of George Bush"

He doesn't really think people want the primary to end "just because people are tired of it," does he?

Posted at May 1, 2008 3:16 PM in response to Wolfson: I'm Not Sure That Joe Andrew Is "Actually From Indiana"

Even supposing this isn't a "kiss of death" (as someone said above), how could this _possibly_ be helpful in _any_ way for Obama?

What an ego trip.

Posted at April 21, 2008 4:08 PM in response to Michael Moore Endorses Obama

This kind of talk makes it frustrating to be a Democrat.

...Who knows how "electable" Obama, Clinton or McCain is going to look in October? I don't; you don't; George Stephanopoulos doesn't; and grilling the candidates on their alleged "vulnerabilities" doesn't cast much real light on that question, either.

Electability is everything.

It was not "highly speculative" for the Republicans in their primary. Republicans know how to win, and they know electability is everything, and that's why they chose McCain. Remember, this is a guy who got swiftboated by his own party back before it was a household term."Exectability" is the only reason he's their nominee this time around, since they knew Bush has goofed so badly that any of the usual suspects wouldn't have a chance against Obama and Clinton. Franky the way the Bush campaign treated McCain way back is probably working to McCain's advantage now, in their eyes.

Whether McCain is more electable than one of our Deams remains to be seen, but The Republican Machine chose McCain largely on electability, despite never having liked him.

Whether it is Obama or McCain who is more electable compared to McCain should be THE biggest issue for us. I don't mean to say I have the answer to this question, and I'm not sure anyone else does either, but since the two lack huge policy differences, it should be our biggest concern. We all have our preferences (mine's Obama), but it's all academic if a guy who doesn't even have a plan for health care wins in November.

Posted at April 17, 2008 9:13 PM in response to Debating Electability

The Constitution isn't Scripture. The quote ("It’s a bad thing to do. But not everything that is bad is unconstitutional.") should seem obvious enough. And it's not Scalia's job to interpret the Geneva Convention. What's he supposed to do, "legislate from the bench"? If waterboarding shouldn't happen because it should be unconstitutional, then the constitution needs to be changed to make it so.

Also note that proponents of waterboarding aren't arguing that it should be used as a form of punishment. The argument would be that "gathering information in an emergency situation" is not "cruel and unusual punishment."

Posted at March 6, 2008 1:05 PM in response to Scalia on Torture: "Not Everything That Is Bad Is Unconstitutional"

Interesting about the final cut if you read the body language. McCain is fully embracing Bush while Bush is holding back, keeping one arm doing something else, and probably hoping the hug doesn't last much longer.

Posted at March 5, 2008 12:32 PM in response to Here's A First Look At Third-Party Group's Ad Against McCain