September 17, 2006

Pursued by boobs.

Trying to get some distance from my opponents, who've been pursuing me all weekend, I nevertheless drop by the comments section of yesterday's "Comments, comments, comments" post to talk back to some character who proclaims me "demonstrably flayed" and another who demands "an apology just for [my] flawed logic without speaking to [my] bitter tongue." I say:
I continue to stand by my comments and to assert -- with ever increasing confidence -- that my opponents all have some combination of: poor reading skills, lack of a sense of humor, anti-feminism, calcified political hackitude. Moreover, they've got some scary blindness about the way to help poor Hillary Clinton, who was the whole reason they were wrangled into Bill's presence in the first place. Bumbling all weekend over Jessica's breasts? You people are boobs.
I mean, is this what Peter Daou hoped to achieve when he gathered those bloggers around Bill, supposedly -- I think -- to reward them for their faithful service shoring up Bill's tantrum over that ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11"?

Last week, the lefty bloggers maladroitly focused attention on the issue of whether Clinton mishandled the terrorism threat, which caused many people to watch a film they wouldn't have bothered with and to marshall the evidence that he, in fact, had screwed up. Then, the bloggers who performed that dubious service were lured by lunch in the presence of the ex-president, and when they went back to their blogs and enthused about his blue eyes and how delightfully charmed they were by his aura and, doing so, provoked a tiny sprinkle of mockery, they flipped out for days on end. Their freak out just got everyone talking about Bill's old sex problems again.

As they cranked up into a higher and higher pitch -- doing their damnedest to show Bill they really, really like him -- they let loose with the most horrendous sexist and ageist slurs, laying them open to the unanswerable charge that they are political hacks at heart whose commitment to feminism is thoroughly laughable.

The boob-blogging continues apace. You've got to wonder what they'll bobble into next.

IN THE COMMENTS: We talk about an image that I say I couldn't find. Many months later I see it here.

259 comments:

1 – 200 of 259   Newer›   Newest»
Have Skunk said...

Solly. You roose, dwagon wady.

Garble said...

Since there are several thousand comments and responses on this I'm going to have to admit that I'm not completely informed. Let me know if I'm summarizing correctly. (I have a simple question at the end. )

1. ex-president has lunch with some bloggers.
2. In a photo op the blogger right in front of the president has a large rack. (sort of looks like she's sticking it out but I'm not really sure)
3. Ann Althouse makes a crack about the woman with the rack (referencing Monica Lewinsky.)
4. Woman with the rack is offended. Cites feminism as the reason. (At this point I start to get a little lost)
5. Ann Althouse gets annoyed because she thinks feminist support of Clinton is hypocritical. She responds by further insulting the woman.
6. Left wing culture warriors ride to the fight. Excellent weekend drama ensues.

Here's my question for Ann Althouse:

Was the initial post meant as a brief joke? Or was it intended as something more meaningful and complex. Because the post that started it all off really seems like the sort of thing you'd get from Dennis Miller's big board, if the woman with a rack wasn't an unknown.
I ask because I guess she's some of feminist blogger or something and I'm curious if this is much ado about nothing or if I'm missing the big picture.

Balfegor said...

I'm curious if this is much ado about nothing or if I'm missing the big picture.

This is much ado about nothing. But there are people to whom it is evidently a matter of critical importance. Everyone needs a hobby, after all.

The Exalted said...

ann,

i find your tone and comments entirely unbecoming of a law professor. i would hope snide personal attacks are not a staple of your normal discourse.

as for the actual "controversy," i asked my gf if this girl was dressed inappropriately or "posing." it took her all of 2 seconds to say she was dressed fine and was simply standing there.
maybe this is a generation thing, but i see no problem with it.

as to the general comments that "the bloggers are dressed inappropriately," i am sure the organizers of this event told them to dress business casual, probably on the president's (or one his aide's) direction.

as for clinton "hurting feminism," honestly, just what are you talking about? did he hurt feminism when he made Madeline Albright the first female Secretary of State?

Gahrie said...

as for clinton "hurting feminism," honestly, just what are you talking about? did he hurt feminism when he made Madeline Albright the first female Secretary of State?

No, but he did when he sent her out to lie for him about a case of sexual harassment.

Palladian said...

"i find your tone and comments entirely unbecoming of a law professor. i would hope snide personal attacks are not a staple of your normal discourse."

You, a law professor!

"as for clinton "hurting feminism," honestly, just what are you talking about? did he hurt feminism when he made Madeline Albright the first female Secretary of State?"

No, but he sure hurt the long-term safety of the world by sending her to clink glasses with Kim Jong Il and doing nothing substantive about Saddam Hussein.

"Pursued by boobs."

I still can't help but think of the whole situation as that scene from "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex".

XWL said...

At least if Mark Burnett had produced that meeting, instead of Peter Daou, he would have invited equal numbers Asians, Hispanics, Blacks and Whites.

Diversity, thy name is Netroots (or not).


(and hasn't the, 'I can't believe that yoooooouuuuu, a laaawwwww professor' whine been ridiculed often enough to have been put to rest?)

Everyone should just watch something funny on YouTube, and chill.

Or, contemplate the greatness that is Richard Starkey.

David Killoren said...

How many people get the joke in the original post without having it explained to them? If most people get it, then that strongly suggests that Jessica was doing something unusual or inappropriate in the photo. If most people tend not to get it, then that strongly suggests that there was nothing unusual about Jessica, and that it was all in Ann's head.

Personally, I didn't get it when I first saw the post. Of course, I didn't make much effort to get it; I think I might have stared at the photo for 10 seconds or so and then moved on. How many people reacted that way?

In any case, I suspect that most non-conservatives would have reacted in the same way I did. I also suspect that most conservatives got the joke as soon as they saw the photo -- they probably didn't even need to read the caption. If so, what does this say about how much is actually in the photo, and how much is brought to the photo by conservatives' eyes?

Ann Althouse said...

Garble: No, you've mischaracterized the original post, which mocked the bloggers for effusing over Clinton. A commenter made a wisecrack about Monica Lewinsky. The person you refer to as "woman with the rack" showed up in the comments to refocus things on her, at which point, I decided to write a post making fun of her for sort of unwittingly and indirectly claiming to be good-looking.

To write the post, I visited her blog and saw that it was loaded with breast images! She was a total breast-blogger! How is that not hilarious? I then made fun of her ridiculous hypocrisy. Other bloggers who couldn't laugh and felt they had to support her or whatever, then spent the weekend trying to make a sexism charge stick to me, in the course of which they revealingly descended into calling me sexist names. There's lots more to it, but try harder and you might get it straight. You've chosen an apt nickname for yourself though, I will say.

Palladian: I really looked for the Woody Allen image to illustrate this post, but couldn't find it.

Doyle said...

More self-justifying follow-up posts, please, Ann!

BJK said...

For those of us who gave up on the comment threads quite some time ago, I'd just like to thank Ann for keeping all of us abreast on recent developments.

(Garble, like I've already said a handful of time, Ann wasn't the one to make the 'intern' crack -- and if you took the time to look at the original article....instead of what people have told you about what was written, you would know that.)

tcd said...

Three words to summarize the leftist Jessica defenders:
indignant, obtuse, distraction

indignant: You, a law professor?
obtuse: Took a survey of one person already sympathetic to lefty boobs, and concludes nothing to see in the pic.
distraction: Harp about judging feminists on their looks except no one's done that but lefties themselves. Ignore blatant hypocrisy of feminists selling their souls yet again for the former Sexual Harasser-in-Chief.

No thanks for the mammaries, left-wing political hacks.

David Killoren said...

Ann,

If the original post was just meant to mock the bloggers for effusing over Clinton, then I still don't get it.

I thought the idea was that the big-breasted woman was put right in front of Clinton, which, to your mind, clearly wasn't random. So you said the arrangement WAS random -- and this was supposed to be funny, because, to your eyes, it clearly was not random.

If you were just trying to mock bloggers in general for their Clinton enthusiasm, then I am really confused. What does the arrangement of the bloggers have to do with that?

JorgXMcKie said...

Having given up around 300 posts when nothing new was being said (nor for the 200+ before that) all I can do is reiterate the thought that if there were an Olympic event for Obdurately Missing the Point, there are waaaaaay too many medal contenders among the Ann-bashers and Jessica-supporters.

Add that to their total unwillingness to answer the original thesis in either post with anything but attempts to divert the themes into something they can control.

And, they're never, ever at this rate going to understand why they're so rapidly becoming a permanent minority.

JorgXMcKie said...

Good gosh. I post and immediately preceding my post, while I was composing, appears a poster child example of my point.

It's as if Ann announced in a crowd of Lefties "Hey!! There's a great, big, smoking, ticking red bomb over there about to go off and kill everyone in the room!" and the responses she gets amount to, "well, just because bombs are traditionally black doesn't mean they can't be red, and, anyway, who decides what the best bomb color is, and isn't this a no smoking area, and 'how dare a *law professor* do the equivalent of shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater, and you're a (insert one of various vapid insults here) you rotten rightwinger you."

Fenrisulven said...

Add that to their total unwillingness to answer the original thesis in either post with anything but attempts to divert the themes into something they can control

I'm thinking it revolves around the Clintons. Hillary needs to clear the table for an 08 run, but it appears that not enough time has passed for the revisionist Left to whitewash Bill's sexual predations.

Hence the personal attacks and cognitive dissonance. They've been boxed in by something they thought they had MovedOn from, and its frustrating for them.

peetyport said...

Ann comes back the Attorney-General Gonzales defense that she can't reveal her logic because it's a blog secret and would undermine her war against not-in-her-view feminists. You must just take it at her word that " with ever increasing confidence -- that my opponents all have some combination of: poor reading skills, lack of a sense of humor, anti-feminism, calcified political hackitude." So she must have been joking when she said:

" I really don't know why people who care about feminism don't have any edge against Clinton for the harm he did to the cause of taking sexual harassment seriously, and posing in front of him like that irks me, as a feminist.... Alternatives: She's a clueless fool.... I have a new theory, also taking into account the comment that Jessica looks like Paula Jones .... I don't need a crappy, tawdry blog to flag stories for me. I have no reason at all to want my feminism filtered through these characters.

Oh gawd I'm laughing so hard.... and then goes on to post this:

" I'm still waiting for one of you to get into the substance of my old post Democrats have a long, long way to go to convince me that they care about feminism. ... The real sticking point for the people who are pissed at me is that they love Clinton and they know that what this post and the other one were really about was him. Despite repeated requests, you never addressed the question asked. You mightily tried to put up a smokescreen, but no one serious is fooled.... I think feminism lost a lot because feminist women, who were mostly liberal, felt motivated to stay on his side. "

This is all bullsh@t. I've posted how the current Republican administration has deeply undermined the "liberty, safety, health, and economic interests of women." Over the last thirteen years, A young feminist would support President's Clinton's track record versus the current administration.

And then finally:

" Moreover, they've got some scary blindness about the way to help poor Hillary Clinton, who was the whole reason they were wrangled into Bill's presence in the first place."

Former President Clinton is still loved throughout the world and an influential diplomat. It is even possible to argue the most influential and He want to help his wife. Why wouldn't Jessica want a chance to meet the former President? It seems because Ann and others still can't get over the blowjob.

Ernst Blofeld said...

The story so far: "We're feminists, and anyone who says we're not is a nasty old crone who is jealous because we've got perky breasts and are dating the varsity quarterback, and she probably doesn't get any dates or if she does it's with the boys in the chess club and did you see that blouse she was wearing, so totally grody, and Bill, he's the Varsity quarterback, he gave me his jacket to wear, which just goes to show why we're feminists and she is so totally wrong, that bitch."

Frankly, the fun factor for a series of discussions that keeps being steered towards breasts is pretty low.

Ann Althouse said...

peetyport: "This is all bullsh@t. I've posted how the current Republican administration has deeply undermined the "liberty, safety, health, and economic interests of women.""

So you're defense of Clinton is that Bush is bad. Uh-huh. I'm sure he appreciates you trenchant defense.

Fenrisulven said...

It is even possible to argue the most influential and He want to help his wife. Why wouldn't Jessica want a chance to meet the former President?

The point was that not only did a feminist betray her principles by fawning over an influential sexual predator, she deliberately chose to objectivy herself as Eye Candy - tight blouse, shoulders arched back [and her weblog shows a pattern of using breasts as a lure].

I'm sure Clinton noticed that she had type-cast herself as one of his interns. And would not be at all surprised to discover that he hires her to "work" on Hillary's net-campaign... or to learn that this was Jessica's intention all along.

How many feminists would tease an influential sexual predator for a job? What does it say about their beliefs?

1) If Jessica wasn't a feminist, no one would care

2) If Jessica was a feminist, but met with someone other than Clinton, no one would care

3) If Jessica's weblog didn't reveal a history/pattern of objectifying breasts as a lure, we could assume the photo was merely poor judgement on her part.

Were her choices deliberate? We'll see soon enough. I'm betting Jessica will turn up working for Hillary's net-campaign, or Bill's Presidential Library.

It seems because Ann and others still can't get over the blowjob.

As yes, keep shielding that blindspot: a critique of the liberal feminists acceptance of Bill Clinton's sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, perjury, subornation of perjury, tampering with witnesses and obstruction of justice in a sexual harassment case = just about a blowjob.

/crossposted at Dr Helen's

Fenrisulven said...

Ann: So you're defense of Clinton is that Bush is bad. Uh-huh. I'm sure he appreciates you trenchant defense.

Can anyone explain the Left's habit of defining themselves by what they believe their opposition is?

ie. "We believe the GOP stole the last election, and thats all the justification we need to hack into Diebold"

I mean, if they truly believe Republicans are so evil, shouldn't they aspire to a higher standard? Or is simply an excuse for them to be base?

Ann Althouse said...

"I'm betting Jessica will turn up working for Hillary's net-campaign, or Bill's Presidential Library."

Well, after all this big blog dustup, it's less likely, which is possibly the real reason she's so pissed. I'm sure Hillary has some say in these things. But even without this attention, how can someone with a sexed up blog like that work on Hillary's campaign? That wouldn't make any sense. In fact, there are an awful lot of lefty bloggers who have written a hardcore sexist slurs against older women in the course of this weekend's to-do. Hillary should be pissed at the lot of them. I come from Hillary's generation and suspect that my sensibilities are pretty close to hers about some of these things. Plus, from her life experiences, she must despise these young women who try to climb by using their sexuality. Whether Jessica deliberately presented herself sexually at the lunch may be open to question, but it is just flatly on the record that her blog uses sexuality for promotional purposes.

peetyport said...

Ann your post was superfluous. I posted both Clinton's track record and the current administrations. Clinton doesn't need my help but you obviously have no defense.

MadisonMan said...

Like Ann, I don't see that the Jenniferists understand the simple question. They are clearly blind to the symbolism of a nubile young woman in a picture with Bill Clinton. Was it their intention to resurrect all memories of Monica? Geeeze.

As I said long before, Dukakis on a tank.

HaloJonesFan said...

peetyport: Wow, it's a good thing you wrote "bullsh@t", because if you'd written "bullSHIT" it would be a swear word, and swearing is bad! But fortunately for all of us you wrote bullsh@t, and so you technically didn't swear.

Just fucking swear, you pansy. Or maybe, just fucking don't--find another way of expressing yourself that doesn't involve swearing. This business of "dropping out" letters so that you aren't typing a swear word is...well, bullshit.

(I recall a conversation with a man who, instead of swearing, actually mouthed the word and then continued his sentence. I did not have further conversatins with this man.)

Ann: You've come a long way from being the Berkley House Whore, it seems.

HaloJonesFan said...

As far as the picture: I kept expecting to see some photoshoppery where Jessica had a Mysteriously Unsource Hand appearing on her ass.

peetyport said...

Fenrisulven,

I posted both Clinton's track record and President Bush's. I defined both and chose to align myself with those closer to my beliefs. Whether you feel uncomfortable when confronted with facts about the current administrations policies is not my concern.

What charges was President Clinton tried and convicted? Again, I'll be more than willing to have a discussion about whose policies were better for women.

Dirty Harry said...

Ann,

You've let yourself get wrapped 'round the axle of this topic. I know because I've been there. Ugly commenters love to drag us in the mud by twisting just enough of what's we've said to make us feel like we need to respond.

Go to a movie. Have dinner with a friend. But walk away. It's not worth it and you can't argue with people unwilling to respect facts or an intellectual foundation for their position. It'd be like the Pope debating these Islamo-Fascists: A pointless waste of time.

peetyport said...

I'm sorry I offended you HaloJonesFan by writing "bullsh@t". I been on the net before it had pictures and some habits die hard. However, your post was more than superfluous and didn't address any real issue (much like Ann). And I'm a pansy? This must be the humor Ann referencing.

Freeman Hunt said...

What charges was President Clinton tried and convicted?

He settled the Paula Jones sexual harassment case for $650,000.

Larry in Gibbsville said...

Wow, after wading through all of that hate, I say: Ann, take the rest of the day off and get a fresh start tomorrow...

That woman's breasts have been blown way out of proportion. Doesn't anyone have a sense of humor anymore??

Ruth Anne Adams said...

In the nether regions of the comments on another post on this subject, Reader I am had a dialogue with another commenter which showed there is a generational divide on this topic.

Women who were adults during L'Affaire Lewinsky saw Clinton undermine feminists and saw feminists themselves lose credibility by supporting the Clintons.

Young women of today missed it completely because they were adolescent girls.

How sad.

HaloJonesFan said...

peetyport: I don't see how "being on the net before it had pictures" has anything to do with your cowardice, or your lack of intellect.

Fenrisulven said...

pettyport: I posted both Clinton's track record and President Bush's ...not my concern.

Once it became obvious that your only defense of Clinton was a [likely biased] comparison to Bush, I stopped reading. You had already surrendered the field.

What charges was President Clinton tried and convicted?

1. "The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky."

2. "The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in the Jones case in his answers to written questions and in his deposition."

3. "The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case."

4. "The president misused and abused his office by making perjurious, false and misleading statements to Congress."

Of the 4 charges brought against him, he was convicted [impeached] on 1 and 3 [perjury and obstruction in Paula Jones sexual discrimination case].

And before you start spinning - as per the consitution, the SOLE power of impeachment resides with the House. The Senate does not convict, they only sentence. So nay canard that he was "acquited" is Bullshit.

Bill Clinton remains Impeached.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

XWL got the booby prize. I vote for Fenn for the Rookie of the Week!

Todd said...

Look, some of you are taking this way too seriously.

Has it occurred to anyone that Jessica may have been hiding squirrels in there?

peetyport said...

These are facts and not spin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeach021399.htm):

"The United States Senate acquitted William Jefferson Clinton yesterday on charges that he committed perjury and obstruction of justice to hide sexual indiscretions with a onetime White House intern, permitting the 42nd president to complete the remaining 708 days of his term.

After a tumultuous year of scandal that tested the Constitution and tried the nation's patience, neither of the two articles of impeachment brought by the House garnered a simple majority, much less the two-thirds necessary to convict Clinton of high crimes and misdemeanors. Article I alleging perjury was defeated on a 45 to 55 vote at 12:21 p.m. Just 18 minutes later, Article II charging obstruction failed on a 50 to 50 tie. Five Republicans joined all 45 Democrats in supporting full acquittal.

It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that the said William Jefferson Clinton be, and he hereby is, acquitted of the charges in the said articles," declared Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist..."

Maybe Fenrisulven knows more than the honorable Chief Justice? I think not.... :-)

Fenrisulven said...

Your quoting the Washington Post, not Rehnquist. There is no acquital for impeachment [without going back to the House]. Clinton remains impeached.

AllenS said...

Ann--

You've got them by the short hairs, go ahead and shake.

Michael Farris said...

"Women who were adults during L'Affaire Lewinsky saw Clinton undermine feminists and saw feminists themselves lose credibility by supporting the Clintons."

Really? I wasn't living in the US then but what I remember is that feminists were _furious_ with Clinton (and Lewinsky) but decided that overall, he was better than the alternatives (ie republicans).
It's called Realpolitik, the art of setting priorities and making tough choices when none of the alternatives are very appealing.

Fenrisulven said...

what I remember is that feminists were _furious_ with Clinton (and Lewinsky) but decided that overall, he was better than the alternatives (ie republicans)

No, they were actually very quiet. With the exception of the Virginia chapter of NOW [to their credit].

We discovered later that NOW had traded their principles in for a veto of the partial-birth abortion ban. That was their price.

Fenrisulven said...

peetyport: It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that the said William Jefferson Clinton be, and he hereby is, acquitted of the charges in the said articles," declared Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist..."

You're also assuming that "acquital" by the Senate means the same thing as it does in the court system. It does not:

---

"Second, and more importantly, the Senate's verdict differs from a jury's because the legal judgment the Senate must make is also a special kind of political judgment. The drafters of the Constitution probably assigned the Senate, rather than the regular courts, the task of trying impeachments in part because they recognized that impeachment trials necessarily involve making political judgments. As Hamilton observed in Federalist 65, impeachable offenses "are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."60 The Senate's judgment is political in two senses. The uncertain contours of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" mean they must in each case determine whether the charged conduct constitutes a sufficiently serious breach of the public trust to warrant conviction. That determination will appropriately draw on their knowledge of history, their understanding of the character of the office involved, and their realistic appraisal of the derelictions charged. Their determination will necessarily be shaped by the Constitution's mandate that conviction means removal from office. U.S. Const. art. II, § 4. In order to convict an officer, they must be convinced that his conduct merits his loss of position. In the case of the President, who has been elected by the entire nation (and who cannot remain in office for more than four years without again facing the electorate), they must decide whether to undo the will of the people.61 Moreover, the necessary link between conviction and removal introduces a second political dimension to the Senate's judgment as well. Even if they conclude that the charged conduct would normally merit removal, they must weigh the strength of that conviction against their judgment about the harmful consequences for the nation of removal at a particular moment in our nation's history. If, for example, our country were in the midst of a war, the Senate might well conclude that an acquittal of the President would be the wiser course simply because his removal would be too costly to the successful prosecution of the war.

The necessarily legal and political judgment embodied in a Senate acquittal is distinct from a determination whether the charged conduct violates the regular criminal laws and does not turn on the determination of factual guilt or innocence. It is ultimately the unreviewability of the jury's making of that factual determination that drives the absoluteness of the ban on re-trial for offences of which a jury has acquitted a defendant. No such institutional imperative requires a similar ban following Senate acquittals. On the contrary, the unavoidably legal and political character of Senate acquittals suggests the inappropriateness of such a ban."

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/expresident.htm

---

Although I'd be interested to hear Ann's take on this - she's a former Dem and legal scholar. I think she even signed the notorious :) letter claiming Perjury did not rise to the standard of impeachment, even though it was included with Bribery and Treason. But I'll defer to her judgement if she says I'm wrong on this one.

Fenrisulven said...

/edit

I meant to say even though it was included with Bribery and Treason in the original draft of the constitution

VICTOR said...

Althouse says:

Well, after all this big blog dustup, it's less likely, which is possibly the real reason she's so pissed. I'm sure Hillary has some say in these things. But even without this attention, how can someone with a sexed up blog like that work on Hillary's campaign? That wouldn't make any sense. In fact, there are an awful lot of lefty bloggers who have written a hardcore sexist slurs against older women in the course of this weekend's to-do. Hillary should be pissed at the lot of them. I come from Hillary's generation and suspect that my sensibilities are pretty close to hers about some of these things. Plus, from her life experiences, she must despise these young women who try to climb by using their sexuality. Whether Jessica deliberately presented herself sexually at the lunch may be open to question, but it is just flatly on the record that her blog uses sexuality for promotional purposes.

XWL said...

There's a difference between holding your nose and picking the best of a bad lot, and openly embracing a turd, declaring that a turd smells as sweet as a rose, and attacking those that question the turd's sweetness.

Pres. Clinton ran as a conservative Democrat, governed as a conservative thanks to a split Congress (though he did get Justice Ginsburg on the court, a decidedly un-conservative act), and from a domestic politics stand point was quite successful.

However, his failures with how he handled the military, how he used the military, and how he attacked the problems presented by the spread of terrorism are the biggest black marks against him. His 'intern problem' damaged his ability to be an effective Commander in Chief.

A man who was a man, and not some emotionally insecure malignant narcissist (just try and read this book in total if you have any doubts about that assessment), would have stepped aside when he was caught with his pants down. His private behavior was private behavior, until he got caught. If he believed in his policies, and was truly committed to the advancement of his ideas, rather than his own personal glory, he would have resigned after being impeached and watched as Pres. Al Gore lead the nation.

But the only thing larger than his libido would seem to be his ego.

Realpolitik may be an excuse for voting for him in '92 or '96, but it's no excuse for celebrating him in '06.

Also, all these netroots folks screaming about the Iraq War would seem to be choosing strange bedfellows in jumping under the covers with either Pres. or Sen. Clinton.

The Exalted said...

very strange comments here.

we are "leftist political hacks" because we dont see the big deal with a woman dressed in business casual with the former president?

we are anti-feminist because we dont see why a 20-something blogger shouldn't meet with the ex-president?

we are anti-feminist because we don't see Clinton as some dangerous marauding menace to women because he screwed up with a 21+ intern who came on to him?

typical right-wing logic imo.

sorry if the "you, a law professor" is some old hat attack here. however, i would be shocked to see any law prof i had act with such .. a lack of courtesy. maybe in WI its ordinary to attack the looks of your opponents.

whokoo22 said...

the real story is where bill clinton is looking

http://tinyurl.com/e7dzj

Ann Althouse said...

Fen: I agreed to sign the lawprof letter and after I did, its text was changed to include the point that perjury was not an impeachable offense. I'm still upset about that. The original letter that I agreed to sign referred to the diversity of opinion about why he shouldn't be impeached and did not commit to that specific reason, which I didn't agree with. I learned a lesson from that experience.

Anyway, the House has the power to impeach, and it impeached him. The Senate has the power to try, and he's removed from office if 2/3 vote for "conviction" which is the word in the Constitution. There was debate at the time whether the question for the Senate is whether the charges against him are true or whether it's a more general policy decision of whether he ought to be removed from office. It's not something that the courts can review, but a matter for the Senators to determine. The fact is there was no 2/3 vote, so he wasn't removed. It's correct to say he wasn't "convicted."

Fenrisulven said...

The Exalted we are "leftist political hacks" because we dont see the big deal with a woman dressed in business casual with the former president?

No. You are a political hack because distort and whitewash - pretending that wearing a tight blouse and arching your chest out to curry favor with an influential sexual predator is business casual.

we are anti-feminist because we dont see why a 20-something blogger shouldn't meet with the ex-president?

No. You are anti-feminist because you have used sexist insults to attack someone who pointed out the hypocrisy of a "feminist" gushing over a sexual predator who betrayed the feminist movement.

we are anti-feminist because we don't see Clinton as some dangerous marauding menace to women because he screwed up with a 21+ intern who came on to him?

Lewinksy was just a thread in the pattern of sexual abuse in the workplace. Even if consensual, sodomizing a subordinate employee is inexcusable.

There was also Jones, who was denied promotion because she refused to engage in sodomy with Governor Clinton.

There was also Wiley, a campaign volunteer who was groped by Clinton while askng for a paying job.

All of these women were Democrats. When they stepped forward to ask that the law be enforced equally [Malory's lesson] they were savaged by people like you, and ignored by people like Jessica.

typical right-wing logic imo.

Uh-huh. Your the one pretending that it was all about a blow job...

Fenrisulven said...

Ann: It's correct to say he wasn't "convicted."

Thanks. I can accept that. My understanding is that impeachment itself is more than an indictment but less than a conviction? Is that accurate? Seems like impeachment is a very strange animal.

bujeeboo said...

Ann.

You're showing some true color lately. Just a shade Right of teal. I'd say inbetween forest and chartreuse. Melon, perhaps.

Get over it now.

C. Schweitzer said...

The problem here Ann is that you have been born several centuries too late. Readers of Swift and Pope would have gotten the point immediately.

Pity that so many of these humorless lefty commenters are too caught up in their outrage that anyone would consider feeding babies to the rich to see the point you were making.

You! A law professor!

pluripotentate said...

The boob-blogging continues apace.

if you hate it so much, why did you start it?

your reputation has been badly damaged by this. you should have apologized for objectifying jessica days ago.

BeckyJ said...

Former President Clinton is still loved throughout the world

Just to pick a nit...the Serbs hate Clinton. As far as they're concerned he bombed their country.

Fen: thanks for taking the time to deal with the impeachment/conviction issue. {puts on poli sci prof hat} yes, impeachment of a federal official falls somewhere between indictment & conviction. And, yes, it's messy. You are quite correct that Bill Clinton was impeached. Nothing the Senate did can change that.

Fenrisulven said...

your reputation has been badly damaged by this. you should have apologized for objectifying jessica days ago.

Yah. We keep hearing that line from driveby Kos/DU trolls.

And Jessica objectified herself.

John in Nashville said...

To be sure, President Clinton was a narcissistic horndog whose behavior in office was dishonorable. The collective judgment of Congress was that this dishonorable behavior did not warrant removal from office.

That Clinton's critics still become unhinged at the mention of his name (or his appearance in a group photograph which includes an attractive female), eight years after his acquittal and six years after his leaving office, says far more about the critics than about the former president.

tcd said...

The Exalted, thanks for proving my point so well.
indignant: "however, i would be shocked to see any law prof i had act with such .. a lack of courtesy."

obtuse: "...we don't see Clinton as some dangerous marauding menace to women because he screwed up with a 21+ intern who came on to him?"

distraction: "...we dont see the big deal with a woman dressed in business casual with the former president?"

Fenrisulven,
Great comments all, here and at Dr. Helen's. Thanks.

Charles Giacometti said...

I spent some time today musing about a letter I would write to Professor Althouse's deans at UW asking them if they like one of their tenured professors writing the following comment publicly:

"Duh... do you think you could get everything you write backwards? It could be pretty amazing."

This is such a wonderful contribution to the public debate, isn't it? It is so learned, scholarly, tempered. If I were the dean, this is exactly how I would want my faculty members to spend their time. And it is exactly how I would want my faculty members to demonstrate how subjects such as feminism and politics should be debated.

Then I thought of also highlighting part of the original post, where Professor Althouse takes a page right out of the "7th Grader's Guide to Wit" with, "Jessica: I'm not judging you by your looks. (Don't flatter yourself.)"

I don't know, maybe I still will. Or maybe I'll do an email broadcast to her faculty colleagues and some select (and liberal) members of the Wisconsin legislature.

On second thought, no. I'm going to go read a good blog instead.

duplicate_user_id said...

You're baiting. Distracting the conversation. If you want to pretend to be some sort of "moderate", you'll have to start backpedalling soon...

I visited her blog and saw that it was loaded with breast images! She was a total breast-blogger! How is that not hilarious? I then made fun of her ridiculous hypocrisy.

You are clearly missing the point, or being intentionally dense. There's nothing else to be said. I can't imagine you're dumb enough to miss the irony, so perhaps you miss the role of irony in modern feminist discourse. If that is the case, I'd recommend reading up - you're a law professor, afterall - I'd assume you'd like to know what you're talking about.

Of course, the other possibility is that you're picking a fight because of your politics, and too bad that some boobies, I mean, a person, gets in the way.

Ann Althouse said...

So there's a difference of opinion here about whether I should "go ahead and shake" or take the rest of the day off.

Don't worry, I've spent almost no time reading the other bloggers. I'm able to see what they are saying without really wallowing in it. There's a lot of repetition and a lot of dumb stuff that I can tell would piss me off if I spent any time with it, which I don't. I have policed the comments over here to some extent, and I just respond when it amuses me.

I don't really know why they are paying so much attention to me. I don't think it does either of the Clintons any good.

It's kind of funny to have kicked up the dustup of the week... about almost nothing.

Whetstone said...

1. Slurs? They were meant to be funny!. Don't you have a sense of humor? Guess not! Poor you.

2. Here's why bloggers are sucking up to the Clintons: they control A LOT of money and influence. The farther left they go, the more the left wins, and the more the Marhshall Whitman types lose.

You know, it would be great if these guys had the ability to sit back like you and be "intellectually" "honest," but they're trying to undo what they see as a lot of damage to this country. Maybe they're gonna get burned by Billary, it's possible. But they're in the arena, and interested in stuff other than another woman's body.

Simon said...

The Exalted said...
"as for clinton "hurting feminism," honestly, just what are you talking about? did he hurt feminism when he made Madeline Albright the first female Secretary of State?"

Are we to assume that is a concession that George W. Bush was making a bold step for racial progress and feminism by appointing Condi Rice the first black, female Secretary of State? After all, if Clinton appointing the "first [insert demographically-identifiable group here] to be [insert government post here]" is progress for [insert pressure group here], then so is Bush. Personally I think it's a little silly to measure the quality of a President's appointments by the contents of their shorts -- indeed, if there is the faintest hint that a person was appointed for their race or gender, I'd say there's a problem with that -- but to each their own.

Bleepless said...

My dear Professor Althouse, when are you going to learn the first fact about pinko chicks? They don't have boobs, they have protruding platforms for political buttons.
A small irony: the word verification for this message was "sxalker." It sounds vaguely obscene, and I really hate vagueness.

Phoenician in a time of Romans said...

Help me out here, Ann - which is more reprehensible:

A, getting a blowjob in the Oval Office or

B, starting a war of aggression?

The elephant in the living room you're ignoring is that the majority of Americans these days would prefer Clinton in the Oval Office attended routinely by hordes of topless strippers to the current, morally righteous, inhabitant.

duplicate_user_id said...

Interesting. You betray how you think about things when you say I don't really know why they are paying so much attention to me. I don't think it does either of the Clintons any good. While I find your boobie-baiting skunky and your interpretation of feminism incomprehensible, that, at least makes sense. I don't happen to see this discussion through a partisan lens, and could care less about the fate of either of the Clintons. (I'm voting a mixed ballot this year - NYC is a complicated place.) I think you lost your seat at the moderate table, though.

Balfegor said...

Leaving aside the main conversation here --

Re: Palladian:
No, but he sure hurt the long-term safety of the world by sending her to clink glasses with Kim Jong Il . . .

A few months ago, this would have been exactly my line too. However, during the recent missile launch contretemps, senior members of Clinton's North Korean policy team ran some op-eds explaining what they thought was the appropriate response, viz. to reopen hostilities with North Korea by attacking their launch facilities.

Reading the kind of advice senior Clinton Administration foreign policy specialists were giving, I realise now I should be thanking my lucky stars Clinton only sent Albright to clink glasses with Kim Jong Il. Because his foreign policy team was full of lunatics and incompetents, who'd have reduced Seoul to a smoking crater if they'd had their way. And of course, his NSA advisor was Sandy Berger (the man with the pants! Full of top secret documents from the National Archives).

I have a lot more respect for (and sympathy for) Clinton, as I see more of the kind of people he was stuck with as advisors. He actually did pretty well, all things considered. We looked awful chumps giving North Korea advanced nuclear technology (the KEDO light water reactor technology) in exchange for their pretending they weren't weaponising uranium behind our backs (we forgot about "verify"). But things could have been loads worse. Loads.

The Drill SGT said...

Are we to assume that is a concession that George W. Bush was making a bold step for racial progress and feminism by appointing Condi Rice the first black, female Secretary of State? After all, if Clinton appointing the "first...

Well if Bill gets points for appointing a woman (minority representing 52% of voters), then George should get 4 times more points for Powell (minority representing only 12% of voters (scoring him as black, not black male) and 8 times more for Condi (minority representing 6% of voters, blck female)

The Drill SGT said...

Balfegor, well the good news is that after his plea, it's very unlikely that Sandy could ever get an appointment that requires confirmation. There being enough Senators that understand security to put holds on him till Hell freezes over.

Fenrisulven said...

Phoenician in a time of Romans: Help me out here, Ann - which is more reprehensible: A)getting a blowjob in the Oval Office or B) starting a war of aggression?

A) sodomizing subordinate employees and sexually discriminating against women who won't spread their legs for you.

Is much more reprehensible than

B) pre-emptively destroying a dictatorship that sought to anonymoulsy hand off WMDs to terrorists for suicide attacks against the West.

The elephant in the living room you're ignoring is that the majority of Americans these days would prefer Clinton in the Oval Office attended routinely by hordes of topless strippers to the current, morally righteous, inhabitant.

Sure - that worked SO well in the past. Lets go back to a President too busy sodomizing interns to stop Al Queda as they plotted 9-11

Fenrisulven said...

Whetstone: You know, it would be great if these guys had the ability to sit back like you and be "intellectually honest", but they're trying to undo what they see as a lot of damage to this country

Oh the irony. Perhaps if the Left spent some time being "intellectually honest" they would realize their view is a misperception based on partisanship. There is no damage to this country other than the Left selling it out so they can regain power.

Democrats care more about their Party than they do the Nation. We are fighting a major war, for our very existence, and all they can do is poke Bush with a stick when he stumbles.

I no longer question their patriotism.

knoxgirl said...

Former President Clinton is still loved throughout the world and an influential diplomat. It is even possible to argue the most influential and He want to help his wife.

Wow, Clinton merits a capital H!

Ann Althouse said...

pluripotentate said..."'The boob-blogging continues apace.' if you hate it so much, why did you start it?"

You're not that smart, are you? Read it again. What does "boob-blogging" mean in context? Some people understand puns, some are running way behind the crowd yet somehow imagine that they are winning. Yikes.

"your reputation has been badly damaged by this. you should have apologized for objectifying jessica days ago"

Yeah. Yeah. You are about as perceptive as a brick. If "objectifying" women really is a serious concern -- and I doubt very much that you really think it is -- why aren't you all distressed about Jessica's blog? It openly seeks attention through the objectification of women. Do you care or not?

Charles Giacometti: Are you enjoying your tattletale fantasy? Just think what would happen if the faculty found out about my top secret blog! And, oh, the damage you could do by telling the liberal members of the legislature about me. They love censoring speech probably, or at least they do in your lurid fantasy.

Phoenician in a time of Romans said..."Help me out here, Ann - which is more reprehensible: A, getting a blowjob in the Oval Office or B, starting a war of aggression?"

The issue of whether Bush is a good President has no relevance to the issue under discussion. Moreover, I don't care if the President gets a blowjob. I do, however, care if the President subjects women to sexual harassment, of course. Don't you? And I do want the President to figure out competently what needs to be done for national security. If he's distracted by sex in the Oval Office, then he is committing a great wrong. Inattention to duty is more reprehensible, I would say, than attempting to do one's duty but making the wrong decision.

duplicate_user_id said...

Sure - that worked SO well in the past. Lets go back to a President too busy sodomizing interns to stop Al Queda as they plotted 9-11

That has to be one of the most idiotic things I've seen said in some time.

Please point out a URL that accuses the Clenis of having a habit of sodomy.

Please point to a non-Horowitz funded movie that claims Clinton is at fault.

In the mean time, deal with your own president. I mean, really. He's not house trained, and is leaving a mess all over.

duplicate_user_id said...

Moreover, I don't care if the President gets a blowjob. I do, however, care if the President subjects women to sexual harassment, of course. Don't you?

Cool! We're getting closer to the same page. If only (iphonle) you can name the sexual harrassment, we can get somewhere. I'm sure as a law professor, you can explain the specifics, rules of evidence, etc.

Face, facts, and evidence.

But if none of that works out, I'm sure some pitures of tits that happen to define liberal bloggers will distract us.

The Drill SGT said...

duplicate_user_id said...
Please point out a URL that accuses the Clenis of having a habit of sodomy.


duh, I assume your quibble is about the issue of whether Sodomy=BJ. So much for your classical education. It does.

Sodomy is a general legal term used by adults to cover a variety of alternative sexual activity.

here's your link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

A sodomy law is a law which defines certain sexual acts as sex crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy — and its synonyms buggery, crime against nature, unnatural act, deviant sexual intercourse and a range of similar euphemisms — is rarely spelled out in the legislation, but is typically understood by courts to include any sexual act which does not lead to procreation.

Fenrisulven said...

That has to be one of the most idiotic things I've seen said in some time.

You deny Clinton was sodomizing interns while Al Queda plotted 9-11? Its a fact. Simply compare the timelines.

Please point out a URL that accuses the Clenis of having a habit of sodomy

Your kidding right? Google Clinton-Lewinksy or Clinton-Jones. Also look up Sodomy, as you seem to be unclear on the definition. [Hint: it includes oral sex. And I think pentration with a foreign object is something worse]

Fenrisulven said...

Ah hell, Drill Sgt took pity on you before I finished my response :)

Fenrisulven said...

sod‧om‧y 

1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality (def. 4).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sodomy&x=18&y=14

Charles Giacometti said...

Actually, Professor Althouse, my musing was designed to make you think twice about how unprofessional your behavior is. The mocking tone of your response merely demonstrates that you apparently have no conception about how unprofessionally you are behaving. As to your continuing attempt at 7th-grade wit (your top secret comment, about as lame as your comments on the woman's looks), of course your colleagues know you blog. However, I have no doubt any of them with a brain would ever bother to read it, hence my need to highlight one or two insipid comments out of the tens of thousands you have made.

And, as to the liberal legislators, I am the last person who would suggest you be censored. (It's fascinating that you leapt on that interpretation. We already know so much about your psyche, but the desire to censor people is a new aspect.) As a voracious reader, I vote with my feet, and will simply read other, better blogs. I would never have the government intrude on such a thing as academic freedom, unlike your party. Rather, I think your deans should, appropriately, evaluate your performance and how well you are representing your institution. I would tell your legislators because I think your state's taxpayers deserve a full day's work from you, and the dedication to your profession that one should reasonably expect. In Massachusetts, we are smart enough to not have a public law school (there are far too many third-rate lawyers already without having the public trough tapped to create new ones), but, if we did, I would expect the full professors to actually be dedicated to scholarship, and not to trite, shallow commentary.

But, all my clarification aside, I made it clear I was not going to bother with any such "fantasy." I was musing.

Now, ask yourself, is this how a professor should write and behave? Is that a simple enough question?

Charles Giacometti said...

Oh, and could you also discuss your use of the word, "Duh" as an example of intelligent, informed discussion? I was so distracted by your bizarre censorship fantasy that I failed to realize you never answered the gist of my remark.

Also, if you could, please cite some scholarship on the times that Democrats have advocated censorship of academics versus Republicans doing the same? Or are you just going to leave it at shallow commentary?

(Silly me. I know the answers to these questions already.)

LoafingOaf said...

did [Clinton] hurt feminism when he made Madeline Albright the first female Secretary of State?

No. But Albright showed (no surprise) that a woman in power can be just as nasty as a man.

For example, when she saw genocide erupting in Rwanda, she made sure to block everything which could've lessened the death count (which ended up a jaw-dropping 800,000) - including having UN peace keppers reduced in numbers - while Clinton never bothered to have a single high level meeting about it. This was when she was Ammbassador to the UN, and apparently it impressed Clinton enough to make her the first female Secretary of State.

I appreciate that that was a milestone for women entirely apart from my views of how well she did in the office. So how come Democrats never give Bush credit for the greater milestones of that sort he's made in his presidency?

Also, some commenters have already observed that some Democrats present themselves, publicly, as feminists but are, privately, hardcore misogynists. And that covert misogyny became public and with real victims.

I dunno...I'm one of those people who thinks the character of a president matters more than anything else. *shrug*

But caring about character makes it hard to love any of them. Bloggers should probably preserve their independence.

Ann's right that Clinton was just using these bloggers after enjoying how they raged in favor of censorship on his behalf. They can do as they like, but some of us want the blogosphere to remain full of individualistic voices. There's a lot of deeply partisan bloggers on both sides that I think are a lot smarter than I am (I don't start a blog because I don't think it would be good enough to be worth the bother), but it's frustrating that they let themselves be owned by a "team."

JDM said...

Charles said:

"Now, ask yourself, is this how a professor should write and behave? Is that a simple enough question?"

Hmm, what do you mean, not mocking people, or is your problem Ann is not mocking the *right* people?

duplicate_user_id said...

Ah, so you've included in your list of sins, "sodomy", as defined as oral sex. Good.

I wonder how many people on this thread have had oral sex. Giving or getting, man or woman. Doesn't matter.

Given what I know about people, I'd suggest more than half, and that is a seriously conservative number. (BTW, I'm basing this on selling, erm, toys, to conservative types. They're really easy.)

So I guess the voting public are mostly sodomites now.

Scott Lemieux said...

"If "objectifying" women really is a serious concern -- and I doubt very much that you really think it is -- why aren't you all distressed about Jessica's blog? It openly seeks attention through the objectification of women."

Except, of course, that by any rational, non-misogynist definition it does no such thing. If we accept your silly definition that a picture of a woman in a T-Shirt represents "objectification," then Dr. Helen--who you cite as a feminist authority, which given your apparent bizzaro world criteria that feminists should be lickspittles for presidents who seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, reinstitute abortion gag orders, appoint sexist lunactics who will obstruct the availability of contraception, sign federal abortion legislation, etc., I guess she is--is equally guilty of this "objectification." As soon as you put up a series of posts criticizing her, you at least will be consistent, although your argumeht would still be wrong.

Ann Althouse said...

Charles Giacometti said..."Actually, Professor Althouse, my musing was designed to make you think twice about how unprofessional your behavior is..."

I am a blogger here. Your desire to confine me to your professor image is repressive and offensive. You are either trying to intimidate me or you are pathetically narrow-minded or you don't understand what blogging is or don't care about free speech. The attitude you're taking is a longstanding joke on this blog. Figure it out or expect to be criticized harshly here. This is not the law school classroom or a law journal. This is a blog. If you don't like my writing, read something else. But that's not what you are doing. You are despicably attempting to intimidate me about my job. If I were a person with insecure employment, it actually would be intimidating. But as it is, I'm in a position to call you on your repressive loutishness, which I'm happy to do for the sake of all the good bloggers who actually do have to worry about their livelihood. And shame on you.

Steve H. said...

Boob-blogging is bad.

But on the whole I prefer it to fat hairy crazy lesbian feminist bitch blogging.

Phoenician in a time of Romans said...

B) pre-emptively destroying a dictatorship that sought to anonymoulsy hand off WMDs to terrorists for suicide attacks against the West.

Uh-huh.

"[Saddam's government] did not have a relationship, harbor, or even turn a blind eye toward Mr. Zarqawi and his associates." - CIA, Oct 2005.

LoafingOaf said...

"[Saddam's government] did not have a relationship, harbor, or even turn a blind eye toward Mr. Zarqawi and his associates." - CIA, Oct 2005.

You still put a lot of stock in the conclusions of the CIA, do ya?

Ann Althouse said...

Scott Lemieux said..."If "objectifying" women really is a serious concern -- and I doubt very much that you really think it is -- why aren't you all distressed about Jessica's blog? It openly seeks attention through the objectification of women." Except, of course, that by any rational, non-misogynist definition it does no such thing. If we accept your silly definition..."

Scott, you are not reading my posts very well. (And what you've written about me on your blog is abysmal.) "Objectification" isn't my word. It's the bogus complaint others have brought up. My point is simply that Jessica's blog is distinguished by many pictures of breasts and is clearly trying to win and keep readers by using breasts. (Do you seriously deny that?) She has claimed that territory for herself.

I called her on her laughable hypocrisy. "Hypocrisy" is my word. "Breast-blogging" is also my word, which you called "creepy" on your blog. It is a humorous way of saying that Jessica has chosen to feature a lot of closeups and outlines of breasts. She titillates for traffic. As such, it's disingenuous to say that I've "objectified" her.

If I wanted to be a big women's studies type of feminist and lambaste people for objectifying women, I would trash her blog. But I'm not doing that. She's welcome to design the blog she wants. But what she can't do is have her cake and eat it too.

And you have a long way to go to convince me that your problem with me is anything other than political commitment to the liberal side. I have a longstanding commitment to feminism, and I don't need a political hack telling me off about it, which is what you seem to be. Feminism is not Democratic party politics, and any attempt to push me back on this point will be strongly countered.

Charles Giacometti said...

Wow, well, I hit a nerve. You claim to not be intimidated, but clearly you are. Funny thing, I was not attempting to intimidate you, but you took it that way. Indeed, I was merely trying to prompt you to consider the appropriateness of your behavior, but your guilty, reflexive reaction tells me that somewhere, underneath your petty exterior, you know that your behaviour is incorrect.

Oh, and I love how you suddenly play the victim (accusing me of being "repressive") while almost in the same breath maintaining your position as public scold ("shame on you!"). I especially love that bit of projection, as you are the one who is clearly feeling the shame, finally. And what a diversion too! Right after I tell you about my firm conviction against impinging academic freedom, and pointing out the guilt of your party in this regard, you accuse me of it out of the blue. Nice smokescreen, along with your sudden allegiance to all other bloggers who don't have the rockhard psyche and tenure you enjoy. Funny thing, but alone among the bloggers out there, I am only calling you shallow and petty.

You then add the canard about me not understanding blogging. Please. I read hundreds of them. There is nothing to understand. You are shrill, petty, and ill-informed. You would be in any forum, and you certainly are in a blog.

Then you tell me, "expect to be criticized harshly here." To put my answer in the 7th grade venacular you rely on so heavily, I am shaking in my boots. As if you or any of your sychophants could say anything that would change my thinking or intimidate me.

Nice try, Professor. Wrong on all counts, but thank you for the continuing insight into your bizarre psyche. Along with the source of this thread--a young woman's looks--it speaks volumes.

AlaskaJack said...

Charles Giacometti, if you are going to try to get Ann fired you should come forth and identify who you really are. It's called courage. ("Courage", though probably not well understood in the Massachusetts circles you move in, is an old Greek virtue. I suggest you do some serious reading and reflect on its meaning.)

If you do not come forth and identify yourself, you are a coward and a Hollow Man to boot.

Charles Giacometti said...

AlaskaJack, take a class in reading comprehension and get back to me.

The Drill SGT said...

Charles Giacometti said...
Wow, well, I hit a nerve. You claim to not be intimidated, but clearly you are. Funny thing, I was not attempting to intimidate you, but you took it that way.


Amazing Charlie... What a fast backtrack from a blatant threat to report a blogger to her Bosses, her peers and the state legislature (but only the liberal ones?). Let's review what you said when you didn't try to intimidate:

Charles Giacometti said...
I spent some time today musing about a letter I would write to Professor Althouse's deans at UW asking them if they like one of their tenured professors writing the following comment publicly:...

This is such a wonderful contribution to the public debate, isn't it? It is so learned, scholarly, tempered. If I were the dean, this is exactly how I would want my faculty members to spend their time. And it is exactly how I would want my faculty members to demonstrate how subjects such as feminism and politics should be debated...

I don't know, maybe I still will. Or maybe I'll do an email broadcast to her faculty colleagues and some select (and liberal) members of the Wisconsin legislature.


really classy. Great progressive defense of speech argument here.

Charles Giacometti said...

Awesome, DrillSgt. You know how to cut and paste! Too bad you left out the key, last line. "On second thought, no. I'm going to go read a good blog instead."

For your next trick, can you roll over and beg?

I find AlaskaJack's and Drill's lack of reading comprehension hilarious, especially since the Professor uses that over and over again when commenters skewer her and she is too lazy to answer.

Oh, and Professor, is this where I learn about your warning, "or expect to be criticized harshly here"?

Lame, hopelessly, impossibly lame.

Ann Althouse said...

Charles is utterly contemptible. I called him on it, and he's trying to act like he didn't do it. His extra-long comments are the sound of him protesting too much. What a sniveling little tattletale. What a creep! Shame on you.

AJ Lynch said...

Whetstone said:
"You know, it would be great if these guys had the ability to sit back like you and be "intellectually" "honest," but they're trying to undo what they see as a lot of damage to this country. Maybe they're gonna get burned by Billary, it's possible. But they're in the arena,"

Is that the same arena with Katie Couric? And the clock is still ticking on another thing...I believe every one of those bloggers has said they can't wait to report about their fantastic lunch and meeting with Clinton. Well, I predict almost none will cause there ain't no wisdom to be had from Clinton. Just look and see if you can find any his book...it should have been called "A Snow Job From Hope".

Palladian said...

Charlie, you're an ugly, venomous toad. Go tattle to Mommy and Daddy about the big, bad lady who hurt your feelings. Figures that you're from Massachusetts, a state that had its sense of humor aborted, using government funds, in the third trimester.

LoafingOaf said...

Charles Giacometti, you're a fool, and you should go back to where you came from - no doubt full of assholes like yourself. You're not going over well here, however many points you're laughably imagining you're scoring.

Medopine said...

Ann went a little overboard and Jessica's blog's attempt at irony in its layout is a bit ill-conceived.


Can't we just leave it at that? More pictures of beautiful Madison, please!

The Drill SGT said...

Charlie,

when you start sending out emails to report Professor Althouse for conduct unbecoming a tenured professor at UW, don't forget those leaders at UW like Kevin Barnett and Provost Patrick Farrell. I'm sure they'd like to join the lynching, or since it's a female, perhaps the imagery of a nice stake burning would be better.

LOL

Doug said...

Awesome, DrillSgt. You know how to cut and paste! Too bad you left out the key, last line. "On second thought, no. I'm going to go read a good blog instead."

Whoa, I can cut and paste your stupid shit as well. Your second thought doesn't explain away your musing of writing letters to the dean or to politicians. It is a sneaky passive aggressive way, or should I say cowardly way, of threatening someone.

How would you take it if someone told another person: I am having these thoughts of beating the crap out of you, doing things to you that are illegal in Georgia and the more I think about it, I am considering cutting your throat. Gee, maybe I will just have a sandwich instead.

If someone said that to me, I sure as shit would consider it a threat

tjl said...

Charles Giacometti asks,

"For your next trick, can you roll over and beg?"

It must take a lot of mental energy and sheer malicious nastiness to produce this sort of thing.

Charles, please don't go on about Massachusetts in your thuggish posts. You'll give the Bay State such a bad name. And it would be undeserved, because extrapolating from the evidence of your posts, I'm sure your personality makes you just as much an outcast there as you are here.

Gahrie said...

Charles:

Just go away you silly liberal moonbat, or I shall taunt you again.

Johnny Nucleo said...

I was so outraged and just plain outraged by Charles Giacometti's comments, which are outrageous, I called the deans at the University of Wisconsin law school and told them to fire Charles Giacometti because I was outraged by his comments. They told me he doesn't work there and hung up.

I was perturbed, because how was I going to get someone to fire Charles Giacometti if I did not know where he worked?

So I hired a private detective and found out where he works. I turns out he works at a corpse brothel. Which is an amazing coincidence because I happen own several corpse brothels.

I called his boss and told him about my outrage and how outraged I was and asked him if that was the kind of guy he wanted working at his corpse brothel. Charles Giacometti's boss told me it was not, and so now Charles Giacometti has been fired and no longer works at that corpse brothel.

So all you people out there who think you can just say whatever the hell you feel like just because you feel like it: Watch it!

MadisonMan said...

Charles Giacometti has no sense of humor. Prof. A. is indeed pursued by boobs.

Garble said...

Ann, thanks for taking the time to respond. My nickname actually refers to my poor typing spelling and lack of proof reeding. I'm usually quicker on the uptake. There's just so much going on with this one it seemed easier to ask than try and read it all.

So, to summarize again:
1 You think Clinton is a tool that doesn't respect women.
2 You made fun of feminists that don't think that.
3 They figure that makes you a horrible person that needs to be thrown out of the sisterhood.
4 The woman with the rack is sort of humorless and a bit of an attention whore.

Do i get any credit for the rewrite?

BJK said...

Anyone else think Charles Giacometti is attempting to start a fight because he thinks it will lead to people reading his blog?

How fitting that a weekend of discussing boobs ends with the discovery of yet another one.

Ann Althouse said...

Drill Sgt: I think that's an inaccurate take on Farrell. The commitment to free speech here is longstanding and very strong. Ironically, Charles imagines liberals as repressive, but that isn't the case here. Not firing Barrett is part of this.

The Exalted said...

hmm

@fenrisulven, personal insults, puerile name calling, unnecessary and rather ridiculous attacks on clinton -- yes, its pretty clear to me who is unhinged around here.

@simon, yes, i do think bush's appointment of condi rice to NSA advisor and then secretary of state is laudable. as was his appointment of colin powell. we've reached a time when joe lieberman can run for VP and condi rice can be secretary of state and their religions/ethnicities rarely come up -- this is a very good thing.

ann, not that you ever respond to me, but you should really think twice before posting some of what you write. you seem like a nice person -- some of your insults to fairly polite posters are ridiculous imo (the veiled threats of charles aside).

The Drill SGT said...

Massachusetts? I thought Charlie was from Pennsylvania.

Ann Althouse said...

Exalted: I don't know which comments you're thinking of, but some things you're reading as polite may be things I'm perceiving as actually nasty. I'd need a specific example to respond, really. I have my reasons for putting things the way I do. Sometimes the poster is someone I know is writing nastily about me elsewhere. I had little patience with Scott because I saw how he wrote about me on his blog (which I noted).

LoafingOaf said...

I thought I knew Charles Giacometti from somewhere and it just hit me. Last weekend he attempted to flame me at Glenn Greenwald's blog with false accusations about who I am.

I bring it up because, yup, his usual hang outs are full of assholes like himself. In that thread Greenwald sycophants batted around the idea of trying to torment the blogger Patterico at his place of employment simply because Patterico objected to erroneous claims Greenwald made about him.

(The reason I commented there was because Greenwald had attempted to spread a myth about who ABC had sent DVDs of Path to 9/11 to and erroneously claimed Patterico had received one.)

Here are some of the comments from that thread:

So this Patterico is a LA attorney? I mean for real, and not just in his own mind? How would a California resident go about removing such an obvious wacko from that position?

Patterico is really an assistant district attorney in Los Angeles County. His real name is ... and he is a genuine nutcase. I don't think we serve ourselves by trying to get him fired, I like to think we are above that. There is argument out there however for causing him some grief and I have a difficult time arguing with it.

These comments aren't by Giacometti, but he was there and...birds of a feather....

LINK: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/glenngreenwald/115782550794386885/

Roonie said...

There is entirely no reason to have made such a big deal about a woman sticking her tits out in a photo. I probably would've done it too - my personal trainer stresses good posture.

C'mon. Twisting a shift of the shoulders into a feminist issue is really, really reaching. I suppose the world is devoid of actual news these days.

Sheesh.

Johnny Nucleo said...

You made it a big deal you idiot!

Ann Althouse is private citizen who blogs. She blogged something and you went nuts.

Fenrisulven said...

duplicate_user_id: Ah, so you've included in your list of sins, "sodomy", as defined as oral sex. Good. I wonder how many people on this thread have had oral sex. Giving or getting, man or woman.

List of sins? Never said such a thing. All I did was accurately comment that Clinton was too busy sodomizing interns to stop Al Queda as the plotted 9-11

You're the one went off on the "sins" tangent. I'm guessing the association of Clinton -> Sodomy bothers you so much that you felt you had to fling it back, regardless of whether your counter made any sense or not. Unhinged.

nedludd said...

I have a lot more respect for (and sympathy for) Clinton, as I see more of the kind of people he was stuck with as advisors.

He wasn't stuck with them, he chose them. Berger and Albright were no more holdovers from the previous administration than Bolton and Gonzales.

A theory I have always held about Clinton is that he did not ex[ect to win in 92. If you recall, when he announced almost no other Dems were willing to take on Bush because his approval ratings in late 90 early 91 were outrageously high. The only other one I can think of off the top of my head was Tsongas. For those who only recall Clinton as the heir to Reagan in communication, remember he was trying to rehab his image after the 88 Dem convention (where his speech went so long the only applause he received in the last half of it was when he ended it).Then Bush imploded and Perot came on the scene. Next thing you know ol' Slick loaded up the truck and they moved not to Beverly, but to DC. Looking back at his early missteps (Kimba Wood? Wasn't there another AG designate prior to Reno other than Wood?)

Back on point, the people writing the op eds were not careerists he was stuck with, they were his hand picked advisors.

Fenrisulven said...

The Exalted: fenrisulven, personal insults, puerile name calling, unnecessary and rather ridiculous attacks on clinton

Now your just making stuff up again. Provide examples. I've actually been quite restrained.

The Drill SGT said...

nedludd said...
Looking back at his early missteps (Kimba Wood? Wasn't there another AG designate prior to Reno other than Wood?)


Zoe Baird

Fenrisulven said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ann Althouse said...

Exalted: Fen's commenting is absolutely first rate.

nedludd said...

Massachusetts? I thought Charlie was from Pennsylvania.

I used to like you, Sgt. Now you can go screw yourself. I mean what did the Keystone State ever do to you to deserve that level of slur?

reader_iam said...

(Kimba Wood? Wasn't there another AG designate prior to Reno other than Wood?)

Zoe Baird, and both nominees fell due to a like issue. There was a difference between the two cases, though: Wood paid taxes with regard to her nanny and, I believe, was determined to have not broken the law.

reader_iam said...

I think Baird had to pay fines, or something. I wouldn't the "broken law" reference to be interpreted in an overblown fashion. It's just that the two cases did have some differences but have tended to get merged, over time, in the general mind.

reader_iam said...

Sorry, Drill, I see that you got there first.

Never mind.

The Jerk said...

Clinton was too busy sodomizing interns to stop Al Queda as the plotted 9-11

Really? That's a lot of sodomizing. The Starr report didn't indicate so much sodomizing that it would have really distracted him from other stuff - do you have knowledge of sodomy that Starr didn't mention?

Also, you said "interns." Wasn't there just one intern?

Also, Bush was unable to prevent 9/11. Who was he sodomizing that rendered him unable to stop Al Quaeda?

Are you really just repeating stupid right-wing canards? Is this why Althouse thinks your commenting is first-rate?

pre-emptively destroying a dictatorship that sought to anonymoulsy hand off WMDs to terrorists for suicide attacks against the West.

Got any evidence to support this claim?

Jonathan said...

Along with the source of this thread--a young woman's looks--it speaks volumes.

The source of the thread is not a young woman's looks, it's the controversy that erupted in response to Althouse's post about how and with whom a young woman posed in a particular picture.

Revenant said...

as for clinton "hurting feminism," honestly, just what are you talking about? did he hurt feminism when he made Madeline Albright the first female Secretary of State?

Given what a monumentally incompetent job Albright did during her tenure, I'd have to say yes. She was a failed affirmative action hire, and perpetuated the notion that any woman in the higher offices of American government is just there as window dressing.

Anyway, the main harm Clinton did to feminism was to feminist activism; the obvious double-standard organizations like NOW used when dealing with the allegations againt Clinton cost those organizations a lot of popular support with swing voters, I suspect. Not that they had much to begin with.

Ann Althouse said...

The idea that appointing Albright or Reno outbalances undercutting the modern women's movement is absurd. Appointing some women is a fairly ordinary thing to do, and since they did not work out especially well, it's not that memorable in the long run.

Al Maviva said...

Y'know why I'm less and less inclined to even bother listening to argument originating from more than 10 degrees left of center? Because so many of its practitioners are so vile, especially the reflexive Clinton defenders, a few of whom make appearances above. You make an offhand crack about some stupid blogger bash involving Clinton, and the defenders are on you, talking about how Clinton Attackers are unhinged and obsessed - all of a sudden it's about preserving the (no longer extant) presidency. The man could be caught walking out of a bank covered in die, carrying bags of money, with a pistol in his hand, and the defenders would be screaming, "BUT NEWT GINGRICH LEFT HIS WIFE."

In the end, I don't hate Clinton because of his domestic policies, which were half decent; or because of his foreign policies, which were half misguided, like most presidents'. Instead, I hate the bastard for the degraded place he and his 24 hour spin doctor war room pushed politics into, and where it's remained ever since. Not like it was great before, but now everything is about smearing your opponents, fighting these stupid little screaming battles about nothing, responding to argument A by screaming back off-point argument B - as if settling policy questions or life in general was a half hour on the Crossfire set and it's done by lobbing off-point insults back and forth. It's pathetic.

And yeah, Peetywhatever, I just spent 30 seconds scribbling about Clinton so I must be a deranged and obsessed conservative panty sniffer, etc. But I will note something for you reflexive Clinton Defenders: once you've lost MadisonMan, you've lost.

MadisonMan said...

I mean what did the Keystone State ever do to you to deserve that level of slur?

Elected Santorum? :)

I'll note that my parents, at least, have voted against him as often as possible. But Santorum really puts the tucky into Pennsyltucky.

Doug said...

There is entirely no reason to have made such a big deal about a woman sticking her tits out in a photo. I probably would've done it too - my personal trainer stresses good posture.

C'mon. Twisting a shift of the shoulders into a feminist issue is really, really reaching. I suppose the world is devoid of actual news these days.


Sticking your breasts out is appropriate if you are participating in a photo shoot for Jugs magazine or are at a nightclub and are trying to attract the attention of some cheeseball in a muscle shirt. But if you are meeting one of the most powerful men in the world in a business type setting, it probably isn't the best move to point those things out and up.

Also to some of the liberals here, if you think the comments at this blog about the woman are harsh, what the hell do you think Hillary's comments were after she looked at that picture?

Back when I was a kid, I was watching Phil Donahue and he had a feminist male anti-porn crusader and one of his points was that these male magazines place women in ridiculous, unnatural positions (such as the arched back) all for the gratification of men. Part of this guy's arsenal was to get men to lounge around as if they were posing for Playboy to see if it was demeaning.

hmmm... said...

Ann, all you've proven with these dumbass posts is that you're just a jealous old bitch with wet-sand-in-a-sock titties.

Sorry, buy you just come off like a bitter old hag with shitty looking breasts of her own.

Whatever.

Clyde said...

All in all, I'd have to say that this is a tempest in a C cup.

It did make for some entertaining reading over the weekend, though.

DaveL said...

It seems that there are feminists and then there are "Deminists." The latter are cheap partisan simulations of the former.

If you are a deminist, you see nothing wrong with using sexist, objectifying language against actual feminists who don't toe the party line.

Mr. or Ms. "Hmmm..." is clearly a deminist.

Clyde said...

And Al Maviva, yeah, the lefties tend to be impolite and unhinged. It's that Bush Derangement Syndrome thing. Fortunately for the ones who've been jihadding on this topic, the Muslims have behaved worse over the weekend and kept the spotlight off of them. I think the lefties owe the Muslims a big "thank you" for burning churches, shooting a nun and making them look comparatively rational.

noah said...

The feministas should look up what Tammy Bruce has to say about what the power broker feminists are up to. She was basically black-listed and fired from NOW because she thought that NOW should have denounced OJ Simpson!

JodyTresidder said...

Sticking your breasts out is appropriate if you are participating in a photo shoot for Jugs magazine or are at a nightclub and are trying to attract the attention of some cheeseball in a muscle shirt. But if you are meeting one of the most powerful men in the world in a business type setting, it probably isn't the best move to point those things out and up.

Oh, this has become hopeless, hopeless.

"Point those things?

You know, for the first time in my life I'm in agreement with the French - and even the British - attitudes to women's breasts.

MadisonMan said...

DaveL -- I would think a deminist would only half-state their points of view, but hmmmm stated her point of view, then he restated it. As if saying it twice would make it any more factual.

James said...

peetyport said:

Former President Clinton is still loved throughout the world and an influential diplomat. It is even possible to argue the most influential and He want to help his wife.

No, no...Clapton is God, not Clinton.

The Drill SGT said...

Al Maviva said...

Al, you made good points, let me sum it up. Clinton's term was all about driving his poll numbers up, and up and up. thinking that if people loved him that somehow that carried over and became "legacy" after he left office. Other great presidents understand that politcal capital is only valuable if you spend it to accomplish things. Clinton refused to spend a dime of capital to fix social security for example.

exhelodrvr said...

I'm very suspicious about this. Has anyone ever seen Jessica and Karl Rove in the same room?

Jeff said...

I don't really know why they are paying so much attention to me. I don't think it does either of the Clintons any good.

Ms. Althouse: Don't flatter yourself.

They're paying attention to you because you're the latest in a long stream of sexists who appropriate women's bodies for their own use.

Immediately before you it was Harlan Ellison. A while back it was DailyKos. A decade ago it was Bill Clinton, which I suppose was the point you were trying to make - that or that Ms. Valenti was appropriating her own body and "betraying the cause." (If it's the latter, I suggest you check out Twisty at I Blame the Patriarchy for examples of this argument that don't resort to misogyny.)

From what I've read, most of the feminists who are criticizing you aren't particularly pro-either Clinton. They're just more against the sort of comments you make about other women, or allow others to make about other women, than they are against a blogger meeting with Bill Clinton.

Joan said...

I missed something -- what did Harlan Ellison do? Damn, I thought I was staying on top of current events!

knoxgirl said...

I mean what did the Keystone State ever do to you to deserve that level of slur?

Elected Santorum? :)


Props to MM, I laughed out load at this one!

Lizzybeth said...

Good god - this woman is a professor? And she calls herself a feminist?

I've never been to this blog before and I'm certainly not coming back, but I wanted to comment that I find all of this a wonderful example of how the older generation will take any opportunity to snipe at their intellectual betters when they have the misfortune of being young and having breasts, both of which are major disadvantages in both politics and academia. God forbid we should support each other as women in politics, when it's perfectly profitable to be a token and stomp on your competition.

You certainly know how to make an impression! Whatever good you may have accomplished in the past (I don't know, I've never heard of you) you'll be forever linked in many people's mind with this incident. I'll certainly know to discount your vapid opinions in the future.

Perhaps stuff like this is why the fabulous Jessica was invited to the soiree and Ms. Althouse was not.

The Jerk said...

The idea that appointing Albright or Reno outbalances undercutting the modern women's movement is absurd.

Yeah, Clinton's having sex with Monica Lewinsky really undercut the entire modern women's movement. What a silly and unsupportable assertion.

JSF said...

From reading all the comments here, I have come to one conclusion:

If you are a Democrat official who backs abortion, you are allowed to commit perjury and rape. NOW and every other feminist will disparage your accuser (see Prof. Althouse), denigrate (Jones and Willey) or destroy (Jones). So every single Democrat Presidential candidate can be a rapist and the Democrats and the femisists will say nothing. Pandora's box unleashed.

Jeff said...

Joan: at a recent awards ceremony, Mr. Ellison groped Ms. Willis on stage. He then compounded the problem by writing a series of quasi-apologies which demonstrated that he had little understanding of what was wrong with his behavior.

pettyfog said...

as for clinton "hurting feminism," honestly, just what are you talking about? did he hurt feminism when he made Madeline Albright the first female Secretary of State?

Actually, as it turns out, yes.. and no. Her foreign policy of endless mediation and conciliation is what got us where we are.
That the same is considered a 'feminine trait' sets back real feminism; tho nowhere near as much as feminists stands on issues where THEIR patrons might deserve criticism.

As for the subject of the tempest that means nothing... it only shows up Libs for what they are.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with how she's dressed. But it DOES appear that she is either proud of being photoed with Bill or proud of her figure .. or both.

Thus it's moot.... when you're proud, you strike a pose.

Renegade Evolution said...

Ann:

Just two questions, really...

1: Like or dislike Clinton, he is an influential man with undoutedly some interestin non-sex related tales about politics and being president. Many people will accept invitations from people they do not actually like or respect in the pursuit of knowledge or merely curiosity...is that wrong?

2; Jessica is dressed like every other women her age dresses. There really is nothing vulgar about her attire. And as females (and feminists), well, a majority of them have breasts...I never really did understand how there could be nothing so unfeminist as a set of breasts, as they are part of the female body...so why is their mere presense such a blow to feminism?

Doug said...

Perhaps stuff like this is why the fabulous Jessica was invited to the soiree and Ms. Althouse was not.

We all know why Jessie was invited, she is a liberal blogger who the Clintonistas knew would swoon at the change to chat up the Big Dog. The nutroots have been harshing on the Clintons, Bill and Hill for a variety of sins (support of Iraq, 10th Ann. of Welfare reform, Bill chuming up with GHW Bush and "Rape Gurney Joe", Hillary's flag burning and religious overtures, just to mention a few)

Bill gave these people a little face time and Clinton charm and they fell in line with the DLC talking point that Clinton is the man.

hmmm... said...

I'm not an "ist" of any kind. And if I stated it twice, too fucking bad for you.

I'll say it again: This nonsense just makes the author of this blog look like an old, ugly, fat, jealous hag who has really ugly tits that no one wants to see ever.

She's ugly. Jessica isn't. She's old. Jessica isn't. She has saggy, droppy, nasty titties. Jessica doesn't.

That's all that this is, was or ever will be about.

C. G. said...

Or, perhaps Ann, you are a hypocrite and got called on it.

Let's see, you think Jessica shouldn't have been so enamored with ole Bill because she is supposed to be a feminist and he is the antithesis of the feminist movement.

What about all of the gay bloggers that support Bush? Is that not the EXACT same predicament? Why don't you take them to task? You won't.

BTW, this is coming from a moderate, not a lefty, so you can leave that out of your typical response for people that don't agree with you.

kc said...

Whether Jessica deliberately presented herself sexually at the lunch may be open to question

You really are despicable.

tjl said...

Hmm says,
"This nonsense just makes the author of this blog look like an old, ugly, fat, jealous hag."

The reality-based community proves once again what they're actually based on. Try putting away the bong.

c.g. says,
"What about all of the gay bloggers that support Bush?"

Unlike Andrew Sullivan, some of us may think there's a little more at stake than gay marriage -- for example, avoiding execution under sharia.

MadisonMan said...

What about all of the gay bloggers that support Bush? Is that not the EXACT same predicament? Why don't you take them to task? You won't.

I have never understood this argument, which I'll paraphrase thusly: You think A is bad because of B, but C is bad because of D and you've never mentioned it, therefore you're wrong about A.

What?

(Are there really gay bloggers who like Bush?)

Ann Althouse said...

hmmm: Either you're a plant or you've just presented one of the clearest examples of resorting to using sexism to make your argument. Congratulations for demonstrating your utter lack of principle with such clarity.

C. G. said...

I still would like to hear thoughts on how the two are different? They most certainly are not.

Ann Althouse said...

Renegade Evolution: "1: Like or dislike Clinton, he is an influential man with undoutedly some interestin non-sex related tales about politics and being president. Many people will accept invitations from people they do not actually like or respect in the pursuit of knowledge or merely curiosity...is that wrong?"

no

"2; Jessica is dressed like every other women her age dresses. There really is nothing vulgar about her attire. And as females (and feminists), well, a majority of them have breasts...I never really did understand how there could be nothing so unfeminist as a set of breasts, as they are part of the female body...so why is their mere presense such a blow to feminism?"

Your questions assume assumptions that don't connect to anything I've written or said. Why not try reading/listening to me instead of just picking up talking points from my critics. They are lying about me. So I have two questions for you?

1. Do you care if they lie about what I've written to make politically motivated attacks on me?

2. Do you feel bad about ignorantly absorbing those falsehoods and throwing them at me and if not, why not?

hmmm... said...

I have no principles.

And you still have nasty, ugly, old, lonely titties, all droopy and has-been and pointing south, and you're ugly and fat.

You picked on someone younger, prettier and more sexually desirable than you because of her looks, too, which makes you pretty fucking stupid.

You're just an old, ugly, repulsive, jealous woman who can't stand the fact that someone else is prettier than she is.

End of story.

MadisonMan said...

C. G.: If you want to hear about how they're different (or not), then start blogging about it.

Lunchbreak said...

Quite the row about nothing, but some disturbing commentary and thought processes in the background.

Bloggers meet with Bill Clinton for lunch. Blogger wears what most of america would consider business casual, stands in front, has breasts, and there's suddenly an issue worth foaming over. *boggle*

The more disturbing concept bandied about was "A real feminist wouldn't attend lunch with Bill Clinton" ... whaaaat? What exactly would that accomplish? What sort of stand or point would that make, and why would it be worth it? Why would making that point ("I'm not attending because I'm a feminist!" and forgive me if I still don't get why Bill Clinton is feminist kryptonite, but that's what I gleaned from a few threads covering this) more important than communication and comprimise? Life is comprimise.

Confusing. Sad. Unfortunate.

Ann Althouse said...

hmmm: I get it. You're an ageist too. Criticizing someone for hypocrisy in the public sphere isn't "picking on" them. In fact, she showed up and started talking about herself. Before that, I hadn't even mentioned her. You're quite dishonest, on top of being utterly unprincipled. I'm sure the Clintons love having a guy like you on their side.

Renegade Evolution said...

Ann:

1. Do you care if they lie about what I've written to make politically motivated attacks on me?

I do not like to see anyone lied about. However, I do not like to see assumptions made about people without actual knowledge, and it seems a great many people through out this entire thread have attributed a great many motives and 'dodgy actions" towards one another without factual knowledge, your supporter and critics alike.

2. Do you feel bad about ignorantly absorbing those falsehoods and throwing them at me and if not, why not?

I threw nothing at you. In fact, I did not attack you in any way, so no need to get so defensive. I asked you two simple questions. You have wondered repeatedly why feminists would meet with Clinton, I put forth a reason they might and asked you if you had a problem with a meeting under those conditions. That is a question, not an attack. I also asked, since such a big deal has been made about them, by you and others, why is it that something that is a part of the female body (ie, breasts) can be deemed as so unfeminist? Also, not an attack, a question. Apparently you do not want to answer that question, so you accuse me of attacking you (which I have not)and not caring about anything you've written (also untrue, for you did express an interest as to why a feminist would go to a lunch with Bill Clinton and an interest in Jessica's breasts). If you do not want to or have an answer as to why breasts are unfeminist, fine, just say so, but no need to take my rather straight forward questions as an attack. I have not insulted or slandered you at all, I merely asked two questions.

Mr. Snitch said...

You would do well to let Beavis and Butthead guest-blog for a while.

Heh. 'Rack.' Heh.

hmmm... said...

Um, Ann, you old, ugly, saggy-tittied bat, pointing out hypocrisy in the public square is fine, if you enjoy doing that sort of thing.

Picking on a younger, prettier, firmer girl for being young, pretty and firm is not pointing out hypocrisy. It's being a jealous old twat, is all.

You brought up her breasts, you dumbass. Next time, remember that, no matter what your politics, principles, or whatever, old, ugly, saggy women who pick on young, pretty, sexy women always look like jealous old crones.

Next time, leave someone else's looks and body out of it, and they might take you seriously.

In the end, all this was ever about was pure high-school prom jealousy on your part.

knoxgirl said...

Perhaps stuff like this is why the fabulous Jessica was invited to the soiree and Ms. Althouse was not.


If you're a serious feminist, you should take a non-invite to lunch with Clinton as a compliment.

C. G. said...

The thing I have noticed about popular bloggers (like Ann, Instapundit, Kos, Hewitt) is that they think they are always right, even when presented with examples or questions that they cannot answer and therefore avoid. There is so much hypocrisy that runs rampant among bloggers, that it is hard to give them the respect that they feel they deserve.

Hecla Ma said...

Absolutely nothing in recent memory has demonstrated more clearly just how UNSERIOUS are the folks on the left.

Mr. Snitch said...

"A man who was a man, and not some emotionally insecure malignant narcissist"

Clearly the best, wisest, and most charitable among us would rather serve humankind in ways other than public office. If we now eliminate the emotionally insecure malignant narcissists from politics, who's left?

marley said...

Sure - that worked SO well in the past. Lets go back to a President too busy sodomizing interns to stop Al Queda as they plotted 9-11

Can you say Wag the Dog? There are source materials out there to read other than LGF and Michelle Malkin. The truth is the Dunce King was warned repeatedly about Al Qaeda attacks before 9/11, and did nothing, but clear some more brush.

Its amazing to me how much wingnuts are still obsessed with Clintons cock. Admit it, you want to feel it, and taste it, just one time. It doesnt mean your gay.

MadisonMan said...

c.g., you are mistaking a blog full of opinion with a news source. Nowhere is it stated that some other blogger has to discuss what you find interesting or relevant.

Please stop complaining.

reader_iam said...

Hmmm wrote:

I have no principles.

How about a sense of irony?

hmmm... said...

Oh, I have a well-developed sense of irony, which is why I'm highly amused by the assumptions being made about me, my political leanings, and whether or not I'm a feminist...

qqcifer said...

cheers Anne, don't let the boobs get you down. After her pity party goes droopy, Ms. What's-her-name might rack up a career as a bike racing podium girl

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/photos/babes/babes06/GG.jpg

or maybe not

reader_iam said...

I was specifically asking that with reference to the "I have no principles" statement.

I make no assumptions based on anything other than that.

reader_iam said...

... and your apparent obsession with age as it may or may not relate to breasts.

Leads me to wonder about your experience with breasts OR age.

reader_iam said...

I gotta say something to people on both (all) sides of this, which will meaning nothing, but that's OK.

If I never hear the word "rack" used again with regard to breasts after this weekend, it will be way too soon.

I wish you'd all knock it the fuck off.

There, now I've finally gotten that little beef off my chest. (And yes, I'm injecting humor--by, by God, you'd better believe I mean it bitingly.)

Sheesh, both (all) sides. How meatheaded can you get?

Revenant said...

Former President Clinton is still loved throughout the world and an influential diplomat. It is even possible to argue the most influential

The most influential diplomat in the world is, inarguably, Condi Rice, who represents the most powerful nation on Earth.

Bill Clinton isn't a diplomat at all, let alone an influential one. He represents only himself, and has no negotiating power beyond the promise or threat to speak for or against a position. That is, indeed, one of the reasons he's so widely-liked -- it is always easier to like a person who poses no threat to anyone.

Mack said...

Hmmm...,

What if she really had been sticking her chest out? And then it turns out she has breasts all over her blog? Would you be equally disgusted that Althouse commented on it?

pb said...

So there's George C. Marshall, right, pushing for an earlier landing in Europe, and Professor Lindemann had to explain the British resistance to such: "It's no good—you are arguing against the casualties of the Somme."

Jessica might have just laughed over the fact that she has a superficial resemblance to Lewinsky, and that her close-fitting silk top was in front of a man impeached for lying about diddling an intern, but that would require that she disapprove of said diddling or accepted that others did not approve of said diddling. Don't hold your breath. You are fighting the ghosts of the Somme&mdashI mean, the 1994 and 2000 elections.

Speaking of ghosts: "It's an Anne Taylor silk top!" they all exclaimed later in the comments. Is brand name dropping a true substitute for thought and argument? Who gives a damn that the top was made by Anne Taylor?

"Yes, Your Honour, I did drop my trousers and pants in front of a group of schoolgirls, but it's a Savile Row business suit."

"Oh. Not guilty, then; off you go."

Ann Althouse makes a crack about the woman with the rack

Liar. Until said woman showed up and began making an ass out of herself, Ann never said a thing, never mentioned the woman in front of WJC, nor even said she was posting the picture because of the female(s) in it. The Blewinsky scandal is famous enough that people worked it out for themselves. Anyone complaining about Ann targeting anyone for their looks is slandering Ann Althouse.

Jessica is basically an unimportant bit player; she's cute, but an Internet picture of her would have no importance beyond her looks or her blog. No, Clinton set this one up himself, years ago, and now we all get to deal with the fallout.

Pogo said...

First
Goesh said...
Who is the Intern directly in front of him with the black hair?

then
Pogo said...
Monica has a blog?
Who knew?
Does she let Linda Tripp leave comments, or is she banned?
Oh, I should really let the poor man alone. But hasn't he got any sense at all, after all that?
__________________

The it went kablooey. I stayed out of it after that, hoping in fact to read some substantive defense of the continued feminist embrace of Bill Clinton despite his track record of blatant sexual harassment. It was two doofuses -not Althouse- who made the intern jokes (one doofus being me).

There was a mention of realpolitik, but not discussed. There was a mention of but Bush is worse, as if that actually meant something. But little else of merit.

Mostly there was the left doing what remains when ideas are replaced by ideology: spin, trash, blame, thrash wildly, throw mud, act offended, be offesnive, threaten, mock, and decry you, a perfesser.

If you took Ann's comments and made a single piece of it,it would make sense, and read as a mild chiding of the left, with some sound disdain for the dimmer bulbs as well. Pretty much what I would think a tough-but-fair classroom might hope to be.

But geez. The left seems to have become entirely populated by illogicians, and masters of the craft to boot. Clintons womanizing and then 9/11 made me realize that our best hopes were not with the New Left. And it sems to have devoled from there.

Pogo said...

"And it seems to have devolved from there."

Er, rather.

marley said...

The most influential diplomat in the world is, inarguably, Condi Rice, who represents the most powerful nation on Earth.

Hands down the funniest thing I've read in a while. Mushroom Cloud couldn't even get invited to Lebanon. She really should stick to the piano, as she has zero credibility, and virtually nothing on her resume.

Lunchbreak said...

"This is supposed to be a realm where ideas rule, where argument matters, where the playing ground is level. It's supposed to be a place where academics debate laymen, professional professional journalists mix it up with political junkies, and all ages, genders, and races participate without baggage. That's what it's supposed to be. But that can only last so long. Eventually, inevitably, people ... get scared, or beat, or defensive, and they fall back on what's easiest: Trying to discredit, rather than debate. It's the first refuge of the scoundrel..."

Taken from http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/09/the_first_refug.html
... worth perusal and a moment's thought. There's more contempt than contemplation in these debates, which is a very sad state of affairs for a 'battle of ideas' - incidentally, I'm still lost as to how refusing to meet with Clinton "because I'm a feminist" is logical and as opposed to laughable.

The Drill SGT said...

Pogo said...
Monica has a blog?
Who knew?...
__________________

The it went kablooey.


don't forget the old sarge asking cluelessly as usual, what the joke was about "random"

hmmm... said...

If Jessica were blatantly posturing in a pornographic manner in order to seduce poor old Bill Clinton (with his groggy heart and all...) for real, and she got called on it, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. I'd still warn older, less attractive women not to harp on the actual body stuff because it's a no-win for them. Sorry, but that's the way things are, and that ain't a-goin' to change. The older woman will always come off as jealous and bitter.

The imagery Jessica has on her blog ain't my cup of tea, but I get it, in all of it's sophomoric glory.

That someone is a self-avowed feminist does not preclude them from either supporting a political person who has some sexual issues in his past, or even just hangin' out for a photo-op with them.

Was Bill a bit piggy in the past? Yep. Do I think he's a worthless piece of shit because of his past? Nope.

No one is perfect, and none of us would look all that great were the lens of public scrutiny to be focused on us and our past indiscretions spun to give the worst effect.

It was a posed photo-op picture and she was an intern. She's cute and has a nice figure. She got posed in an awkward spot. Did the photographer maybe put the cutest girl in front? Probably. But how is that her fault?

I think to even take this up as any kind of serious issue is so beyond stupid, I don't know where to begin. And I think that the focus on the outfit and the position was a really dumbass path to go down.

Unless you just won Playmate-of-the-Year, you don't rag on other chicks because of some assumed overt sexuality. You can't win that one. So lay off that angle.

knoxgirl said...

a political person who has some sexual issues in his past

a bit piggy

No one is perfect


Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones and Juanita Broaderick might take issue with such a breezy summary of Bill's behavior toward them.

I don't like it when anyone minimizes what Clinton did, out of political partisanship or sheer ignorance. Not sure why you're doing it.

But anyone who apologizes and/or supports Clinton and tries to take credit for being a "Feminist" at the same time.... forget it, they're asking for ridicule.

Seven Machos said...

I cannot believe this is still going on.

My theory is that there are people here who think if they make just one more gratuitous personal insult of Ann Althouse, that will get them over the top and they will win.

knoxgirl said...

Here's what I don't get.

When it was clear that Clinton had lied precisely to scuttle Paula Jones's case against him, why didn't feminists come out and say something like:

"We have always been supporters of President Clinton's avocacy and policies for American women. However, in light of his repreated mistreatment of women working under him and his dishonesty in a very serious case of sexual harassment against him, we can no longer support him as a representative of feminist ideals and a positive force for the advancement of women.

As feminists we must insist on justice for all women, even if they happen to accuse a political ally of feminist causes."

Instead we get this blatanly politically motivated, ongoing defense of a serial sexual harasser and possible rapist. Sad.

JodyTresidder said...

"But anyone who apologizes and/or supports Clinton and tries to take credit for being a "Feminist" at the same time.... forget it, they're asking for ridicule."

Golly, your dinner parties must be a hoot, knoxgirl. Not.

Revenant said...

Hands down the funniest thing I've read in a while. Mushroom Cloud couldn't even get invited to Lebanon.

Remind me again how Bill Clinton resolved the latest Israel-Lebannon conflict? He resolved the *last* one, of course... by getting Israel to pull out of Lebannon and leave Hezbollah in control of it, guaranteeing that the war would resume a few years later. Brilliant diplomacy, that.

She really should stick to the piano, as she has zero credibility

She has zero credibility among the stupid. Intelligent people realize that she speaks for the United States of America, whose support is necessary for the success of any international military, economic, or environmental agreement.

and virtually nothing on her resume

And Clinton does? Aside from getting Israel to make concessions in exchange for nothing, giving food and oil to North Korea in exchange for nothing, signing a Kyoto treaty he couldn't get ratified, and failing to get the Taliban to hand over bin Laden, what were the big lasting accomplishments of world-class diplomat Bill Clinton? Pushing Germany to recognize Scientology? :)

Face it, Clinton's completely impotent as a political figure. He's not even the most influential person in his own political party -- let alone in international politics.

Revenant said...

Instead we get this blatanly politically motivated, ongoing defense of a serial sexual harasser and possible rapist. Sad.

The most amusing thing about the whole fiasco, of course, is that it is a feminist shibboleth that false accusations of rape are either nonexistant, or so rare as to be not worth worrying about. If Clinton wasn't a powerful Democrat, feminist groups wouldn't be taking the "he said, she said" position -- they'd be treating it as a foregone conclusion that Clinton was a rapist.

The old catchphrase used to be "women don't lie about rape". The new one is "women don't lie about being raped by Republicans".

marley said...

Revenant, your grasping. Chill out, and give me one accomplishment from Condi Rice. Just one. I would happy with one example of her even being qualified for the position.

Same old wingnut logic. When incompetance of current administration officials is brought up, blame Clinton. Yawn

Pogo said...

Sarge:
Not forgotten. Your comment wasn't of the doofus type, but subtle. Mine was crass.

Seven Machos said...

Marley -- Tell me how Albright was competent. Christopher. Schulz. Powell. Tell me how a corrupt governor from a corrupt backwater state is competent to be president.

What's actually ridiculous is you grasping at the competency straw. Rice was nominated by the president and the Senate gave its advice and consent. Ergo, Rice is competent. How can you possibly argue with that without looking like an idiot and a sore loser with no ideas?

Tell me one way in which you are competent to comment here.

knoxgirl said...

Jody,

You obviously disagree with me, but I am posting my opinion sincerely and in good faith.

Have the decency to respond seriously, don't just throw out some insult.

knoxgirl said...

I should add, Jody, that not one feminist defender of Jessica has addressed the issue of Clinton's behavior in any sort of meaningful way. It's all offhand, "no big deal" stuff.

Do you all agree with Clinton's operatives that his accusers are "trailer trash"? Do you think they are scorned women? Simply lying for attention?

Whatever it is, have the nerve to admit it.

Eric said...

The hilarity in all of this is that all Ann did was post the image and say "Let's Randomly Arrange…", which I took to mean the fact that all the women were clustered around Clinton, which is funny, I don't care who you are or what your politics are. The snowballing has turned into a wonderful dichotomy of the virtues and vices of blogs. Virtues being discussing issues within issues; vices being people being always being so fucking fanatical.
This whole boobpla is so preposterous, I mean really people, imagine trying to explain being worked up over this to a clueless stranger—you be laughed at. The meat of these comments are:
Joke
Rage
Joke
Rage-Rebuttal
Reasoned response
Off subject rant
unknowingly perpetuating stereotypes
Joke
etc.

Hilarious, pointless and looney as hell.

Derve said...

"But anyone who apologizes and/or supports Clinton and tries to take credit for being a "Feminist" at the same time.... forget it, they're asking for ridicule."

Careful. Rather broad brush you're painting with there.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 259   Newer› Newest»