September 17, 2006

Audible Althouse #65.

Finally. It's the podcast.

Every week it's another dustup in the blogosphere. Sometimes I'm the one who's kicked up the dust. Sex and politics... people get so worked up about it. Me, I'm serene, just making a few observations, dropping a sarcastic comment, causing a big political freak out.

Stream it right through your computer here. But the sublimely serene listeners subscribe on iTunes:
Ann Althouse - Audible Althouse

CORRECTION; Listening to the podcast, I note that at one point, in describing the blog Feministing, I say that the images there show bras. That's wrong, and I apologize for saying that. The images on Feministing show women in tight T-shirts with closeups focusing on the breasts and, prominently displayed in the banner, silhouettes of (apparently) naked women with very large breasts, the mudflap image that has enraged women for decades. And I do realize the women are giving the finger, but this, of course, reinforces the point that the blogger enthusiastically employs sexual imagery for effect. I wonder if the Feminist Law Professors, who felt injured by the fact that David Lat uses sex playfully on his blog, also feel injured by the way Feministing exploits sexuality? Oddly, no. They condemn me for calling her on it.

84 comments:

Mark the Pundit said...

Me, I'm serene, just making a few observations, dropping a sarcastic comment, causing a big political freak out.

You have misunderestimated your influence! heh.

chuck b. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
chuck b. said...

I can't believe it's been a year. There's no way. Are you serious?

chuck b. said...

People have all kinds of weird ideas about Lyndon Johnson. I know at least three different people who seriously believe he's behind the Kennedy assassination.

I'm simul-commenting the podcast drunk. Yes. I'm going to regret this in like 10 minutes.

It's so cute that you liked Barry Goldwater. I love it.

chuck b. said...

Okay, I'm stopping. Dinner is ready. And then I might come back and delete these stupid comments.

Helen said...

I love the podcasts--this one was especially good and thought provoking. Thanks.

XWL said...

But Chuck B., all those stupid comments are the good kind of stupid comments (even considering the profanity).

I vote for not deleting them.

(and of course, I'll have to go back and delete this comment if you delete your previous four comments, please don't make me do that)

DaMav said...

(spoken)
Is she really going to pose with him?
Well, there she is. Let's ask her.
Jesse, are those Billy's blinders you're wearing?
Mm-hmm
Gee, it must be great posing with him
Is he picking you up at the netroots today?
Uh-uh

I met him at the Bloggers Lunch
He turned around and smiled at me, ya get the picture?
That's when I posed for...
The Leader with my rack

Some feminists claim he was bad
(bad bad)
How could they know before they've been had?
(how could they know until they'd really been had?)
There's no to make an excuse
It was no big deal, just sexual abuse
I'm so proud I posed for, the Leader with my rack

-- Apologies to the Shangri Las, and probably to the rest of your blog as well, heh

useless ducks said...

Aww, I'm sure more than 3 people listened.

As far as the audio/visual question, text definitely allows your audience more control over pacing the informational flow though, which is nice for the occasional multi-tasking kind of afternoon.

If I were both inclined to stream audio and maybe a little more frivolous with my hard fought penny collection, I think I would invest in voice recognition/speech to text software (like iListen) so I could keep and maybe share transcripts.

I enjoy watching tv with the closed captions on as well as then reading recaps too, though, so maybe it's just a personal quirk.

chuck b. said...

I want to say, without much elaboration [and certainly no reference to the Boobie Wars whatsoever because honestly i cannot be bothered] that I like feminism and I consider myself a feminist no matter what all manner of agenda-driven people have to say about the subject of feminism. Here and here, that's it, I'm done.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Loved the "air quotes"

AuH2O -- 1960. Too cool.

I'd hate to see you quit podcasting entirely. It's a great option in the art form. I also like the vlogging [more Tonya!]

Humorlessness is more unattractive than unshaved armpits.

sbutler said...

Hey, a new podcast! I was worried you might stop. They're the highlight of my Monday bus ride to work.

Goatwhacker said...

Great podcast! I don't listen to them all but do enjoy them. It could have used more jutting breasts though.

Fenrisulven said...

It could have used more jutting breasts though.

Stop mocking my breasts! You jealous crone!

Johnny Nucleo said...

This was great. The podcast, this whole episode.

It was great because it was great fun. But it was also not great because I don't like that the Dems are in such a crazy state. I wish they were better.

Mr. Snitch said...

It's SO true. Never blog mad.
Mad is for driving.

The Tiger said...

Cracking jokes that hit sore spots is a very passive-aggressive way of going about getting one's point across.

I admire it highly. :-)

The Tiger said...

Oh, and yes, we enjoy the soothing voice of reason -- whether virtual or real.

dave said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
whereaswhat? said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John in Nashville said...

Ann, if I may offer a few candid comments from the perspective of a mostly libertarian Democrat who very much enjoys reading your blog and who regards you fondly. Until recently you identified yourself as a Democrat, albeit one who has been profoundly affected by the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001. You have more recently disclaimed any party affiliation.

The content of your blog writings, however, (at least for the two years or so that I have been a regular reader) is that of a pro-George W. Bush shill. When was the last time you ripped the current president a new one?

That you have channeled Karen Hughes while (until recently) claiming to be a Democrat has, with respect, seriously undermined your credibility as a commentator. Your credentials as a Democrat are roughly comparable to Judas Iscariot's credentials as a Christian disciple--which indeed Judas once was.

If I am correctly recalling the content of the podcast, your current claim to care little about politics similarly strains credulity. This weekend's brouhaha shows you to be among those driven batshit crazy by the thought of Bill Clinton.

If you choose to talk the talk of non-partisanship, may I respectfully suggest that you gig both sides when it is so often richly deserved by each or, in the alternative, acknowledge your blatant Bush partisanship (which likely is distinct from any Republican partisanship).

Have a great week, and thank you for letting me vent.

Edwards/Obama in 2008!

David Manus said...

Audible Althouse, cool. I guess if you called it "Oral Althouse" the Feministers would get all over you. ;)

Ann Althouse said...

John in Nashville: The last time I gave Bush a hard time was on Friday, here. Also last week, there's this.

Derve said...

"The images on Feministing show women in tight T-shirts with closeups focusing on the breasts and, prominently displayed in the banner..."

Just for fairness and fun,
can Dave/dave repost the link to the Helen Smith Reynolds photo that disappeared in the mysteriously shortened "comments,comments,comments" threat below?

It looked like she was posing (selling the shirt?) not just something for personal use taken at home. Helen was wearing a tight baby-doll tee with her breasts purposefully jutting out. The exaggerated pose jumped out at me "look at mine", whereas I skimmed right over the other woman in the Clinton group shot at first glance, only noticing her pose when it was pointed out.

Personally I think those baby tees in public make women look poorer no matter what the slogan is, because to me it looks too small on them, like outgrown clothes. The short sleeves seem to bite into the underarms and restrict the chest. Personal opinion though -- probably many find them comfortable, and enjoy the attention that comes with the display.

So all in fun,
can we get Dave's link back up? Maybe the younger women will feel less picked on, and we'll continue the relaxing fun, just hanging out here. Happy Monday folks

Goesh said...

Who am I to further tweak the discussion at hand? 'Nuff said and seen, well rounded commentary as usual by some pretty sharp folks who really stand out in the crowd of oh-so-average respondents, despite the occaional person who wants to bust out of the polite constraints associated with this Blog.

dklittl said...

Ann,

I'm not saying that you've never been hard on Bush before, but you're linked posts don't necessarily provide good evidence of that. You made the statement yesterday to the effect that Clinton single handedly put an end to modern feminism. Making some general comments about Republicans and midly criticizing Bush for pointing a finger at Matt Lauer don't really rise to the same level of critical analysis.

Ron said...

I love the podcast! It gives me something to listen to in the background when I'm reading other blogs!

Scott Lemieux said...

Oh, my. Leaving aside your ongoing and ideologically selective dishonesty about Feministing you're not ocontiunuing with your bizarre (and contradicted by everyone there) conspriacy theory that the picture was arranged to show off Valenti rather than the incredibly obscure principle of "putting the shorter people in front." But, just to top it, you actually argue that the "simplest explanation" for NARAL's house blogger being invited to a blogger meetup was...so Bill Clinton could get set up?

Further dialogue on the subject is evidently pointless; the ability that Clinton has to drive reactionaries beyond any connection with rationality is astounding. I look forward to your subsequent series of posts about how the whole meeting was set up so that Clinton could compel Valenti to dig up Vince Foster to Clinton could once again kill him with his penis while Matt Stoller took care of his Arkansas drug running operations.

knoxgirl said...

I have this theory--could just be wishful thinking--that in about fifty years, when the politics of it all don't matter so much anymore, people will look at what the Clinton administration accomplished and weigh it against how Clinton behaved and wonder why so many people were lining up to defend him.

Likewise, they will look at the enemy we are facing today in radical Islam and they will look at Bush's tough stance and be amazed at the opposition he faced from the very same people.

History will sort it all out. Eventually.

marley said...

Me, I'm serene, just making a few observations, dropping a sarcastic comment, causing a big political freak out.

Ala Malkin, Coulter. Poke a stick in someones eye, then play the victim. Pathetic.

Alan said...

Ms. Althouse, it ends up you were never a feminist. I wouldn't worry too much over that though. I used to consider myself conservative but found out I'm not. As a Goldwater Liberal I too am looking forward to watching HBO's documentary, though at a later showing. Go Jags!

Ann Althouse said...

Scott: You really have a poor humor sensor, obviously caused by your political opposition to me. You post on your blog about me is terribly written too. Anyway, trying to paint me as a big right winger is really dishonest, if you want to talk about dishonesty. As I've said many times, I voted for Clinton twice, I voted for Gore, and I've voted for Feingold every time he's been up. So figure out some other lame accusation next time you're in the mood to tell me how all my observations are off, you third rate hack.

Ann Althouse said...

Marley, I'm not playing the victim. My response to the attacks is another attack: my opponents are political hacks who stooped to illiberal sexist slurs again and again in their eagerness to get me. What do you think about that? (Let me guess...)

Henry said...

I think some good came out of the Clinton-Lewinsky episode and really didn't harm feminism that much at all.

Certainly, some professional feminists harmed their own reputations in rather profound terms, but that's a different thing.

The personal isn't political, thanks to Clinton. What we saw in the Clarence Thomas / Anita Hill ordeal was a personal matter, irresolvable at the political level. Clinton's disgrace helped raise the bar of perception for when a personal screw-up deserves prosecutorial attention. That's good.

So I'm curious. How did Clinton's actions actually hurt the cause of women's equality?

VICTOR said...

I do admit, Ann is a bit free with the personal attacks:

quote: you post on your blog about me is terribly written too.

It's like you really get pissed and lash out. Relax, it's not such a big deal either way.

Derve said...

Seriously though...
what happened to that other thread "comments,comments,comments?


Hmm. The thread is back up, but I wonder if you were forced to edit comments.

Ann Althouse said...

Victor: If I really wanted to attack Scott's poor writing, I'd ridicule it line by line in a front page post, and it would really, really hurt. You'd know the difference. These punches are pulled. I'm deleted a line in this and other comments here that would just characterize his writing, because it seemed gratuitously mean.

RogerA said...

I am curious about why the author of any blog should somehow subscribe to some "fairness" doctrine. A blog is a statement of one's personal thoughts/opinions/prejudices etc. If a reader wants "balance," clearly all that is needed is to visit Fox news for "fair and balanced" treatment! (given the tenor of posts about boobs, I suppose I should put an explicit sarcasm tag on this)

Ann Althouse said...

There was just a technical glitch in that other post, solved by republishing. I didn't change anything.

Doyle said...

If I really wanted to attack Scott's poor writing, I'd ridicule it line by line in a front page post, and it would really, really hurt. You'd know the difference.

The understated menace of "The Divine Ms. Althouse."

Whatever your political history, you are now, for all practical purposes, a Bush follower.

A good example is your criticism of Bush's conduct during the Lauer interview.

Sure, you objected to the finger pointing and intimidation, but made no mention of the fact that he was doing so in defense of secret CIA prisons and programmatic torture.

You also don't seem to give a tinker's damn about warrantless surveillance, or the unprovoked, and disastrous, war of aggression... But the Lewinsky wounds are obviously still fresh.

XWL said...

All this back and forth in the various posts that have raised the ire of all these netroots (must not type 'u' instead of 'e') folks puts to mind this regular feature at Gawker (that other bastion of rabid rightwingers, just like Althouse!).

Blue States Lose, would be an appropriate tag for all these posts (if Prof. Althouse did tags, that is).

As far as podcasts go. I'd hate to see them go. This particular podcast illustrates the utility of voice communication when trying to establish nuance (or lack of nuance) in humor.

Each medium offers different strengths, and in the past, you've used each well and in different ways.

But, if you feel you are getting diminishing returns from the podcast, then let them lay fallow for awhile.

Also, I'd love to see some doodles and sketches again.



And finally, do any netroots loving folks have skin at all? They've gone beyond 'thin-skinned' and rather than having a small protective semi-permeable membrane covering their bodies, they seem to have an 'injury seeking' field emanating from their corpus.

Bizarre, just bizarre, and an utter waste of time. But, as a partisan libertarian leaning Republican, I say, keep it up folks!.

RogerA said...

Hmmm--are we talking about breasts or talking about Bush and CIA prisons? and how are those concepts related? This whole topic is approaching surreal!

Let me state for the record: I am in favor of boobs--all shapes, sizes, and degrees of firmness--I mean, really--what's not to like about them.

Doyle said...

are we talking about breasts or talking about Bush and CIA prisons?

More recently the former, because that's where Ann owns the moral high ground.

My post wasn't clear though. I'm mostly interested in her claim of not being a hack in the service of the right wing, because it's so damn funny.

RogerA said...

Important stuff Doyle: the Mets against whom in the World Series? Subway series you think?

Doyle said...

LOL I was waiting for someone to expose me as being far afield from my area of expertise.

I'm actually not especially optimistic that the Mets will get to the Series, because Pedro's first start back was so weak.

If they did, however, I do think it will be another Subway Series. The Yanks offense, with Abreu on board and Matsui healthy, is an absolute joke. Their pitching almost doesn't matter.

XWL said...

Each netroots commenter hereabouts, lately =

"The commenter who is so angry he/she cannot move. He/she cannot eat. He/she cannot sleep. He/she can just barely growl. Bound so tightly with tension and anger, he/she approaches the state of rigor mortis."


If David Lynch were to resurrect his cartooning career, I think we've found his new subject.

RogerA said...

;)

Doyle said...

xwl -

That's actually a pretty accurate description of me. It may not be healthy, but it doesn't mean we're wrong, either.

Michael Babin said...

My post wasn't clear though. I'm mostly interested in her claim of not being a hack in the service of the right wing, because it's so damn funny.

Since you are obviously a hack in the service of ??? (I wouldn't insult the "left-wing", whatever little use that description bears), then everyone else must be? But it's up to you to expose their true agenda? Good luck with all of that!

Derve said...

I didn't change anything.

Thanks for getting the thread up again. Not sure what happened to those direct links of "bigger blogger boobies". (Helen, and Glenn posing with the Atlas Shrugged blogger).

It would be fun, maybe instructional, to see how a Helen would respond differently to charges of showcasing her chest than Jessica did, and if it really would make a difference to what comments ensue. I'm still not sure if you were innocent in that situation (ie, taking the jacket off and standing where the photographer directed), that it would be so easy not to immediately defend yourself and just laugh off the sexual comments. Shaming, even via jokes, probably takes time to get used to and ignore (remember David Lat's brief hiatus?); maybe it too kicks in around 40, and is the secret to world peace???

---------
Funniest line in the podcast was about how pissed 21-year-olds were when the 18 year-olds got to vote early. Rang so true to human nature!

Keep on podcasting, it's good background to the blog reading when you can go into detail.

Elizabeth said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Elizabeth said...

who stooped to illiberal sexist slurs again and again in their eagerness to get me

Like "that's when I posed for/the Leader with my rack"?

Ann, I'm all for calling out when so-called liberals use sexism as an attack, but you've consistently ignored the sexist counter-attacks by your fans in the humonguous comment threads this topic has generated. Those muddy the waters of the valid points you've made.

Doyle said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Derve said...

Ohhh Elizabeth, you had me right there with you in your basic point about equity, but why oh why did you have to choose one of the wittier wordplays to quote? (Such a catchy hook, and he fit the lyrics perfectly)

Plus, that one came late when it was already a free for all, no holds barred, it seems. You have to let everything in at that point, imo, if you haven't seen the need to step in and call it earlier.

Elizabeth said...

Oh Derve, the clumsy, non-witty stuff isn't worth the time, is it?

LoafingOaf said...

The Yanks offense, with Abreu on board and Matsui healthy, is an absolute joke. Their pitching almost doesn't matter.

Those are famous last words. My money's on the pesky Twins and the Metrodome to thwart the Evil Empire. I suspect the Yanks'll go down as another of those powerhouse regular season teams that got exposed in the playoffs. (Like my poor Indians in '95.) But I hate the Yankees so naturally I'd be hoping for that. :)

Or, if not the Twins, either the Tigers or White Sox. Central has the best teams IMO. The Yankees are peaking right now, but that may be too early and the collapse of the Red Sox may harm them. I don't like the playoff chances of teams that don't have to battle till the last week for a spot.

John in Nashville said...

Ann, with respect, if the scathing entries you link to in your 5:58 post are examples of your recent criticisms of George W. Bush, you have made my point far more effectively than I. Are you actually less offended by waterboarding, stress positions and what is euphemistically referred to as temperature extremes than by consensual blowjobs from an intern?

Your politics are your politics, and thank goodness we are free to hold and express differing opinions. To call the political apolitical or non-political, however, recalls the dictates of Big Brother:

War=peace
Freedom=slavery
Ignorance=strength

In a manner similar to Winston Smith, you have come to love Big Bubba.

Stephen B. said...

The podcasts are on the way out??? Please, oh please, oh please no!!! I drive an hour to school each day, and the best drive is the Monday morning drive after the Sunday upload of the podcast. I pop my iPod in the Rover and take off toward school. It's satellite radio the rest of the week, and that's okay. But Monday's are the best simply because Monday is the Audible Althouse drive.

Mark Harrison said...

Please keep podcasting!!!

Here's some feedback: your podcasts are great, wonderful, marvelous, etc... please don't stop!

I put you, lileks, and instapundit on the ipod and play them in the car... drive time juicyness!

knoxgirl said...

Ann, I listen to all your podcasts and enjoy them. I think people are listening while they're out doing stuff and that's why you're not getting the comments and feedback you normally do. I'd be very disappointed if you stopped.

As for #65, from this day forth, Hillary will always be "Clintony" to me.

djwreckless said...

"Ann, if I may offer a few candid comments from the perspective of a mostly libertarian Democrat who very much enjoys reading your blog and who regards you fondly. Until recently you identified yourself as a Democrat, albeit one who has been profoundly affected by the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001. You have more recently disclaimed any party affiliation.

The content of your blog writings, however, (at least for the two years or so that I have been a regular reader) is that of a pro-George W. Bush shill. When was the last time you ripped the current president a new one?

That you have channeled Karen Hughes while (until recently) claiming to be a Democrat has, with respect, seriously undermined your credibility as a commentator. Your credentials as a Democrat are roughly comparable to Judas Iscariot's credentials as a Christian disciple--which indeed Judas once was.

If I am correctly recalling the content of the podcast, your current claim to care little about politics similarly strains credulity. This weekend's brouhaha shows you to be among those driven batshit crazy by the thought of Bill Clinton.

If you choose to talk the talk of non-partisanship, may I respectfully suggest that you gig both sides when it is so often richly deserved by each or, in the alternative, acknowledge your blatant Bush partisanship (which likely is distinct from any Republican partisanship)"

You also missed Althouse praising the possibility of Guilliani's 2008 candidacy, while overlooking Gulianni's numerous adulterous affairs,yet lashing out at CLinton for his infidelity. It kind of reminds me of Ann Coulter saying Clinton had no moral values and that he was probably gay since in her theory (which was somewhat defended on this blog) adulterous men are more likely to be gay, yet in the next segment gushing over Giullani and what great conviction he had.

Althouse is not really a moderate, but as someone stated before, she's likes the Zell Miller like attention. Anyone who links to Malkin, proud author of In Defense of Internment, yet seizes every opportunity to criticizesliberal bloggers is not really a moderate. She's just a washed up divorced law professor, who can't keep her students' attention, and needs some love elsewhere.

Sad.

Freeman Hunt said...

Anyone who links to Malkin, proud author of In Defense of Internment, yet seizes every opportunity to criticizesliberal bloggers is not really a moderate.

So now blogrolling someone is an implicit endorsement of all their viewpoints? Crap, I'll have to pare back my roll to. . . well, just to me, I guess.

And I suppose it doesn't matter that she criticizes conservatives too? Just by criticizing liberals, one cannot be a liberal on certain issues? That would be unfortunate.

Fenrisulven said...

That you have channeled Karen Hughes while (until recently) claiming to be a Democrat has, with respect, seriously undermined your credibility as a commentator. Your credentials as a Democrat are roughly comparable to Judas Iscariot's credentials as a Christian disciple--which indeed Judas once was.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Ann has been pretty much purged from the party. Everyone can quit telling her why she's not invited back, because I doubt she's all that interested in returning.

Stop wasting your energy on her. I'm sure there are many other voters out there you need to purge before November.

Fenrisulven said...

Some of our trolls will remember this one from Sept 10th:

#23. CarlVK: Call me nuts but I am overcome with confidence lately. We're gonna take this sucker back. The fascists will be gone and we can kick out the remnants of the DLC stain, in order to turn us back into a winning party again.

Next "Townhall" meeting, the netroots might want to mention that some have jumped the gun.

/Warning: Democrat Underground link - not work safe, wash thouroughly afterwards

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2821564

Ann Althouse said...

Fen: Heh. Funny. It's the old "looking for heretics" thing again. Meanwhile, the conservatives are "looking for converts." It's damned obviousl which is the better strategy. And note that with respect to feminism, the left is so eager to claim sole possession of it that they define it narrowly (or incomprehensibly), turning as many people off as they can. The idea seems to be that if you don't agree with all their politics you're not allowed to call yourself a feminist. In the end, it doesn't matter that much. Liberals shouldn't own the term "liberal" either. I still think whatever it is I think. And I will blog -- and podcast! -- about it.

Thanks for the support for the podcast, btw, everyone.

Derve said...

Here and I thought the whole thing was:

"If you have lunch with Bill Clinton, you can't call yourself a feminist."

or

"If you use young breasts* to sell t-shirts on your site, you can't call yourself a feminist."
-----

*which would distinguish that picture of Helen Smith Reynolds showcasing her chest, which is ok because she's married and doesn't call herself a feminist anyway.

Fenrisulven said...

It's the old "looking for heretics" thing again. Meanwhile, the conservatives are "looking for converts." It's damned obvious which is the better strategy

Well, to be fair, we have our own Inquisitors. They continually complain about RINO's; we continually remind them that we must learn to BE a Majority Party if we intend to remain in the majority.

Ernst Blofeld said...

It's part of the Conservative plot to love-bomb Althouse back to the Goldwater age.

Fenrisulven said...

The best part is that DU is a Rove Op.

Seriously.

The man does not sleep.

Simon said...

I have to admit that - at the risk of validating one of these children the blog has attracted recently - I would rather like to hear Ann (or for that matter, any of the regulars) address the point that one of the, ahem, "guests" made above about Rudy Giulliani. Is there any inconsistency in making peace with Rudy's infidelity but not Bill's? Is it worse because of the office Bill held?

To my mind, infidelity and quickie divorce are THE threats to sanctity of marriage. It's why I will not treat a conservative who opposes homosexual marriage because of "the sanctity of marriage" yet who has had a divorce. In my case, I justify setting aside Newt Gingrich's behavior in the past because of pressing national need, but I recognize that there is an issue here which needs to be set aside (and in any event, my principle concern with Clinton was the perjury rather than the harm to feminist cause).

The nutroots should keep it up. To some extent, I agree with John in Nashville's observation that Ann's observation that she's not really interested in politics is rather hard to believe (the podcast makes a great case that you are disinterested; that you are making the argument at all stands against the proposition that you are uninterested), and it certainly seems true that Ann has gotten markedly less sympathetic to the Democratic party as the months have rolled by - in part, I suspect, out of a sensible sense of revulsion against that party's new agenda and the kind of people who write vastly amusing nonsense like "[w]e're gonna take this sucker [the Democratic party] back ... we can kick out the remnants of the DLC stain, in order to turn us back into a winning party again." If Ann is any indication, even the people who were misguided enough to vote for George McGovern first time around aren't going to make the same mistake twice.

The GOP isn't perfect, for the reason that Fenrisulven points out. But in politics you can't beat someone with no one. Right now, to be quite frank, I think the Democrats are a greater threat to America than is Al Queda.

Mellow-Drama said...

Am I missing something? When did Prof. Althouse say something about the infidelity? I know it's been a long couple of comment threads, but I thought that her criticism of Clinton was not "consensual blowjobs" but sexual harassment in the workplace, accusations of rape, and innappropriate relationships with subordinates -- all things damaging to feminist causes such as drawing attention to sexual harassment.

All this is said with me not being a big fan of sexual harassment law. I just don't understand why everyone equates "Clinton harmed feminism by being a sexual predator" with "I am so offended he got a blowjob from an adult woman not his wife." It's the nuance, stupid.

Ann, please continue podcasting as you feel moved to do so. Don't do it because you feel you _should_ because commenters told you - I think that one must blog for oneself, to make blogging enjoyable and rewarding; and the same holds true for podcasting I assume. But don't stop podcasting because you think no one's listening. Surely iTunes tells you how many subscribers you have? And so what if it is less than one million - we can't all be Instapundit. Your podcast is my very favorite.

Johnny Nucleo said...

Clinton's transgression was not infidelity. His transgression was fourfold:

- He banged a subordinate in the Oval Office. This is boorish and ungentlemanly and smacks of kings and sultans, not Presidents of the United States.

- He banged a subordinate who couldn't keep her mouth shut. (No pun intended. Well maybe a little.) This exposed him to blackmail and endangered national security.

- He lied to the entire world about it and he lied under oath about it.

- When the jig was up, he kept fighting, he actually let a trial in the Senate go forward. Again, ungentlemanly. No one - no one - other than William Jefferson Clinton would have done that. Why did he not resign? Because we needed him? Because the country just could not function without him? Of course not.

He did not resign because he loved the job and hated his enemies, who no doubt hated him more, more than he loved the country.

Ann's post was a joke with a serious point. The joke was this: Look at the girl with the noticeable tits who is probably a feminist standing in front of Clinton. There is humor there. It's not Ann's fault there is humor there, it's Clinton's. If you don't see it, you won't get the joke. There's nothing anyone can do about that. Perhaps a class or something would help.

The serious point was this: Feminists gave Clinton a pass on something they knew was wrong because of political expediency. This was a mistake.

People out there who say Ann is saying this stuff because she hates Clinton, let me tell you something. You are fools. I don't mean that as an insult. I mean that as a warning if you ever want to regain power.

Like Ann, I am a former Democrat. I love the Democratic Party. (Not lately of course.) I was against impeachment, and I was on Clinton's side the whole time. I used to argue what you are now arguing. But I got older and shit happened in the world that was serious, and I gained some perspective. What I feel toward Clinton is not anger or hatred but profound disappointment. Bill Clinton was one of the most gifted men ever to hold the office. He could have done great things. He often complained that history presented him with no great challenges. The reason he felt this way was because for him it was never about the challenges. They were secondary. For him it was always about the game, the job, the action. He loved playing the game of politics so much he forgot just about everything else and like a really good bad novel it finally caught up with him and his worst nightmare came true: He was disgraced and history will judge him harshly.

Ernst Blofeld said...

One of the more bizarre aspects of the lefty jihad against Althouse is that the blog isn't really even very pollitical, and what politics there is isn't very conservative.

Anyway, one of the more egrigious aspects of the Clinton saga was that, in addition to being a horndog with subordinates and people over which he had power, was that he unleashed the attack dogs on the women afterwards. Monica was a stalker and a liar, etc. Clinton knew all that to be false, yet used the power of his position to trash her anyway. If there were no blue dress he'd still be doing it today.

Hypocrisy isn't a fatal flaw. We're all hypocritical to one extent or another by failing to live up to our stated positions. But the lefty defenders of Clinton aren't even acknowleding the existence of the hypocrisy. Instead they began minimizing the principles that Clinton betrayed, compounding the hypocrisy with something much worse.

Palladian said...

You must not stop podcasting. I quite like hearing your voice every week- it's especially comforting to listen to podcasts like yours when I have to accompany a member of my family to their regular bouts of chemotherapy and batteries of tests.

I would also agree with knoxgirl that many of us listen to the podcast while we're out doing things and while I often get brilliant ideas for comments about what you're saying, I tend to forget them by the time I get home. Anyway, if you have the urge to keep doing them, please keep doing them. There are many of us who have been listening since number one.

David Walser said...

Ann,

You are a great drive-time companion! Since I'll never get to ride around with you in your Audi, the podcasts are a nice alternative. (I'd much prefer the Audi.)

Maybe you should sponsor a cruise with all your fans...

Octogalore said...

One big factor behind the opt-out revolution is the lack of mentors for women, once they've made it out of college. The guys will take younger guys out on their yachts, to balllgames, etc. Many, though not all, senior women are more apt to punish junior ones for retaining their femininity, not playing the same imitation-man, sycophantic game they needed to play to succeed. Apart from the issue of Bill Clinton, you may feel wittily condescending, calling Jessica out for not wearing a mannish button-down shirt, but guess what? It's that kind of attitude that keeps some of the two-thirds of women graduating from my top-ten law school out of the profession, ten years later.

Ann Althouse said...

Octaglore: You're completely inside your own head on that one. That's not about me at all. You're just making crap up about me. I don't appreciate it.

Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Octogalore said...

Ann -- I'm certainly not suggesting that this is your conscious motivation. But I quote: "she wears a tight knit top that draws attention to her breasts and stands right in front of him and positions herself to make her breasts as obvious as possible?"

Clearly, you're offended or upset by women who dress in a way that's really quite standard these days in most business environments. And based on your comment above, if you saw someone dressed that way, in a legal environment whether academic or business, it's unlikely that you would reach out to her, I would think. I hardly think that's projecting any of my own issues. I believe that you don't think this is about you. But your comments, and tone, say otherwise.

Ann Althouse said...

Octaglore: That's just stupid ideation on your part and the fact that you start it with "clearly" just underlines the fact that you lack any interest in getting things straight. The simple fact is that she was going to lunch with the ex-president, who is also a man known for his sexual weakness. In that situation, the decision to wear a tight T-shirt, with no jacket, and to stand in front of him and pose like that is significant. Exactly what it means is open to speculation, but it was legitimate to write about it, considering that she has made herself a public figure and has put herself into the public sphere with a picture on the internet, posing with an extremely important political figure.

Russell said...

Another vote for continued podcasting. I've listened to every one!

As to Clinton's transgressions, let's not forget the administration's use of the "nuts and sluts" defense. That really was despicable.

Octogalore said...

Ann -- my confidence about my position doesn't underline anything beyond simply that. One could argue that your need to throw the word "stupid" into the mix, on the other hand, underlines my original point.

Why is the decision to do without a jacket and stand at an angle significant? Could be the room temperature, or the need to fit others into the shot (like the woman in red and black, who'd be sqeezed out if Jessica were not at an angle). Six others in the photo are not wearing jackets, and at least five others are at a similar angle.

Your statement "Jessica: I'm not judging you by your looks. (Don't flatter yourself)" takes your comments out of "analysis" into the territory of spitefulness. And if it's not "clear" that this attitude wouldn't mark you as great mentor material, I'm not sure what is.

Ann Althouse said...

No, it wasn't spiteful. It was mocking. I was laughing at her for bringing up the subject, which she did. She volunteered that she thought she was pretty, which no one had said. I felt like laughing at that. It's not spiteful. I'm not getting back at her for anything done to me. It's a very standard thing to laugh at someone for: bringing up the fact that they think they're pretty. My issue with her was entirely about her voluntary behavior, which I think she should just own up to. Instead she's chosen to say I'm just a woman and I happen to have breasts so Althouse must be a terrible person. Sorry, I'm still laughing at that nonsense. I'd put together a good post ridiculing the whole circus, including slams at dishonest dimwits like you, but I just don't have the time. Not yet anyway.

plausible_deniability said...

Ann, maybe the word you've been searching for, all along, is "burqua." Maybe what you really want is for the so-called feminists like Valenti to cover-up around men, particularly predatory males like Mr. Clinton.

Think of the heads you'd turn if you yourself posed in a burqua! C'mon, give it a try, get a burqua, snap some pics, and post them here! Then challenge Valenti to a cover-up-off!