The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

In his Time column, Kinsley manages to make me forget why it is I love reading him. (That is, his ability to make fun of himself and take things with a grain of salt.) Completely earnest statements like these just send me up a wall:


"Affluent people who give to the Republican Party are advancing their own class interests, whereas those who give to the Democrats generally aren't."

"But true, professional unscrupulousness--the kind of do-anything-to-win pragmatism that Democrats envy in Republicans--requires more than just working yourself up into a lather of dislike."

Then there's this:

"Truth to tell, the radio guys would rather have had Clinton to rail against, out of habit if nothing more. They spent most of their energy during primary season going after her. (Hillary nostalgia is surely one reason they are so obsessed with Michelle Obama.)"

Now wait a second. The right did not create Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton was there and set the precedent for the over-involved first lady. In 2000, 2004, and this year, the Dems have offered outspoken wives who are positioning themselves for criticism. From Tipper Gore's efforts to "fix" rock and roll's naughty overtures to Teresa Heinz Kerry's telling off a reporter at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and on to Michelle Obama's conditional love of country, we've been provided with all kinds of fodder for criticizing spouses. Is it in Democrat DNA to thrust spouses front and center as part of the overall package? Do Republicans really do this? At all?!

To say that it's simply right-wing nostalgia, or even that such nostalgia fuels criticism of Michelle, when clearly she's just asking for it, is absolutely wrong-headed.

topics:
Hillary Clinton, Energy

View all comments (1) | Leave a comment

pigment Red| 4.6.10 @ 1:13AM

pigment Red
czmaxpct@gmail.com

Although Obama has run his campaign Organic Pigmentsalmost completely as a to the administration of one George Ink Pigments the parallels between their campaigns are apparent.

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

Related Blog Posts

More Blog Posts by J.P. Freire

http://spectator.org/blog/2008/07/11/michael-kinsley-so-earnest-it

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Illusionist

Yogi Love | 10:06AM

At Least He Apologized

Ross Kaminsky | 8:34AM

Gallup: Veterans Prefer Romney

W. James Antle, III | 5.28.12

Markos Moulitsas is Scum

Quin Hillyer | 5.28.12

Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Memorial Day Edition

W. James Antle, III | 5.27.12

An Honor Flight Story

TAS Staff | 5.26.12

WaPost Criticizes Romney's Lack of Rhythm

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.12

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley | 5.25.12

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi | 5.25.12

The Wisconsin Turning Point

Peter Ferrara | 5.23.12

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer | 5.25.12

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick | 5.25.12

Terror by Any Other Name

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.29.12

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker | 5.25.12

ADVERTISEMENT