Maureen Dowd is a deranged lunatic. She's a sexist monster who constantly ridiculed Al Gore in the most dissembling way and thus gave us George Bush. Similarly she constantly ridiculed John Kerry and thus gave us the George Bush second term. She somehow thought it made her look clever to try to "feminize" (read emasculate) Gore and Kerry and "masculinize" Hillary Clinton. Any one who has read Dowd’s most recent book knows that she has serious gender issues. She should resolve her own before commenting ubiquitously on the ones she invents out of thin air for others.

She rarely has anything of substance to say; instead she prefers to comment on how politicians dress, whether they have facial hair, the timbre of their voice, how much they weigh, etc. The New York Times own public editor had to call her out for her erratic and sexist commentary.

She is one of the two most repulsive pundits in America (the other being her doppelganger in male form, Andrew Sullivan).

In large part, because of dishonest pundits like Dowd and Sullivan, thousands of Americans and Iraqis are dead. Gore and Kerry lost because the press corp wanted them to lose; we're all paying for the results.

Anyone who wants to learn more about how vile Dowd really is should visit the Daily Howler (Archives) and check out what Bob Somberby has to say about this waste of human protoplasm.

I am sure that Steve found it great fun partying with all the celebrities but he should be embarrassed about even entering this woman’s home.

If I found my self seated next to her on a plane, I would be asked to be reseated. I don’t think I could stand her stench.

Wow.

While Washington orgies in an obscene display of undeserved celebration, and Obama's promise of "change" is ignited by the expenditure of 150 million dollars, Rome burns.

Convicted felons such as Stephens get standing ovations and kudos from his criminal compatriots in Congress and the Senate. Hundreds of billions of taxpayer's dollars are doled out to banker barons while Americans go wanting for the basics needed for everyday security, health and hearth.

And, subsidized by the United States of America, Israel engages in mass murder, inflicted on an imprisoned, starved, and demonized population of people that are being eradicated in a manner Adoplph Hitler would be proud of. And Obama's skull face looms silent, mute to the carnage, the promise of change drowning in the cries of hundreds of dead Palistinian children.

Israel beckons and America comes crawling.

Who around Obama represents change? Who in this orgy has steadfastly, unwaveringly, and publically advocated for true change? Whose past actions can we look back to and see true respresentation and conviction in opposing these last eight years of treason, deception, domestic spying, politicization of our justice department, silencing of public dissent in "free speech zones", torture, and the murder of over one million human beings in an illegal and misrepresented military adventure?

Here is what the words of "change" look like. Here is what the Ron Pauls, the Dennis Kuciniches, the Ralph Naders, the Cynthia McKinneys are saying. These are the words of change. And while the words of change are being silenced by media indifference, Washington celebrates the annointing of an imposter.

Published on Saturday, January 17, 2009 by

CommonDreams.org

Punishing the Palestinians

by Ralph Nader

In the long sixty-year tortured history of the Palestinian expulsion from their lands, Congress has maintained that it is always the Palestinians, the Palestinian Authority, and now Hamas who are to blame for all hostilities and their consequences with the Israeli government.

The latest illustration of this Washington puppet show, backed by the most modern weapons and billions of taxpayer dollars annually sent to Israel, was the grotesquely one-sided Resolutions whisked through the Senate and the House of Representatives.

While a massive bombing and invasion of Gaza was underway, the resolution blaming Hamas for all the civilian casualties and devastation-99% of it inflicted on Palestinians-zoomed through the Senate by voice vote and through the House by a vote of 390 to 5 with 22 legislators voting present.

There is more dissent against this destruction of Gaza among the Israeli people, the Knesset, the Israeli media, and Jewish-Americans than among the dittoheads on Capitol Hill.

The reasons for such near-unanimous support for Israeli actions-no matter how often they are condemned by peace advocates such as Bishop Desmond Tutu, United Nations resolutions, the World Court and leading human rights groups inside and outside of Israel, are numerous. The pro-Israeli government lobby, and the right-wing Christian evangelicals, lubricated by campaign money of many Political Action Committees (PACs) certainly are key.

There is also more than a little bigotry in Congress against Arabs and Muslims, reinforced by the mass media yahoos who set new records for biased reporting each time this conflict erupts.

The bias is clear. It is always the Palestinians' fault. Right-wingers who would never view the U.S. government as perfect see the Israeli government as never doing anything wrong. Liberals who do not hesitate to criticize the U.S. military view all Israeli military attacks, invasions and civilian devastation as heroic manifestations of Israeli defense.

The inversion of history and the scope of amnesia know no limits. What about the fact that the Israeli government drove Palestinians from their lands in 1947-48 with tens of thousands pushed into the Gaza strip. No problem to Congress.

Then the fact that the Israeli government cruelly occupied, in violation of UN resolutions, the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 and only removed its soldiers and colonists from Gaza (1.5 million people in a tiny area twice the size of the District of Columbia) in 2005. To Congress, the Palestinians deserved it.

Then when Hamas was freely elected to run Gaza, the Israeli authorities cut off the tax revenues on imports that belonged to the Gaza government. This threw the Gazans into a fiscal crisis-they were unable to pay their civil servants and police.

In 2006, the Israelis added to their unrelieved control of air, water and land around the open-air prison by establishing a blockade. The natives became restless. Under international law, a blockade is an act of war. Primitive rockets, called by reporters "wildly inaccurate" were fired into Israel. During this same period, Israeli soldiers and artillery and missiles would go into Gaza at will and take far more lives and cause far more injuries than those incurred by those rockets. Civilians-especially children, the infirm and elderly-died or suffered week after week for lack of medicines, medical equipment, food, electricity, fuel and water which were embargoed by the Israelis.

Then the Israeli bombing followed by the invasion during the past three weeks with what prominent Israeli writer Gideon Levy called "a brutal and violent operation...far beyond what was needed for protecting the people in its south." Mr. Levy observed what the president of the United Nations General Assembly, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann called a war against "a helpless and defenseless imprisoned population."

The horror of being trapped from fleeing the torrent of the most modern weapons of war from the land, air and seas is reflected in this passage from Amira Hass, writing in the leading Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

"The earth shaking under your feet, clouds of choking smoke, explosions like a fireworks display, bombs bursting into all-consuming flames that cannot be extinguished with water, mushroom clouds of pinkish-red smoke, suffocating gas, harsh burns on the skin, extraordinary maimed live and dead bodies."

Ms. Hass is pointing to the use of new anti-civilian weapons used on the Gazan people. So far there have been over 1100 fatalities, many thousands of injuries and the destruction of homes, schools, mosques, hospitals, pharmacies, granaries, farmer's fields and many critical public facilities. The clearly marked UN headquarters and UN school were smashed, along with stored medicines and food supplies.

Why? The Congressional response: "Hamas terrorists" everywhere. Sure, defending their Palestinian families is called terrorism. The truth is there is no Hamas army, airforce and navy up against the fourth most powerful military in the world. As one Israeli gunner on an armored personnel carrier frankly said to The New York Times: "They are villagers with guns. They don't even aim when they shoot."

Injured Gazans are dying in damaged hospital corridors, bleeding to death because rescuers are not permitted to reach them or are endangered themselves. Thousands of units of blood donated by Jordanians are stopped by the Israeli blockade. Israel has kept the international press out of the Gazan killing fields.
What is going on in Gaza is what Bill Moyers called it earlier this month - "state terrorism." Already about 400 children are known to have died. More will be added who are under the rubble.

Since 2002, more than 50 Arab and Muslim nations have had a standing offer, repeated often, that if Israel obeys several UN resolutions and withdraws to the 1967 borders leaving 22 percent of the original Palestine for an independent Palestinian state, they will open full diplomatic relations and there will be peace. Israel has declined to accept this offer.

None of these and many other aspects of this conflict matter to the Congress. Its members do not want to hear even from the Israeli peace movement, composed of retired generals, security chiefs, mayors, former government ministers, and members of the Knesset. In 60 years these savvy peace advocates have not been able to give one hour of testimony before a Congressional Committee.

Maybe members of Congress may wish to weigh the words of the founder of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, years ago when he said:

"There has been anti-Semitism the Nazis Hitler Auschwitz but was that their [the Palestinian's] fault? They only see one thing: We have come here and stolen their country."

Doesn't that observation invite some compassion for the Palestinian people and their right to be free of Israeli occupation, land and water grabs and blockades in the 22 percent left of Palestine?

The following is Rep. Ron Paul's statement on H. Res. 34, "Recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process."

Madame Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the floor with almost no prior notice and without consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one side in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or U.S. interests. I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers. What will adopting this resolution do to the perception of the United States in the Muslim and Arab world? What kind of blowback might we see from this? What moral responsibility do we have for the violence in Israel and Gaza after having provided so much military support to one side?

As an opponent of all violence, I am appalled by the practice of lobbing homemade rockets into Israel from Gaza. I am only grateful that, because of the primitive nature of these weapons, there have been so few casualties among innocent Israelis. But I am also appalled by the long-standing Israeli blockade of Gaza – a cruel act of war – and the tremendous loss of life that has resulted from the latest Israeli attack that started last month.

There are now an estimated 700 dead Palestinians, most of whom are civilians. Many innocent children are among the dead. While the shooting of rockets into Israel is inexcusable, the violent actions of some people in Gaza does not justify killing Palestinians on this scale. Such collective punishment is immoral. At the very least, the U.S. Congress should not be loudly proclaiming its support for the Israeli government's actions in Gaza.

Madame Speaker, this resolution will do nothing to reduce the fighting and bloodshed in the Middle East. The resolution in fact will lead the U.S. to become further involved in this conflict, promising "vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state." Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country? I believe it would be better to focus on the security and survival of the United States, the Constitution of which my colleagues and I swore to defend just this week at the beginning of the 111th Congress. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.

January 5, 2009

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State

Dear Dr. Rice:

I am writing concerning Israel's military offensive against Gaza, which began on December 27th. I support Israel's security and its right to exist in peace, without the fear of rocket attacks from Hamas. Moreover, I abhor the violence being visited upon the citizens of our firm ally. However, no nation is immune from the legal conditions placed on the receipt of U.S. military assistance. I believe that with the current escalation of violence in Gaza, a legal threshold has been reached, warranting a Presidential examination and report to Congress. I hereby request an examination of Israel's compliance with the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (AECA).

While neither the AECA nor the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA) define "internal security" and "legitimate self-defense," I believe that Israel's most recent

attacks neither further internal security nor do they constitute "legitimate" acts of self-defense. They do, however, "increase the possibility of an outbreak or escalation of conflict," because they are a vastly disproportionate response to the provocation, and because the Palestinian population is suffering from those military attacks in numbers far exceeding Israeli losses in life and property.

Israel's current military campaign in Gaza has inflicted a significant toll on Palestinian civilians and society. Israel's recent aerial and ground offensive against Gaza has killed nearly 600 and injured over 2,500. The Associated Press reported: "children are paying the price. . . . The United Nations has said the death toll includes 34 children. . . . But the broad range of Israel's targets--police compounds, fire stations, homes of militants, Hamas-run mosques and university buildings--means most shelling is occurring in residential areas."[2] The extensive destruction of such civilian institutions violates Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the wanton destruction of property and collective punishment of a civilian population. There have also been reports of bombings of United Nations (UN) schools, despite the fact that Israeli Defense Forces were allegedly given coordinates of the facilities prior to the current escalation in violence. The blockade that Israel has imposed on Gaza since 2006 has further exacerbated the extent of collateral damage, as hospitals and morgues have been unable to cope with the magnitude of deaths and injuries as a result of the current escalation in violence and hospitals lack proper supplies needed to treat the injured.

I believe that Israel's use of defense articles provided by the U.S in the current Gaza military attacks may constitute a violation of the AECA. At a minimum, the conflict is sufficient to warrant an immediate report to Congress as required by 22 U.S.C. §2753. Please contact my office by close of business on January 7, 2009 with the date the report will be submitted.

Sincerely,

Dennis J. Kucinich
Member of Congress

Steve: obviously you get around, know how to enjoy yourself and work hard at work and play. So good luck.

I am appalled by some of the individuals named, and totally in agreement with WigWag. Two more repellant scribblers than Dowd and Sullivan are hard to find.These people have made careers out of denigrating politicians; and spew large amount of bile in the process. And that charlatan Greenspan - whose idea of being wise is to say nothing - was there.

We are in the midst of the greatest financial crisis facing millions of Americans and we have this crowd revelling? in what? What have these people accomplished other than holding everyone else in contempt?

Thank you for listing the attendees. Anyone who is pals with Dowd is certainly someone to avoid in the future. For that matter, this post is akin to the fawning post Aravosis wrote after meeting Catherine Harris. Does it really not matter to you who or what someone is, as long as they are famous (notorious)?

Cynthia McKinney

“Let Gaza Live”

Washington, D.C.

January 10, 2009

We don’t see the images. They are neatly censored from our view in this country. But everywhere else around the world the carnage that is Gaza is being seen and the people are revolted by what they see.

They see dead babies, decapitated bodies, defenseless relief workers killed. Maimed men, makeshift morgues, mortified mothers.

They see exploding white phosphorus shells, cluster bombs, depleted uranium munitions.

They see what is reportedly the world’s fourth most powerful military using all of its power against a defenseless people.

In fact, they are witnesses to 15 days of war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.

They see Hugo Chavez expel Venezuela’s Israeli Ambassador and they see lawmakers in Ecuador condemn Israel’s actions, calling for an investigation into Israel’s crimes against humanity.

And despite the obvious facts of an Israeli-sponsored terror campaign against Palestinians in Gaza, a piece of territory roughly twice the size of the District of Columbia, they see the U.S. Congress support a resolution totally supporting Israel, even though Israel is in violation of U.S. and international law.

They see Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, swaggering in insult to black America by initially refusing to seat Roland Burris from Illinois in the Senate, yet that same Reid cowers before the pro-Israel lobby, and they wonder why.

And sadly, they see the U.S. President-elect, who roared onto the scene like a lion, remain as quiet as a lamb in the face of the utter inhumanity of Israel’s actions, and they wonder why.

And then, they see us. Gathered here in front of the White House, reaffirming our own humanity, and that of millions of people around the world, including in Israel, who disagree with this death and destruction. The tears of the Palestinians roll down our cheeks, even as we bury our own victims of police murder.

A new day is coming in U.S. politics. We will use the power of our vote to change U.S. policy. We will no longer check our values at the door and support politicians and political parties that fail to deliver.

Not one more bomb to Israel.

In defense of humanity, we will not give up and we will win.

Truly, the apparently civilized world of the West needs to have three important things:realisation of truth; no compromise on the dignity of man/human rights: and an everlasting redemption from thier unjustly imposed myths/doctrines-making the today's global system of peace, security and prosperity more complicated and twisted.

Mr Clemons: I have read your post for some 4 months now and you certainly get around and do interesting things. In these very hard times do you not find it obscene that some people in Washington party while the rest of the country is headed downhill. You have listed some of the most useless characters who were present at Ms Dowd's bash. I hope Obama does not rely on this bunch to get anything done. What a collection of the self-indulgent.I guess these people don't have to actually WORK two jobs.

thanks for the notes. I like Maureen Dowd -- and I loved the party, and I care greatly about what is going on in Gaza....more later,

steve

Steve is an engager and engages everyone and has great scoops and networks because he is talking to everyone. Some of you critics would never ever make it in Washington I think. Having everyone talk with you is really important. And I think if Steve has some fun along the way, that's great.

John Mearsheimer nails the Gaza War in his latest:

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/jan/26/00006/

On a somewhat more optimistic note, apparently the Obama administration is naming George Mitchell as its special Middle East envoy. This is genuinely excellent news. Mitchell would have been my own top choice for the job. I'm very pleased.

Agree with WigWag and others about Dowd. She's a glorified gossip columnist who lowers the national IQ every time one of her columns appears in print.

Who the hell cares, Steve?

I`ve always thought that Steve should keep a diary. He could
become the Arthur Schlesinger, or the Saint-Simon of
Washington DC at the beginning of the 21th century.

A short excerpt from Saint-Simon`s Memoirs, dealing with Louis
XIV and his court at Versailles:

"His Ministers, generals, mistresses, and courtiers soon found
out his weak point, namely, his love of hearing his own praises.
There was nothing he liked so much as flattery, or, to put it
more plainly, adulation; the coarser and clumsier it was, the
more he relished it. That was the only way to approach him; if
he ever took a liking to a man it was invariably due to some
lucky stroke of flattery in the first instance, and to indefatigable
perseverance in the same line afterwards. His Ministers owed
much of their influence to their frequent opportunities for
burning incense before him....

No one understood better than Louis XIV the art of enhancing
the value of a favour by his manner of bestowing it; he knew
how to make the most of a word, a smile, even of a glance. If he
addressed any one, were it but to ask a trifling question or make
some commonplace remark, all eyes were turned on the person
so honored; it was a mark of favour which always gave rise to
comment....

He loved splendour, magnificence, and profusion in all things,
and encouraged similar tastes in his Court; to spend money
freely on equipages and buildings, on feasting and at cards, was
a sure way to gain his favour, perhaps to obtain the honour of a
word from him. Motives of policy had something to do with this;
by making expensive habits the fashion, and, for people in a
certain position, a necessity, he compelled his courtiers to live
beyond their income, and gradually reduced them to depend on
his bounty for the means of subsistence. This was a plague
which, once introduced, became a scourge to the whole country,
for it did not take long to spread to Paris, and thence to the
armies and the provinces; so that a man of any position is now
estimated entirely according to his expenditure on his table and
other luxuries. This folly, sustained by pride and ostentation,
has already produced widespread confusion; it threatens to end
in nothing short of ruin and a general overthrow.

From The Memoirs of the Duke de Saint-Simon, ed. F. Arkwright
(New York Brentano's, n.d.), Vol. V, pp. 254, 259-63, 271-274,
276-278"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Rouvroy,_duc_de_Saint-
Simon

Shameless name-dropping, Steve. But I absolutely love it! Thanks...

Here is - hopefully - the correct link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Rouvroy,_duc_de_Saint-Simon

Paul Norheim, the difference being that Saint-Simone (if the excerpt above is any indication) was troubled by decadence, whereas Steve Clemons (if some of his recent posts are any indication) glories in it.

Great comment, Paul Norheim!

This is Dowd at her most disgusting:

"Al Gore is so feminized and diversified and ecologically correct, he's practically lactating." (6/16/99)

Here's the rest from Media Matters if you can stand to read it:(Wed, Feb 28, 2007 8:11pm ET by Eric Boehlert and Jamison Foser).

"In her February 28 column, titled "Ozone Man Sequel" New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd described former Vice President Al Gore as the "man who was prescient on climate change, the Internet, terrorism and Iraq," and wrote that "[i]t must be excruciating not only to lose a presidency you've won because the Supreme Court turned partisan and stopped the vote, but to then watch the madness of King George and Tricky Dick II as they misled their way into serial catastrophes."

Dowd wondered who Gore must blame more for his defeat in the 2000 election: "Does he blame himself? Does he blame the voting machines? Ralph Nader? Robert Shrum? Naomi Wolf? How about Bush Inc. and Clinton Inc.?"

Yet, as blogger Bob Somerby noted, Dowd omitted an obvious other potential target of blame: the media. Indeed, Dowd herself, while now praising Gore for being "prescient" on such issues, relentlessly mocked Gore during his 2000 presidential campaign and onward for what she described as Gore's "obsessions about global warming and the information highway." Dowd has also compared Gore to the "wackadoo wing of the Democratic Party" for his criticism of the Iraq war; and has repeatedly furthered numerous falsehoods about Gore, such as that Gore once claimed to have "invented the Internet;" and, as Somerby noted on his Daily Howler weblog, that feminist author Wolf advised Gore on his wardrobe and how to be an "alpha male."

Environment

Dowd has repeatedly belittled Gore's focus on environmental issues, and previously referred to Gore as "Ozone Man," a slur originated by former President George H.W. Bush during the 1992 presidential campaign. For instance:

After President George W. Bush's April 2006 push to promote renewable energy, Dowd stated that Bush had made a "concession speech to Al Gore" but then added: "[T]he president sounded a bit like a wild-eyed Ozone Man himself yesterday, extolling the virtues of alternative fuel derived from cooking grease, sugar, grass, wood chips, soybean oil and corn." (4/26/06)

After attending the February 2002 World Economic Forum, Dowd wrote that her "whole body hurt" from the "chat about coalitions, commonalities and global climate crises." Dowd continued: "The confab -- overrun with charts, hand-held computers and technobabble -- was starting to feel like an evening with ... Al Gore." (2/3/02)
In a 2001 column, Dowd described Gore as "the champion of Kyoto and author of a chicken-little polemic warning of 'an ecological Kristallnacht' and 'wasteland.'" (8/5/01)

While complaining that the Bush administration has "reeled" the country "backwards so fast," Dowd acknowledged that she "used to think" Gore was "striving too geekily to be Millennial Man. The Palm Pilot on your belt. The Blackberry. The Earth-cam you dreamed of. Citing 'Futurama' as your favorite show. The obsessions about global warming and the information highway. Boldly choosing the first Jewish running mate. But now I'm going hungry for a shred of modernity." (6/1/01)

While discussing Gore's consideration of installing a webcam in the Oval Office, should he become president, Dowd asserted: "I have zero desire to see President Gore round the clock, putting comely interns to sleep with charts and lectures on gaseous reduction." (10/19/00)
In 1999, Dowd claimed that "Al Gore is so feminized and diversified and ecologically correct, he's practically lactating." (6/16/99)

Iraq

Dowd has also previously suggested Gore was part of the "wackadoo wing of the Democratic Party" for criticizing the handling of the Iraq War. Referring to Gore as "the shadow president," in her May 27, 2004 column, Dowd stated that an "outraged" Gore "called yesterday for the immediate resignations of [then-Defense secretary] Donald Rumsfeld, [then-deputy defense secretary] Paul Wolfowitz, [then-CIA director] George Tenet, [then-national security adviser] Condoleezza Rice, [then-undersecretary of defense for policy] Douglas Feith and [then-undersecretary of defense for intelligence] Stephen Cambone." Dowd continued:

Thundering at New York University about the man the Supreme Court chose over him, Al Gore said, ''He has created more anger and righteous indignation against us as Americans than any leader of our country in the 228 years of our existence as a nation." Holy Nixon!

[Sen.] John Kerry's [D-MA] advisers were surprised and annoyed to hear that Mr. Gore hollered so much, he made Howard Dean look like George Pataki. They don't want voters to be reminded of the wackadoo wing of the Democratic Party.

The Internet

Throughout much of 1999, Dowd promoted the falsehoods that Gore once claimed to have invented the Internet by repeatedly referring to him as "the Father of the Internet." Notably, on March 24, 1999, Dowd wrote that Gore had "drawn ridicule by boasting that he was the father of the Internet." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, Gore did not say he "invented" the Internet. In the March 9, 1999, interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer that gave rise to the myth, Gore actually said: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Despite this, Dowd has mockingly referred to Gore as "the Father of the Internet" at least three different times in 1999.*

Naomi Wolf

In her column, Dowd wondered whether Gore blamed Naomi Wolf for his 2000 presidential loss. As Daily Howler editor Somerby noted, "More likely, he blames the people who made a smutty joke out of Wolf in an astounding month-long display." Indeed, Dowd repeatedly furthered discredited claims that Wolf advised Gore to wear "earth tones" and "coach[ed]" Gore on how to be an "alpha-male," even after Wolf denied the stories in a November 5, 1999 interview with the New York Times. For instance:

Writing about a family trip Gore took to Europe in 2001, Dowd asserted that Gore had "escape[d] from his alpha-male coach" to "go off on a trek to Europe and grow a goofy-looking beard. Dowd continued, "[w]ith his Hemingway growth and Heineken girth, all Mr. Gore needs is a pack of Gitanes and an earth-tone beret;" and concluded, "[a]fter a lifetime in politics and eight years in the West Wing, the vice president spent the campaign trying to find himself and fine-tune his wardrobe's palette." (8/5/01)

In October 2000, Dowd wrote about how then-presidential candidate Bush was "still milking the flap over Naomi Wolf's alpha-male advice to Mr. Gore, the spectacle of a woman instructing a man how to be a man." (10/25/00)

Dowd also penned a column as though it were written by Gore, who said of himself: "Alpha Al, you the man. You got your mojo. You are looking goooood!" (8/23/00)

Again writing as though she were Gore, Dowd wrote that "Day Two" of the 2000 Democratic National Convention would feature "Tipper play[ing] the drums, accompanied by Karenna and Naomi Wolf, in an all-girl band salute to me." (7/12/00)

Dowd also stated that during the 2000 campaign, "[t]he Democrats yearn to be manly" and referenced Gore's "alpha coaching." (7/9/00)

In an October 1999 column Dowd wrote of an apparent exchange between Gore and herself about Gore's "new color palette." Dowd wrote: "He's in his casual uniform, a blue shirt to bring out his eyes, a heathery brown sweater, khakis and black cowboy boots. 'Tipper picks out my clothes,' he says quickly, before I have a chance to mention That Woman Naomi. Don't his beta earth tones undercut his alpha message?" (10/10/99)

From Dowd's February 28 New York Times column:
The man who was prescient on climate change, the Internet, terrorism and Iraq admitted that maybe his problem had been that he was too far ahead of the curve. He realized at a conference that "there're ideas that are mature, ideas that are maturing, ideas that are past their prime ... and a category called "predawn."

But what's going on in his head? Like Jeb Bush, Al Gore was the good son groomed by a famous pol to be president, only to have it snatched away by a black sheep who didn't even know the name of the general running Pakistan (the same one he just sent Vice to try to push into line.) It must be excruciating not only to lose a presidency you've won because the Supreme Court turned partisan and stopped the vote, but to then watch the madness of King George and Tricky Dick II as they misled their way into serial catastrophes.

Surely the Goracle, an aficionado of futurism, must stew about all the time and money and good will that has been wasted with a Vietnam replay and a scolding social policy designed to expunge the Age of Aquarius.

When he's finished Web surfing, tweaking his PowerPoint and BlackBerrying, what goes through his head? Does he blame himself? Does he blame the voting machines? Ralph Nader? Robert Shrum? Naomi Wolf? How about Bush Inc. and Clinton Inc.?

With the red carpet rolled up, the tux at the cleaner's, and the gold statuette on the director's mantle, not his, the Goracle is at his Nashville mansion, contemplating how to broker his next deal. Will he cast himself as the savior of the post-Bush era, or will the first Gore in the Oval Office be Karenna, mother of Oscar?

you all need to lighten up and see the world as it really is, not as you fantasize it to be. i love to read about these parties and gatherings and love this washington note blog for giving us the stage and sound and drama of politics. maureen dowd is a drama queen, but i love her stuff too.

i really like maureen dowd... the fact wigglewaggle is working so hard to demonize her makes it even more the case... keep on digging a hole for yourself wigwag and maybe you'll make it to china by suppertime..

steve - thanks for the entertaining post..

"you all need to lighten up and see the world as it really is"

You don't mean that at all. What you mean is that you think we should all get off on the same things as you.

Say, Steve,

Did Geffen or anyone at Halo remark on the fact that HBO blacked out Rt. Rev. Robinson's prayer that opened the Inaugural Concert on Sunday?

Here he was supposed to be the "antidote" to Rick Warren, and HBO can't see the point of putting him in front of hundreds of millions of viewers.

His prayer is posted at http://www.nhepiscopal.org/

"At a time such as ours, the spectacle of jeweled and gowned courtiers feasting on inaugural canapés is beyond tacky. The Bourbons partied, too, right up to the eve of the French Revolution." -- Justin Raimondo 1/19/09

Steve,
Roxanne Roberts and Krissah Thompson have an interesting piece on Washington's social scene in The Post. It may have some useful angles for those unhappy with your attention to social relations.

D.C.'s High-Level Social Scene Now Mingles Black and White

By Roxanne Roberts and Krissah Thompson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 18, 2009; A01

Eleven days after the presidential election, 100 people were invited to the home of Vernon and Ann Jordan. The guest of honor was former Time Warner chief Richard Parsons, but the belle of the ball was Valerie Jarrett, one of Barack Obama's best friends and a newly named White House senior adviser.

All night the Jordans' guests -- many VIPs in their own right -- surrounded Jarrett, eager to introduce themselves and welcome her to D.C. Business as usual. Every four or eight years, Washington's primarily white, influential, moneyed set rushes to cozy up to the new power brokers in town: Texans when George W. Bush arrived, Arkansas buddies when Bill Clinton came to town. The city's high-level social scene -- dinners, black-tie fundraisers, receptions, ubiquitous book parties -- is the place where money and experience are subtly traded for access and influence.

Except for the first time, the face of ultimate power is African American. With a black first family in the White House and a diverse group of appointees and Cabinet nominees, the all-white dinner party feels all wrong. Certain hosts are suddenly grappling with a new reality: They need some black friends. Overnight, black politicians, lawyers and journalists are hot properties, receiving engraved invitations from people they never got invitations from before.

Blacks have gone from barely being on the list to being in charge of the list.

"Everyone knows that his campaign was about inclusion," Jarrett said. "We would expect that spirit of inclusion to also reflect on Washington's social scene."
______
A swift shift is underway in this exclusive set of those who deal with the highest level of federal government. That's a signal of wholesale change, said A. Scott Bolden, managing partner of law firm Reed Smith's Washington office and a longtime politico in a city where professionals work side by side by day, but socialize separately at night.

"You see those 'What's In and Out' columns every year?" he asked with a laugh. "With Obama and the first family in town, arguably being black is 'in.' "
_________________

Couple thoughts:

1. The sudden and visible inversion of what and who is 'in' -- in trivial-ese, 'black is the new, well black', and so, oddly 'white is the new black (maybe, a little)' -- make the alterations of power relations starkly obvious in a way they hadn't been before.

2. Awkwardly adjusting to the switch, and to the new inclusiveness, will put the power of D.C. social circles to approve or sink new administrations at a disadvantage. I won't go into detail about the exhaustively critiqued damage wrought by the Sally Quinn & David Broder set and their ability to snipe, slant and takedown competent politicians for all the wrong reasons. Point here is, if you're in, you'e in; but it'll be on the basis of the quality of your relationships and will call into question who'll be doing what for whom--and why. Inclusivness doesn't have the same kind of cover charge--and a whole lot of people suddenly have tickets that can't be dismissed because, say they'e from Arkansas or Plains, Georgia.

3. I wonder what the niece of Strom Thurmond and Tom Jefferson are thinking, who were so ungracious in their Washington Post profiles some years back. Seriously, I want to know.

3. Black social networks (of all strata) will prove hugely advantageous to Obama in outflanking traditional cliques and social nodes of power. The speed and impact of that access to all sectors of society is unprecedented and will be impossible to counter. He'll obviously welcome all comers; but he'll be immune to the standard backbiting and more pathological attacks.

4. Some nuggets in there about the function of these social functions.

5. Hope we get continued reporting on this--it is an interesting story that should generate lots of interesting journalism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/17/AR2009011702864_pf.html

______

p.s.--Glad you had a good time; happier still Maureen Dowd is in her element. That said, wigwag is right: Ms. Dowd's sneering and mockery, though a valuable art form of longstanding in rigidly structured societies, has ill-served the country. Bob Somerby has exhaustively documented the self-indulgence required to reduce the most powerful journalists to exquisitely detailed discussions of, say, Al Gore's supposedly earth-toned wardrobe.

It's important because the social affirmation available for diverting attention to trivia and away from substantive, pressing issues and accurate reporting really short-changes the public debate. When we can't afford it. And it enables the catapulting of false memes--and false 'reporting'. Ddigby has an excellent example:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/more-big-lies-by-digby-i-think-this-is.html

Now, you'd think that actual, you know, reporters could add up two columns of three numbers each, and figure out which one was bigger. But lots of professional opinion-makers are repeating the false notion that Obama's inauguration is the most expensive ever. If this is a sign of things to come, I will be hoping---pointedly, vocally---that certain D.C. denizens make a point of calling their friends and colleagues to account on it.

Where that does not happen, it surely confirms the harsh views of TWN commenters who've been irked at the reporting from various dinner parties and other social functions. Hasn't really ever bothered me---various circles can have positive or negative function, and everybody needs the reassurance and sense of belonging and pleasure they bring. But people are done swalling the negatory aspects that've been forced on the public discourse.

Again, glad everybody's got friends; that's beautiful. If we get another round of 'takedown' after eight years of studiously ignoring the need for accountability, the peasants will be several orders of magnitude more irate than the second time 'round.

Just watched NPR news with four panelists commenting on the relevance of MLK day etc. Interesting; quite sane.

Yet in all this transition hoopla, my partner, Edie, again the most sagacious one in the house, puts it all in perspective. A good part of the overwhelming outpouring of festivity must be attributed to so many individuals being so grateful that the end of the reign of incurious, unintellectual (even stupid), endlessly cruel and destructive G.W.Bush is finally here.

An ending that should never have had a beginning and the rest, of course, is history.

PS - Pelosi and Obama playing good cop/bad cop on seeking accountabilty/prosecutions, roll back on fat cat tax breaks, etx.??

"A good part of the overwhelming outpouring of festivity must
be attributed to so many individuals being so grateful that the
end of the reign of incurious, unintellectual (even stupid),
endlessly cruel and destructive G.W.Bush is finally here."

Don, I think your partner Edie nails it. And this explains to a
large extent why Obama is so popular in Europe, Asia and
elsewhere as well. He is a charismatic rock star with great
oratorial gifts, and also a smart man capable of thinking and
expressing complex thoughts - but so was also Bill Clinton.
George W. Bush`s arrogance, stubbornness, lack of nuance, and
his unfailing instinct for screwing up everything he touched - in
short Bush`s failure, is a big part of the secret behind Obama`s
success.

Besides, Obama represents, at home as well as abroad, a
comforting hope that the Cheney/Bush years was an aberration,
and not a continuation in American post-cold-war history. This
hope seems less credible given who Obama have asked to join
his administration, and given many of his statements after he
won the election.

Most of President-Elect Barack Obama`s words and deeds
during the last few weeks actually seem to confirm the
unbearable thought that the terrible and disastrous
Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Rove/Bush/Feith/Rice/Abrams/Yo
o/Addington/Gonzales years of US politics actually represented
a continuation, not an aberration in American history. Neither
the media, the intellectuals nor the "common man" seem to have
digested this unbearable thought - thus the enthusiasm during
the inauguration.

Paul, I couldn't believe it in 2000. And 2004. Not that I'm not aware that there is a coalition of Americans frightened, benighted, stupid, arrogant, misguided and misled enough to put that fool in the WH. Simply, it was a huge diasspointment to forward thinking people to be thrust back to the 20th if not the 19th century.

I'm skeptical. Don't know if the US is really the 21st century Rome, or the Bourbons Bob alludes to above. I'm not enamored of politicians generally. I just wish for someone to take the US off the exceptionalist path, but it almost seems to be in the DNA.

Some of the folks at your party are great people who have helped America..... and some of them are total shits who did a lot to hurt America and the world.

On Inauguration day in 2005, I helped the American Friends Service Committee set up their exhibit of 'Eyes Wide Open' to remember the human cost of the Iraq war. We set boots out on the steps of a church close to the White House, with candles besides them.

I saw limo after limo after limo after limo ---- on and on and on ----- drive past on their way to the parties. Meanwhile, the names of Americans killed in Iraq were read and parents of these dead Americans spoke to the bitter cold.

It was really disheartening to see such a lack of concern to the vast pain that our national policies are causing, even to Americans.

And then there is the even VASTER pain being caused around the world by our national policies.

I do not have a lot of hope that this will change in the next four years.

And meanwhile, around the world, people are burning American flags at protests. They are throwing shoes at bush, olmert, and abbas.

If Obama does not take action on this immediately, they will be burning him in effigy.

I just could not go to those parties and act all nicey-nice with people who have so much blood on their hands (not all of them - but they were in the minority).

My heart breaks for all the innocent civilians destroyed by violence from this country, or from countries that we support. We have clearly acted like monsters.

donS and paul - i am mildly optimistic with obama that things will be better... it is hard to imagine them getting any worse then they continued to get with bush/cheney/rove and the gang of low life that were in control while working hard to drag the image of the usa to rock bottom internationally...

obama as subservient as he may be to the thugs in the military establishment, israel and etc, will hopefully show a degree of detachment that the slime balls leaving never ever gave a hint of...

the canucks i know are really happy to have obama 'mr change' in power... whether he lives up to any or even some of the 'dreams' around his campaign of change remains to be seen, but it is best to give a new person the benefit of the doubt at the onset.. i am having a harder time doing this with some of the people he's decided to surround himself with... we'll see..

Steve, you are a brave soul for posting this, but you are a brave soul for posting lots of things you post. I hope you ate up a whole bunch of those "pigs in a blanket" though.

"..." One of the things that is hard for me, though I suspect not nearly so hard for folks 20 or 30 or more years younger, is to get it through my head (and expectations) that when I look at a "black President" I am not necssarily looking at a progressive. For so many years black politicians have been on this side of the spectrum, except for the uncle Tom's who sought to capitalize on the Republican need for tokens (J.C. Watt, Ken Blackwell). It's harder still since I can't find a bone in my body tht wants to make nice with the thugs (of all stripes), and Obama seems to be playing Mr. Nice. Let's just hope he's not trying to be so nice that he sells out on the fundamentals -- see Digby, re "entitlements".

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/sacrifice-by-digby-msnbc-commentator.html

Glad the canucks are optimistic (I spend a lot of time in Nova Scotia (more now with 'retirement' impending). Perhaps it will inspire an ejection of the Harperites. What's going on with the Canadian government anyway? Is it back in business?

Surprised this is still going strong. If you want to get the usual tripe called "conventional wisdom" on Obama etc watch Morning Joe. A more useless set of commentators will be hard to find. Classic blind leading the blind.

Let's give the Man some time. He is a vast improvement on the Mountain Biker.

Don B: glad you spend time in Nova Scotia. My home province.

I think most of the useless, overpaid glitterati listed above would make excellent compost...beginning with Dowd. Greenspan's high on the list too.

This is just a shameless gossip column dressed up as politics.

What a waste of column inches.

Thanks anna missed -- I love the parties and enjoy meeting and mixing with these people. They are part of my network. I understand the frustration by many outside of DC with this sort of stuff, but I am what I am...and a ton of people find it interesting to hear about these mix and mingle galas and receptions. all best, steve

Jesus, what an embarrassing, cringe-inducing example of posterior smooching. There's nothing more to be said.

DonS, i hope the best for obama's term as president.. i think it's monumental to have elected him given the usa's history of slavery and etc towards coloured people... whether he is just going to be a yes man - uncle tom for a continuation of the bullshit, i certainly hope not!

the canuck gov't will be back in parliament from it's prorogued episode on january 26th... harpers 'conservatives' will be giving out a budget, and i suspect the gutless liberals will not have the jam to vote non confidence on harpers gov't... canuck parliament works differently then the americans...unlike electing a president who has immense powers to do many things, here in canada they are subject to confidence votes from time to time that all members of parliament get to vote on.. rarely does the gov't in power get rejected via a confidence vote, but that is what was about to happen this past december when harper went to the governor general to get a break from having to have a confidence vote... what he was trying to ram through at the time was so offensive the other political parties realized they needed to gang up on the bully (harper).. he knew he would lose the confidence vote and opted to take a chicken shit approach and ask that parliament be prorogued until they come out with the budget jan 26th at which time the parties would then get a chance on a confidence vote on his 'minority' gov't over his budget..

i might have some of this incorrect, but i believe that is the general picture... unfortunately many canucks have been dumbed down as to how canuck parliament works watching too much american tv and thinking all leaders get a blank cheque as bush has essentially had...it's quite different then american system of gov't.. the canuck system has some cheques and balances which are helpful when you get a real bonehead in power- a right wing boot licking bonehead which is how i view harper..

enjoy your time in nova scotia.. it's a beautiful place.. i lived one summer on cape breton island and thoroughly loved it.. the winters are cold however and so long as you can handle that, i think it would be a great place to be...

What WigWag said.

WigWag is right, Dowd is disgusting and deranged. You can't call her liberal or conservative...her proper political designation is "trivial." Unfortunately, people listen to this empty-headed moron.

Maureen Dowd, Expense Account Queen

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mixed-media/2009/01/19/maureen-dowd-expense-account-queen

So has the power center of Beltway High's Kools Kids mow shifted from the home of the odious Sally Quinn the the equally shallow and superficial Maureen Dowd?

This story says it all about our pathetic, star struck, adolescent media. No wonder our country is in such terrible shape.

"... don't *have* to come as a couple"?

[deep breath]

That makes sense only if the person who said it was female, and was suggesting that she (and Maureen Dowd) be invited to go along.

That is, only if it was made in sheer blatant self-interest (perhaps humorously so).

Now let`s see - when she`s got a president she obviously adores
- whether Maureen Dowd will succeed in creating a rift between
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, highlighting potential and
imagined tensions, throwing in Bill and psychoanalysis in her
habitual irresponsible manner. My guess is that this will be her
main occupation at NYT in the coming months.

No resentment directed at Steve and his mingling with the
"glitterati" though. It`s part of his profession.

geez i am going to have to raise my view of maureen dowd even more for offending some of who i view as the more offensive posters here! good job maureen for getting under the skin of those who appear to be unusually thick skinned when it comes to the welfare of others!

Steve: point taken. You and your colleagues need one another. After all there are always those who want to know about the inside gossip. My only hope is that some of those mentioned above will not do too much damage to the country while they pursue their spiteful vendettas. Your friends Sully and Maur are right out there in front with their venom tipped pens - oops its keyboards now.

Anyway the President said it all: we have no time for the pettiness of pols and scribblers.

geez i am going to have to raise my view of maureen dowd even more for offending some of who i view as the more offensive posters here! good job maureen for getting under the skin of those who appear to be unusually thick skinned when it comes to the welfare of others!

It's because of shallow, puddle-headed fools like you that we're in as deep as we are right now. What a stupid and nonsensical thing to say -- because Dowd is a lightweight airhead AND an offensive crone she must be good because people who decide to give a shit about things deeper than a fucking wardrobe don't like her schtick.

Pathetic.

The Washington Note's most esteemed commentator, WigWag, is entirely correct about Maureen Dowd except that she is much too polite. Dowd is in similitude and type the greatest harlot of the chattering classes.

Oooo. It sounds so lovely. Why, everyone must have had a super super time being all super super with all those super super people.

You can't spell "superficial" without "super".

Dowd is a worthless whackjob who has been tryign to recapture the heady days when she could gas on about Monica Lewinsky and hasn't managed to do so. if she were any more diaphenous, she'd be a sheet of tissue paper.

Dowd didn't just torpedo the Presidential campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry. She spent the last two years trying relentlessly to do the same to any and every viable Democratic candidate, and always with the same old smear tactics. Democratic men are all effeminate weaklings, Democratic women (whether they are candidates or candidates' wives) are gorgons. When John Edwards spent a lot of money on a haircut, she practically had orgasms of delight for six months, crowing about how a sissy metrosexual could never be President.

And then she turned her guns on Obama. She called him a "diffident debutante," a "hothouse flower," "legally blonde," "Scarlett O'Hara," and on and on at nauseating length. She insisted again and again that he was too weak to defeat Hillary Clinton, and when he did she was just as absolutely sure that Clinton would hijack the convention out from under him. When she didn't, Dowd was sure she'd connive with McCain to defeat Obama in the general election. When Hillary didn't do that either, Dowd kept on hawking her moldy narratives as though they'd never been wrong, even though they'd always been wrong. But this little glimpse into the very protected bubble of Versailles pretty much confirms what we already knew about why she's so hopelessly out of touch with reality, and so eager to sneer at outsiders, whether they're hicks from Arkansas or uppity boys from Chicago.

I love being a poor (even more so now), emaciated American shlub with my greasy nose pressed to the plate glass windows, exhaling with yearning as I watch the fancy folks and their friends, the Clemonses and Dowds and Roves and Hitchenses and Sullivans and all the rest feast and fête, while I wonder how I'm going to pay my bills and keep the lights on and the mortgage paid and the kids' rooms warm and the car running and the refrigerator more than half empty. And then I realize I've spent too much time dreaming about how much fun these connected folks are having, covering for each other, lying for each other, holding each others' hands and handbags and balls and whatever else they hold, and remember that I've got to scurry off to my third job of the day. It must be rich, Stve, it must be really, really, really rich, there in Versailles on the Potomac!

"And then entered Rahm Emanuel, his wife Amy Rule, and three beautiful kids who Geffen's Jeremy (whose last name I missed -- but who is a great guy) promised to romp with next time the little Emanuels were in Malibu."

Is David Geffen dating a man or a little boy? YIKES!

"Pigs in a blanket? Oh Margaret, how droll!" Andrew (Andy to his friends) Sullivan was heard to say to Margaret Carlson.

"Actually, I think it's marvelously ironic," Margaret responded. "Maury Dear is insinuating that we're all just a bunch of cheap Vienna sausage pigs wrapped up in our cheap, tasteless little Pillsbury blankets of hubris. She truly is a literary genius."

"All geniuses are just a little mad," Andy smiled and rolled his eyes in that wacky way of his.

At the after-party, Robert Novak rolled in a cage full of Palestinian orphans. We donned our black robes and sacrificed them to Our Lord Satan, because, you know, one can like Maureen's parties and be concerned about Gaza at the same time.

Jeff: Please post regularly.

Don Bacon: Are you really equating Bush with Obama? Yeah, new boss has his hands on the same levers of power as the old boss, but get real. Obama's remarks were a frank, pointed correction of Bush's errors.

Commentary above re Dowd and the social scene is relevant: the current spate of MSM memes is misrepresenting the fiscal status of Social Security--as well as the cost of Obama's inauguration.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/sacrifice-by-digby-msnbc-commentator.html

digby nails it. Catching compulsive water-carrier Andrea Mitchell insisting that the average American must sacrifice:

“It does go beyond rhetoric. [Obama] needs to engage the American people . . . if he is serious about … entitlement reform, there will be greater sacrifice required from a nation already suffering from economic crisis --- to ask people to take a look at their health care and their other entitlements and realize that for the long term health and vitality of the country we're going to have to give up something that we already enjoy.”

Get that? Your elderly parents "enjoy" modest SS payments and enormous Medicare bills--in an imploding economy.

Yet, entitlements are first on Andrea Mitchell's and George Stephanopolopolous's chopping block---rather than the robber barons who've made it big--and still a) have not sacrificed; b) escape accountability, and c) getting enormous bailouts.

I've yet to see proof there is now a 'structural deficit' in Social Security--yet somehow, the meme is everywhere.
_____

So--the social scene. Greenspan and Andrea Mitchell are in perpetual attendance, and that's fine. No problem. But it is a relevant and significant issue when their friends and colleagues turn a blind eye to those who push a lie to the detriment of the country.

We've had no-bid contracts, Enron, deregulation, a Ponzi Economy--and none of the actors has been called to account or reformed or suffered any real social embarrassment. NOw, the least among us is asked to sacrifice?? Really? It was the New Deal that saved us--and wrecking that last functional program, after eviscerating everything else in the country, would be a disaster.

And Matt Cooper--he does good work. But Cooper didn't just pushed Karl Rove's lies---he buried the lead: abuse of power; retribution for political reasons against a whistleblower; exposing a NOC--damaging national security if not bordering on treason. Yet Cooper refused to testify---inverting the responsibility of any journalist with integrity by assisting the abuse of power---not resisting it. Yet we still had professional journalists effusively praise Cooper's sense of humor, what a great guy he is ---but he's not such a great guy. Matthew Cooper was pimped out by Rove. And the country took a beating for it.

I'm not saying ostracize these guys. Don't haul out the torches and scarlet letters. But looking the other way, and palling around without being forthright with each other really functions to affirm and enable the abuse of power, not just by elected officials, but by the handmaidens in the media and punditocracy. Sorry for belaboring the point, but the process and the instances have been exhaustively detailed for the past 16 plus years. Mitchell, Quinn, Broder, Cooper--all very nice people. But don't think eliding the problem makes it go away---or makes it alright.

"..." Thanks for the review of what's going on in Canada. I checked with the 'Globe and Mail' and that also helped to bring me up to date. It does sound like the liberal-quebecois might (?) roll over so as not to be stigmatized as obstructionist; or maybe that fragile coalition will just evaporate. Yeah, I can imagine it's hard for the Canadian public to be attuned to the idea of 'confidence votes' being reality checks, what with the influence of the US imperial presidency so palpably close.

Thanks, and to alana, for the typically welcoming Canadian greetings. It's what we love about NS, the people, along with the beauty. And, too, its a refreshing difference from much in the US (which my spouse attributes in part to reduced anxiety due to having guaranteed health insurance).

Andrew Sullivan?
Was Chris Hitchens around seeking more tongue?
http://wonkette.com/405544/christopher-hitchens-makes-out-
with-andrew-sullivan-dances-to-rap-music

And it is appropriate that Maureen Dowd lives in the pad where JFK
screwed girls not his wife.
After all, doesn't Maureen screw the minds of those who read her?

From Gawker

Maureen Dowd Must Have Spa Massages, Cost be Damned

By Hamilton Nolan, 3:19 PM on Mon Jan 19 2009, 8,245 views

"Last Friday the New York Times sent out a memo telling staffers it's cracking down on expenses across the board. Sunday it published Maureen Dowd's (expensed) account of three days at Canyon Ranch resort. Huh:

MoDo is in top, infuriating, faux-self-loathing form. She spends the first several paragraphs wondering rhetorically whether anyone could justify spending thousands of dollars at a pricey luxury spa in Miami Beach during these hard times. Then she goes ahead and does. With the NYT picking up the tab, and paying her for her precious insight as well, we have to assume.

My mom always warned me that there was something immoral about a $5 cup of coffee, a $1.75 bottle of water, a $27 fifth of bourbon and a $40 candle. I’m sure the $500 pizhichil massage (without tip) offered by Canyon Ranch would have appalled her. It made my friend Alessandra, who had the “body ritual,” featuring two masseuses squeezing pieces of linen dipped in “medicinal oil” all over her body for 80 minutes, cringe a bit as well. “I felt like a fat Mafioso being serviced by Thai hookers,” she confessed afterward.

Later MoDo gets more massages, drinks booze, and goes out the town with her "pal," the Miami police chief, all while chuckling about how disconcerting her situation is, but hey, she can't be stopped from partying! (Is this why people hate "snark?")

A 950-square-foot, one-bedroom Intracoastal suite starts at $350 a night; a 920-square-foot poolside suite with one king bed starts at $450; a 1,200-square-foot oceanfront suite with two bedrooms starts at $1,000.

Meanwhile, back on the other ranch:

The Times will not subsidize or reimburse the cost of food delivered to the newsroom for departmental or staff meetings, without approval from News Admin. This includes departments or bureaus charging to their P-cards or to the newspaper the cost of bagel runs, supplies of bottled water, catered luncheons or any group meals for their staffs, whether the department is ordering from outside caterers and restaurants, or the cafeteria on the 14th floor. If a department is having a luncheon meeting, for example, editors should encourage participants to brown bag, bring down their own food from the cafeteria or share the cost of outside delivery.

You can't put a price on quality travel journalism, people."

So, if you've read this far, let me ask you a question. Do you remember when Maureen Dowd spent endless time ruminating about Bill and Hillary Clinton's sex life? You know, who else besides Monica Lewinsky Bill slept with and whether Hillary ever had an affair with Vince Foster or with any of her female staff members.

So here's the question; all those who think Maureen Dowd must have slept with Arthur Ochs "Pinch" Sulzburger, Jr. (who happens to be in the process of divorcing his wife) raise your hands.

You like Maureen Dowd? She is a complete disgrace to the field of journalism. Those who are posting about how she gets under our skins miss the point. We appreciate intelligent commentary in our columnist, not sick deranged commentary that Dowd is so well known for.

Maureen throws a fun gathering? Wish I'd been there.

As a Gore supporter and a Hillary supporter, not to mention
someone who didn't hate Monica but just thought she was an
entitled kid, I know Maureen can be rough. She has her prejudices,
for sure

But, she speaks as a girl, not representative of but one of us. And
she cuts both ways. She looks at power and how it's used and
misused, and she does not fear hate. She sees powerful men as
the boys they are, and she's not impressed.

Anna Shane: Modo cuts both ways. Is this what the Mexican billionaire is paying for when he bought into the NYT? How disgusting! Perhaps Steve sees this as sex in the capital....a la "Vitter"

JayB - thanks for your comments.. your hostility is noted... dowd is nowhere as horrible as so many other usa journalists, krauthammer, novak and a host of losers that are still being given a voice in spite of their wrongheadedness plaguing them regularly and influencing a group of fascist neo cons...

steve posts about a party at her house and some right wing imbeciles see it as an opportunity to go rabid... it must be tough not having cheney in a leadership role anymore.. one can always read chris hitchens, and avoid dowd...

DonS - the liberal thing is a bit complicated and doesn't just involve quebec... it is one of the 2 parties that have been around since the beginning of canada... many east coasters and ontario folks view them favourably, but they have a tougher time as you head west... the reverse is true of the ndp which has always been stronger in the west then in the east.. the new leader of the liberal party is a former harvard professor who was in favour of going to war in iraq.. that was before he decided to move back to canada after being in the states for 20-30 years.. i see him as a lousy leader who shows poor judgment, but that is who the liberals now have as their leader.. from everything i can tell 'ignatieff' is another shitty leader.. canada is now stuck with 2 shitty types leading the 2 major political parties here... i see both of them as useless and subservient to idiotic right wing agendas that aren't good for canada.. our involvement in afgan is a primary expression of this.. it is a stupid place to be, but neither one of these jackasses will have the sense to not support the military complex to the south, or the one working hard to convince canadians of the need to be in afganastan...

Bob Somerby calls out Steve Clemons in today's Daily Howler (January 20th). It must be very embarrassing for Steve to have the incomparable Mr. Somerby ridicule his post in the same way he regularly eviscerates the crap that gets printed and broadcast in the main stream media.

This is what the first paragraph of today's Daily Howler says:

"That said, we can’t recommend this post quite enough. At various points, you will assume that it must be a parody. But no, it isn’t (meant as) a parody. Therein lies a significant part of the story of the past sixteen years. (We had nothing to do with the comments.)

We’ve tried, and tried, to tell you that story. But the story is largely found inside the “sphere of deviance” (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/19/09) of your fiery “nominal allies.” As we’ve slowly and sadly seen, the career liberal world just won’t tell you this story. Instead, they direct you to 23-year-old books about the press corps’ conduct during the 1960s. Kos jumps up to tell the world how “brilliant” the whole thing is.

We can’t recommend that post quite enough—and no, it isn’t (meant as) a parody. Question: Why are we the first “nominal ally” to direct your attention to it?"

If your reading this comment, Mr. Somerby, the only one mistake in your remarks is the part where you say "We had nothing to do with the comments." Actually anyone who has read your brilliant, incisive and incredibly informative blog learned all they need to know about Maureen Dowd from your posts.

And we've learned from you that when progressive people say ridiculous things, they need to be called out for it.

thanks for the note Wig -- actually, not embarrassed at all. I liked the post I did -- and find the comments that have followed amusing. Don't know Somerby but glad what I wrote gave him time to scribble on something.

best, steve

Shouldn't you be out partying somewhere?

yes -- will be soon. I'm going to Union Station for the New Jersey Ball where the E Street Band will be playing and will then be going to the Google/YouTube event done jointly with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

I know you are disdainful of these parties -- but they are a part of my life and my connections. Just like Will Bower, who you admire, is. I had interesting chats with Rahm Emanuel and the incoming Colorado Senator at Maureen Dowd's home. This is quite useful to my work.

So I am quite tolerant of your high-handedness about Ms. Dowd -- but I disagree with you, enjoy her, and found this party and others quite worth attending. So, do me a favor and respect my differences with you like I respect yours with me.

You are great -- but I am not walking away from this post, and I would be more than happy to participate in such a party at Maureen Dowd's home again.

My job is to move policy -- not to write a blog -- and it is through a number of vehicles, including think tanks, blogs, dinner salons, essays, parties and the like -- that I try to move policy. I'm pretty good at it. And this includes attending the gatherings that some of you find irritating.

But then again, you don't have my job. You aren't moving policy in the ways I am. And many of you are not writing a daily blog that deals with public policy and the DC political community.

So, it is what it is -- you have a place here to express your shock that I loved attending Maureen Dowd's place and hanging out with David Geffen and his boyfriend Jeremy, etc. -- but I did, and would be happy to do it again. Particularly since I learned a great deal about who would be part of Barack Obama's Middle East team, central to my work and your interests.

Now, I'm moving on to the next parties...where I will do more policy work.

Hugs to all -- it's a great day,

Steve

Steve, I've got nothing against the parties. I just don't like Dowd. I hope you have a great time tonight and I know that what you learn will make your posts even more informative and fun to read.

Now go tie that bow tie, put on those paten leather shoes and enjoy yourself. All I ask is that you don't drink so much that you won't be up to sharing with your fans one of your great posts tomorrow!

Everyone here thinks your great!

WigWag -- it's cool. Just wanted to stand my ground. ;-) I enjoy your comments. I'm sometimes mocked by folks who know I like a good cocktail or party -- but most of my friends (and readers) know that there aren't many like me who actually are moving policy debates in these circles. And frankly, whether one likes Maureen Dowd or not -- and I do -- there is no better room of DC insiders to get all of the scoops, information, and framing of what is going on in this town. Some folks really dislike this, and I understand why -- but it doesn't change the fact that this is part of the way DC operates. I try to behave responsibly in these circles and am way more transparent than most about this. But to be transparent and then have some readers go off on me and the fact that I enjoy these things is not the best way to have fun blogging.

But again, blogging is not my objective -- policy discussion, debate, and improvement is -- so the catcalls are OK....and I do respect you.

But just wanted to put down my marker that I would go back to Maureen's in a second....

One admission though...I'm really lousy at "tying" a bow tie...I really need to. I've been posting a bunch of twitter alerts on my Twitter account and on the front page over at Huffington Post (may be the political section) - but one of the things I have said is that the Presidential Inaugural Committee could send a much needed and refreshing signal to the country by BANNING black tie dress at events -- and just inviting Americans to dress festively. I hate tuxedos actually...

And I'm done drinking -- had too much of that with John Cusack and others last night. . . ;-)

All the best -- and seriously, thank you for your civil and respectful posts and for weighing in with the way you really think.

Again -- this is a day to push RESET. Much to do and think about.

More soon,

Steve

Steve, have one on me and the rest of us who can't be there. I can't imagine how you are getting around the crowds, but I have no doubt you are doing policy work!

as another poster up above said " you folks need to lighten up." if wigwag expressed 1/100th the indignation over israels actions the past 3 weeks, as he has over maureen dowd, i would be shocked...

Steve types "I am quite tolerant of your high-handedness about Ms. Dowd -- but I disagree with you"

then this "You are great"

so Steve is disingenuous and passive aggressive.

Steve types "My job is to move policy -- not to write a blog"

so Steve insists on blogging about trivia.

Steve types "I try to move policy. I'm pretty good at it."

so Steve has not moved any policy and is not good at it and has a defensive (and delusional) tone about his life's work.

Steve is part of a legion of heroes with empty goals, crucifying others for their own inabilities, making everyone else serve time for their own crimes.

It really is hard to be good-natured, but a noble goal.

Go OKC Potatoes!!!

Steve, you're not getting scoops. You're getting mindless, vile gossip or you're getting Judith Miller type disinformation. You fool yourself if you think you are getting meaningful scoops. Moreover, Dowd is, in terms of her impact, evil--I don't know about her self. She makes political discourse callow, mean-spirited, wasteful, useless, and dangerous to the well being of the republic. You, by supporting her, make yourself a tool of the main stream media that cares more about its money and status than it does about the needs of the country. You and all who defend her and those like her (Frank Rich, Ceci Connelly, etc.)are a blight on humanity. Bread and circuses anyone?

I am impressed by all these people who seem to know much
better than Steve how he should gather information and get
connections that benefit his work.

I would guess that some of the most bombastic and least
intelligent comments come from people who never read this blog,
but stumbled upon it by googling their love/hate object Maureen
Dowd.

Breathtaking. In this crowd were gathered together some of the voices most responsible for the rapid erosion of America's public discourse over the last decade and a half--not only the unspeakable trio of Matthews, Carlson and Williams but the singular hostess herself, posssesor of perhaps the most poisonous pen in all of American "journalism", Drudge and Limbaugh not excepted. And yet, apparently, no one threw so much as a barbed word.

Congratulations on your amiability Mr. Clemons: you evidently have quite a stomach for the grotesqueries of Washingon High Society. I hope you manage to "move" enough policy to compensate for your role in bolstering the social success of those who spend their professional lives hollowing out the foundations of public reason for personal glory and profit. What a hopeful new era we have embarked upon.

Stories like this are very important and add yet another piece to our understanding of what's happening at the top while our foundation crumbles. The "fiddling while Rome burns" comparison is all too appropriate. I no longer expect our aristocracy and public servants to appreciate the message they sent yesterday, but I'm sure that it'll come back to haunt them.

As someone who spent 8 years in your city and dealt with your government I just want to say that the people you mentioned in your post have done much to diminish the value of political discourse. The Village Gasbags, as they are called, have done much to trivialise your politics and take a lot of pride in simplistic analyses. If you want to push policy, as do the other denizens of Washington "think tanks" by mingling with this crowd is it any wonder that not much got done these past 8 years? Zbigniew B said it best when talking to Joe Scarborough, a pol turned pontificator: " you are stunningly superficial". But.. enjoy your parties. That is your right.

Steve Clemons came to my attention because of his great work on scuttling Bolton's nomination. I have no doubt he is well placed to push policy goals; and it will be good to know that he will get things done. And more power to him. Like Alan I spent a decade in Washington and far too often I saw Washington as two cities: one glittering and full of important people and I even had the bad experience of being lectured to by Sally Quinn (and fortunately I was in a position to give her a raspberry). The other Washington is bloody awful. If anyone wants to get something done about uniting the two solitudes they will have done good for the country.

Gertrude Stein famously declared that "I am a Civil War General."

She wasn't convinced she was actually Ulysses S. Grant. She meant she was fighting a civil war (:a polite but epochal rupture) on a social battlefield, one that had a cultural pivot point but enormous across-the-board consequences. And she did it by maintaining a vast skein of social relationships.

Key thing is, she didn't reallly operate within those social constraints. She knit her own social fabric; she developed and deployed an entire sea-change in empirical premises and conclusions, restructuring aesthetic perspectives and the perspectives that followed.

In short, if Steve can move policy through social relationships, that's great. Social context has always shaped heads of state and policy makers; when it hasn't, we get 'the bubble' or 'the Emperor's New Clothes' and the resulting damage. Every Lincoln needs his Douglas; I'd rather have the Bushes of the world had someone sane to turn to.

At the same time, that doesn't mean it's O.K. to turn a blind eye to the damaging foibles of press and politicos. The critics (above) have a point: the transgressions of the varous pundits, columnists and policy analysts have gone too far.

Is any mockery useful? Untargeted cattiness that devolves to free-floating ridicule doesn't really prick the inflated ego, nor take a petty tyrant down a notch or two: it's just abuse for the sake of abuse. It's not new and it's not a surprise--but it has to be recognized for what it is--and enjoy the party, but cal it out for what it is. Same goes for Cooper: agreeably getting pimped out by Karl Rove misled his readers and ill-served journalism as well as the public debate. Cooper didn't just bury the lede; he assisted in abuse of power--and his defense was an inversion of any rationale for a shield law.

So maintain those social relations. But don't remain silent or look the other way. The foibles and transgressions of pundits and columnists have been exhaustively detailed for several decades. Ignoring that fact won't make it go away.

Through my comments on this blog, and personal correspondence, Steve knows that I appreciate our online friendship, and that I am grateful for the forum he provides us.

We all have our proffessions, and I'm sure that all of us find the need for compromise and concession in the everday environment of the workplace.

But I find it impossible, within myself, to imagine walking in the circles that Steve does. I find the current events and personalities to be on a footing that is as evil, if not more so, than anytime in our nation's history. These people such as Dowd, or Frum, or a number of the other people that steve has in the past commented favorably about, are not simply political or journalistic celebrities that happen to have differing political opinions than I happen to have. These people go against everything I consider moral or ethical.

I can't imagine what a steady diet of rubbing elbows with these people would do to my own sense of morality, my humility, or my empathy with my fellow man. The adage "power corrupts" certainly carries the wieght of truth, and I believe that not only does this apply to the possession of power, but to the proximity to power as well. So far, I find quite a bit to respect in Steve. I hope I can say the same two years, five years, ten years down the road. My life experience of fifty six years doesn't fuel much optimism for this eventuality. You cannot immerse yourself in a pool of evil and remain unstained.

POA, Steve knows how you feel, how many of us feel about the corruption in the halls of power and power enablers.

Let's face it, that part of me, anyway, that wishes for Steve to represent more of the white knight, is a reflection of my own attitudes and feelings. Part of it, too, is puzzlement at the complex character of Steve that can hold these contradictions. And for myself the recognition that there seems to be so much positive in Steve elicits concern on my part.

I don't underestimate the greed, corruption, narrow-mindedness, particularly rampant among most "power possessing beings". Much, in my view has to do with the lack of awareness, almost hypnotic state in which these actors (and most of us, truth be told) go through life, victims of conditioning, and living life in the cellar of our possibilities.

That is the recognition of the human condition, sorry as it is as a reflection of what it ‘could’ mean to be ‘human’. Within this frame, and with regret that it is not otherwise, I am grateful for whatever apparent “good” Steve Clemons as a player on the scene can participate in. Though, like sausage, it’s tough to watch at times.

How needy and pathetic does one have to be to suck up to the likes of Randy Andy and Dowd? Two sillier animals in the media would be hard to find.
Sullivan, in full McCarthyite mode, called all those opposing Bush’s attack on Iraq anti-American fifth columnists. Of course, opponents were quickly proven correct; pro-war enthusiasts wrong.
Dowd’s insanity has been amply derided in comments above.
Neither of these people has written anything worth reading or anything that enhances political discourse. They are shallow, self-centered pompous egoists of limited historical knowledge and minimal understanding of either the political process or the needs of the American people. They are the epitome of the American media elite: their judgments are always erroneous; their analysis are always shallow.

Putting the Beltway's cocktail wienies in little blankets -- for the
winter cold? -- is the change we can believe in, then?

Maureen Dowd? Arianna Huffington? Bob Woodward? Chris Wallace? Alan Greespan?!!! January 2009? I think you omitted the episode where the real Paul Krugman walks in and laughs all these jokers off the stage.
Anyway, thanks for your candor. I will sleep better imagining the enlightened "policy" initiatives that will blossom from all this productive networking.

I had some face time the other day with a wonderful lady. She is seven months pregnant. After her husband's homebuilding company went under, they slowly fell some $5,000 behind on their mortgage to Countrywide, now owned by Bank of America.

She tried calling every time she was going to be short or late on a payment. But she had to work through a maze to get to a human being on the phone, and that person was never one who could make a decision. And it was never the same person twice. But they did assure here that as long as she called and made some effort on her payments, her family would be in no danger.

On Dec. 20, five days before Christmas, they received a letter that their mortgage would be foreclosed on Feb. 6.

Steve, if you are truly interested in "moving policy," how about more face time with people like that, and less face time with the likes of Maureen Dowd.

It might give you a better idea of what is happening in the real world.

I'm with wigwag and Somerby. This post is sickening. Maureen Dowd is sickening. These parties are nauseating. Reading about them makes me want to vomit.

How does it feel Clemons, being kicked up and down cyber space by Bob Somerby? Don’t worry, what Somerby did to you today in the Daily Howler is nothing compared to what Empress Dowd did to Gore, Kerry and Clinton in hundreds of columns.

How did this feel, Clemons?

END OF AN ERA! The career liberal world refused to fight back. Does Steve Clemons’ post show us why?

Or this:

But then, you rarely see career liberal writers discuss the years of pseudo-scandal which preceded that twenty-month War Against Gore. Why is that? Again, Steve Clemons unintentionally suggested a possible answer in his remarkable post.

Our question: Has anyone ever kissed anyone’s ass the way Clemons did in that post? Clemons lies at the heart of Washington’s insider career liberal world—and he was kissing the luscious ass of Maureen Dowd on this high occasion. No one did much more than Dowd, of course, to establish the inane Clinton/Gore-trashing which would lead to Gore’s “execution” by that “media establishment.” Surely, Clemons understands this fact. But to certain people—he may be one—some things are just more important.

Has anyone ever kissed anyone’s ass quite the way Clemons did? Here’s how he started the deeply embarrassing post which was headlined, “Maureen Dowd Party the Best:”

CLEMONS (1/19/09): Maureen Dowd threw a "Star Spangled Banner" party—so I wore a star spangled tie. My modest attempt at festive attire wasn't matched by anyone else there.

Maureen loved the tie and told me her sister had originally wanted everyone to come patriotically dressed. I did expect more clothing glitz from the glitterati who crammed into her Georgetown home, formerly owned by John F. Kennedy, in his carousing years—but the people she had were really all the glitz needed.

But the real stars were in her living room—and one corner of the party was owned by David Geffen and his boyfriend Jeremy, who were both charming, relaxed and enjoyed talking about politics and the economy with the folks they encountered...

Dowd was the perfect hostess. The fanciest treats she had were pigs in a blanket—but she knew that the real treats were face time with herself and the power guests she assembled.

Let’s write that again—and yes, we’re quoting: “The real treats were face time with [Dowd] herself and the power guests she assembled.”

Good God. In the annals of human history, has anyone ever kissed anyone’s ass quite the way this career liberal does?

For reasons which haven’t yet been explained, the mainstream press corps—not Rush; not Sean—turned against the Clintons, then Gore, inventing baldly ridiculous themes which showed these Dems’ woeful character. And uh-oh! The “liberal” world—insiders like Clemons, and many much higher—agreed to pretend not to notice. On Monday, this walking parody kissed the ass of the person who spent so much time trashing Gore. Do you finally see, somewhere deep inside, why the press corps’ wars against Clinton and Gore produced so little pushback from your fiery heroes?

Or this:

Bringing the eternal note of amusement in: Yesterday, the comments continued on Clemons’ post. At one point, he adopted the tone lords and ladies have adopted, all through the annals of time:

CLEMONS: thanks for the note Wig—actually, not embarrassed at all. I liked the post I did—and find the comments that have followed amusing. Don't know Somerby but glad what I wrote gave him time to scribble on something.
best, steve

The comments have been tres amusantes!

We don’t know Steve; we wish there were some way to pursue this remarkable historical topic without going personal. But it’s a truth universally known: Lords and ladies will always adopt that tone about those who scribble down here, so far below. You know? About those who were right about these themes from Day One—right, and therefore inexcusable?

HowlerProwler: give Steve a break. He is a creature of Washington. Lots of foreign travel paid for by someone else. Lots of meetings where the chosen talk to one another. Lots of ass licking: one needs to indulge to influence policy. Now all we need is a list of the policy successes the the NAF has achieved in the last 8 years under Bush. That will be the proof which justifies sucking up to the likes of Sullivan, Dowd and assorted Senators-elect. I am surprised at the pasting Steve has received for a self-indulgent post; and for his opening our eyes to the corrupt and corrupting ways of Washington

Vulture Breath, HowlerProwler, Contrite:

The Washington Note is one of the smartest blogs around. Most of the posts are highly substantive and the level of discourse, while not always stellar, is far better than most places on the internet.

Steve Clemons almost never censors anything that's said here even though he easily could. I hardly ever agree with his posts but he is always welcoming; always a good host. People come here because it's a smart place to discuss interesting topics.

I agree with Somerby that pundits like Dowd, Sullivan, Rich, Robinson, and many of the rest while supposedly liberal, are really wolves in sheeps clothing. They have cheapened discourse in the public square. By doing so they gave us Bush instead of Gore and Bush instead of Kerry. Although I voted for Obama, the fact that the pundits elected him before he even received one vote from Americans gives me pause.

I also agree with Somerby that in many ways the bad influence of so called "liberal" media is more insidious than the influence of places like Fox News or the Daily Standard. Somerby is right, people like Dana Milbank are more responsible for the election of President Bush than people like Bill O'Reilly are.

But Steve Clemons posts don't do what Dowd, Sullivan and the rest of the bad guys do. If you come here often you will know that he addresses issues seriously and not with the triviality that characterizes most of the main stream press corps, and unfortunately wide swaths of new media.

I can't defend this particular post (I've already criticized it) but I can say that if Steve is guilty of something here, it's being a little star struck. It's easy to criticize, but lots of us would be star struck had we been at the event Steve describes. Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

One thing I can assure you is that the Washington Note is a place where most of the time serious topics are debated in a reasonably intelligent manner.

Those who have linked here from the Daily Howler and are visiting for the first time shouldn't judge the whole blog by this one post.

Although I have only met him in this on-line forum, Steve Clemons is a good guy!

The main stream press turned against Clinton because he raised their taxes in order to balance the budget. The detective cliche, "Follow the money," is right. The question is will they turn on Obama when he raises their taxes either by repeal or allowing the Bush cuts to lapse. Maybe that's why they loved Bush so much--until his policies decimated their 401k's.

Folks -- Mr. Somerby had a good time with me today. He is a clever and passionate writer, and I admire his blog on a lot of levels.

But he's using me as a prop in his campaign against Dowd. I like her -- I have been transparent about that. I also enjoy using DC's cocktail circuit as a way to learn what is going on in Washington and as a way to push my policy work -- much of which deals with issues that are often totally ignored by this town. Any regular reader of this blog knows that.

But as I said previously, I like Dowd -- not everything she does or writes of course. I have very little interest in what she wrote about Gore. At the time of the Gore-Bush contest, I found Gore a very poor candidate, self indulgent, imperious, and very uninspiring. He's changed since then -- but that is the way I felt then and Maureen Dowd had nothing to do with my views.

I'm not going to fight Mr. Somerby -- he's making his point using me as a prop, and I imagine if we were having drinks together -- he'd be civil and we'd have a great discussion. But it is good to remember that I am essentially not his target. Dowd is -- and that's his fight. Not mine.

I enjoyed her party -- and put it out there. I learned lots of great stuff there. I enjoyed the stories. If he thinks that is "kissing ass" -- well, all I have to say is that I have kissed ass lots better and more flamboyantly in other cases.

But I'm not interested in the debate about Dowd. Not my thing. I'd go to her place again in a second and I put that out there -- transparently. Ridiculing me as Mr. Somberby has done feels uncivil at some level, but I am not too disturbed by it.

On the scribbling comment, I'm surprised by the tone of his posts that he himself is so thin-skinned. For the record, I call my own writing and blogging "scribbling." I use the word all of the time and meant him no disrespect.

all the best -- Steve Clemons

Steve, you say you "understand the frustration by many outside
of DC with this sort of stuff," leaving the impression that we are
envious outsiders who make ourselves feel better by knocking
those lucky enough to rub elbows with the In Crowd.

Au contraire. I believe that the frustration comes from readers
who see a real connection between the chummy clubiness of
your post and the way policy is moved in this country. During
the 1999 campaign, liberal pundits all joined hands and danced
around the bonfire that incinerated Al Gore. Maureen Dowd was
and remains an unrepentant ringleader. Tony cocktail parties
like this one breed a familiarity that leads to in-thinking and the
spreading of accepted scripts among the punditocracy: Al Gore
is a serial fabricator, Hillary Clinton is a man-hating shrew,
George Bush is a regular fellow, etc.

You say you don't know Bob Somerby. I recommend a few hours
visiting his archive and searching his commentaries on Maureen
Dowd, Margaret Carlson, and the other Beltway Villagers who
frequent each others parties.

I used to read this blog a lot. I parted ways with it due to an
uncomfortable feeling during the primaries, relating to a series
of posts that I won't recap here.

I repeat myself:

Whatever problems Gore had or was perceived to
have, I suggest (The Oily) Mr. Clemons cannot fathom that his
deeply intelligent views could have been shaped by conventional
wisdom. This is why we will always and forever be screwed. The
incredible narcissism apparent in this crowd doesn't ever
astonish, it only saddens. Clemons wasn't wrong about Gore.
Gore changed. The world turns, the Village stands
still.

This is tough, and I apologize if it is rude. I already wrote it so I
won't edit it here. The point is not that Dowd alone was in
charge of the public discourse shaping the view of Gore during
his campaign, and the conventional wisdom, she was merely it's
shining light.

The fact that Steve doesn't want to go back and revisit his
perceptions of Gore at the time, or read the Howler's archives in
real time about the deep-seated problems with our pundit class,
suggests to me that once one has an affinity, once it is personal
(as in an acquaintance) there can be no seeing the other side.
Steve takes Maureen's side (not always agreeing with her) in a
way she never would with any candidate. The way she demeans
and trivializes our public discourse isn't personal to her, it's just
a job- a job of making it clear who the real elite are.

WigWag has said much, and has said it better than I, and more
politely. I just wish Steve's response wasn't so animatronic and
that he could entertain the possibility that he's still missing the
boat about Gore, and a lot of other things.

Steve wrote: But he's using me as a prop in his campaign against Dowd.

Emanon: Somerby was discussing YOU, or at least an extension of you: your blogging.

Steve wrote: Ridiculing me as Mr. Somberby has done feels uncivil at some level, but I am not too disturbed by it.

Emamon: ...self esteeem...California....good enough....smart enough....Go watch the Brits in their Parliament debates sometime.

Steve wrote: At the time of the Gore-Bush contest, I found Gore a very poor candidate, self indulgent, imperious, and very uninspiring. He's changed since then...

Emanon: No, Gore has not changed. But just curious, how did you find Bush in 2000? It's ironic that someone who mentions moving policy forward so often would have such obtuse views on Gore.

I don't want to be too hard on Mr. Clemons, but the point that
Bob Somerby was making hasn't really been concisely articulated
here, so I'll give it a shot.

Mr. Clemons has said that his network of connections helps him
move policy forward. Yet that network has played a crucial role
in tarring and feathering Democratic candidates (e.g. Gore),
ostensibly sharing an agenda with Mr. Clemons, candidates who
would do much to advance it.

Rather than taking a stand and risking their status and
livelihood, Mr. Clemons and his fellows in the class of "liberal"
Washington insiders have repeatedly stood by while major
Democratic figures are savaged by the media, allowing elections
to be lost and the myth of the liberal media to be perpetuated.
This has led to the horrible political mess we are just now
emerging from, and may well allow a relapse in the future.

Mr. Clemons seems like a nice guy, and he ought to be free to
associate with whomever he likes. But we cannot ignore how our
"liberal" elites lay down on the job of advocating our broader
cause, when their own comfort and status may be on the line.

At a certain point, we need to change our elites. That is Mr.
Somerby's point.

So some of you are shocked because Steve Clemons had
reservations regarding Gore`s candidature in 2000? Perhaps he
even voted for Bush?

People forget.

What if George W. Bush had turned out to be more or less like
his father in the period from 2000 to 2008? It`s easy in
hindsight to say that someone voting for W in 2000 must have
been a fool, a right wing nut, or someone displaying poor
judgment. But it was 9/11 and the fatal choices made in
response to the event, that made Bush into the president we
know.

I don`t know who Steve voted for in 2000 - perhaps he voted
for Bush junior. It would fit into his realist sympathies in foreign
policy. Given the promises Bush made in 2000, I would not
blame a "realist" for hoping that this view would be the guiding
principles for Bush as well.

I would have had very low thoughts of Steve`s political and
moral judgement if he had voted for Bush in 2004. Not so in
2000 - despite the fact that I myself hoped that Gore would
win, an irrelevant fact in this context.

I think this is important to consider, if you`re angry at Steve for
admitting that he "found Gore a very poor candidate" eight
years ago.

It is good of Steve to enter a defence/explanation. But there is little to be gained by saying : "I like Dowd; anything you say flows off by back etc". There is an obtuseness that repels.

But Steve, grand fellow that he is, is not alone. David Gregory of NBC and John King of CNN are just the same. They don't like bloggers and get defensive. At least Steve says: I'm okay with what you say, but I am going my way.

The Village scribblers - who are part of the "liberal media" - can be depended to react with fear at the slightest criticism from the likes of Limbaugh.

It would be nice to know what actual policy advances have been achieved by the NAF in the Bush years. You know, something tangible?

Thanks nfm -- appreciate your and other comments. I have
nothing against Mr. Somerby's views about these cocktail
parties. But the truth is that I go to them -- and I benefit from
them in ways that our useful for my policy work -- and as I have
read through the Daily Howler, it might be cool for some here to
read through the Washington Note and get a better sense of this
blog and my work at the New America Foundation. I think you'd
be surprised that this work is not as vapid as implied -- and
certainly not all a product of political celebrity mingling. But I
try to be up front about most things -- not all things -- but I
have never, ever hidden the fact that I like the parties and
gatherings in this town. I host some of them in fact. Having a
good party won't mean I will like the host -- but I do like many
of Dowd's columns and her work. And search on Al Gore here -
- I think he's evolved. I knew him when he was VP and was not
someone who thought then that he would make an effective
president. Those were my views then and they remain my views
today about that time in Gore's life. I rather hoped he would run
more recently -- and I have great admiration for his
environmental work. But to the person above who thinks that I
need to somehow give myself a brain fix and see that I was
wrong about Gore then -- can't. I know my views -- and know
why I held them. I think that Bush and Gore were deeply flawed
candidates, and it was one of the most depressing elections I
had to vote in.

But listen, this has been fun -- and I hope someday to meet Mr.
Somerby who despite the flamboyant comeuppance he has
given me, I know is dedicated to seriousness and honesty,
access and transparency in the public. I think he's wrong in how
he's painted me, but I'm not going to chase that as I have
admitted I had a great time at Maureen Dowd's excellent party. .
.and it was excellent, and she was a great host.

All best - and those of you who have stopped by to "scribble" (as
I do) and read about the Dowd affair, I hope you come back
often to read about other stuff.

Steve Clemons

'...' thanks at 6:40 for the Canadian politics info. Quite helpful.

"I found Gore a very poor candidate, self indulgent, imperious, and very uninspiring. He's changed since then"

Obtuse? How about oblivious? Mr. Clemons recites the 2000 groupthink re: Gore perfectly, yet of course it has nothing to do with Dowd et al. And of course, the groupthink wasn't totally wrong from the get-go It's Gore who has "changed since then."

Just what did Mr. Clemons find "self indulgent, imperious and very uninspiring" about Gore in 2000? Was it his proposed tax cuts targeted at the middle class? Was it his meaningful Medicare prescription drug plan? Was it his proposed expansion of the SCHIP program? Was it his visionary environmentalism?

Or was Mr. Clemons, along with Dowd et al, too bothered by the number of buttons on the jackets of Gore's suits to be concerned about such trivialities as the issues that affect most people?

"I have nothing against Mr. Somerby's views about these cocktail parties."

Clue No. 2: Mr. Somerby views aren't about "these cocktail parties" as much as they are about the incestous relationship between millionaire policy makers and the millionaire chattering class who are posing as journalists.

Mr Clemons, Kevin said it best, this is not about 'cocktail parties.' It's about alleged liberals who have sat on their hands for 16 years while our side gets our collective heads bashed-in by the wool-in-sheeps-clothing 'liberal media,' which people like Dowd and her 'good buddy' Chris Matthews represent in spades!!

Bob Somerby has been doing the service that the Washington Post pays Howard Kurtz to do, namely, pointing out that when it comes to major Democrats named Clinton, Gore and now Clinton again, the media can say any damn thing they please and our 'liberal watchdogs,' people named EJ, and Shields, and Hunt, and the Washington Post and NYTimes, not only refuse to defend these big Democrats, they at times are leading the charge against them.

Two quick final points, one, Mr. Clemons wrote that he 'didn't know Somerby,' which is part of the problem. As Bob Somerby would say, although not in this case, 'perhaps it's time he found out who he is.' For my money the Daily Howler is the best political blog on the Internet.

Second quick point and I'm new to this blog and I love what WigWag has written so far, but I have a question for all of you who do read the howler; which blog, this one or the Daily Howler, do you find to be more informative on political issues?

Hey MarkK,

I don`t know the Daily Howler, but I can assure you that The
Washington Note is an excellent blog. I would recommend that
you take a look at the archives and read some posts that
interest you. Steve Clemons` post about the Washington DC
"glitterati" is not representative; he is very well informed and
often write substantial commentary. If you like what you`ve read
by WigWag so far, you may read more of her. You may also have
a look at posts by Dan Kervick, PissedOffAmerican, DonS, rich,
questions, Linda and several other interesting regular posters
here - very different in temperament and views, but informed
and interesting.

The debates may get pretty intense if the issue is the Middle
East or the Bush administration. As you may have noticed, a
majority of posts are about foreign policy.

Have a look, and enjoy!

MarkK, The Washington Note I think is a mess of a blog; random postings that read like news briefs of mostly inconsequential events without any analysis or discourse. I have no idea what policies Steve is pushing, I'm pretty sure no one knows. I think this guy is a fraud.

Thanks Paul -- and thanks for your question MarkK....my blog is whatever I choose it to be. Daily Howler may have a more consistent path and may be more appropriate for your interests -- but feel free to stop by now and then if you like. I have about 3,500 posts on American politics, the economy, foreign policy and my dogs -- my dogs being my favorites.....it is what it is. My Maureen Dowd and Margaret Carlson columns happen infrequently -- but I have a feeling if I wrote more on these sorts of parties, I'd have a lot more traffic....but most of my stuff is quite wonky, quite serious, and quite insider-ish....which many folks don't like....but some pretty interesting people including POA, WigWag, erichwkk and others on the outsider roster really like...

steve