So, Peggy Noonan gets all irate because Hillary will not die. She refuses to eat her poison mushrooms. After all that the press has thrown at her, she keeps getting up. Here’s the money quote:
Political professionals are leery of saying, publicly, that she is losing, because they said it before New Hampshire and turned out to be wrong. Some of them signaled their personal weariness with Clintonism at that time, and fear now, as they report, to look as if they are carrying an agenda. One part of the Clinton mystique maintains: Deep down journalists think she’s a political Rasputin who will not be dispatched. Prince Yusupov served him cupcakes laced with cyanide, emptied a revolver, clubbed him, tied him up and threw him in a frozen river. When he floated to the surface they found he’d tried to claw his way from under the ice. That is how reporters see Hillary.
I can think of a couple reasons why Peggy Noonan is having problems understanding what’s going on here but it isn’t nice to call people names so I will refrain from saying that Noonan is intellectually challenged.
The thing is, just because Peggy and her fellow Villagers say a thing over and over doesn’t mean that it is true. For example, you can call a person a loser or say that she’s losing 6 times in the first two paragraphs but when the candidate in question wins NY, NJ, MA, MI, FL and CA it’s kinda hard to make that stick.
But more than that, who decided that Hillary needed to be dispatched in the first place? Certainly no one *I* know felt this was necessary even as far back as the 90’s. Oh sure, there were a lot of Villagers and Republican Elves calling “Fire!” back in the 90’s and there was a lot of smoke. But when it all cleared, it turned out that there was no fire. It was just a bunch of adults with the maturity of adolescents playing with a smoke machine.
Please tell me, Peggy, why should we “dispatch” Clinton? I think the country is starting to catch on to Republican Opposite Day and they’re not listening to the Villagers like they used to. After all, it was Peggy and friends who “dispatched” Gore and Kerry and gave us eight years of George W. Bush, the worst president in our country’s history.
Maybe they’re on to you, Peggy. Maybe when you do the Brer Rabbit trick and try to convince the public that nominating Clinton is a briar patch, it makes her all the more appealing. Maybe, that’s because you guys have lost all credibility.
And I find this bit particularly telling:
The Democrats have it exactly wrong. Hillary is the easier candidate, Mr. Obama the tougher. Hillary brings negative; it’s fair to hit her back with negative. Mr. Obama brings hope, and speaks of a better way. He’s not Bambi, he’s bulletproof.
I find this statement very odd given that Hillary is not allowed to go negative due to her gender. She’s held to a much higher standard on that count. You can *say* she played the race card but logically it doesn’t parse because why would she want to piss off one of her constituencies? It’s OK for Barack to play to identity politics but not so with Clinton. She can’t even aggressively court the female vote. Our media culture forbids it. So, why is it somehow “fair” to go negative on her? What makes it fair? What set of circumstances, character flaws, acts of corruption makes it “fair” to viciously and relentlessly attack her?
If it really was Opposite Day, we could read your column in the correct context: She’s winning, she *can’t* be dispatched because the media isn’t in charge anymore, the voters are. Voters like her, in spite of all your efforts and there’s no reason for her to concede with grace or anything else. You have no legitimate reason, other than she is a successful Democrat, to want to kill her off but you realize that she’s winning and that’s frustrating. And any promises or innuendo that you’ll go easier on Barack Obama because he’s black and the media isn’t into racism is a lie. You Villagers are like children with your hands behind your back and your fingers crossed as you cross your hearts and hope to die.
Must be awful for you to have Hillary melt your lovely wickedness.
Filed under: Media, Presidential Election 2008 | Tagged: Hillary Clinton, Media, opposite day, Peggy Noonan |
The Confluence 
” find this statement very odd given that, as a woman, Hillary is not allowed to go negative due to her gender. She’s held to a much higher standard on that account. You can *say* she played the race card but logically it doesn’t parse because why would she want to piss off one of her constituencies? It’s OK for Barack to play to identity politics but not so with Clinton. She can’t even aggressively court the female vote. Our media culture forbids it. So, why is it somehow “fair” to go negative on her? What makes it fair? What set of circumstances, character flaws, acts of corruption makes it “fair” to viciously and relentlessly attack her?”
Riverdaughter, I knew I liked you, but have you ever nailed it right here. I don’t watch much TV at all. Only PBS and the local channel, so my sense is that people are getting “spin-brandification” for him and hate for her. Frankly, I can’t understand it. But my hunch is that it all goes back to the oatmeal cookie recipe days.
Hillary is the REAL thing. She is highly educated. She is a feminist. She is a mother. She is a politician, and a good one. She did “do” it all. Whew.
I can see how men are afraid of her, but women? My god.
She’s in our corner! I’ll be back to read you, and I’m so happy to have met “your brain” in here via your words.
I never thought I’d see the day feminism split, well at least heterosexual feminism, anyway. It’s as bad a split as this election is. The pollsters are wrong by the way. It’s us educated West Coast married feminists who want her in.
Got my fingers crossed out here…
You nailed it Riverdaughter!
Vbonnaire: I like the cut of your jib. I added you to the blogroll. We’re starting to coalesce.
(yessss!)
When are we going to stop worrying what Republicans think? Peggy Noonan can say anything she likes and it will be a pile of shit, so long as she’s a Republican. Being Republican isn’t an ascriptive identity–it’s a choice, and it’s such a morally and intellectually damaged choice in the America of 2008 that it’s not only fair but necessary to offer people a choice. They can renounce it, or they can be ignored, except for mockery and to have their own stupid words used against them.
Forgive me for reliving the battles of the 1990s, for which (as I understand it from Obama) both parties share the blame.
Huh? Obama says both parties share the blame for the clinton bashing of the 90’s? Ok, I think he’s bought his own hype. That’s just ridiculous.
BTW, I spent an hour at lunch arguing with my Republican colleague at lunch. She brought up all of the same %(&* we’ve heard for years but I heard a new one today, It’s Bill Cllinton’s fault that adolescents are engaging in oral sex. Yes, because of his BJ’s with Monica, we have a bunch of 13 year olds doing everything but.
It’s not because of abstinence only education. It’s not because they’ve aged out of aftercare and have nothing better to do after school. It’s not because they’re fricking teenagers and they’re just doing what comes naturally (while not going all the way).
No, Bill Clinton made them do it. He gave them license. He set a poor example. Ok, these kids were like 4 when Monica happened but clearly the whole thing influenced them greatly.
I didn’t really want to argue with her. I tried to tell her to stop. I didn’t want to go there. She kept pressing the issue. She talked like McCain was going to be a great president and Bush already is. We just don’t know it because history has to catch up to his brilliance.
Finally, she admitted that she voted Republican because she was going to look out for herself.
“That”, I said, “Is what makes you a Republican and me a Democrat. I believe in the greater good.”
I had to leave it at that. She sent me an email peace offereing a few minutes later but the genie is out of the bottle. She’s a 30%er and I am not. We will never see eye to eye.
And this from a PhD in Physical Chemistry. Just goes to show you there is no direct correlation between intelligence and wingnutitude. They come in all shapes, sizes and advanced degrees.
The Reeps that keep insisting they want Hillary to win the dem nomination over Obama because she’s so much easier to beat would be hysterically funny except for the fact that some Obama supporters believe the lie.
The media induced and false polling data induced enthusiasm for Obama is frightening. Never again should we elect a feel good president, one who talks of compassionate conservatism and then delivers a blow from the far right, or one who talks of a liberal post-partisanship and then delivers we know not what.
Hillary has told us exactly what she’ll do as president, and how she’ll do it. It’s pragmatic and resolute and thought out. And, she has the toughness to accomplish it. That inspires me.
annagonzalez: I concur. I’m not looking for a messiah. I’m interested in someone who is more than capable of doing the job. Except for the IWR, Hillary gets checks in my grid for everything else. I know she will be a great president. Maybe no Lincoln, but I’ll betcha she gives Bill a run for his money in the history books.
[…] and Reaps Big RewardsThe Cocktail Hour- Valentine’s Day EditionAn Invitation to Kossacks in ExileGOP Opposite Day with Peggy NoonanAbout UsCan we cut the “Now, I’m no Hillary fan but…” crap?Nightcap- Friday in FebruaryThe Asian […]