LET’S PLAY TEE-BALL! Welch’s Lost Boys went after the witch, tee-ing it up for their brothers: // link // print // previous // next //

TRISTERO JUST KEEPS GETTING IT RIGHT: Tristero just keeps getting it right about the way the “mainstream press” is disappearing Darling Huckabee’s conduct in the tragic Wayne DuMond case. But please don’t miss the larger picture. This is a tale of 1990s-style lunacy—the type of lunacy the mainstream press corps is all about disappearing. They simply won’t tell you about the way they bought into the lunacy about Bill Clinton. And they will simply never tell you what they did after that to Candidate Gore. All these things must be disappeared—and the tragic Wayne DuMond case was an embarrassing part of this lunacy.

Remember: As late as August 1999, your “mainstream press corps” was putting the crackpot Gennifer Flowers on major TV shows—to accuse both Clintons of multiple murders! Well-trained boys on the liberal web won’t discuss such troubling matters, but your “mainstream press corps” was out of its mind during the bulk of the 1990s. They don’t want you revisiting that, which is why you see so much history erased. In this case, Huckabee’s lunacy must disappear. It brings us too close to our actual history—the recent history that good liberal boys have agreed to disappear.

Readers! Why didn’t Gore just tell a joke and make his bad press coverage stop? People who will clown like that will also make Huckabee’s conduct vanish. Huckabee is a wonderful man, it now seems—and that Wayne DuMond thing never happened.

Tristero just keeps getting this right; just don’t miss the larger picture. It’s hard for rational people to see the way the modern press really works. “Man [sic] is the rational animal,” Aristotle said. But alas! This savant was still dreaming.

LET’S PLAY TEE-BALL: Maureen Dowd’s columns—like this groaner today—actually serve one useful purpose. In all honesty, if such work weren’t publicly offered, we would have no earthly idea that people this stupid existed. Her new piece is brainless from the start. But before long, Dowd types this perfect inanity; she refers to Caitlin Flanagan’s latest outing in the sad, broken Atlantic:

DOWD (10/31/07): Hillary surely hopes there is a harbinger in Argentina, where voters just rewarded their former president for his economic prosperity by electing his wife to succeed him.

''And why not?,'' former first lady Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner said about Hillary yesterday. ''Another woman wouldn't be bad.''

Ms. Flanagan is not so sure. She was particularly bothered by Hillary's callousness in dumping Socks, the beloved White House cat and best-selling author, on Bill's former secretary Betty Currie.

But maybe the qualities that many find off-putting in Hillary—her opportunism, her triangulation, her ethical corner-cutting, her shifting convictions from pro-war to anti-war, her secrecy, her ruthlessness—are the same ones that make people willing to vote for a woman.

Dowd just couldn’t help herself; she had to cite Flanagan’s complaint about Socks, a complaint whose cosmic brainlessness has been widely cited in the past week. And then, of course, she seamlessly moved to complaints about Clinton’s “ruthlessness”—using a word which was endlessly used in the trashing of Candidate Gore. (People like Josh Marshall don’t want to go into it, but the same stories are told about all Major Dems—and the Dowds are going to tell these stories until we force them to stop. Josh just won’t go there.) At any rate, let us repeat: If work like this didn’t appear in the Times, we would never have understood that human beings could be this stupid. But presumably, it always will be like this—as long as have a multimillionaire press corps. As in Versailles, so now at the Times. Dowd’s silly languor is a public embarrassment. But in the world of high Antoinettes, the inanity has always been thus.

That said, Dowd does provide one more service today. She explains what Jack Welch’s famous “Lost Boys” were doing on that debate stage last night. Tim Russert and Brian Williams turned in an astounding performance, the like of which we’ve never seen in any debate on any level. As she ends this morning’s piece, Dowd—a culture-mate of the pair—describes their strategy, even as she continues her insults of Clinton, the same ones she aimed at Vile Gore:

DOWD: Few are concerned that Hillary is strong enough for the job. She is cold-eyed about wanting power and raising money and turning everything about her life into a commodity. Yet, the characteristics that are somewhat troubling are the same ones that convincingly show she will do what it takes to beat Obama and Rudy. She will not be soft or vulnerable. She will not melt in a crisis.

And, unlike Obama, she doesn't need to talk herself into manning up. Obama whiffed in the debate last night when Brian Williams and Tim Russert teed up the first question for him to take on Hillary—something the debate dominatrix never would have done.

The script we find in that first paragraph comes straight out of Campaign 2000. Al Gore—sorry, cold-eyed Clinton—is willing to do and say anything! But then, these scripts will be aimed at Dem front-runners as long as liberals and Dems permit it. For years, we’ve refused to fight back.

And we’ve refused to discuss the conduct which Dowd correctly describes in that passage. If you watched the debate, you saw what occurred: In fact, Russert and Williams “teed it up” for Obama and Edwards all night long. (Presumably, Dowd had an early deadline.) We thought their performance was simply stunning; there has never been a debate like it. That said, we thought Garance Franke-Ruta, live-blogging the session, had the eyes and the guts to see and say what was happening half-way through. She posted this at 9:57 Eastern, when the gang-bang staged by these weak-minded boys had reached a remarkable level:

FRANKE-RUTA: OK, this is now everybody—and I do mean everybody—against Clinton. It makes her look brave for just standing there, this small determined woman being attacked by three men on either side of her, two male moderators, and the entire male Republican field. Each of the critics on his own would be more effective, but taken as whole, the optics of this are uncomfortable.

In retrospect, we’ll go beyond that; in fact, the optics were pitiful. It was sad to see that Obama and Edwards would take part in such a Salem witch-dunk; of all the boys who stood on the stage, only Richardson had the decency to announce that he wouldn’t be part of it. (God bless the occasional man who stands up and says he won’t do this.) Of course, our nominee doesn’t have to be a woman to provoke this kind of ugly reaction; in Campaign 2000, the Dem nominee was a man, so Dowd just imagined that he was a woman, announcing that Gore was “so feminized [that] he’s practically lactating.” (As has been quite plain for years, this person is deeply unwell.) But when the Democratic front-runner is a real woman, the press corps’ multimillionaire culture warriors don’t have to imagine they’re slaying a lady. They can savage her right in the flesh! What a shame that Big Dems played along.

In the next few days, with transcripts (presumably) available, we’ll take a look at the remarkable questions posed last night by Welch’s Lost Boys. (We’ll compare them to the lazy softballs their island-mate served at the last GOP debate.) They were hired to serve this purpose, and they’ve served this purpose quite well; they trashed your nominee during Campaign 2000, and sent the world’s dumbest man to the White House. But if you tend to doubt the fact that their souls are driven by a gender madness, we’ll close today with a report from last night’s NBC Nightly News. The headline comes to us straight from Nexis. This really is the way someone at NBC News viewed last evening’s event. Look for men to go after Clinton, some poor broken loser cried out:

NBC NIGHTLY NEWS (10/30/07):

Look for men to go after Senator Hillary Clinton in tonight's Democratic debate

BRIAN WILLIAMS: And on that very stage, my partner in the questioning for tonight's debate will be our Washington bureau chief, the moderator of Meet the Press, Tim Russert. And, Tim, as rare as it is to telegraph your strategy, here's Barack Obama, this weekend, New York Times, saying, “Yes, I'm going to be tougher against Senator Clinton.” What can he do now? That raises the stakes.

TIM RUSSERT: He has to fulfill his promise, his pledge. Now, I think it will not be like two caged animals. But, Brian, he has to be very pointed in separating himself from Hillary Clinton on specific issues. He also has to provide a rationale for his candidacy. More than politics of hope, more than turn the page, he has to say, “On Iraq, Iran, Social Security, no matter what the issue is, we differ. You're a wonderful woman, you have a great husband, but we differ on these issues, and I can win a general election.” It's a very high hurdle for Obama to succeed.

WILLIAMS: And we're talking about two of the people on stage tonight. There are a lot of others that like very much to get their message heard above the din.

RUSSERT: They're going to say to you, “Let me in, coach.” John Edwards, watch him closely, Brian. He is absolutely going on a no-holds-barred, take no prisoners. I believe he will be more candid, more blunt, more acerbic in his language than Barack Obama. Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Rill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, this is it for them. They know they have to make a mark in tonight's debate, two months to go.

WILLIAMS: All right, partner, I'll see you on stage. Tim Russert, thanks!

Clinton? To these sad, hand-picked corporate partners, she is “a wonderful woman” who has “a great husband.” And yes—at NBC News, some poor soul actually did put that headline on this report. “Look for men to go after Clinton!” As with Dowd, so with this: You wouldn’t know that such people exist...

At any rate, the “men” did go after Clinton last night—holding hands like blubbering babies, looking like frightened, wet-legged boys. Brian and Tim and Barack and John learned an inspiring lesson last night—if the four hold hands and help each other, they can work up their courage to dunk the vile witch. Yes, they did the same thing to Candidate Gore, simply pretending that he was a woman. But this will be done to Democratic front-runners as long as we Dems and libs permit it. And uh-oh! If the work of our brilliant web leaders provides clues, this will go on for a very long time. So will Republican control of the White House.

So will Republican warring, of course. Could you believe the questions those idiots asked about their hopes for war with Iran? We’ll look at their questions tomorrow—and we’ll see what it’s like to play tee-ball.

TOMORROW: If Tim and Bri do another debate, will water-boarding be allowed?

OTHER EYES: Different eyes see different things. During the period when Garance piped up, here’s what Josh Marshall saw:

9:45 PM ... Whatever you think of Clinton's answer to this experience question, I still get a chuckle out of Giuliani's idea that he was somehow commander-in-chief of New York City. Responsible for the safety of millions of people? The Mayor?

9:52 PM ... Again with this doofus Giuliani 'experience' question. Made a payroll? Rudy? Opening and rainmaking consultancy to cash in on your public service. That doesn't count. Face it. Giuliani was a government lawyer his entire life until he served two terms as mayor. Nothing wrong with that. Very honorable. But don't pretend you're some sort of business man.

10:01 PM ... Okay, I may have to endorse Biden after this tear against Rudy. Right, the least qualified man running for president since George Bush. Actually, this whole answer is pretty great. Not really being in the race is sorta liberating.

10:03 PM ... Why do we indulge Tim Russert's delusion that he's an expert on social insurance programs?

10:04 PM ... Here's the thing with Hillary. Not always inspiring answers. But, man, she never flubs an answer. Simply unflappable. Like a machine. And I mean that as a compliment.

Of course, Josh will always cut and run. To read what he saw in real time, just click here. But uh-oh! In this morning’s post, he’s getting in line with what PayPal donors have said.

If you agree with either one of these outlooks, won’t you please submit a donation? By the way, just a hint: People who retract their own vision this way will not describe your recent history. It’s great to see our liberal “leaders” adjusting to what Josh calls “the spin.” At least Chris Matthews waited two days to flip on Bush-Gore Debate I.