I think I've read this "nepotism is the only way" argument at least a dozen times over the past couple months. And I've never found this terribly convincing:
"But their chief function to the cause is outside of policy. By their very existence, these women attack the norms and assumptions that bar other women from ascending to power on their own."
Does anyone seriously think Pakistan is more likely to elect more female Prime Ministers because of Benazir Bhutto? Or could it be that nepotism in that case didn't help all the women in Pakistan, but just Benazir Bhutto?
I wonder if we could just move the general election from November to May or something. The entire internet will be unreadable soon. Andrew Sullivan's website is just the first of many.
The entire internet will be unreadable soon. Andrew Sullivan's website is just the first of many.
This implies there was a time when it was readable.
Does anyone seriously think Pakistan is more likely to elect more female Prime Ministers because of Benazir Bhutto?
More likely than it would have been if she'd never held office, yes.
Obviously, Pakistan is no model of gender equality, but you gotta start somewhere.
And I've never found this terribly convincing: "But their chief function to the cause is outside of policy. By their very existence, these women attack the norms and assumptions that bar other women from ascending to power on their own."
I used to think that by far the most important thing Bill Clinton did was commit and pursue a "Cabinet that looked like America." Also, I'm not sure it's entirely clear what "elect" means in Pakistan, so that might not be the most useful referent.
Or could it be that nepotism in that case didn't help all the women in Pakistan, but just Benazir Bhutto?
Doesn't seem to have ultimately helped her that much either.
speaking of the Clintons, Bill talks some more about Obama and press coverage.
I confess that I do find the experience argument compelling. Obama is one helluva speaker, and I find him very likable, but when I think about who I'd be more comfortable with in the White House come 2009, it's Hillary. Her marriage does have a lot to do with that, yes. But experience is experience. And, say what you will about this, but I respect her Husband's recommendation. He's obligated to, of course, but he's not obligated to get all fired up about it, as he has, repeatedly.
also, god-almighty do I love pissing off the crazy clinton-haters. i'd vote for Hillary 1000 times over just for that.
I think that nepotism in general occurs when you need someone who a.) knows the ropes, b.) is completely loyal, and c.) accepts their position and won't rock the boat with too much ambition. In other words, it's club membership within a club hierarchy.
All the incompetents appointed by Bush were of proven loyalty, and most were appointed far above their merit (making them even more loyal). They weren't there to do a job, they were there to make sure a loyalist was there to oversee everything and report back to the real decision-makers.
Dynastic succession is a little like that, based on proven loyalty to the team, except that a dynastic successor can rock the boat a little compared to an underling. (But often it is hoped that successors will be puppets of someone unable to claim power.)
Obama is one helluva speaker, and I find him very likable and he has better or as good policy proposals on nearly every domestic issue, and has expressed sounder judgment on foreign policy and more willingness to change the way things are currently done, and has surrounded himself with a better group of advisers, and has in previous (legislative) positions shown an impressive instinct for working on pernicious problems which don't normally get much attention.
he's not obligated to get all fired up about it, as he has, repeatedly
Oh, come on.
I used to think that by far the most important thing Bill Clinton did was commit and pursue a "Cabinet that looked like America."
I think it's almost impossible to overestimate the importance of this. IIRC, the first woman cabinet member was Frances Perkins, FDR's labor secretary. I bet you can count the number of non-white-male cabinet members on the fingers of one hand between 1944 and 1992.
It's hard to imagine how important that sense of enlarging the possible is because once it happens everyone's like, well, duh. In the mid-90s I was at a class where the 40-something instructor showed a video of a TV talk show featuring debate about a crime. He stopped the tape and asked a room full of young people what was most remarkable. Nobody came up with anything (and this was a talkative class).
He was blown away that a roomful of students saw nothing remarkable about Helen Zia, an Asian American female lawyer, on national television. The students were blown away that he thought this was notable.
The TV clip was from 1982 or 83.
w/d, like Kevin Drum, I can't see a whole lot of difference between Hillary and Obama. I'm more inclined to believe that either of their actions with regards to Iraq will be more constrained by what they can do than what they want to do. I do like Obama's stance on Cuba. I don't like what he's done in the healthcare debate. I don't like that he hits Hillary on her Iran vote, yet skipped the vote himself.
of course, there's lots to not like about Hillary, too.
9:Darnit, listen to what Bill has to say, and just imagine he cares about the country a tiny bit.
12:Like Liebman and Goolsbee. Goolsbee is apparently central to the Obama campaign, and until recently was Obama's debate prepper.
Obama is not what he appears. But with MY posting "I knew Obama before he was a somebody" posts, I have just about given up. The nightmare will be his 1st 100 days, when the corporatists finalize the debt-peonage of America, to thunderous applause.
Bob, can I get links to pieces that cast Goolsbee in a negative light? I have a vague positive impression that I read something by him that I liked, but can't remember what it is. I don't know who Liebman is.
17. a. will do! Would you like me to get you a t-shirt or bumper sticker next time I'm at the Bill Clinton Library gift shop? There's a lovely "I Miss Bill" design.
Obama is not what he appears.
sorry to bother, but links on this, too? Because of the giant love-fest, I'm fairly certain we haven't gotten a real picture of the guy, but I don't know anything definite.
17:It's pretty tough to find direct and meaningful criticism in an academic disciple that makes nice with the likes of Friedman and Mankiw. For instance, re Friedman, you still can't get anything like straight talk on de-regulation or monetarism, and maybe "well, some deregulatio will probably increase efficiency, but it can go too far" while legislators are unleashing barbarians on the villagers. IOW, the interface between academic economics and policy is muddy to opaque, and I will be spending the summer studying Goolsbee. Spent a couple hours on "behavioral economics" the other night, and came away asking why isn't everybody on board? Looks perfect.
And I know we will get pretty pictures in the early Obama administration. Most here will like most of the legislation, to the degree any of us understand it. But, oh that fine print, oh those externalities...
20:did you read what Clinton said?
Iam not saying Obama is a stealth Reaganite. I think he is a stealth neo-liberal in progressive clothing. For the economic meaning of "progressive"
Would you like me to get you a t-shirt or bumper sticker next time I'm at the Bill Clinton Library gift shop? There's a lovely "I Miss Bill" design.
This is where I do my "holy shit, I'd really like it if liberals actually bothered to take a look at Bill Clinton's policies for a fucking change" thing again. He gutted welfare, actively undermined unions, championed corporate power, stabbed Kyoto in the back even while shedding crocodile tears over it, escalated the low-level war with Iraq, massively expanded the power of the executive branch, did more to erode the safety net than Ronald Reagan ever dared, and began the program of outsourcing torture to friendly dictatorships through the CIA, but none of that matters because Republicans were really mean to him. Jesus Christ. Any sane progressive movement wouldn't have nostalgia for this man; it would've tarred and feathered him years ago.
Anyway, Michael, it is very simple.
Andrew Sullivan loves Barack Obama. One thing I know about the right is that they are calculated, that is always about policy which means always about money/taxes. Andrew Sullivan likes Obama because he expects Obama to be "right" on fiscal policy, cutting spending and taxes.
Somebody is getting tricked & fooled. The Obammers think it's Sullivan. Seems to me the left-centrists have lost this game recently much more often than the right, mostly based on their need for optimism and conflict-aversion.
24: Bob, "Andrew Sullivan" and "calculated" don't belong in the same paragraph. Sullivan likes Obama, yes; and his favorite two Republicans are John McCain and Ron fucking Paul. If you can find anything in common between these three politicians, other than the fact that all three are the objects of Andrew Sullivan's temporary whims.
And really, at some point you're going to have to come up with better dirt on Obama than saying "Goolsbee and Liebman" over and over again. Obama actually has a voting record in the Illinois state senate; he actually has a policy platform running for president; and he actually has quite a few economic policy advisers not named Goolsbee or Liebman. If you really think Obama is the secret privatizer in the race, prove it. Meanwhile, the only Democratic candidate actually connected to actual attempts to dismantle the welfare state is Hillary Clinton.
stras, for $500 I can get you an autographed copy of My Life. $350 will get you Giving.
I just read a couple of Goolsbee's NYTimes articles (obviously not the same as his academic work), and reiterate that I don't see why his name should be a totem for any negative evaluation at all, unless being associated with an academic economist is a negative.
If you can find anything in common between these three politicians, other than the fact that all three are the objects of Andrew Sullivan's temporary whims.
All would look good with beards.
23. He made immunizations cheap, and therefore widely more available here in the US, created AmeriCorps, passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit, raised taxes on the rich, cut taxes for the poor and small businesses, and balanced the budget. i'm sure that's not an exhaustive list. Further, he talked an whole lot of sense, and tried, at times, for a more liberal agenda than he could accomplished.
24: I probably agree with Bob about Obama, but I think that the Sullivan story is that a.) he hates Hillary bitterly for no intelligible reason and b.) he's trying to salvage some self-respect after debasing himself on 9/11 and immediately afterwards.
29 is weak tea compared to 23. If a senator had a record like 29, I'd say, "Hey, impressive record of legislative accomplishment, but I'd like to see where you stand on the issues." (Balancing the budget is larger than a legislative accomplishment, but je m'en fous.)
||
OK, is the below sexist? Bear in mind that Ana MArie Cox made her name by writing a scurrilous gossip column about celebrity politicians featuring frequent references to "ass-fucking".
I posted it at Yglesias, but you can't troll those Ivy politico motherfuckers. I did get one response from Novakant, to which I responded.
Notew that everything I say about Cox, who wrote a pretty good piece today, is positive.
In the past I've had enormous doubts about the cute redheaded assfucking lady's qualifications to be a serious commentator, but in the major media she's far better than average.
Perhaps "Better than the Cute Redheaded Ass-fucking Lady" awards should be given every year for eminence in commentating. Krugman makes the cut, but only a few others on the major newspapers, and no one at Time or Newsweek or the TV talk shows or news shows that I can think of. Olbermann is on a par with Cox at best.
It sounds like the Mendoza line, but it really isn't. More like the ready-for-prime-time line.
I still think that Time should have hired Digby as as their token uterus-person, but thank the Lord for small favors.
Posted by John Emerson | January 8, 2008 2:08 PM
yikes, was that really necessary, John?
Posted by novakant | January 8, 2008 2:29 PM
Ana Marie's unique path to the major media left her with some baggage, don't you think? But note that what I actually said about her was entirely positive -- though I only compared her with her actual MSM peers, which is sort of insulting.
It's not possible to be too cynical about the American media. If you think I'm wrong about that, tell me how.
Posted by John Emerson | January 8, 2008 2:33 PM
|>
29: I'm well aware of all that. And yet, as I said, he also gutted welfare, gave us DOMA and NAFTA and Rubinomics, passed a crime bill that put even more nonviolent drug offenders into prison with even longer and more odious sentences, killed thousands in Iraq to no good purpose, established a program of warrantless surveillance, let the Kyoto Accord die with no significant support from the White House, and initiated a program of torturing prisoners overseas through the CIA which would later be expanded into George Bush's network of secret prisons. The small amount of good he did was far, far overwhelmed by the bad. You might as well applaud Nixon for the Clean Air Act.
Um, defining a woman as the 'cute redheaded assfucking lady' really makes it sound as if she got her job through her willingness to be sodomized, rather than, as you meant, her knack for writing amusingly obscene posts (and to talk cleverly on TV, which I suppose makes 'cute redheaded' marginally relevant). Even to someone who knows what you're talking about, it sounds really unpleasant -- I wouldn't talk like that about anyone I didn't mean to slander.
25:If you really think Obama is the secret privatizer in the race, prove it.
National Press Club on Social Security linked in a thread below:
Obama:Everything's on the table.
Q:How about mandatory private accounts
Obama:Everything's on the table
I don't expect to be able to prove much, even after the bills are passed. "Proving" stuff , like evolution, is pretty tough in American politics. Economics iseven tougher. DeLong is in favor of some private accounts, the differences between his plan & Obama's may be hard to pinpoint, and consequences may not show up for years, may be conditional, etc. There are people here who would trade some SS benefit cuts for better healthcare = generational war.
My economic standards are pretty simple:I want redistribution, I want a net improvement in general economic equality at the expense of the top of the income/wealth scale. I don't want good intentions, I don't want good attempts, I want results and I want them now. Fuck the hedgetraders. Fuck Citicorp.
And that is net. I don't want middleclass healthcare paid for by the middleclass. The rich have gotten over, with the help of neo-liberals for 35 years, and I want their money.
It's just my way of praising her! But yes, it did infuriate me that a sleazoid gossip columnist was designated to be the uterine Democrat on one of the most important media publications (with the abominable Joe Klein being appointed the testicular Democrat).
Perhaps the fact that she's risen to the occasion reasonably well indicates that she always was a serious pundit, and that she just understands the brave new world we live in and its career paths much better than poor chumps like Yglesias and Klein and Garance and Digby and the rest.
I actually think that in this particular case I am justified. That's the kind of thing she dished out for several years, and how could she complain? Maybe she'll hire me as an intern.
That's the kind of thing she dished out for several years, and how could she complain?
Okay, but then you don't need to ask if it's sexist or offensive, you're saying, "Sure it's offensive! Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander."
But not wrongly offensive, I claim. And in fact, she was never quite trying to destroy anyone with her scurrilous talk, she just had that particular way of talking. And I really did praise her and declared that she defined what "ready for prime time" means in the US media!
It would be a horrible way to talk about Jessica Valenti or Garance or Lindsey Beyerstein or any of the others, for sure. And I wouldn't, but the point is moot and I'm safe from temptation, because none of them will ever rise as high as Ana Marie has.
And if one of them ever does, I'll send you one of my sister-in-law's pies.
National Press Club on Social Security linked in a thread below:
Link? The only thing I've heard Obama say about SS privatization recently is that he's opposed to it, which is the position on his campaign website. The only candidate I've heard say "everything's on the table" with regards to SS is Clinton, who hasn't ruled out privatization - she's only ruled out raising the payroll tax cap.
John, asking a question is not how you use pause. Pause is for when you're going to let people carry on their original conversation. If you're deliberately derailing the topic -- not that that's a bad thing -- use OT.
Standards, people!
36, 38: You're fooling yourself if you don't think Garance Franke-Ruta doesn't know exactly what she's doing as far as the pundit/journalist game goes. The track she's following isn't as flashy as Ana Marie Cox's, but it's tried and true.
Wait, isn't that op-ed saying *exactly what I have been saying on this site for a long time now*?
Hmph. Ingrates.
stras, it was Obama giving a speech at the National Press Club on Social Security, in the question period. It was audio only without a transcript. It was at the end of a thread here, last week I think. I will go looking, but I am not that good at finding links. In any case, without a transcript, I suppose I can't "prove" anything.
OK, I thought it was just the new standard for "OT". (I'll seldom use "|| |>". )
So far Ana whips Garance's ass. Brave new world, baby!
Wasn't Cox writing online columns when most of these bloggers were still in high school?
Ana whips Garance's ass.
Now there's a video I'd like to watch!
31. see what you can accomplish with a Congress that hates you, and unsympathetic press, and little party support.
stras, sadly, I have no real opinion on NAFTA. I read a lot about it, years ago, but I still don't think I understand all the issues enough. Similarly with welfare reform. It's one thing to say that Clinton shrunk welfare, but what does that mean, concretely? Some googling on this shows mixed results. As an ideological issue, I can't say I'm for endless welfare. Again, though, my opinions on this aren't really strong.
as for "torturing prisoners overseas" I've heard that argument before and always dismissed it as clinton-hater rantings. I did look into it some time ago, but found no evidence of it.
as for killing thousands of Iraqs, I assume you're referring to the sanctions? yes, last i remember, those were heinous.
as for the Kyoto protocol, Clinton didn't submit it for approval, but what would have been the point? the Senate had preliminarily rejected it 95-0. Clinton *did* issue an executive order which was very similar to what Kyoto called for.
and what's your evidence on the warrantless surveillance? I know that there were claims that Clinton issued an executive order for that purpose, but I thought that such claims were all debunked.
Do you have an opinion about Bill as ex-president? I, personally, am very impressed. The number of lives that have been impacted or outright saved through Bill's foundation is truly remarkable. This really does make a difference in the debate, I think. I've thrown down in a lot of Clinton debates where all sorts of claims are based upon the idea that Bill is secretly nothing more than an amoral greedy opportunist. That characterization just doesn't fit with his actions since leaving office. In the last few years, Bill has been a powerful force of good in this world, and I respect that.
If you read Cox' pre-Wonkette blog, she comes across as smart and insightful.
It's not clear to me that replacing welfare with an enlarged Earned Income Tax Credit is a net loss.
Man those motherfucking wonks at Yglesias are hard to troll! The rulers of tomorrow, I suppose, with no sense of humor. I fear them.
Here is the NPR Audio couldn't find it in the Unfogged comments
In any case, my problems with Obama are partly the concilatory language in his rhetoric, partly that Republicans seem to be licking their chops at his Presidency and the way Republicans play brinkmanship politics, and partly the economic conditions I expect to see in the next administration. Republicans, which includes the Fed & Wall Street, will push the country to the edge, and I expect Obama to fold rather than fight. He hasn't given me any reason to believe otherwise.
That may be what Hillary is talking about with "experience" I know Bill Clinton gave in to Greenspan, and I expect Bernanke and the investment banks to go to Obama behind closed doors and say:"Pass our program or millions will lose their jobs."
Obama has shown me nothing in his make-nice rhetoric to lead me to believe he understands that Republican use human lives as bargaining chips.
but none of that matters because Republicans were really mean to him.
I want to touch on this for just a moment, because there is something like this at work in my psychology. Like I said, I've been in a lot of arguments about Clinton. Those arguments always seem to reach a point like this:
Interlocutor: well, what about things A, B and C that Clinton did?
Me: hm, I didn't know about those. Good points.
Later:
Me after doing research: No wonder I didn't know about that stuff; it's a load of bull!
That occurred enough times that my Clinton arguments began looking more like this:
Interlocutor: what about D, E and F?
Me: Don't know about those; I think you're full of crap.
Later: yeah, I was right (or mostly right.)
This pattern probably has been influenced by my own history; I was exposed earlier to extensive, legitimate criticism of Clinton, so if it was true, I already knew about it. Still, there's just an awful lot of crap criticism of the guy out there, and I've learned to discount most of it.
It's not clear to me that replacing welfare with an enlarged Earned Income Tax Credit is a net loss.
It is to me. First, we can't have both? Second, you have to be working to get the EITC, and it only comes once a year in a lump sum. Welfare reform fucked the poor, and especially those poor who either (1) couldn't find work, or (2) whose workfare requirements essentially made it impossible to hold their families together.
see what you can accomplish with a Congress that hates you, and unsympathetic press, and little party support.
Clinton didn't have welfare reform or NAFTA forced on him by a Republican Congress. Quite the contrary; he fought his own party to enact a conservative economic agenda Republicans hadn't been able to pass under Reagan or Bush.
as for "torturing prisoners overseas" I've heard that argument before and always dismissed it as clinton-hater rantings. I did look into it some time ago, but found no evidence of it.
You didn't look very far then.
You Unfogged motherfuckers are hard to troll too. Thanks for trying, LB.
You know, I miss the cute redheaded assfucking lady. I haven't had time to follow her career as political novelist or commentator, but she was a real hoot as the cute redheaded assfucking lady.
Thanks, Rob. Wonkette will never never the same.
stras, thanks for the link, but if you take that as proof that Clinton sent people to be tortured, then you're taking a few leaps. As even Katherine says, there's no evidence that this was even cabinet-level approved, let alone Presidential. One thing I learned when I read Charlie Wilson's War is that the CIA doesn't get permission for everything.
Second, this doesn't actually seem to be extraordinary rendition, which, as I understand, involves us handing over our prisoners to another party for torture. The article linked mentions the CIA working, extensively, with the security forces of another country to nab their own citizen terrorists. They were never our prisoners, under our jurisdiction.
It's still extraordinary rendition. I believe it was called that at the time. I've argued here that it was distinguishable from Bush's renditions on basically the grounds you state, but I knew I was hairsplitting. Americans captured someone without process of law and delivered them to torturers also without process of law.
Ana Marie Cox was one of the original Sucksters. She also wrote on Bad Subjects, which was kind of a cousin to the Baffler, and for Eggers original masterpiece magazine, Might. She's always been a smart, deep and critical writer (the Might stuff was just cutesy).
"She's always been" s/b "She used to be"
Is that really the case? I haven't kept up, but every now and then I get directed to her and she seems properly offended by the state of things.
I haven't kept up, but every now and then I get directed to her and she seems properly offended by the state of things.
Offended, maybe, but I wouldn't call her deep these days. Her writing isn't nearly as strong as the free work she was doing before Wonkette.
Americans captured someone without process of law and delivered them to torturers
I don't want to be obstinate, but that doesn't seem to be what the article says. It says:
His capture was one of five scripted and overseen by American agents
The CIA didn't capture them; the CIA didn't turn them over. They provided aid and assistance. You might still find that morally wrong.
Supervising ≠ observing, or providing aid and assistance. The supervisors of an action are responsible for it.
The American Leftist endorses Obama!
Very very good. The Clinton-haters and social-movement liberals will love this. This guy can write, if I am a judge, and I'm not.
"It will take some time for the liberals that accepted the Clintonian mantras of polarization, incremental change, triangulation, concealed political agendas and the marginalization of social movements as necessary pillars of progressive politics in America. But probably not too long, because the longer they stay with the Clintons, the more isolated they will find themselves as the new Obama coalition of Democrats, independents, and, yes, even some Republicans, coalesces. By the time the results from South Carolina come towards the end of the month, most of them will have performed the required acts of obeisiance for their survival. Fear of political oblivion concentrates the mind wonderfully." ...Richard
stras, thanks for the link, but if you take that as proof that Clinton sent people to be tortured, then you're taking a few leaps. As even Katherine says, there's no evidence that this was even cabinet-level approved, let alone Presidential.
Michael, there's much, much more where that came from. Richard Clarke, in "Against All Enemies," says that extraordinary rendition was directly approved by Bill Clinton. If you don't have the book, there's an excerpt at this Wiki page, which also has links to a New Yorker article on the history of extraordinary rendition, including its origins in the Clinton White House.