As Goldberg is the frequent target of criticism on Salon, I can't resist using the passing mention in Walt's article of the ideologue Goldberg as an excuse to quote from another article, which appeared in today's LiveScience Bad Science column. The column cites Jonah Goldberg as a case study in unscientific beliefs concerning the effect of bad role models on young women:

In October 2007, syndicated columnist Jonah Goldberg wrote a column fretting over the influence he imagined that Pam Anderson, Paris Hilton, and other "role models" have over young women. According to Goldberg, we may soon see legions of girls paying off poker debts with sex, as Pam Anderson did before she (temporarily) wed playboy Rick Salomon.

Post, Goldberg, and countless other media pundits clearly have a low opinion of young women's intelligence.

The assumption that teens are mindless consumer culture zombies who slavishly mimic celebrities' behavior is insulting to millions of intelligent, independent women. Those who promote this claim, from media pundits to feminists, have bought into one media myth while trying to debunk another.

http://www.livescience.com/health/080116-bad-role-model.html

to congratulate myself for having tossed my television in the trash years ago. I only rarely comment, and do so only to encourage others to get rid of their televisions as well.

Brief exposure to television depresses cognitive ability in every measurable category. The flickering images of television are known to contribute to neurological developmental problems in children under five years of age. Destroy your television.

Bill Clinton missed an opportunity to respond to the implicit sexism of the reporter's remark that it takes two Clintons to campaign against one Obama.

Instead Clinton laughed off the remark, and got to the point he intended to make, which was to force the identification in the national consciousness of Obama's candidacy in 2008 with that of Jesse Jackson's in 1984 and 1988.

Unlike Hillary's response about Martin Luther King to a question from Major Garret of Fox News about Obama's remarks about Martin Luther King, the question Clinton was posed made no mention whatsoever of Jesse Jackson.

Bill Clinton would have been a damned fool to respond to the implicit sexism of him vs. Elizabeth and Michelle as spouses. He knows he's the Big Dog and he is no fool. Too much injection about sexism into the race can only hurt Senator Clinton.

On second thought, you're right: much better to inject sme condescending racism via an invidious comparison into the race. Despicable.

I'll write a ten page essay after you write a thesis on admissible evidence.

Now you too can be the target of a "not proven" with regard to your interpretation of Clinton's remarks. (I happen to agree with you.)

Now I have three citations:

Joan Walsh

Gleen Greenwald

Big Tent Democrat of TalkLeft

I'll keep you posted.

by editing out the question whether Obama could win as an African American president. That bit of additional context makes matters worse for Clinton, not better: he took the bait. In that context, Clinton's comparison of Obama with Jesse Jackson adds to the suggestion that Clinton was playing the race card. As Big Tent Democrat of TalkLeft put it, Clinton meant that Obama was, "President of Black America."

I have to (grugdingly) agree with Bill Kristol in his NYT OpEd of Monday, Jan 29. Kristol notes that Bill Clinton has been clumsily playing the race card, then asks why he is playing any cards at all. The upshot seems to be that Bill Clinton has become more visible than Hillary in all of this.

"if you want to critisize [sic] Bill for playing a race card, i can't stop you, but if what he said was that Obama won the SC primary b/c of race, then what has he said that no one else has?"

That's not what Clinton said. He made the comparison between Obama's campaign of 2008 and Jesse Jackson's campaign of 1984 and 1988. This was widely interpreted as a dismissal of Obama as someone who ran a respectable campaign, but who would not appeal to white voters on a national scale (cf. remarks by Joan Walsh, Glenn Greenwald, Big Tent Democrat of TalkLeft and Bill Kritol of the NYT, among many other sources).

The upshot of the media commentary and focus on Bill Clinton has been detrimental to Hillary, as evidenced by

her campaign's effort to "tamp down" his role in her candidacy. The concern is that the former president's "...prominence may have dampened [Hillary Clinton's] appeal as a strong leader" ("After Obama Victory, Clinton’s Camp Seeks Gentler Role for Ex-President." NYT Jan 28).

Whether you believe Clinton's remarks were completely innocent and immune to any racial interpretation whatsoever, a graceful concession to Obama's South Carolina rout, or a divisive coded message, Clinton's campaign is attempting to reign in the former president for having overshadowed his spouse.

Campaigns are skillfully managed to avoid the issues--that's true of the Obama and Clinton campaigns. Since personalities and not issues are important, Bill Clinton overshadowing Hillary counts as news.

The Democrats make the Republicans--or at least McCain-- seem honorable by comparison.

Her advisers must be scratching their heads wondering what she should say next.

I suppose this means I'm voting for Bill Clinton.

Ted Kennedy used to claim he was in favor of universal health care. His endorsement of Obama completely reverses that position.

"It's possible that, in my frustration with him, I might have called [Edwards] an Orc."

It is indeed possible that you might have called Edwards an Orc because, in this world, and not merely some possible world, you actually did call Edwards an Orc. That was in an article commendable for its steadfast focus on the issues--a potentially career sacrificing move, considering the overwhelming media focus on the political horse race.