Richard Cohen Is Even More Morally Bankrupt Than I Thought

Good lord:

Now he is in American custody. What will happen? How do we get him to reveal his group's plans and the names of his colleagues? It will be hard. It will, in fact, be harder than it used to be. He can no longer be waterboarded. He knows this. He cannot be deprived of more than a set amount of sleep. He cannot be beaten or thrown up against even a soft wall. He cannot be threatened with shooting or even frightened by the prospect of an electric drill. Nothing really can be threatened against his relatives -- that they will be killed or sexually abused.

Well, I guess what might happen is that interrogators will have to use methods that actually, you know, work. Which might lead to actual, you know, good intelligence...with the added benefit that such proper interrogation is not illegal, unconstitutional, or morally bankrupt. Kind of a win/win, don't you think?

No one can possibly believe that America is now safer because of the new restrictions on enhanced interrogation and the subsequent appointment of a special prosecutor. The captured terrorist of my fertile imagination, assuming he had access to an Internet cafe, knows about the special prosecutor. He knows his interrogator is under scrutiny. What person under those circumstances is going to spill his beans?

Actually, Dick, I do. I believe that America is now safer now that we won't be torturing false answers out of people desperate to make the torture stop. I believe that America is now safer because our intelligence officers now know that they can no longer torture prisoners to death in ways that expose our own forces to torture and death in the event of their capture.

So, you know, there's one person for you. Why don't you go find another straw man to beat up, you sad, sad excuse for a pundit?

Richard Cohen "Earns" Another Paycheck

Oh joyous day, another Richard Cohen column in today's WaPo! Huzzah! Today, Richard turns to the (in-no-way-beaten-beyond-death) topic of race in the Democratic primary race. What insights await us? Well, his overall point is that the Clintons have been out of line (oh you think so, doctor?), but...wait for it...Obama is to blame, too! Silly man, he should have known better than to be born with an African father...that pesky dark skin is nothing but trouble in national campaigns!

Here's a gem:

The usual post-campaign books this time around may have a particularly interesting tale to tell. It will be how Hillary and Bill Clinton -- or is it Bill and Hillary Clinton? -- managed to turn Obama into the black candidate he never wanted to be. In South Carolina, Obama overwhelmingly lost the white vote.

Let's leave aside for a moment the fact that if post-campaign books "may have" a particular "tale to tell," it would be [your theory here], not "will be." FFS, you just said "may." That's neither here nor there, however. The real nugget here is the last sentence in the paragraph, which I have bolded for your convenience. Okay, let's look at the (oh-so-reliable in a state where the pre-election polls understated Obama's victory by 17% or so) exit poll data for white voters (all ages...Obama won the under 30 white vote, but Richard didn't get that analytical today): Clinton 36%, Obama 24%. Wow! what an old skewl butt-whuppin'! Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition! But wait...that only adds up to 60%...what about the remaining 40%? Must have been split between Dennis Kucinich and Jesse Jackson (as a write-in...I mean, Bill's got me convinced of Jesse's South Carolina electoral prowess), right? What's that, you say? John Edwards took 40% of the white vote? You mean, Hillary lost the white vote in South Carolina, too? But, but, but that could mean that a large segment of white voters, disturbed by Clinton's tactics, chose instead to vote for a different candidate (one who just happened to be a native son, and who won the 2004 South Carolina Democratic primary with 45% of the overall vote). I guess this didn't fit neatly into Cohen's theory of the day, so he ignored it. I've come to expect nothing less.

Moving on:

The turning point for Obama actually came in New Hampshire, when Hillary Clinton said that Martin Luther King's "dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964." This, of course, only reflected historical reality and was, moreover, a slap not at King, but at Johnson's predecessor, John F. Kennedy, to whom Obama is often compared. (Both Caroline Kennedy and her uncle, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, have since endorsed Obama.)

Okay, to the extent that this statement "only reflected historical reality," it also conveniently ignored the equally important historical reality that none of Johnson's political maneuvering on behalf of civil rights would have been possible without the work of Dr. King, and thousands of others who were on the front lines of the civil rights movement. Which is, of course, what got many people so upset. And does Cohen really, honestly believe that Hillary was taking "a slap" at JFK? Seriously? I mean, warranted or not, what Democratic candidate in their right mind would take a swipe at JFK during a contested primary season? Plus, Cohen seems to (surprise!) ignore the second sentence of Hillary's statement: “It took a president to get it done.” What, Richard, you mean JFK wasn't a president? How can a supposedly Serious OpEd columnist for a major newspaper read those two sentences and conclude that Hillary was taking a swipe not at Dr. King, but at John F. Kennedy?

Moving on yet again:

Possibly we shall someday learn that Hillary Clinton's remark was diabolically intended to offend blacks. I doubt it. Whatever the case, though, some important African-Americans quickly reacted -- and the Democratic primary campaign was never again the same. Not only did the Clintons not back off, but they seemed to savor the moment. As for Obama, instead of adroitly taking the sting out of what Hillary Clinton had said by shrugging it off, he called her comments "unfortunate" and "ill-advised."

In the words of Andy Dufresne, "How can you be so obtuse?" Hillary's remark wasn't "diabolically intended to offend blacks," it was calculated (diabolically or not) to make whites view Obama differently - to say to them, "no matter how inspirational a voice he may be, he's not a Serious [read: white] politician capable of bringing about meaningful change."

Jumping ahead a bit:

In South Carolina, the Democratic presidential race turned a corner. Hillary Clinton went virtually white; Obama went black. In Iowa, in a much larger field, Obama had gotten about one-third of the white vote. In South Carolina, in a three-way race, the figure dropped to 24 percent. By the end, Hillary Clinton's events were nearly all-white affairs, according to reports.

Richard, do you for one second believe that the history, demographics, and politics of South Carolina are identical to those of Iowa? Do you? Because here's a hint: one of them was a slave state that seceded from the Union, and the other wasn't. And that's just the beginning! There are other differences, too! I know, I didn't believe it either, but then I opened my freaking eyes. Sheesh.

David Broder: "Columnist"

From Broder's offering in today's WaPo:

While he was on his defensive spiel, Obama also urged people to ignore "crazy" rumors that he was Muslim, not Christian, or ever failed to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or take his oath to uphold the Constitution.

Aren't quotation marks fun? Let's try using them with David's WaPo bio:

David Broder is a twice-weekly "columnist" for The Post, "writing" on national politics. His column appears on "Thursdays" and Sundays.

UPDATE: added quotation marks to "Thursdays," since, well, today is a Wednesday.

Oops He Did It Again

Today Richard Cohen turns from "I don't believe he's a Farrakhan follower, but here's a column about it," to "Britney gets too much media coverage, and here's a column about it." I don't know if this is progress, but at least it's movement.

The column begins by citing a Portfolio article regarding Britney's worth, not just to herself, but to the various leeches that make money off of her (cue Chris Crocker!)...which is vaguely interesting, though hardly the sort of thing I expect to read about on the OpEd page of the Washington Post. I guess Richard felt the same way, because midway through the column, he tries to tie his Britney statistics to the current primary campaign, and, well, just takes a detour right into Crazy Town:

The Britney Industrial Complex is a handy tool to examine more than just Britney Spears. It also explains why Hillary Clinton's human backdrop changed from Iowa to New Hampshire. On election night in Des Moines, Clinton surrounded herself with familiar figures, some of them not so young anymore, while Barack Obama had a backdrop of youthful faces radiating pheromones. By New Hampshire, Clinton had younged-up her crowd, suggesting she was now, like Obama, an agent of change.

Now, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone in Hillary's campaign actually did decide to get some younger folks on stage with her in New Hampshire (though where that fits into the whole "Aging Boomer Women Put Hillary Over The Top" meme is beyond me), but I seriously doubt they were thinking "Let's get ourselves some of that Britney-obsessed, TMZ-lovin' demographic!" when they made that call. Then again, what do I know, it's not like I'm a big shot columnist for the Washington Post, with numerous connections I could use to arrange an interview or two with insiders on this very subject. No, I'm left to idly speculate, without anything beyond anecdotal evidence that I collected while watching TV upon which to base my assumptions...before drifting back to the more important topic: the major role Britney plays in the 13.7 trillion U.S. economy.

I really hope Chris Cillizza doesn't write his own headlines.

Currently, on the front page of washingtonpost.com:

The Fix: Someone Has to Win

Friday Line | Despite the negativity about the GOP field, someone will win the nomination.

Chris Cillizza

Oh you think so, doctor?