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
