I'm not trying to dredge up the old Bloggingheads thing...
Which is, you know, an old blogosphere flame war, but I see there's a transcription going around -- of this notorious segment of the diavlog -- that has a glaring error that is being used against me. I'm not going to link to any of the many blogs that are using this text, and I don't know what enterprising loser took the initiative to type it out, but it's perfectly easy to Google if you want to know who's purveying the defective text:
What I find hilarious is that the reaction to this video clip is really just underlining my point! The leftosphere is nasty and vicious to me. And they are trying to assassinate my character, as I say in the clip. They jumped to make themselves into the example of the very thing I was talking about. Ironic, no?
But let me admit something. I do think they have the motive to try to destroy me, and I can see why the left treats me nastily -- unlike the right -- even though I share their opinion on practically all the key issues (except national security).
I have obviously disaggregated myself from the fortunes of the Democratic Party. I will say what I have to say without trying to protect the party's interests. That's dangerous to them, and they should be afraid for me to have clout in the blogosphere. They have reason to portray me as crazy, stupid, drunk, or whatever the latest attack is. They should worry. And, as I say in the video, I will stand my ground.
The source of this distance I feel is exactly what I was talking about in those posts that ignited the old blogosphere flamewar: the way so many Democrats changed how they talked about sexual harassment in order to defend Bill Clinton. (Specifically, I was monumentally impressed by Stuart Taylor's comparison of the way Clinton and Clarence Thomas were treated.)
Let's take a closer look at what I wrote back then, when I mocked that photograph.
Bill Clinton, apparently eager to influence bloggers to give his wife favorable coverage as she sought the presidency, sat down for a lunch and a photo shoot with a select group of them. They ate up the lunch and the flattery it represented and posed looking thoroughly pleased. I think bloggers should maintain their independence and their critical stance, so I hated to read their gushing posts and to gaze on their shiny, happy faces in that photograph. I meant to be cruel to them.
(If they are cruel to me, I concede that I started it and that I meant to be nasty. In that sense, I can't complain... except for effect.)
My cruelty took the form of trying to ruin the picture they thought was so nice by merging it with the idea of Monica Lewinsky. The last thing Bill Clinton wants as he offers his prestige to the cause of his wife's quest for power is for us to think about Monica Lewinsky.
So I called attention to the fact that Jessica Valenti, positioned right in front of Clinton, did look a bit like that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I thought the photograph was set up in a way that was detrimental to the Clintons' interests, and I thought that was funny and that it presented an opportunity for some painful satire. I made it quite nasty, and I did it deliberately. I'm not sorry I did it. I mean to castigate feminists and so-called feminists who cozy up to Clinton. They were surely justified in fighting back at me, and I can understand why they want to ruin me.
But I did achieve my goal and ruin the photograph. You've got to admit that you cannot look at it the way the shiny, happy posers meant you to. The photograph is -- as they say -- reframed. If I must suffer for that achievement -- which I sought -- so be it.
these are flame wars, and what I'm trying to say on the overarching point, is that the left side of the blogosphere is vicious and unfair and nasty to me, and I don't like it, and I'm trying to ask you why that's the way they treat me when I support most of what they're for. Meanwhile, on the right side of the blogosphere, where there's much less overlap, I think, I am treated in a very warm and connecting kind of way. And you're really just kind of undermining my point, uh, by bringing that up like that.Here's what it should be, with the mistakes corrected in boldface.
These are flame wars, and what I'm trying to say on the overarching point, is that the left side of the blogosphere is vicious and unfair and nasty to me, and I don't like it, and I'm trying to ask you why that's the way they treat me when I support most of what they're for. Meanwhile, on the right side of the blogosphere, where there's much less overlap with what I think, I'm treated in a very warm and connecting kind of a way. And you're really just underlining my point by bringing that up like that.See that last one! I don't say "undermining." I say "underlining." I will wait for the apologies from all the nasty, vicious characters who thought I'd hilariously misspoken and who used that as an occasion for mocking me. (And I didn't say "kind of" before it either, which just shows how sloppy the transcriber was. )
What I find hilarious is that the reaction to this video clip is really just underlining my point! The leftosphere is nasty and vicious to me. And they are trying to assassinate my character, as I say in the clip. They jumped to make themselves into the example of the very thing I was talking about. Ironic, no?
But let me admit something. I do think they have the motive to try to destroy me, and I can see why the left treats me nastily -- unlike the right -- even though I share their opinion on practically all the key issues (except national security).
I have obviously disaggregated myself from the fortunes of the Democratic Party. I will say what I have to say without trying to protect the party's interests. That's dangerous to them, and they should be afraid for me to have clout in the blogosphere. They have reason to portray me as crazy, stupid, drunk, or whatever the latest attack is. They should worry. And, as I say in the video, I will stand my ground.
The source of this distance I feel is exactly what I was talking about in those posts that ignited the old blogosphere flamewar: the way so many Democrats changed how they talked about sexual harassment in order to defend Bill Clinton. (Specifically, I was monumentally impressed by Stuart Taylor's comparison of the way Clinton and Clarence Thomas were treated.)
Let's take a closer look at what I wrote back then, when I mocked that photograph.
Bill Clinton, apparently eager to influence bloggers to give his wife favorable coverage as she sought the presidency, sat down for a lunch and a photo shoot with a select group of them. They ate up the lunch and the flattery it represented and posed looking thoroughly pleased. I think bloggers should maintain their independence and their critical stance, so I hated to read their gushing posts and to gaze on their shiny, happy faces in that photograph. I meant to be cruel to them.
(If they are cruel to me, I concede that I started it and that I meant to be nasty. In that sense, I can't complain... except for effect.)
My cruelty took the form of trying to ruin the picture they thought was so nice by merging it with the idea of Monica Lewinsky. The last thing Bill Clinton wants as he offers his prestige to the cause of his wife's quest for power is for us to think about Monica Lewinsky.
So I called attention to the fact that Jessica Valenti, positioned right in front of Clinton, did look a bit like that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I thought the photograph was set up in a way that was detrimental to the Clintons' interests, and I thought that was funny and that it presented an opportunity for some painful satire. I made it quite nasty, and I did it deliberately. I'm not sorry I did it. I mean to castigate feminists and so-called feminists who cozy up to Clinton. They were surely justified in fighting back at me, and I can understand why they want to ruin me.
But I did achieve my goal and ruin the photograph. You've got to admit that you cannot look at it the way the shiny, happy posers meant you to. The photograph is -- as they say -- reframed. If I must suffer for that achievement -- which I sought -- so be it.
Labels: anti-Althousiana, Bill Clinton, blogging, Bloggingheads, breasts, Clarence Thomas, feminism, gender politics, law, sexual harassment
Stumble It! Facebook DiggIt! Del.icio.us
posted by Ann Althouse at 6:29 AM
209 Comments:
The photograph is -- as they say -- reframed.
Reframed as any artist can do.
I hope you're not suffering too much for it. It's fascinating to watch from the sidelines.
It's always easier to assert what folks like to think you would have said, rather than what you actually say. Makes judgments much easier.
At the risk of being snarky, I think this post is Evidence #1 that Althouse is in fact a liberal.
She openly concedes her actions may have been wrong, but nevertheless allowed her to accomplish her strategic goal.
It's been said a thousand times - the right seeks out converts, the left seeks out heretics.
And never forget that politics is the left's raison d'être. Damn near every aspect of their lives is structured around some political stance, so if your question even the tiniest part of their opinions they take it as a personal attack. Hence, you're "mean-spirited" if you don't agree with them wholly.
Petty vindictiveness from immature people has no end.
Gahrie: is that a liberal modus operandi or conservative real politik?
But I did achieve my goal and ruin the photograph. You've got to admit that you cannot look at it the way the shiny, happy posers meant you to.
The staggering pettiness of this statement, combined with the absurd melodrama of your pearl-clutching claims that The Big Bad Left is out to "destroy" you, is truly a sight to behold.
Ma'am, we're not out to "destroy" you. We just think you're completely ridiculous. Big difference.
I do think they have the motive to try to destroy me, and I can see why the left treats me nastily -- unlike the right -- even though I share their opinion on practically all the key issues (except national security).
And then you immediately without pause go on to describe in detail another key matter you disagree with them about, something near and dear to their black little hearts: the House of Clinton. These are people who really and truly bought into the meme that the whole maryanne about Monica consisted of nothing but the vast rightwing conspiracy spearheaded by the evil sex-obssessed hateful xtian Ken Starr.
I have suspected for a long time that BDS is in large measure nothing but blind payback for impeachment and the way they perceived that the right treated Clinton generally. Never ever comprehending --or wanting to-- that it was Clinton's own behaviors and then the lies about his behaviors that got him in trouble.
And when you diss on Clinton the way you do you wander right smack-dab into the middle of it.
Ann, how come this post isn't tagged "Anti-Althouseania"?
I used to find your blog annoying, but over time, I've found those grating qualities endearing.
If you want to really piss off your critics, project an indulgent magnanimity toward them. Treat them like the petulant children they are.
Gahrie: "She openly concedes her actions may have been wrong..."
No, I don't. I concede I was deliberately mean and that I do in fact understand why Democratic politicos want to destroy my reputation. And as for my "strategic goal" -- what are you saying it was? Their main beef about me is that I won't go strategic with them. That's the whole basis of feminist support for Clinton. I'm just pointing out hypocrisy and absurdity. Is that a "strategic goal"?
I do in fact understand why Democratic politicos want to destroy my reputation.
Well I'm sure they appreciate all the help.
I still just think that the thing, going on and on, has become really silly.
I think the original photograph is kind of silly.
I think inviting bloggers for lunch is silly.
The whole JVBC was silly.
I am surprised this stuff even went one week.
I don't think the Democratic Party is "out" to "destroy Ann". The Democratic Party is great at shooting itself in the foot. I doubt they can point the guns outside the circular firing squad of theirs.
The internet is replete with as$holes who will pick pick pick away at any blogger with a following.
That is what is going on here.
The internet is replete with as$holes
Yes, and some of them have their own blogs (and tenure!).
your pearl-clutching claims that The Big Bad Left is out to "destroy" you, is truly a sight to behold. Ma'am, we're not out to "destroy" you. We just think you're completely ridiculous. Big difference.
Oh please. If you only thought she was ridiculous, your crowd wouldn't constantly be driving through here with your pearl-clutching claims on what she's allowed to write about, what she's allowed to believe, what she's allowed to get angry about, what she's allowed to drink, etc. You guys are fixated on her. In contrast, I find Feminsite, FDL et al to be ridiculous - and thats why I don't waste my time trolling their sites.
But I wish Valenti would drop in. I'd ask her if she caught Clinton checking her out? Or if his security detail invited her up to his hotel room? And whether or not she would have accepted?
Ann just read what your supporters have to say. They're low-level primates. You're the Jane Goodall of the blogosphere, but crazier.
Clinton was rarely criticized by pro-choice left-of-center women’s groups for his philandering and exploitive treatment of women. Clearly, this is because of his position on abortion which trumped everything else. This is the white elephant sitting in the middle of the room.
Professor Althouse is a liberal law professor who doesn’t toe the party line and dared make reference to the white elephant. The left side of the blogosphere seems to have the view that “you’re either with us or against us” and is quick to launch ad hominem attacks on anyone claiming to be a liberal who doesn’t remain within their strict “group think” guidelines.
I do in fact understand why Democratic politicos want to destroy my reputation.
The staggering arrogance and narcissism (or is it just flat out paranoia) of this statement is just beyond belief.
A few left-wing bloggers derive pleasure from picking on you because you present such an easy target. Not only are you incredibly thin-skinned but you also have a mean streak a mile wide. So while you can dish insults, you react viciously when someone is mean to you.
Of course this orchestrated effort to destroy you it is all over the web. All we have to do is google it. Problem is, when googled, almost nothing shows up.
You elevate this minor blog war into a vast left wing conspiracy to destroy you, even inventing words and phrases to describe it. Then you feed the flames by constantly posting about it(even though you claim you don't want to discuss it further).
And I also love after being called a drunk you take great pains to then post several reference to drinking and a picture of you with a glass of wine.
I rest my case.
"And I didn't say "kind of" before it either, which just shows how sloppy the transcriber was."
I think it's big of you to presume good faith, but I don't think Hanlon's Razor applies to these people.
and is quick to launch ad hominem attacks on anyone claiming to be a liberal
Careful, Ann gets quite upset when people say she claims things she never claimed
Doyle said...
"Ann ... You're the Jane Goodall of the blogosphere."
And per Prof. Young, the Barbara Mandrell of Federalism.
Hey Ann,
I am reminded of dinner with a Catholic couple last night. They were looking for a new church as their priest has strongly advocated that abused spouses stay in the marriage no matter what. He then went on to say that they could not meet their commitment to their Church anyplace but at that Catholic church. While they were free to worship God where they might, they must attend and give money to THAT Catholic Church.
Needless to say, my friends, lifelong and happy Catholics, are considering becoming Protestant.
The left of your party is making the same power move. You see it with Senator Lieberman and yourself. The big tent is not so large, and people to the right or even middle of the tent are being attacked. Orthodoxy, socialist orthodoxy, is becoming the rule of the day.
In the end, some thinking people will leave. Where they will go, I cannot say, for they are neither conservatives nor Republicans at heart. But they will surely leave.
Trey
"And I also love after being called a drunk you take great pains to then post several reference to drinking and a picture of you with a glass of wine."
Yet more evidence that Freder just. doesn't. get. it.
Well, sometimes you cannot look at the same thing again without chuckling. The posing photo is certainly one.
I also cannot look at Paul Reubens or Jeffrey Jones in movies as I did prior to their, um, indescretions...
Ann,
It's quite wicked to so mercilessly yank our chains--wickedly funny that is.
They call you names and call you ridiculous, etc. yet spend a lot of time paying attention to you. Why not ignore you or let you slip into the insignificance they claim you deserve? They can't be afraid of you? You can't be influential?
Freder, Doyle, et al, why are you here? Why do you care? Are you so small minded as to get some thrill over trolling this lair of stupid right wing zealots? Isn't there some better place to use your great insight and intellectual heft?
You not going to destroy Ann (obviously) and most of us who like her, go back long enough to "get it", we don't care what you think.
Fatmouse said...
"It's been said a thousand times - the right seeks out converts, the left seeks out heretics."
I think it's much, much easier to figure out why the left hates her than why the right likes her. I don't know that anyone's trying to "convert" Althouse (I do think that intelligent and learned persons eventually start to feel the pull of Burke, but that's a conceit), so that's not really satisfactory as an explanation of why she's "treated in a very warm and connecting kind of way" by the right.
I was asked about this last week, and I really don't have a good answer, but I think that the short answer is that those on the right can disaggregate the personal from the political. For my part, I like her, I like her sense of humor, we seem to share similar perspectives on several issues, and I don't mind disagreeing on some issues with people I like. I mean, in some ways, I'm totally mystified as to why it's even a question: Concededly it's a little strange that as a result of the internet, people develop a strong sense of loyalty and affection towards, become emotionally invested in, people they've not met IRL (and I don't just mean re Ann - one of my co-bloggers is in Iraq, and I think about and worry about him daily). However, with that said, that you can like someone and still disagree with them is something that seems so completely innate, such natural behavior IRL, that it mystifies me why it'd be any different in the blogosphere. The bottom line is that you connect with the people you connect with. Ain't no use tryin' to make more sense of it than that.
Or maybe that's just a righty thing. Maybe those on the left really do act the same in real life, and avoid like the plague people who disagree with them.
Yet more evidence that Freder just. doesn't. get. it.
What's. to. get. Simon? Ann gets all pissed off because a couple blogs make fun of her for vlogging while apparently drunk. Then for the next couple days she goes out of her way to make references to her drinking. She was deliberately trying to draw attention to her self and suck people into her vortex so she could say "see how mean lefties keep calling me a drunk, its all over the web". Apparently no one took the bait, because now she has to fall back on the tried and true, "that chick had a tight sweater and her boobs were sticking out" to draw attention to herself.
Maybe it's all part of Ann's performance art project. Perhaps she knows that most of the left blogosphere doesn't care about her in the least. She knows that "Democratic politicos" could care less about her reputation, but she just wants to see who will rise to her defense and who will call her batshit crazy.
I continue to believe the business model for blogging is Vince McMahon's World Wrestling Federation.
She was deliberately trying to draw attention to her self and suck people into her vortex so she could say "see how mean lefties keep calling me a drunk, its all over the web".
No, she was making light of their stupidity. Its a joke. Lighten up. Because I still think we need to take you out and get you drunk. Maybe even laid.
Simon: I don't know that anyone's trying to "convert" Althouse
I hope she doesn't convert. Dems and Repubs are like a married couple - both contribute in their own way to the relationship, and both compliment the other's weaknessess. Problem is, our "spouse" has been off in the woods having a nervous breakdown since the Florida mess in 2000. So we need more sane Dems on the Left, like Althouse.
The left treats Prof. Althouse disdainfully the way one would treat a traitor. I don't understand their vile, juvenile and personal attacks. At the same time I think that there are some on the "right" who have changed positions on the major issue of our day (e.g Sullivan, John Cole) and are now treated poorly (if not as juveniley) by the right.
I think the right side of the blogosphere is nice to Prof. Althouse the same way that the left side is nice to Sullivan (and the like). They want to keep her on their side because it reminds people that it is not just a lock step party ideology which finds their argument compelling.
I do find it odd that Prof. Althouse says that the right side of the blogosphere treats her in a "warm and connecting kind of way." Particularly if you include libertarians among those on the "right", the right side has said some of the damning things about Prof. Althouse though they usually do not revert to the scatological and juvenile to attempt to make their points.
I think the right side of the blogosphere is nice to Prof. Althouse the same way that the left side is nice to Sullivan (and the like).
Not so sure about that. The Right side of the blogosphere rarely links to her, and doesn't seem to follow her. I got here via a rare link from Captian's Quarters, but I read BelmontClub, Powerline, Malkin, etc and Althouse rarely shows up on their radar. I'm wondering if any other right-wingers came here by accident, or via Instapundit?
"that chick had a tight sweater and her boobs were sticking out"
Who are you quoting there, Freder? I would never have mentioned breasts if I hadn't been impressed by the many glaring images of breasts on the supposedly feminist blog Feministing. The combination of that photograph and a blog that uses breast imagery to spice things up means something.
But quite apart from that, it is absolutely a feminist tradition to write -- as I did -- about the depiction of the female body, including the way women choose to dress and deport themselves in the presence of male power. For example, do you think the way Marilyn Monroe dressed when she sang "Happy Birthday" to President Kennedy is a legitimate subject for feminist analysis? I certainly do. Really, I should have written in much more detail about it, and I may yet do so.
"Maybe it's all part of Ann's performance art project. Perhaps she knows that most of the left blogosphere doesn't care about her in the least."
And yet, for a lot of Progressives, bashing Ann is something of a cottage industry.
Apply some of those IQ points to this conundrum and enjoy the cognitive-dissonance-induced fugue state, fred.
Ann -
Were you aware of the blog Feministing when you wrote the caption "Let's just arrange these bloggers randomly?"
Because that initial remark was totally unrelated to her blog. You only cooked up the casus belli after people got (rightly) pissed.
The left treats Prof. Althouse disdainfully the way one would treat a traitor.
This assumes that she was once on our side. I think what really annoys the left is Prof. Althouse is a self-proclaimed "not a conservative" but she rarely takes a stand for any left-of-center positions. Yet she is all too ready echo right wing talking points that are aimed at destroying prominent Democratic politicians (anything to undermine the Clintons, Kerry hates the troops, Edwards has a big house, Gore wastes energy, Obama is a lightweight). She rarely, if ever, criticizes the Republican candidates.
Althouse's actions on that loggingheads episode were not wrong. I don't think she was even mean. She was honest and direct in her angry response to Franke-Ruta's subtle but visibly obvious and dishonest sideswipe.
More people, liberal and otherwise, need to directly express righteous anger and set healthier examples for others who seem not to have even a commonsensical understanding of health. People such as, oh say... Hillary! Clinton.
Freder -
You're forgetting Ann's constant, tireless efforts to discredit homophobes like Bill Donohue and James Dobson, and the Republican politicians who court them.
Ann is a culture warrior for the left!
Who are you quoting there, Freder?
Obviously, it is not a direct quote, but a sarcastic reinterpretation of your original post. Someone with a highly refined sense of humor such as yours (who can make snide jabs at those who would imply you are a drunk) --which I apparently lack--should realize that.
Fen said...
"I'm wondering if any other right-wingers came here by accident, or via Instapundit?"
I can't even remember how I first found my way here, but I became a regular fixture when I started reading her off-blog writing. That was what got me hooked, and then, y'know, Bob Wright once observed that this blog is very much an extension of Ann's persona, and you know my theory, comments passim, it's like marmite: you either love it or you hate it.
And yet, for a lot of Progressives, bashing Ann is something of a cottage industry.
Here we go again. Who are these "a lot of progressives"? I mean besides me and others who spend altogether to much time posting on this site?
Freder Frederson said...
"[To say that the left treats Prof. Althouse disdainfully the way one would treat a traitor] assumes that she was once on our side. I think what really annoys the left is Prof. Althouse is a self-proclaimed 'not a conservative' but she rarely takes a stand for any left-of-center positions."
She voted for George McGovern, you moron! She supported Jesse Jackson and voted for Al Gore! Didn't you watch the divalog? You can count on one hand the number of Republicans she's voted for in thirty years! People on the right don't give money to Russ Feingold, Freder! And if just voting for democrats doesn't satisfy you, she's pro-choice and pro gay marriage! It's just incredible to me that you can make these allegations with what one must assume is a straight face. My God, law school admissions standards have dropped if they let you in the door. Did you even take evidence?
"Yet she is all too ready echo right wing talking points that are aimed at destroying prominent Democratic politicians (anything to undermine the Clintons, Kerry hates the troops, Edwards has a big house, Gore wastes energy, Obama is a lightweight)."
Now there's a legitimate point. Ann doesn't carry water for the major name Democrats.
OTOH, I haven't seen her carrying water for any of the major Republicans either.
Fred, look at it like this; there is no way to say something mean/snarky/funny about Bush that hasn't been spoiled already by the "Bush=Hitler, only nastier" crowd. That's it. Well's been poisoned, only the true believers find it tasty. (See also "Why is South Park funny and Keith Olberman not?")
The other Republicans? Well, I would guess Rudy might be in for some Althousian broadsides, and Fred Thompson is such a good caricature of himself that it's hard to do better, but I think a good writer might be able to do something with the raw material.
Otherwise, Romney? Dull as dishwater. McCain? Dead man walking (although I personally would like to see more forks stuck in him). The rest? Rest who?
But damn, the Democrats. Talk about a target-rich environment. My feeling is that when you go to the circus, you're supposed to laugh at the clowns. And maybe, just maybe, Ann cares more about the Democratic Party that she does about the Republican Party, and maybe, just maybe, the pathetic wattage of the Democratic Party's so-called leading lights moves her to snark.
I mean, if you're a Russ Feingold supporter, HRC, Gore, Kerry, and Edwards are pretty damn weak beer.
(For the record, I wouldn't vote for Feingold for President unless he were running against one of the other Democrats listed, and his Republican challenger was George Pataki. But then, I'm mostly Libertarian, and Feingold is mostly Socialist. Still, he's mostly honest about it, so he gets a lot of integrity points other pols -- and so-called-progressive pundits -- don't.)
It's just incredible to me that you can make these allegations with what one must assume is a straight face.
As one of the Jackson sisters would say "What have you done for me lately". For all her liberal bona fides (and that she supports Feingold considering his stance on the war just highlights her hypocrisy), what she writes on this blog reflects none of that.
Even her defense of gay marriage has been tepid. She wasn't much of an outspoken supporter of it on this blog when it was under consideration in Wisconsin. As for being pro-choice, well yeah she is, but she rarely if ever broaches life issues on this site. The point is, that when she does use this site to advance a political issue, it is invariably a Republican one.
And btw McGovern ran for president 35 years ago. Any liberal credit one earned for voting him expired long ago.
I think the "left" (which is a very imprecise term anyway) largely treats Ann as she deserves to be treated. I am sorry but this is true. I, for one, am "left", that is I agree with Ann on practically all issues except national security. I do think that Ann is a good person, who, however, is incredibly thin skinned. I understand her stance on national security issues. I disagree with it because I think Bush's policies undermine American security; but reasonable people may perfectly disagree on that.
What I dislike about Ann's posts is her frequent pettiness, but, hey, we're all human.
With regard to the Clinton/bloggers episode, I think much of Ann's meanness stems from the fact that she, who reasonably considers herself to be a true feminist (and who consistently took feminist positions throughout her life), was not invited to that luncheone. I will never ever believe that if Ann were to be invited, she not only would have attended, but also would have "posed." :) Judging from Ann's photographs from Texas, she is photogenic and strikes a good pose on pictures. So, I think that her meanness in that episode is in a substantial part due to such an understandable human emotion as envy. I don't think that such a smart person as Ann really thinks that Clinton undermined feminism by his inappropriate PERSONAL behavior. Yeah, I wish that feminist organizations had condemned him more for his abuse of power with respect to women (of course, it is for Clinton's policies and actions as President why women organizations gave him more of a pass than he deserved), but to say that he seriously undermined feminism is a huge stretch.
I think that Ann's perception of left blogosphere as hostile to her has an unfortunate impact on her choice of topics and the way she frames the debate. Nothing wrong with that--it's Ann's blog, but I think it helps to explain why Ann doesn't comment on some of the facts that a person who is a liberal law professor would have been reasonably expected to comment on. And it's sad.
It's also worth pointing out that Ann rarely, if ever, engages in a substantive debate on national security issues and Bush's administration utter disregard for civil liberties. I think she's informed enough to be able to contribute to national discourse in a more substantive way than writing Instapundit-like snarky comments on Democrats. That's my 2 cents.
OTOH, I haven't seen her carrying water for any of the major Republicans either.
Umm, Giuliani?
She voted for George McGovern, you moron!
Game. Set. Match! Nothing cements one's political identity more than a 35 year old vote against Nixon. C'mon. Voting for Feingold recently in WI has been a pretty easy vote, and being pro-choice and pro gay marriage hardly makes you a liberal or Democrat. Maybe 20 years ago.
I think Mark @ 10:44 nailed it.
Whatsapundit:
Not carrying water for Democrats is not the same as recycling misleading right wing talking points about Democratic candidates.
Also, your assertion that Feingold is a socialist is laughable. Feingold is one of the most libertarian Democrats, and perhaps all politicians. He alone voted againt the original Patriot act and was in a small minority who voted against its re-authorization.
And regarding Ann's support of Giuliani, he is one of the most authoritarian and anti-libertarian candidates. Just recently, he stated that he believes a President has a power to indefinitely held a US citizen (!) on national security concerns. If there's more anti-libertarian, and yes, anti-American, idea, please let me know.
she rarely takes a stand for any left-of-center positions.
Ann rarely takes a stand for any political positions. This isn't a political blog.
But that doesn't matter. If she's not consistently taking stands for lefty positions, with every ounce of her power, she can't be a liberal. Or a moderate liberal. Or just a moderate. She's just gotta be a conservative lapdog.
-Witness
I don't think Mark gets the point of this blog. Hint: It's not to learn about Ann's viewpoint on things.
It is possible that Ann is envious. It's also possible she sees the fawning of the left re: a lunch with BC as something to be lampooned. The content of other posts and topics introduced that I've read in the past year+ makes the second possibility more likely.
Hmmm, I'd like some linky goodness Fred because I wasn't aware of Ann's support of Rudy, but....
-- Pro Choice
-- Pro Gay-Rights
-- Strong on national defense
-- Hated by social conservatives
I have reservations about Rudy because he's not as "small government" as I'd like, but all things considered, he's not bad. If a liberal has to vote for a conservative (because of national security issues, say) he seems to be the choice, no?
"Also, your assertion that Feingold is a socialist is laughable. Feingold is one of the most libertarian Democrats, and perhaps all politicians."
Two words: McCain-Feingold.
MM:
You are one of the smartest commenters here. That's why it's unfortunate that you didn't get a point of my post.
I never stated that I believe that the purpose of Ann's blog is to learn Ann's stands on political issues. Most of Ann's posts are unpolitical. I've been reading this blog almost since the very start.
That said, I stand by all that I said in my original post. A lot (vast majority) of all of Ann's political posts are consistent with right wing talking points. Again, nothing wrong with that; but it helps to undestand why many on the left dislike Ann's views (not personal dislike (most people could care less), but her political views).
It's unfortunate that the discussion often gets too personal. But hey, it's Ann's blog.
Whatsapundit:
Is McCain a socialist too?
I little more exactness would be helpful to all parties here.
I'm in advertising and that means "messaging". Certain cardinal rules (general in nature)apply to Ann's situation and the furies that are now surrounding it.
First rule: where you place an advertisement is where from you draw your responses. In Ann's case bloggers are beating up on bloggers. Ann's message exists primarily on the blogosphere and she draws her criticisms and praises from those who encounter her placement.
Second rule: don't generalize responses to an advertisement entities who have not encountered it. In this case, Ann is attacked by the leftwing but it is the blogosphere leftwing. It isn't the general left wing, which is much larger and doesn't participate on the blogosphere and frankly has never encountered the message.
You cannot, as some have done here, take some snippy remarks made by a few bloggers on the blogosphere and up the levels to "attacks by the liberals".
I get a laugh out of those who think that blogging will make a huge difference in the battle between right and left. It doesn't here, it really doesn't most anywhere and bloggers take their potential for impact far too seriously.
If a liberal has to vote for a conservative (because of national security issues, say) he seems to be the choice, no?
No. Rudy is an authoritarian with no regard for the rule of law, which makes him at once a logical and unacceptable successor to Bush.
He would set race relations in this country back 30 years. He has no foreign policy experience beyond being a tough guy. His election would be a truly awful outcome.
mark, I lampoon mostly Democrats as well, mostly because they disappoint me so often. It's more of a how can they be doing this again -- don't they ever learn from history thing. I want them to succeed and believe that airing the dirty laundry will help. Perhaps Prof. A. is of the same mindset.
When EJ Dionne, Paul Krugman, or David Corn start beating up on Ann and the "breast controversy," I will acknowledge the "left wing," has taken notice--until then, I am going with tempest in a teapot involving perhaps 3 or 4 primary bloggers and assorted blog readers, at most totally no more than a couple hundred folks.
Fred, Naked,
Did you somehow miss the "also voted for Al Gore?" as in 2000, you stupid, stupid bastards?
Sadly typical. There's several good points, but let's point out one item (McGovern's old! LOL!) and ignore all the rest that makes you look like an idiot.
Is it any wonder she's moving away from such charming people like yourself?
Freder:
"[T]hat she supports Feingold[,] considering his stance on the war[,] just highlights her hypocrisy"
I disagree with Justice Scalia about the dormant commerce clause. And I adhere to my Sensei's views far more closely than one must "adhere" to any politician's view to support that politician. That make me a hypocrite? How about Justice Alito and his Zedner opinion - does it highlight my hypocrisy that I continue to strongly support his elevation to the Supreme Court despite his apparent stance on the use of legislative history (an issue of far greater importance than the war, I might add)? I agree with a great deal of what Ann's written in the last two decades, but she's reached some conclusions that I cannot agree with. Does it make me a hypocrite that notwithstanding serious disagreements, she's one of the three brightest stars in my legal sky? When did disagreeing on particular issues while retaining general support become hypocrisy?
Naked Lunch said...
"[B]eing pro-choice and pro gay marriage hardly makes you a liberal or Democrat. Maybe 20 years ago."
I'm on record as noting that "Life is non-partisan," that I don't "buy the argument that being pro life sites ... [a person] comfortably on the left-right scale," and that "one's view on abortion has far more to do with whether one considers an unborn child to be a human life of some value or not. There's nothing in my political philosophy that answers that question, and there's nothing in the liberal political philosophy that answers it. Now, my political philosophy gives me some clear answers about what to do with that belief once it's there, but it doesn't establish the underlying and animating belief." If not hoisted by mine own petard, I'm at least bound by my own logic, which means I can't disagree with you too strongly. Nevertheless, what I think I can say within the compass of my previously-stated views is that "reproductive rights" (a coy euphemism for abortion on demand which I absolutely detest, by the way, nearly as strongly as - and for the same reasons that - Ann rejects the term "Jessica Valenti Breast Controversy") is beyond any doubt a liberal cause célèbre, and that whatever the underlying illogic of the matter, no matter that it's hugely oversimplifying, the fact is that in the aggregate, for the average person, if the only thing you know about that person is whether they're pro-life or pro-choice, you have a much better than even chance of guessing which way they vote.
Mark:
"Just recently, [Giulliani] stated that he believes a President has a power to indefinitely held a US citizen (!) on national security concerns. If there's more anti-libertarian, and yes, anti-American, idea, please let me know."
You know what, Mark, I agree with you that it's a travesty. But it's also the view that the liberal wing of the Supreme Court (absent Justice Stevens) signed on to Hamdi, over a dissent by Justice Scalia. Formalism 1, pragmatism 0. Actually, come to think of it - see Althouse, The Vigor of the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine in Times of Terror, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 1231 (2004). Formalism 2, pragmatism 0. (I decline to address your previous remarks).
WhatsAPundit - I asked her point-blank about this on WPR a few weeks ago, and she indicated that if she had to vote today, it'd be for Giulliani, notwithstanding choice of veep.
There are two ideas entwined in Ann's post. The first concerns the way in which bloggers are pressed to subvert their observations and reactions to partisan demands; the second deals with the different manners that have become common between the web's leftosphere and rightosphere. It's the second that strikes me as the more interest.
Ann says that she is attacked as a conservative, Republican-leaning blogger, when in fact she is a slightly left-of-center Democrat-leaning blogger who nevertheless has no interest in tempering her blogging to support the institutional interests of the Dem Party. The amazing part of this aspect of the story is that the club most often used against her is that she is supposedly anti-feminist. It's amazing because Ann was hardly the only observer who noted the pathetic manner in which feminist interests had been subverted to the partisan imperative of defending Clinton's indefensible conduct during the 90s (and thereafter). We're still feeling the heat from that explosion. Given the importance of the feminist brand to the Dems for partisan reasons, it's also not surprising that the reaction against Ann's act of apostasy should be so bitter. Nothing new there.
The impact of all that on the manners prevailing in the leftosphere and rightosphere is reminiscent of De Tocqueville's characterization of the differing impacts of democratic, aristocratic and revolutionary ideas on the manners of society at large. I imagine that the rhetorical bomb-throwers see themselves, as they did in de Tocqueville's telling, in avant-garde, even revolutionary, terms. By definition, they're the radical "reformers" seeking to remake social institutions, by overthrowing whatever they see as the "old order." It's all very disorienting for anyone caught up in it, and becomes even more so when the "old order" becomes identified with the Bush Admin (as it has in the leftosphere). An early casualty is bound to be the norms of civility and civil discourse associated with the "old order."
MM:
I think that's where the crucial difference is: from your comments I get the feeling that you genuinely care for Democratic ideas (not necessarily Democratic politicians); I (and I think most other non-Bush loving crowd) don't get this feeling from Ann's posts, notwithstanding her liberal bona fides. I don't want to offend Ann, but her posts all too frequently seem as taking cheap and unfair shots at Democrats out of sheer pettiness.
In case you missed it, I did mention that "I personally would like to see more forks stuck in him" in regards to McCain.
No, McCain is an old-school authoritarian. He knows how things ought to be, and by-god government is for making things how they ought to be.
Come to think of it, that really isn't very far from socialism; socialists just have detailed blueprints instead of relying on gut instinct.
As a Libertarian (not an Anarchist) I always have to hold my nose and vote.
Doyle said...
"[Giulliani] would set race relations in this country back 30 years."
Take this as the good faith question it is: why do you think that?
I hold my nose and vote all the time, its not a Libertarian privilege.
Simon:
I think you are not entirely correct in your view of Hamdi. Yes, Scalia and Stevens took the most anti-authoritarian position, while Thomas took the most pro-authoritarian position. However, other member of moderate-liberal wing (Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg) did not state that President has a power to indefinitely hold a US citizen. The fact that they did not expressly address this issue doesn't mean that they agree with that radical notion. I can bet you whatever amount you want that when and if this issue comes before the Court, it will hold that the Executive does not have the power to indefinitely detain a US citizen.
Simon -
Probably something to do with the fact that - aside from the well publicized cases of Loima and Diallo - violation of black males was institutionalized in the NYPD during his term. The disregard for civil liberties wasn't even an open secret, it was just SOP. Then there was his brilliant idea to use welfare recipients as slave labor, etc. etc.
whatsapundit:
As a matter of pure logic, if you decline to label McCain a socialist based on "McCain-Feingold," you need more proof that Feingold is a socialist than "McCain-Feingold."
As an aside, based on what I know so far, Giuliani is more authoritarian than McCain.
Mark, as I see it, the plurality in Hamdi essentially refused to acknowledge that the writ is either available for citizens, or it has been suspended by Congress. That's a gross oversimplification, I concede, but the fact is that the majority let pragmatic concerns of the moment override what one hopes was their better judgment. It wasn't exactly Korematsu-style kowtowing, but it certainly wasn't Youngstown/Nixon-style standing up to the executive.
If you've been here for a while, you'll know that I'm a formalist, that my view of these things is fiat justitia ruat coelum. The constitution isn't a suicide pact, and certainly there is a place for pragmatic concerns in statutory and constitutional interpretation, but where its command is plain, its command governs, even when that makes it harder to do what we need to do, and even when it cuts against my normative preferences.
As to the future - as with so many things, it's up to Justice Kennedy. It seems clear (to me, at least) that Roberts and Alito have a more expansive view of executive power than do I (or does Scalia), although I doubt they go as far as Thomas. So that leaves Kennedy in the middle, and we'll see what he does. My bet is that you're right, and personally, I think that's a good thing (at least as far as citizens are concerned - it's an entirely different matter if you want to talk about non-citizens detained in non-America, so to speak).
Doyle, I don't understand how any of that relates to setting back race relations thirty years. What does "violation" mean in that context? Is "civil liberties" really a race issue, and if so, how? (I mean, does Bushitler ChimpyMcHalliburton's NSA program target blacks?) Is "welfare recipients" some kind of liberal code for "black people"? I would have thought that there would be a serious equal protection problem if a state made welfare available only to one particular racial group. I mean, what's the actual argument here?
Wow. Isn't this done yet?
Leftists: If you find Althouse "ridiculous", then why do you spend so much time posting screeds against her? You repeatedly prove her points about the depressingly exclusionary tactics of your side. And you fall into the trap of providing publicity for the positions and persons you hate.
BTW - This comes from a guy on your side!
If you read into her constant complaints about the left, you'd see my point - she's disappointed(!) in the behavior of the "leftosphere". I think she'd really rather like you guys, but you don't give her much to like. She's not disappointed that you don't like her, but that you behave like assholes to anyone out of line.
The funny thing is, if you pursued this rationally, I think you'd find that Althouse is more on your side on everything else than many Democrats in Congress!
mark said: "her posts all too frequently seem as taking cheap and unfair shots at Democrats out of sheer pettiness."
I don't know... I don't usually find Althouse to be all that petty. There are times, but it's often balanced with solid argument. Truly, it's not that hard to find fault in any of the political class - on any side. Your "cheap and unfair" are probably my "obvious and direct". Fairness in politics?
FEINGOLD TO INTRODUCE MAJOR
HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL
Rather than dictating how states will achieve universal coverage, the bill provides them with the flexibility to choose their own way of covering all their residents, provided they meet specified minimum requirements.
Remarks of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007
This much-needed increase is projected to benefit close to thirteen million Americans either with a direct increase in their minimum wage or indirectly by promoting higher wages for other working Americans earning more than the minimum wage.
Private School Vouchers
I believe that we have a responsibility to strengthen all of our public schools so that every child is assured of the opportunity for a good education. I oppose using taxpayer money to fund private school vouchers because I do not believe that this approach will strengthen public schools.
So, a Socialist? Maybe not in the Swedish model, but not far from it. Taken in conjunction with his manifest willingness to allow the government to regulate political speech, the portrait is of a man who believes society should be managed from the top down, and is unapologetic about it.
As I said, I have no personal beef with Feingold; he's an honest Progressive, and I have no problem at all with that. Just because I don't agree with his approach doesn't mean I can't respect his position. But calling him a Libertarian (in the classic "a minimalist government is the best government" formulation) is more than a stretch.
As to Rudy, god knows he's no Libertarian either; but then, as long as we have the New York Times and Washington Post around to publish any state secret any civil servant with an axe to grind cares to leak, there's only so much damage a Rudy can do.
As regarding how Rudy would d set back race relations 30 years, I suspect he'd do it exactly the same way Bush set back Freedom of the Press, and Gay rights, and Abortion rights, to the standards of the 1950s. (In other words my Progressive friends, keep worrying about evil Republicans spitting into the wind; it will prevent you from worrying about things like backpack nukes....)
Doyle said: "Were you aware of the blog Feministing when you wrote the caption "Let's just arrange these bloggers randomly?"
The second post makes the answer to that absolutely clear. The first post is hardly anything at all. I just thought it was funny that the photographer obviously arranged the photo to put the best looking people in front and to hide the less presentable ones. It's a hilarious photo. The second post is the main one that makes people mad -- along with the comments in the first one that it plays off of. Valenti appears in the comments, and I respond to her. I would have never written the second post if I hadn't been amused by her self-flattery in my comments.
People could have easily ignored my post and, as I wrote in the second one, they should have. Why they chose to give me so much profile, I don't know. But they did, and I'm not backing down. It's obvious that some very high profile bloggers, like Atrios and TRex have a big thing about me and have for a long time.
Wow, what an achievement: to "reframe" a photo. No wonder Ann must be destroyed.
Quick poll here: how many of you would NOT instantly come up with some sort of salacious remark upon seeing Bill Clinton in a photograph with ANY well-endowed, attractive woman?
"It's obvious that some very high profile bloggers, like Atrios and TRex have a big thing about me and have for a long time."
Ditto Doyle, Freder, etc. There must be a healthier way for them to work through their readily-apparent crush, one would think.
Consider the following two sentences:
1. Certain of Clinton's actions hurt feminism.
2. Some feminists' reaction to certain of Clinton's actions hurt feminism.
See any difference? Which do you think more closely represents Althouse's stance?
If you've been here for a while, you'll know that I'm a formalist, that my view of these things is fiat justitia ruat coelum. The constitution isn't a suicide pact
But as a formalist, there are some things you just can't get around. And one of them is that the Writ of Habeas Corpus can only be suspended in cases of "rebellion or invasion". Any presidential candidate who thinks he has the right to suspend habeas (which is a congressional power anyway) when those conditions do not exist should be denounced immediately by anyone who believes in the Constitution and is unfit to be president.
You and Ann should run from Rudy as fast as possible.
Barry - I don't know... I don't usually find Althouse to be all that petty. There are times, but it's often balanced with solid argument. Truly, it's not that hard to find fault in any of the political class - on any side. Your "cheap and unfair" are probably my "obvious and direct". Fairness in politics?
Well said. There's also this, that politics is a comic affair, regardless of left and right. To add an answer to Simon's musings, far above, I think Althouse's low opinion for politics and politicians may appeal to more moderates and libertarians than leftists; it certainly seems to offend our doctrinaire house donkeys.
I have to say that I do prefer Topical Althouse to Vortex Althouse. The shrieking moths sucked in and spun wingless out of the Vortex don't add much to either.