Unleash the Hounds

To witness Joan Walsh's destruction of a boorish Chris Hitchens on Hardball tonight was to be put in mind of Sarah Palin's infamous pre-Thanksgiving turkey video: as Chris Matthews blathered on apparently heedless of the slaughter nearby, Walsh hoisted the blustering Hitchens over the trough and calmly induced the squawking death twitches of failed Hillary Clinton hatred.

While Hitchens' turkey blood splattered the remote MSNBC sets - clearly Matthews had another outcome in mind (Ha!)  -  Senator Clinton and President-elect Obama completed their first day as American foreign policy teammates, and the soon-to-be POTUS seemed to enjoy poking a sharp stick in the collective eye of a national media obsessed with personality. Pushed with a few of his own hard-hitting shots at Clinton from last spring's vintage, Obama grinned and made fun of the question - and then he said this:

I believe that there's no more effective advocate than Hillary Clinton for that well-rounded view of how we advance American interests. She has served on the Armed Services Committee in the Senate. She knows world leaders around the world. I have had extensive discussions with her both pre-election and post-election about the strategic opportunities that exist out there to strengthen America's posture in the world.

And I think she is going to be a(n) outstanding secretary of State. And if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't have offered her the job. And if she didn't believe that I was equipped to lead this nation at such a difficult time, she would not have accepted. Okay?

Bob Woodward wasn't in the room in Chicago, but he was letting his disdain show - both for the incoming President and his designate as Secretary of State - and Lance Mannion called him on it.

Think about it.  Bob Woodward helped bring down Richard Nixon.  Within his lifetime, the country has seen the rise and fall of Joe McCarthy.  J. Edgar Hoover headed the FBI.  George Wallace ran for President, twice!  Jesse Helms had a long career and powerful career as a United States Senator.  Tom DeLay ran the US House of Representatives.  We are finishing up eight years of the puppet Presidency of George W. Bush.

Throw Lyndon Johnson in there.

And what American politicians have gotten deepest under his skin?

The Clintons.

"She never goes away, she and her husband."

Yep, that's right, Bob. As Taylor Marsh said: "So much for killing off the Clintons."

______________

Note: my new book CauseWired: Plugging In, Getting Involved, Changing the World (Wiley) is available from Amazon.com and leading booksellers.

Comments

[Dennis Perrin]

Um, Tom, did we watch the same segment? Walsh came off as the typical Clinton apologist, circa 1998-99. I know you like Hillary and supported her campaign, but she's a cynical opportunist with shady connections and a crass imperialist view of the world. That Israeli statists cheered her SOS nomination, while the Palestinians wept, should tip you off there. She and her husband are dreadful people, though I'm happy that they're center stage once again. I don't know how American liberals can live without them.

As for Hitch, I'm certainly not a fan, as anyone who knows me knows. But he pinned Walsh into spewing generalities, not facts. Besides, the whole game is rigged anyway, as Walsh divulged when she mentioned her social contact with Hitch. Very Beltway insider.

[Tom Watson]

Well Dennis, I guess we did watch two different segments - I thought Walsh calmly goaded Hitchens into an embarrassing personal diatribe. Clearly, Matthews thought Hitch would help him nail Clinton, but the strategy failed miserably.

As for "cynical opportunist" - well, every president is...every successful politician is. And every president is a defense hawk. It's been that way since Andy Jackson and is unlikely to change.

That Obama will clearly be more Clintonian - ie, more inclined to keep 'em talking and somewhat less inclined to disastrous and counterproductive military adventure - is a good thing and in stark contrast to his predecessor, just as Bill Clinton was different from Reagan-Bush. Is he a peacenik? Nope. Will he screw up? Yup. But I also think that like his Democratic forebear, he will incline to the endless bargaining table (ask Irish Catholics how they feel about Bill Clinton's work - pretty damned good.) To put it another way, I don't think Obama's crass imperialism is any different from Clinton's crass imperialism. I do think it's far different than Bush's flavor (or Reagan's), as was Bill Clinton's and Jimmy Carter's. These are, after all, presidential administrations we're talking about.

As for Palestine, every American president will be statist on Israel - that is to say, the Israeli state will always be a recognized partner of the US. But what a change from Bush43! (You can well argue that Bush41 was the best modern American president for the Palestinians - which tells you something by itself). Obama-Clinton will tilt toward a real peace process and endless negotiation - they won't simply ignore the situation like Bush-Powell so fatefully did.

"Dreadful people" - well, I dunno. Seems a bit harsh, especially when compared to everyone else in public life.

[Dennis Perrin]

Bush/Powell didn't ignore the Palestine question -- they actively supported Fatah as Israel's enforcer in the Territories, something that the Dems signed off on with nary a dissenting peep. At this moment, Gazans are being strangled and starved by Israel and the US, having to resort to animal feed to survive (those who haven't already perished, that is). Where are the Dems concerning this human rights nightmare? Oh right - cheering on the Obama/Clinton marriage without so much as a nod to Palestinian suffering. Makes sense, given that they -- and we -- are financing it.

Joan Walsh is a middlebrow drip. She said nothing of substance, only obedient bleats on behalf of the Holy Clintons. Hitch challenged her to cite a single misstatement of fact, and she refused, for obvious reasons. When on TV, it's best to spout generalities and appear as if you're an expert, rather than get into the muck and prove your emptiness.

[Tom K]

Tom:

Ever notice how often you have to trot out the argument: "All successful politicians do (or are like) that" in defense of the Clintons? When you're always using the last line of defense, that tells you something about what you're defending.

Dennis:

At Tom's recommendation, just read your recent book. A little harsh on Andy Jackson, and soft on Woodrow Wilson, if you ask me. But a welcome against-the-tide contribution from the left. Still not sure what Tom W saw in it, though, given his dedicated support (to put it mildly) of HRC.

[Tom Watson]

And Hitchens is a middlebrow boor.

Not sure this gets us anywhere, really. I claim no holy status for the Clintons (nor, I suspect, does Walsh, who's been critical in that direction plenty of times), but I do believe that - in comparison to the other major public figures in American life - they are more a force for good than the opposite. Further, I strongly believe that the "liberal" media's obsession with them is based mainly on class prejudice - our "liberal" media types love monied monarchies but hate social climbers. So anti-American. This seems to go double for pseudo intellectual British ex-pats, for some reason.

Do I wish we lived in a world less constrained by realpolitick - by oil supplies and multinational corporate structures - sure, but I'm just not sure I'll live to see it.

As for the Palestinians, exchanging Bush and Rice for Obama and Clinton is big trade up....

[Dennis Perrin]

Tom K --

"Soft" on Woody Wilson? He was a bigger civil rights abuser than Geo W could ever hope to be. I thought I made that clear. As for Mr. Twenty Dollar Bill, screw him.

Our patient host is not as narrow-minded as are many Clinton fanciers (e.g. Joan Walsh), and I'm happy that he liked my book as much as he did. Still, TW was practically alone among online libs when it came to "Mules," which deepens my appreciation.

[Tom K]

I should have been clearer about WW -- you hit him hard on civil rights. While it's hard to say enough on him in that regard, you did an admirable job, given the limits of your format.

His duplicity in running as a peace candidate while intending to get us into war was only alluded to, though. It's not necessarily your job to do it, but the left in general should be more open about that, in my opinion. It fits your theme, too, since both FDR and LBJ did the same.

I thind WorldWar Wilson gets a break in that regard from an odd sort of hindsight, whereby the moral justifications for FDR having lied us into WWII get grated onto Woody and WWI, despite the many moral differences between the two situations.

While I'm on the subject, I also thought you understated FDR's duplicity, but didn't raise that for exactly this reason . . . But Tom and I have gone around that in this space before, by way of analogy to GWB and Iraq, so I won't go on . . .. Bottom line, those who complain about the Iraq war should either admit that FDR was wrong in his methods, or limit their objections to Bush's ultimate objectives, rather than focusing on his deceit.

[Susie]

"It's not necessarily your job to do it, but the left in general should be more open about that, in my opinion."

Some lefties have been criticizing Woodrow Wilson as a less-than-candid warmonger since Emma Goldman and John Reed. (LBJ, too.)

"Bush/Powell didn't ignore the Palestine question -- they actively supported Fatah as Israel's enforcer in the Territories, something that the Dems signed off on with nary a dissenting peep."

I hope – and note I said ‘hope’ that Obama and Clinton will try a different approach in spite of previous Democratic compliance. They won’t necessarily ratchet down the pro-Israeli rhetoric, but on a below-the-radar level there will be change. I am sorry for the Palestinians but their situation would be the same no matter which millionaire lawyer Democrat made it to the White House this time around. We can hope that it gets better for them and I think Obama (and Clinton, too) will try, but the US-Israeli relationship is what it is.

I did not see Hitchens’ exchange with Walsh but I did read No One Left to Lie To and thought it was in every sense of the word unbalanced.

And by the standards of cable TV, Walsh is La Pasionaria. I too sometimes find her a bit on the weenie side, but she's a decent sort and can be forceful enough.

[Tom W.]

I thought Savage Mules was great - not in the least because it forced me (once again) to examine my own, shall we say, categorization of the presidential principals Dennis portrayed. I'm no paragon in any way of open-mindedness, but I do think too many people who comment on politics deal in cartoonish absolutes; I think a little honesty in knowing what you're choosing is underrated.

I don't think I'm alone among Clinton supporters - and btw, I've never claimed any sort of perfection or spiritual savior-like for Hillary Clinton along the lines of core Obama supporters - in facing both the upsides and the downsides of my choices. My support for Hillary has been a combination of things: certainly, respect - but also a reaction to personality, class and gender based attacks on her - and that very same cartoonish quality of dismissal. Well, not to put too fine a point on it: it pissed me off, I dug in and here we are.

Supporting a mainstream Democratic administration isn't a choice of absolute good versus perfect evil to me - it's just a choice for the better. So yeah, I've got a little hope (like Susie) that things will get better.

[Dan Leo]

Perrin vs Hitchens is a bout I would like to watch on the tube. But somehow I think that's not going to happen.

[Neil M]

Ye gods, but Chris Matthews is a stooge, and perhaps the only many who can make me feel the slightest sympathy for Christopher Hitchens. And to think Matthews may be my next senator... ::shudders::

Tom W, I'm curious...do you think that the racism Obama had to deal with during the race (from any or all quarters) was much different from the sexism that confronted Hillary? This isn't a gotcha question, but I am genuinely interested.

[Tom W.]

Neil - I do think it was different, yes.

While Obama certainly had to endure some racism, and overcome an old societal prejudice to win election, Clinton had a similar challenge but also faced a national "liberal" media that didn't oppose that prejudice, and indeed, seemed to wallow in it far too often.

The national media "narrative" does count for a lot - and the narrative among 99.9% of media types of all political stripes was that any form of racism is terribly wrong in our modern society. Good for them - of course, I agree.

But on sexism, the percentages fell off dramatically. Rather than being buoyed by a cheering squad rooting for the ultimate symbol of overcoming gender bias in our nation (in parallel to overcoming race bias), many of those who were thrilled by the racial issue were themselves rather prominent sexists. It was both despicable and disheartening.

Racism and sexism are two different biases, of course. Given our nation's history of slavery and racial violence - and the incredibly moving narrative of the all-too-recent civil rights era - it's very hard to undersell the Obama victory, in my view. It really was historic.

Yet Maureen Dowd still writes for the op-ed page of the NY Times. Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are stilled employed by MSNBC. Chris Hitchens is still somehow valid. Alex Castellanos is still a CNN consultant. Andrew Sullivan still writes for the Atlantic. Flip their obvious gender bias and rhetorical transgressions over to race, and they simply wouldn't be allowed public lives in the United States.

[Neil M]

Well, as to Christopher Hitchens, I think the main reason he gets a microphone is because he is so breathtakingly offensive that no one can believe it and they have to take a second (and a third, and a fourth, etc.) look. Andrew Sullivan lost all credibility in my book when he gloated back in 2003 that liberals "never looked so out of touch." Liberals are the reason gay guys like Sullivan can pal around with conservatives, so to hear him criticize liberalism is like Dracula making fun of coffinmakers.

I guess this is the way I view sexism and the campaign. Although I think sexism exists in every campaign (and not just there), I don't think it denied Hillary Clinton the nomination. I've done ALOT of reading that indicates to me that there were lots of factored that contributed to her loss, such as bad staffing choices, internal dissent, early indecisiveness from the candidate, ignorance of the rules and poor financial management. I'm not trying to reopen that old debate but when I hear complaints about sexism and the Clinton race they feel almost like a cover for an unwillingness to deal with the fact of a troubled campaign. They're not baseless complaints, mind you, but I just don't think they were decisive.

[Susie]

Hitchens gets attention because once upon a time he was an excellent writer and he's a great talker when he's on. Also, the ex-lefty who bashes the left is always welcome on US television.

He can still write well on topics unrelated to the Iraq war, the Clintons, or anything else that doesn’t make him go off the deep end.

[judith]

Tom W - your post at 1:02 pm is outstanding. Indeed I agree. The only thing you left out was ageism - we are letting the kiddies and wannabee kiddies (the ones in their 40s and 50s who want to pretend they are still youngsters so they keep their jobs) define how old you can be before you get sh*tcanned. The irony is that the Dowds et al who collude on the taking down of women close to their own age only aid in their own demise...and there wont be anyone left who cares enough to help them when the ax takes aim.

[whoissecretdubai]

Hello,

A humble request...

Do you, by any chance, happen to know who Secret Dubai (the blogger: secretdubai.blogspot.com) is?

http://whoissecretdubai.blogspot.com/

[Susie]

I admit to concern about Iran, however. Those liberals who jeered at Clinton and McCain as bomb-happy hawks may find themselves defending an Obama who drops bombs on Iran or tacitly permits the Israelis to do so. But then we'd probably wind up bombing Iran no matter which party won the White House.

[Neil M]

"Those liberals who jeered at Clinton and McCain as bomb-happy hawks may find themselves defending an Obama who drops bombs on Iran or tacitly permits the Israelis to do so."

It's just possible that some of those jeers were spurred by quaint little ditties like, "Bomb Iran", or casual threats that the United States would "obliterate" Iran.

[Susie]

My point was that silly jokes or hawkish rhetoric aside, there was very little space among the candidates with regard to Iran, although the Democrats talked more about 'talking.'

Iran was the one issue where it occurred to me we might have been better off with McCain, who had no need to prove his hawkish credentials domestically or internationally. Generally speaking, when presidents feel the need to show everyone how Tough they are, they do so by bombing. I'm not saying McCain wouldn't have done that anyway, but if he decided to talk instead of bomb he would not have had to defend himself from the charge of wimping out.

[S - Angeltour]

I concur with Tom...glad you put it in writing...

...the Clintons have been an easy target for the 'group think' media for a long, long time...the media acts so impressed with itself when they go on Clinton attack...they try to outdo each other with who can unleash the sharpest hits and then they all chuckle in unison...the media manufactures the drama narrative because they just cannot help themselves...the CDS and the MSM reached a peak point during this election season and now seems so tiresome, so predicable and so out of touch...so yesterday...

...when I hear the usual pundits strain themselves to revive the CDS narrative...they sound so lame...like they are gossiping amongst themselves...time to get over it and focus on something important...

...for goodness sakes, even Barak Obama has moved on and gotten past personalities to substance and wisely has recognized that Hillary is extraordinary...in fact, when I see Obama and Hillary together, they actually seem to have a very special chemistry together...they look like the genuinely like and respect each other...perhaps, they are behaving like adults, rather than irrational, silly 'group think' identifiable media types that simply cannot get past their emotions and the little game they are so used to playing...

btw...I find it so ironic that while Arianna, Maureed Dowdie, Chris Matthews and Hitchens, Andrea Mitchell, Michelle Bernard, and the rest of them harp and nit pick regarding Hillary...Hillary is leaving them in her dust...

what have any of them done of real service to their country in comparison to Hillary? World Beloved First Lady for 8 years, two term New York Senator and now on to Secretary of State during a monumental historic time...Hillary's future is bright and full of promise as she sets out to repair our country's reputation and get us back on that track of peace and prosperity...where btw, her husband, former President Bill Clinton left us...before we were so rudely interrupted by the Bush Jr debacle...

...from my POV, nothing but love, respect and admiration for two great and purposeful leaders within the Democratic Party, Hillary and Bill Clinton

[アットローン]

はじめまして、アットローンです。
ブログがんばってくださいね。