Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - Posts
-
sponsorship
Hanna,
I read the Vicki Iseman-the-cute-lobbyist/John McCain-isn't-ethical piece, too, after no fewer than three people told me to—none particularly enthusiastic about McCain. All were apalled, not by the content of the story, but by the transparent thinness of the reporting. If the Times has evidence that McCain had an affair, they should come out with it. If they have evidence that he showed improper favoritism toward a lobbyist, they should come out with that, too. The fact that they do neither—most of the article rehashes old stories—must mean they don't have anything at all; perhaps they are hoping the blogosphere will produce it. The only "evidence" comes from two anonymous aides who claim they told Iseman to buzz off and stop distracting their boss—behavior which strikes me as quite normal and rather admirable. Sounds like they were doing their job.
Thanks to lack of evidence, the article reads not like an exposé but like an elaborate and extended piece of insinuation. Surely this must will damage the New York Times more than John McCain: Who will believe their reporting on him now?
-
sponsorship
That New York Times story about McCain's "self-confidence on ethics" is one of the weirdest news stories I've ever read. This is not a story about McCain's coziness with lobbyists and whether his line about money corrupting politics is a lie. It's not a story about his post-Keating career. It's a story about his post-Cheating career. I guarantee you 99 percent of readers will skip over that fat historical midsection rehashing Keating to the end, where they get back to what John Weaver did or didn't tell Vicki Iseman at Union Station.
Why can't the Times just admit this? I understand the New Republic was ready to out them, but so what? Either they write the cheating story or they don't. They can't dress it up as a serious story about his policy positions or his general "ethics." As it is, it just looks like a lame story where they quote a bunch of anonymous old campaign sources but don't have any actual evidence of the affair themselves. And they make it much easier for McCain to just stomp on the story by blathering on about his integrity and honesty and his long record of getting money out of politics, blah, blah.
As for whether newspapers should report on affairs or not: I always say yes. It's not an absolute damnation, but it says something about a man, especially one who sells himself on his character and integrity. And if America doesn't care, well, then that says something, too—that the era of family values is officially over.
My only remaining question: Why did he bother? She looks exactly like Cindy.
Read more posts about John McCain and Vicki Iseman.
-
sponsorship
When I heard what Michelle Obama said, I thought uh-oh, classic DiKinsleyan gaffe: She said something true but unflattering, and thus a total no-no for someone in her position; that's why they call it impolitic. I also assumed she was talking about race, though that might be a total projection, because when I say I've never been prouder of my country, what I mean is that though the sickness of racism has afflicted us from the beginning, we may finally be ready to prove ourselves better than that.
The more scandalous quote, if we took it at all seriously, would be the one from Cindy McCain, about how she has always been and always will be proud of her country. I'm sure she did not mean that Abu Ghraib or water-boarding or cherry-picking intel to justify the wrong war have filled her with pride; and honestly, under her husband, I don't think any of those occasions for shame would have occurred. But, apparently, you can never go wrong saying things that everyone knows not to take too literally. Which may be why Hillary carries on giving victory speeches.
-
sponsorship
I agree, Emily, that we don't have to go to Lady Macbeth territory over Michelle Obama's ill-considered remark. (If only she had said, "I am really proud of my country" instead of "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.") But the first job of a spouse on the campaign trail is: Don't embarrass the candidate. How much damage a spouse can do is evident by the work of Bill Clinton. But as this smart column by Carol Marin points out, an Obama campaign's central belief is that "words matter"—so it matters what Michelle Obama says. Now Barack himself is giving a defensive explanation of her remark. Wouldn't it be better to have Michelle say that of course she is proud of her country and that she expressed herself poorly?
And speaking of Hillary, how can she lose nine (now 10) in a row and make no mention of it in her "victory" speeches? I have a different take, Dahlia, than that the problem is that Hillary makes us respond in sexist archetypes. Watching her last night, I began to wonder about her ability to talk about, and to face, difficult truths. Sure, she has to plaster on a game face, but she's so plastered, she starts to make you worry that the caulking is going to crack. (These post-rout speeches have given me a better understanding of her marriage: ignore painful reality until it bites so hard you're forced to scream.) But it's one thing to be resolute and tough; it's another to come off as if you prefer to stay oblivious when things are bad. Don't we want a president who can deal with reality, even if it's unpleasant?
-
sponsorship
Emily, your passing reference to Lady Macbeth just now reminded me of something I’d been meaning to post for a while. A friend suggested yesterday that one of Hillary Clinton’s great weaknesses as a candidate is that—fair or not—she seems so completely familiar to us. Not just because she’s been around for years but because the characteristics for which she's inevitably criticized are themselves these centuries-old archetypes: the castrating shrew, the righteous scold, the manipulative weeper ... I liked these characters the first time, by the way, when Chaucer did them. We often talk about all that Clinton baggage, but we forget that she’s carrying Lady Macbeth's duffel bag as well.
No matter what people say about Obama, I very rarely hear about him in shopworn, centuries-old literary clichés. That may explain some of the media hagiography. She is such a familiar type and the folks who hate her can just repurpose the stuff they've hated about strong women for centuries.
Maybe this is a discussion better suited for Meghan or some of you more literary lionesses, but I can’t help but think that Hillary pushes buttons that light up at Sigmund Freud’s house.
-
sponsorship
Over on Kausfiles, Mickey Kaus is giving Michelle Obama a hard time. Here's her full quote (or watch here):
"What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something—for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it's made me proud."
Mickey says that John Podhoretz may be right to say this suggests that the Obama campaign sees America as fundamentally flawed and occasionally good, rather than the other way around. That seems like a stretch to me, but, OK, I see the argument. What I don't get is Mickey's next speculation: "If Michelle Obama's default position is set to 'Aggrieved,' it also suggests something personal, no? Maybe, like many strong wives, she wonders why her husband is the one on the top of the family ticket. ... "
With all due respect, Whaa? Why default to the gender-driven, Lady Macbeth explanation for which there is no evidence? Seems utterly unhelpful to me. Mickey, am I missing something?
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?