Excuse me, but aren't you...? dept.

Have we finally found Bob Barker's replacement for "The Price is Right"? Two women in Iowa thought so...

Falsehood of the day, part 3

Anna Quindlen has been around a long time, is no extremist (though I suppose I don't agree with her much), at times writes well, and I want to know her point of view. But here she said something rather astonishing. Discussing Hillary Clinton's run for president, she wrote: "Certainly there may be Americans who covertly balk at the notion of a female president, despite what they may tell pollsters. And every time Clinton is described as calculating or ambitious, you realize that such words are never used for male politicians because for them both traits are assumed—and accepted."

Huh? "Never"? On the contrary, I've heard Democrats call George W. Bush the equivalent of calculating and ambitious many times (when some say he lied us into war in Iraq to benefit oil companies etc etc, isn't that the equivalent of suggesting he was at the very least "calculating"?). And on the other hand, many, many Republicans back in the 1990s suggested that, yes, Bill Clinton was very calculating and ambitious; that was something they didn't like about him. They argued that he would take any position, switch any position, in order to get elected (see "triangulation").

There probably are terms that are sort of gender-ized (men don't get labeled as a "witch"; and I can't remember ever seeing a woman called a "thug" or "thuggish"), but I don't think "ambitious" is one of them.

More Libby commutation commentary...

...in the blogosphere today, that is, as many are in a fury over former President Clinton's predictable spinning, criticizing President Bush's Libby decision while dodging his own controversial pardons.

Yes, well, but...let's lighten up, everyone. Don't we know enough to expect this by now? And anyway, it's simple: if the Clintons and their partisans want to bring this up, fine---as soon as the former president gives a full, and complete, explanation of his pardon of Marc Rich, and answers all questions anyone wishes to ask about it...once he's done that, we'll be glad to listen to criticisms of the Libby decision. Until then, Senator Clinton and her husband probably need to do something about the racket being made by that skeleton rattling away in the closet...

Hillary in Iowa

This is the second story I've seen already today (update: rather, make that 3; the previous link, plus the Washington Post and NY Times) commenting on how Bill is coming to Iowa to campaign for Hillary, and of course, by the way, mentioning that Senator Clinton has been strugglig there in the polls, sometimes even coming in third. (here's a summary of the latest Iowa polls of Democrats.) Why is Mrs. Clinton struggling so in Iowa? Is it simply that John Edwards has spent so much time there, really? I wonder.

...but it's still about "them."

Former President Clinton tries to make this campaign not about him. Problem is, even if it's not about him, it's about her, about "them." I'm not the first to wonder if voters will really want over 20 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Call it Bush-Clinton fatigue, even though I sometimes think W. gets too much blame.