I’m going to pile on the TNR piece Anne Laurie mentioned last night. For some reason, if you’re going to be a shrewd DC pundit, you need to understand and promulgate the fact that each wing of the two absolutely balanced parties are ideological mirror images. So, when Noam Scheiber writes his Elizabeth Warren piece in the liberal New Republic, we get this:
As a result, Warren’s 2012 victory in Massachusetts set off a minor cottage industry of speculation about whether she would be a senator in the mold of other celebrities, like Hillary Clinton and Al Franken, who made collegiality and discretion the hallmarks of their early years in office—or whether she would follow the model of the body’s noisier gadflies, like former South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint and his spiritual successor, Ted Cruz of Texas.
Spoiler alert: she’s a Cruz. The evidence for that fact is that she had the temerity to ask a couple of tough questions at a Senate Finance Committee. That’s the moral equivalent of Ted Cruz’ mission to foment a mutiny against his party’s Speaker of the House.
This line of reasoning is dumb in many ways, but let me pick the one that a savvy correspondent should know: Even though your carefully cultivated Senate sources will argue otherwise, there is no percentage in someone with Presidential ambitions venerating the rules of the Senate. In case the last decade of polls have somehow escaped Scheiber’s notice, people fucking hate Congress. If Warren wants to follow the Obama path from the Senate to the Oval Office, one way to do it is to buck the asinine convention that a Congressional hearing can be nothing but speechifying. You don’t have to be a “populist” to understand that the average American of almost any party wants some bankers in jail, and at the hearing Scheiber mentions, Warren just asked the same questions the rest of us wanted asked: why aren’t you prosecuting bankers.
After the jump, I’m going to quote a bit more of his description of how that exchange went down, because he clenches and flexes pretty hard to get his panties in a bunch over what was really a pretty decent piece of politics:
During her Senate orientation in January, Warren, who serves on the banking committee, paid a courtesy call to the committee’s moderate chairman, Tim Johnson of South Dakota. “She was incredibly respectful, deferential,” says a committee aide who was in the room. “She really demonstrated to a lot of us that she would follow the model of . . . people like Franken, Barack Obama, Hillary.”
The following month, during her very first banking committee hearing, Warren again waited patiently for her turn to speak—then promptly set off a national furor. “Tell me a little bit about the last few times you’ve taken the biggest financial institutions on Wall Street all the way to a trial,” she asked a table full of bank regulators. The question, though eminently reasonable, violated an unstated rule of committee protocol, in which members of Congress are allowed to rant and rave at length but generally abstain from humiliating appointees, especially from their own party.
n awkward pause ensued, at which point Warren flared her eyes and thrust her head forward, as if to say, “Yes, this is really happening.” Until that instant, the regulators believed the world worked one way; suddenly, it was working another. One winced hemorrhoidally as he searched for a place to fix his gaze. The head of an agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) appeared to whimper before allowing that the threat of trial was unnecessary for keeping the banks in check—about as counterfactual a notion as the industry has ever produced. A third regulator chimed in affirmatively. For a few minutes, Warren looked like the only sane person in a mental ward. A video of the exchange has been viewed online more than a million times.
Oh, those poor regulators! Oh, poor Tim Johnson, the committee chair, who was disrespected by Warren because she didn’t just mumble bumble! Extra therapy sessions for everyone!
The bottom line is that there’s a group of supposedly “liberal” journalists in DC who pee in their fucking pants and hide in the corner whenever a Democrat has the temerity to actually stick up for the issues that win Democrats elections. Noam Scheiber is one of them. These people are stuck in 1993, and should be relegated to the same trash heap that contains brick-size cell phones and AOL CDs.
aimai
This is all the funnier and more dependent on some notion that regular voters don’t know anything so they can be lied to by pundits. Al Franken, famously, is a friend of Warren’s, campaigned for her, and she literally stood by his side and proposed that she would keep her head down and figure out how things are done in the Senate without grandstanding. Only from 30,000 feet up, where Elizabeth Warren and Cruz are both reduced to tiny dots, can they be compared–their strategies and their goals and their tactics are completely different and anyone who’d been watching them would know that. So Scheiber is simply lying to make a better story.
Mark S.
I’ve often seen appointees get grilled at these hearings. WTF is this guy talking about?
Eric U.
@Mark S.: not only grilled, but the congresscritter tells lie after lie and expects the appointee to respond without insulting them. Gotta be pretty difficult to do that
OzarkHillbilly
Maybe Darryl Issa could take lessons from her? They could do a trade: She’ll show him how to ask substantive questions that forward a committee’s ends, and he can show her how to steal a car.
c u n d gulag
If you ever want to see an example of a writer who is trying too hard, read this:
“One winced hemorrhoidally…” – and wince.
Just plain, old, wince.
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!
The Sheriff's A Ni-
Scheiber is staring down a ’16 primary season turning into the Hillary Clinton Victory Tour. Won’t someone think of the poor beleaguered pundits needing to write something novel every day and send them an upstart challenger? Why won’t Liz Warren sacrifice her reasons for becoming Senator to entertain her Village betters?
raven
@OzarkHillbilly: You’re killin me over here!
Scott S.
@Mark S.: It’s okay to humiliate appointees if you are Republican. Otherwise, it’s CHEATING.
Gin & Tonic
How does one “flare” one’s eyes?
OzarkHillbilly
@raven: Ten thousand unemployed comedians and here I am giving it away for free.
Hawes
@c u n d gulag: Well, he did take one up the keister, so…
Suffern ACE
@Gin & Tonic: the same that one turns up ones ears in disgust.
Hawes
@Gin & Tonic: Like nostrils only higher on the face.
MattF
Funny how, when a politician actually engages in politics, rather than Deference To Established Authority, the pundits get all aflutter.
ETA; And yes, this applies to both Cruz and Warren. So sue me.
Anybodybuther2016
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
Ha! You funny.
Mike E
Wow. Villager iz bored, and I blame twitter for this. Or sunspots.
HRC is clearly the anti-Palin; she doesn’t use an egg timer to plan a PR strategy. You can almost sense that Hill has shit to do these days, amirite?
ETA ^^^hah, hater!^^^ GOP is all ABC going forward…anybody but Christie.
Hal
@Gin & Tonic:
heat vision?
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@OzarkHillbilly: That’s really funny. Thanks.
@raven: Hope your birthday was a good one. I left you wishes Sunday on what was a dead thread.
Citizen_X
How can a question be “eminently reasonable” and “humiliating” at the same time?
Raoul
The premise of the whole article is stupid, but I don’t read Scheiber as having his knickers in a bunch here. “For a few minutes, Warren looked like the only sane person in a mental ward” doesn’t come across to me as making her the equivalent of Cruz.
RaflW
@Citizen_X: If the person being asked the reasonable question did something that humiliates him/herself.
And I’d agree with Warren’s premise in her line of questioning that bank regulators have, consistently, and over extended periods of time, humiliated themselves by having their noses so far up banker’s asses.
PeakVT
Scheiber should be taken out and shot. There’s nothing more useless than a primary speculation piece a full THREE FUCKING YEARS before the next election.
Why do so many American journalists hate America?
Anybodybuther2016
@Mike E: @Mike E:
You got that right. Palin may be an idiot but at least she got herself elected governor without relying on her philandering husband’s name and unscrupulous DC fixers.
schrodinger's cat
I don’t think I know who is the Naom person is? Should I? There is no comparison between crazy Cruz and sane Warren.Speaking of liberal media, NYT yesterday had a whiny rant against ACA and a concern trolling piece by Bill Keller about Obama. Liberal media indeed.
schrodinger's cat
@raven: When was your birthday? I think I missed it. Hope you had fun and a belated Happy Birthday to you.
aimai
@Raoul: No but its odd to put someone doing her job in a competent manner in the same league as a total asshole and lunatic. Its like he doesn’t grasp the difference, or think we don’t, between someone driving sedately to the grocery store and someone drag racing at the edge of a cliff.
Roger Moore
@OzarkHillbilly:
I don’t think either of them would wind up using the skills they’re supposed to be picking up in the exchange.
Villago Delenda Est
There are no deaths too painful or too humiliating to properly treat Villager scum like Scheiber to what they deserve.
Wipe them out. All of them.
C.V. Danes
If Ted Cruz represents the lunatic fringe, which I believe he does, then its a sad day when the issues that Warren finds important — such as consumer rights and protection of the middle class from the bansters — can be linked as fringe concepts by inference.
If history is a guide, then I would have to say that we are pretty far down the rabbit hole.
Patrick
At least she hasn’t put a hold on all of the President’s appointees, like Graham from South Carolina. But it is of course A-OK if you are Republican. The media in our country…
What the hell does this writer think the point is of having a hearing of appointees? The senators shouldn’t be allowed to ask tough questions?
Steve M.
Unfortunately, she didn’t. Every Rand Paul or Ted Cruz hissyfit sets Beltway journalists a-tremble, but this barely made the news outside lefty circles (and among lefties Warren was just seen as speaking a self-evident truth, as you note). Maybe it would have set off a national furor in a different political world, one that wasn’t wired for Republicans and that cared about Warren as something other than the Lefty Who Might Put a Stake Through the Heart of the Icky Witch, but we don’t live in such a world.
MomSense
I hope that we have a full and diverse group of candidates run for the Democratic nomination. I really don’t care for either Clinton and Bill’s record as President does not stand up well, IMO. HRC is a major hawk on foreign policy and I am pleased that President Obama did not take her advice on a number of foreign policy decisions. She did well to rebuild State’s bureaucracy but I wasn’t actually that impressed by her as Secretary.
Bill’s business dealings and associates will be a problem for her should she win the nomination. I’m not talking about the bogus Arkansas conspiracy crap or even Walmart. The biggest problem with her is that she is not authentic. When you go back and look at her throughout the 2007-08 slog, she kept changing personas (ran across the tarmac under sniper fire!). Even her eye color changed as she went from her natural brown eyes to bright blue by the time she was pushing her “hard-working Americans, white Americans” schtick.
I don’t believe for a second that Republicans are frightened of her. They hope and pray she is the nominee. And if she is the nominee, I will vote for her just like I did Bill but I hope I don’t have to. I hope to have lots of better options during the course of the primary season.
Napoleon
Amazing how many of you are misreading Noam’s piece.
Patrick
Seriously? A national furor? A national furor caused by asking “Tell me a little bit about the last few times you’ve taken the biggest financial institutions on Wall Street all the way to a trial,” ?
Yes, I’m sure that is as big of a scandal as Bush going to war against Iraq…Goodness!
Mike E
@Villago Delenda Est: Whoa, chief! Noam was just a victim of too much social media, too many lattes, and/or too clever by half. Let’s not eliminate the wheat with the chaff!
@schrodinger’s cat: The readers’ comments took care of ol’ Bill’s concern nicely. Maybe he and Noam are in the same Fantasy Gov’t league.
jl
@OzarkHillbilly: I think Issa operates more in his ‘hit and run’ mode at Congressional hearing. ’cause he’s busy, see, working on his many mothers of all presidential scandals.
I don’t have time to read through the TNR scribble but the excerpts in the two posts point to silly nonsense at even the liberal TNR.
Amir Khalid
I don’t quite understand Scheiber. He says Warren is an accidental senator, driven by a cause rather than by personal ambition. He reports that she’s doing what Franken and Hillary have done as new senators — keep her head down and work on the job at hand, where she has so much she wants to do. One would conclude that the Oval Office isn’t her priority for now, and might well never be. She would have to see running for president as the best way to advance her cause, which doesn’t seem likely. After all, POTUS can’t devote herself to one cause no matter how worthy.
Besides, while Hillary is known to be thinking hard about running in 2016, she has not decided. If that changes as well, there will be a story in this Hillary vs. Warren thing, but not before.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Villago Delenda Est: Somehow you always come out in favor of killing all the scum in the Village. It’s a puzzlement.
piratedan
@PeakVT: yeah, maybe he could have taken a moment to actually describe what was in the ACA and disseminate that out to America since so many folks STILL don’t know what is in the law and how it may affect them… instead, we get this kind of crackerjack reporting.
Haven’t we got real issues that need to be discussed instead of this semi-psuedo political wankery?
MattF
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q): Oh, speaking of scum in the Village:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/11/12/richard_cohen_gag_reflext_multiracial_marriage.html
GHayduke (formerly lojasmo)
@Anybodybuther2016:
Jesus. Shut the fuck up, one note.
ETA; not a big fan of Clinton, but…fuck.
taylormattd
Yep.
His piece is truly a threefer: (1) mau-maued “left” wing reporter trashing a left wing politician; (2) claiming “both sides” have extremists; and (3) ginning up a fake battle between the new woman and that dastardly Hills.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@MattF: I shoulda known it would be Cohen, the fuck.
Gypsy Howell
@MomSense:
While I might not be the biggest Hill’n’Bill fan around (although I would gladly vote for her if she ended up being the nominee, and I voted for Bill twice) I’m going to have to call you on this one. Patently false, unless she’s been “dyeing her eyes” since her youth. She’s always had blue or grey/blue eyes. No need to feed into RW lies here.
nineone
Having already punked Yertl the Turtle with Ashley Judd, the Clinton Machine is now doing the same to the country with all this Hillz ’16 speculation. Will she? Won’t she? Cha-Ching. Cha-Ching.Roll up, suckers. Three years to go. Sure, let’s just by-pass fucking Obama and get to a real Democrat/Progressive, amirite? Fuck y’all.
Betty Cracker
@Steve M.:
Quoted for truth and emphasis.
@GHayduke (formerly lojasmo): Co-signed.
jl
@Napoleon: OK, fine. I broke down and read the piece,. I don’t see how the piece is coherent enough to read or misread.
For one, the piece just assumes that HRC is just a lens to focus Bill Clintons ideas. Schrieber doesn’t address that fact that HRC was substantively the most liberal and progressive candidate in 2008 (Edit: unless you mistake Edwards’ big talk for substance). And HRC was more correct on the substance of how policy proposals would unfold (health care is an example). Back then, Obama has more centrist and went for some feel good easy but unrealistic positions (again, health care is an example, remember the debates he had with HRC over health insurance mandates).
Where HRC fell short was in relying on incompetent cronies for advice on primary campaign tactics. But that is a different issue from being more right on substance of important policy proposals.
So, I don’t buy the one of the main premises of the piece. Seems like sloppy, savvy and personality cred and reputation driven waste of time and electrons and paper (assuming this appears in the paper TNR) to me.
Roger Moore
@MattF:
I guess they’re targeting Bill DeBlasio’s marriage because it would be just a little too obvious if they focused on Barack Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham.
Rex Everything
Ms Warren really could run for president, though. She’s so pretty. And who’s to say she doesn’t have a nice little figure underneath those frumpy clothes?
BruinKid
And the new NBC poll out shows most Democrats are very much behind Hillary Clinton as the 2016 nominee. There simply isn’t the “Clinton fatigue” that was present in 2008. You may see an interesting dynamic form, where some on the left end of the blogosphere become sort of… how shall I put it… a “reverse firebagger”, where they demand Elizabeth Warren run against Hillary or else… they’ll vote for Rand Paul or something.
Thomas
Not to nit-pick (yeah, right), but the proper AOL-medium reference for 1993 would be “floppy disk”
Keith G
Elizabeth Warren is a person of amazing accomplishment, yet she is not quite chalked up 1/6th of one term as a US Senator. Attention paid to imaginings of her future role in the party is a bit silly.
I guess I am happy that Noam Scheiber is doing his part to shift attention away from the own goal that has been the West Wing’s behavior in some aspects of ACA messaging and implementation, but there are do many real issues in front of us that need attention.
schrodinger's cat
@MattF: There is a fundie catholic blog (Thinking Housewife) I sometimes read to see what the other side is thinking, they expressed similar reservations, so that’s the company that Cohen keeps.
MikeJ
@jl:
Obama got his plan passed. It’s the law now. Hillary had a shot at getting health care passed. She failed.
jl
@taylormattd:
” ginning up a fake battle between the new woman and that dastardly Hills. ”
You gotta problem with a guy trying to drum up a little business? Create a fake cat fight in your rag and then if you get the meme going, then, well, hell, lots of goofy cat fight and wimmins in politics think pieces to churn out.
Mark S.
@MattF:
Holy fuck, that’s gotta get you fired, doesn’t it?
jl
@MikeJ: That is very true. But not at all relevant to the issue at hand. Whether HRC had most politically feasible approach to getting health care reform passed is a different issue than whether she is a Bill clone in terms of policy. Schrieber seems to assume that she is.
Mandalay
@mistermix:
You cherry picked a quote from the article to completely distort its meaning. This is what the author actually wrote:
What part of “None of the above” don’t you understand?
You built a strawman against the author based on a claim that is the exact opposite of what was written. The title of the article “Hilary’s Nightmare? A Party That Realizes Its Soul Lies With Elizabeth Warren” should have given you a clue about what it was about. But nooooo, you had a to fabricate a load of shit about Cruz and Warren.
That comment didn’t make you realize that the author was explicitly stating that Warren was not like Cruz?
FFS, the author sated “For a few minutes, Warren looked like the only sane person in a mental ward”. He wasn’t remotely criticizing what she did; he was praising her.
You really need to read the article again.
piratedan
@Mark S.: all they were missing were references to “pickaninnies and watermelons” and we could have had dog whistle bingo
Roger Moore
@Mark S.:
Fired is what happens to little people. The Richard Cohens of the world just get sent to wingnut welfare.
Lex
The piece was an audition for Politico, and I’m sure I’m not the first person to suggest that.
jl
@Roger Moore: I have a gag reflex just thinking about reading something Cohen’s written. But even I was a little surprised by that gem. The old fool is even more out of it than I imagined.
Mike E
@Mark S.: Wow, the former lesbian bit is classic. In writing that column Cohen must’ve broke his dog whistle, so he brought out the air raid siren instead.
Patrick
@jl:
Except for the Iraq war. That was one of the big reasons I voted for Obama.
Ben Cisco
@nineone: Agreed, which would make taylormattd’s premise a fourfer – 4) Demean and diminish Blackity El Negro bin Blackerson Le Noir Plastique, part the Infinity.
Poopyman
@Mark S.: Oh, he’s been quite a piece of work for a long time, but apparently for the WaPo it’s all good. Try Googling “Richard Cohen sexual harassment”.
Roger Moore
@Mike E:
In case you hadn’t noticed, that kind of thing has been happening a lot recently. Fewer people are responding to the dog whistles these days, and the people who like to use them seem to be assuming it’s the result of insufficient volume rather than lack of interest.
Mike in NC
@MattF: Funny how I was just thinking how it’s been a few days since Richard Cohen wrote something incredibly stupid and offensive. Too much of an elderly hack to look for work elsewhere.
Amir Khalid
@MattF:
In the opening sentence of that column, Richard Cohen describes Chris Christie as “the cuddly moderate conservative”. Please. Christie is no moderate, and from what I’ve heard he is as cuddly as a durian.
Fixed That For Mr Cohen.
piratedan
@Amir Khalid: in this incarnation, “moderate” is the equivalent value of “doesn’t shit on himself verbally in public”, it’s a low, yet significant bar that many Republicans are unable to clear.
Anybodybuther2016
@GHayduke (formerly lojasmo): GFY……and Hilary will never be president.
Mike E
@Roger Moore: It proves that Cohen is a horse-sized duck amid a sea of duck-sized horses, or sumptin’. Evolution+contemporary fashion takes care of dodos like him.
ETA ^^^heh!^^^ somebody put away the matches before junior sets his/herself afire!
Chyron HR
@Amir Khalid:
One presumes it would be more palatable if a white man married to a black woman had two 100% black children.
jl
@Patrick: I was thinking mostly about domestic policy, as was Schreiber’s TNR piece. But HRC in 2008 was talking sense on Iraq war. I don’t recall much difference between them on foreign policy in the primary, except bickering about HRC’s Iraq vote.
Even though I agreed more with what HRC was saying about policy, I was put off by her team’s blunders in the primary, and presence of a guy like Mark Penn in her campaign. Felt Obama had better shot at doing effective policy, and fine with him getting the nomination.
I felt HRC was being more straightforward about policy, but thought Obama might have better chance at getting policies passed into law, though felt he was temporizing a bit. But, hell, this is politics and policy making in a corrupt society with a lot of delusional people in the population. So WTF if Obama was either naive or trimming, if he could get things done.
handsmile
Re Richard Cohen and race
Let’s not forget that this adult employee of Amazon Prime Daily just last week wrote a column in which he revealed that upon seeing the movie 12 Years A Slave the horrors of human bondage finally become evident to him.
Elon James White FP’ed a post on it here: “Old White Guy Discovers Slavery…”:
https://balloon-juice.com/2013/11/07/richard-cohen-slavery/
I suspect Mr. Cohen must gag quite a lot while ambling along the streets of Washington, DC, even in its leafy Northwest enclave.
That completely extraneous little remark about Chirlane McCray, on the other hand, would suggest that its not just the blahs that upset his delicate constitution.
@jl: A minor correction to your #36 comment above: TNR has not been a “liberal” publication for nigh unto three decades now.
catclub
@jl: “fact that HRC was substantively the most liberal and progressive candidate in 2008”
Except for some Iraq war votes and their repercussions, which I recall having a bit of an effect.
MikeJ
@jl:
Just like Lieberman, she was with us on everything but the war.
Chris
@Amir Khalid:
@piratedan:
My current theory’s that “moderate Republican” has become a class statement and not a policy one. It’s means “I’m a VSP with all the right credentials, not some clod from Flyover Country.”
scav
At this point, Cohen & co’s desperate need for attention-generating clicks necessitates digging for low-hanging fruit.
Rex Everything
Alex Pareene:
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/08/how_much_will_it_cost_to_make_these_racist_old_men_go_away/
RSR
The weird, almost definition, of the OCC tells me a lot of people are in over their heads discussing bank regulation. If you don’t already at least know what the OCC is, STFU.
Ben Cisco
I see the word “moderate” and hear “Nessie” or “sewer gator” – sure, you’ve HEARD of such things but…
jl
@Amir Khalid: Christie is not moderate, but he plays one on TV! Which might be a good tactic for his probably politically doomed run for the nomination.
“Hi, teabagger base dupes I have to placate to win the primary, I’m not moderate but I play one expertly on TV. If you idiots want a like-minded jackass in the WH you just might not want to go apeshit while I kayfabe with the oderate-may easonable-ray act so we can fool enough moderate dimwits and ignorants into voting for me in the general. So please suck it up and think about voting for a person who at least has the discipline not to act like a batshit insane fool out in the streets all day. Thank you. I approve this message”
Anybodybuther2016
@jl:
Birds of a feather flock together. ;)
Suffern ACE
@Betty Cracker: I agree. So I’ve finally figured out why suddenly “Warren for President” is on the lips of everyone hither and yon, especially since I haven’t heard her or her surrgates say that she’s contemplating anything. She’s going to be the front spokesperson for a report on the next phase of financial sector reform.
In the sane world, someone would explain what those proposals are and track down Hillary Clinton and ask her if she supports those or not. But instead we’re treated to more horse race, “Opening Salvo in the Great Democratic Party Meltdown to Come” same-old stuff, and asked basically to decide whether we like Hillary or Elizabeth more.
A Senator issuing a report on a cause that they are interested in advancing is hardly leading an insurgency.
How about we decide whether we think those proposals will work or not rather than whether or not we like Hillary more than Elizabether.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
@MattF:
I’m still convinced that, in some ways, it’s actually more disturbing to racists for a white man to marry a black woman than the other way around. After all, if a black man marries a white woman, that’s just him admitting to the natural superiority of white people since of course white women are much more attractive than women of any other race.
But if a white man marries a black woman, that means that black women can be just as attractive as white women, or sometimes even more attractive. But that can’t be, because it goes against the natural order of life where white people are at the top of the heap in every category due to their inborn superiority. You know, just like how any random white guy on the street is automatically more qualified to be president than Barack Obama because, well, look at the guy.
A lot of this is unconscious/subconscious belief, but when it rises to the surface, it’s ug-ly. And trying to “explain” it only makes it sound worse, because it’s not a logical or rational belief, it’s a cultural meme that’s constantly fed by popular culture just under the radar.
Cassidy
@Anybodybuther2016:Doug must have the day off.Mike E
@MikeJ:
Except for the rape gurney, too, and I would go so far as to say that Hill might be even more with us these days than way back there in the heady days of the Liebermans For Joe Party. Plus, she knows where the bodies are buried both figurative and literal. Also. GOPers fear this more than anything Bill ever did.
Anybodybutthurt’16…what say you?
Suffern ACE
@MikeJ:
A war that is kind of over, at least as a way to mobilize voters.
jl
I’m not particularly an HRC fan, but I see some people have some HRC ‘issues’ they need to air.
The article was mainly about domestic policy, but if what they heck, change the subject if it means you get to ride your self righteous hobby horses forever.
Obama has certainly put a lot of space between himself and war monger and national security state fascist HRC since his election, hasn’t he?
Bill E Pilgrim
There is one truth in the Village that you can always count on: They absolutely hate it when Democrats fight back.
? Martin
Interesting that nobody can discern the difference between someone who became known before their political career and someone who became known only because of their political career. (Pro tip: the former knows how to accomplish things, the latter only knows how to get on camera.)
Sugar Daddy
Warren is not living up to her Cherokee roots with this disrespectful and divisive talk. I figure she is like all those other Senators and looking to make a splash here or there but will become better behaved like Mrs. Clinton once she has enough experience.
Belafon
@jl: And you can see why Democrats don’t have a majority with 60 while Republicans have a majority with 41.
Chris
@Mnemosyne (iPhone):
Really? I always thought it was the exact opposite.
Black women marrying white men = OK, because white men want to be able to marry whoever they want.
Black men marrying white women = not OK, because it implies that the black man was preferable to all the white men out there (and worst of all, was seen as preferable by one of “our own” women!)
Mike E
@Chris: Mel Brooks agrees with you there. See: Saddles, Blazing.
Belafon
You know what the best part of 2016 will be? PUMAs will be people who don’t support Clinton. I think Clinton will be a good president, I just thought Obama was a better choice. Like 2/3 of Democrats, I think she should be president if she wants it.
From a getting Democrats out to vote, she will be the one to do it. (Right now, she beats Christie in New Jersey.) And while we want the presidency, we also need to be thinking about taking over state legislatures and getting control of the senate. And these last goals apply to 2014 as well.
Purity Over Party My Ass, though POPMA is a little weird.
nineone
@MikeJ:
Ouch, that’s gonna leave a mark.
Oh snap. Dude, at least let ’em up off the mat before employing the Atomic Piledriver. You’re not unlike Lawler on poor Andy K.
Ben Cisco
@Chris: THIS.
THE trigger for any self-respecting racist is ALWAYS going to be one of “their” women choosing the black male over their supposedly superior stock, in that it is a direct repudiation (fuck you, Princess Dumbass of the Northwoods!) of their place at the top of the mountain.
Jay C
@Suffern ACE:
Yeah, but for most of the Village Media, that would entail actually, y’know, analyzing stuff, and thinking about policy, and checking into things: “who do you like?” is a much simpler concept, and easier to report on. Just like it was back in high school…..
burnspbesq
@Napoleon:
Do tell. Care to enlighten us poor rubes as to the correct reading?
Anybodybuther2016
@Mike E@Mike E: no wonder you jackasses stay loosing, you’re trapped in the same echo chamber as the wing nuts. Your side is disloyal and afraid of its own shadow. The fact that you would even consider supporting a HRC candidacy shows what spineless tools you are. You don’t even get how talking about hilary being the next potus is disrespectful to VP Biden and by extension PBO. I’m sick and tired of this passive lazy woman relying on the wrecking crew to clear the field so she run unopposed. I’d like to see a female president, just not that one.
nineone
@Ben Cisco:
In what respect, Charlie?
Also too, I concur: Fuck right off, Grifterella.
Betty Cracker
@Anybodybuther2016:
Huh? I’m not a HRC supporter, but that’s just dumb.
Omnes Omnibus
@Anybodybuther2016:
Oh noes, however will they survive?
Mandalay
@Napoleon:
I suspect that the problem is that the article is unread rather than misread. Some chose to comment on the article even though it is obvious that they (and mistermix) didn’t actually read it.
Mandalay
@Napoleon:
I suspect that the problem is that the article is unread rather than misread. Some chose to comment on the article even though it is obvious that they (and mistermix) didn’t actually read it.
handsmile
@Mnemosyne (iPhone):
I have neither the necessary chromosome or melanin to address this with authority or experience, but from what I understand of American political, social and cultural history, it is sexual relations between black men and white women – conjugal or not, fear-mongered or real – that are the far more volatile matter, for both racists and those who insist otherwise.
For example, in the landmark Supreme Court case that invalidated US anti-miscegenation laws, Loving v. Virginia, the plaintiffs were a white husband and a black wife.
If you have the inclination/time to do so, what examples would you offer, particularly from popular culture, to support your conjecture? (A question, I trust you know, asked in all sincerity).
Howlin Wolfe
@Gin & Tonic: Good question, G &T. I’m going to try to see if I can do that. I can already make my eyes move independently, only on purpose, unlike the teabaggerz.
Mnemosyne
@handsmile:
The black man/white woman pairing was much more policed, but if you look around you, it’s also much, much more common. I think the reason it’s more common is that, on some level, it actually is more acceptable to white people because it enforces the notion that white women are naturally more attractive, so of course black men will be more attracted to white women than to those icky, icky black women.
Think back to the movies of the mid-1960s. Heck, think about half the movies Sidney Poitier was in — A Patch of Blue, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? etc. Now try to think of an equivalent movie where the romance is between a white man and a black woman and it doesn’t end in tragedy. Show Boat? Imitation of Life?
That’s why I think the white man/black woman pairing is actually more threatening to white hegemony. It threatens to put black women on the same level as white women, and that cannot be allowed.
MomSense
@Gypsy Howell:
There are photos and videos of her with brown, maybe dark hazel eyes. I wasn’t aware that it was a right wing meme.
danielx
@Suffern ACE:
Because Villagers.
Noam Scheiber surprises me somewhat; he’s written some good stuff in the past. That being said, this is a piece worthy of Tiger Beat on the Potomac, or, for that matter, worthy of the Notorious Goat Blower of Georgetown. But hey, he writes for the New Republic and it don’t git no more Villager than that (cue the chorus of “even the liberal New Republic…”). Every time you see one of these pieces you can almost hear the barroom whisper “let’s you and him (her) fight”.
Warren must be planning on bigger things (according to the Village) because her performance as a senator must be classified as “antics”. Because substantive discussion of banker misdeeds is so haaaard and booooring, not to mention that any discussion of banker fuckups and thievery is SO 2011.
As to Scheiber’s feelings towards Clinton(s)…
Sometimes, all it takes is a single issue and a fresh face to bring the bad memories flooding back.
Bad memories? You just fuckin’ with us here, Noam? For Villager pundits, the Clinton administration was, like, the Best Time Evar, because there was something for everybody. Also, too, blowjobs. Good times…good times. My personal really bad memories stem from the period 2001-2008, during the administration of He Who Must Not Be Named, aka C-Plus Augustus (bless Charles Pierce’s heart). The Clinton administration had its share of drama and screwups – chief among them being Bill Clinton’s getting behind the gutting of Glass-Steagall – but those screwups didn’t result thousands upon thousands of deaths and the deficit catching the E train to Mars.
Warren’s policy stands probably do make Villagers the teeniest bit uncomfortable. After all, for Villagers…sincere belief in and advocating for law and regulation that benefit the vast majority of Americans? That’s generally viewed as “strident” when propounded by a liberal, let alone a female liberal. Contrariwise, dunderheaded views and policy stands advocated by conservatives are held to be “principled”, if possibly misguided.
Betty Cracker
@Mnemosyne: Not a movie, but wasn’t the interracial couple in “The Jeffersons” a black woman and white man? Not that it proves anything if it was.
Drawing on my own experience as someone who grew up down the road from a little ghost town called Rosewood, the big taboo among the old folks was white woman + black man. These days, it’s not as big a deal, but as late as the 80s, it was. In my recollection, for what it’s worth.
Mnemosyne
@Betty Cracker:
But I think black man/white woman was a big deal for a different reason. That had a lot more to do with fears of miscegenation, “tainting the bloodline,” etc. especially in the days of scientific racism. There was also the underlying assumption that of course all black men wanted to fuck white women, because who could possibly find a black woman attractive, amirite? Let’s not talk about the Strom Thurmonds of the world who were doing that exact thing while denouncing “race-mixing” — after all, it’s not like he was going to marry her.
But once you start admitting that black women can be just as attractive and just as worth marrying as white women are, another piece of the facade of white supremacy starts crumbling down. You’re treating black women as equal to white women, and that cannot be allowed.
Jebediah, RBG
@schrodinger’s cat:
Doesn’t Schreiber also have another gig playing “Ray Donovan” on the TV?
Betty Cracker
@Mnemosyne: Maybe. I’m just relating what I saw growing up in a pretty dyed-in-the-wool racist community back in the day. I never once heard of anyone expressing concern about a white dude dating / marrying a woman of color, but I heard plenty of consternation about white women dating / marrying black men, both from racist whites (for the reasons you cite) and, to a much lesser extent and for entirely different reasons, from black women who considered the black men disloyal. But anecdote(s) =/= data, etc., and it could be that white man + black woman couples are just rarer for whatever reason. It sure seems that way. No clue why.
Mnemosyne
@Betty Cracker:
I’m still kind of working it out in my head, and I could easily be wrong, but it does seem that when a white person marries a person of a “lesser” race, they tend to “lower” themselves socially and take on the social status of the “lesser” person. Maybe white men are less willing to do that.
Though I also wonder if the dyed-in-the-wool racists you knew were also strong believers in “traditional marriage,” where the man is the head of the household and everyone else is subordinate to him. If so, I could see why they might have less trouble with a white man/black woman marriage (subordinate woman stays subordinate) than with a black man/white woman marriage (subordinate man lording it over a superior-race woman! Blasphemy!) So that would be a totally different cultural interplay than in the wider culture, where a more “companionate” style of marriage where both parties are supposed to be mostly equal is the cultural ideal.
TopClimber
@Mnemosyne (iPhone): WARNING: the following contain satirical elements, which may not be appropriate for the humorless.
Consider the scenarios:
Black woman marries white man.
White male reaction: Good for you Holmes. Them black b-s be something else.
White female reaction: Isn’t he sweet for marrying for love, regardless of he consequences?
Black male reaction: Whatever.
Black female reaction: A good black man is hard to find.
White woman marries black man.
White male reaction: Oh s-t. It’s because blacks guys have bigger d-s.
White female reaction: I feel sorry for the kids, but Isn’t she sweet for marrying for love, regardless of he consequences?
Black male reaction: Whatever.
Black female reaction: What’s wrong with me?
Betty Cracker
@Mnemosyne:
Definitely patriarchal, honor-based, etc., and all that implies. It has changed, thank FSM, but not fast enough to suit me, of course.
Mike E
I’m just gonna say, if that’s you DougJ throwing down the Anybody’sbutthurt’16, then bravo. I needed a good laff today!
nineone
@Mnemosyne:
Well, who doesn’t?
And can you blame us? They’re super awesome!
Er, um, or so I’ve heard.
handsmile
@Mnemosyne:
I appreciate your reply! A quick (and inadequate) response because my offline life beckons…
What you’re proposing is counter-intuitive (at least) so I’ll need some time to reflect upon it. First thoughts, though:
If black man/white woman relations were that common (and by “common” do you mean implictly/explictly broadly acceptable?) then I think the phenomenon would lose its potency as a controversial subject for popular entertainment, e.g., Guess Who’s…
I agree largely with your ironic assertion that “white women are much more attractive than women of any other race.” The two versions of the movie She demonstrate that point, even in its African setting.
If I come up with anything worthwhile, I’ll post it here later. (and as you may know, I compulsively check back on threads.)
ETA: Re DougJ’s thread on Richard Cohen: My comment there in part was to suggest that Cohen was inadvertently exposing his own sexual queasiness/intolerance by tossing out that extraneous comment on deBlasio’s wife once identifying as a lesbian.
nineone
@Mnemosyne:
You are correct. Poor Bernie Mac.
@danielx: You are also correct. So much so, I’m thinking this should be front page material as well.
@TopClimber: Yikes!
drkrick
@Citizen_X:
Anything Alberto Gonzalez or Donald Rumsfield should have been asked five years ago.
Ruckus
@Anybodybuther2016:
Hell I’d vote for her just to get you to shut the fuck up.
There are of course better reasons but at this moment that one seems to be sufficient.
Ecks
The very next paragraph to the one DPM quotes, asking if she’s a Franken or a Cruz reads:
And later:
To the proposition that Warren will run if Hillary doesn’t (making Warren a viable candidate)?
No, DPM, this article is in NO WAY claiming that Warren is just like Cruz. Your entire critique here is based on an almost ludicrously distorted misreading.