Official No Blood for Hubris Mental Health Interlude (No. 342)

So, when the Clinton/Obama drama palls, and one's personal samsaric trauma drama morphs into mere annoying mosquito-esque repetitiveness, what is there to lift one's spirits that does not involve staying up till all hours in virtual frolic with west-coast avs and their naughty boundaryless east-coast enablers?

(RL avatar yawns appreciatively.)

Well, there's this guy.

Seat-Sniffing Leader Breaks Down.

New Poll: Senator Hillary Clinton Would Beat "Same Old Same Old" John McCain by Nine Points

This just in.

WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton has a better chance than Barack Obama of beating Republican John McCain, according to a new Associated Press-Ipsos poll that bolsters her argument that she is more electable in the fall than her rival for the Democratic nomination.

The survey released Monday gives Clinton a fresh talking point as she works to convince pivotal undecided superdelegates to side with her in the drawn-out Democratic primary fight.

Clinton, who won the Pennsylvania primary last week, has gained ground this month in a hypothetical head-to-head match up with the GOP nominee-in-waiting; she now leads McCain, 50 percent to 41 percent, while Obama remains virtually tied with McCain, 46 percent to 44 percent.

Hat tip to No Quarter.

Turkey Soup, Or, Why Sexism Should Matter to Dem Men More Than It Does At Present

I'm not windsurfing.

No, really, I'm not windsurfing.

No, I tell you, I'm just NOT windsurfing.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Windsurfing, I mean.

You know, it takes a lot of smarts and strength? It's kinda macho?

Unless and until it's spun completely otherwise? As one might completely otherwise spin an actual meritorious martial experience? Well, I'm just a broad so nevermind.


I'm just here making soup, as personal therapy. It might have been chicken soup, and frequently is, but today it's turkey. With vegetables and barley. As I chop, and saute, make things simmer, and str, while continuing not to windsurf, I have time to reflect.

I reflect on having been regaled in blogtopia recently with reminders of how poorly the Dems have done in general elections. I'm not sure why people are reminding me of this, since I need no actual reminders on this subject. (People remind me of a lot of things on the internets tubeses of which I am perfectly well aware, thanks so very much.)

How poorly the Dems have done . . . why would that be, one wonders?

This segues into my sexism theme since it is the Karl "Miss Piggy" Rove Bushist Fascist Propaganda Cadre that has done so well for so long by successfully branding male Democrats as -- well, pussies.

Pussies.

As in gurrrls. Wimps. Cry-babies. Losers. Effetes. Elites. Girlie-men. Smartypant sissies. Weaklings. Hysterics. Whackjobs. Nutbags.

Really, it goes back to the rat-f*ckers, the Canuck letters that turned Ed Muskie suddenly into a snivelling wimp.

Later, it was Mike Dukakis in-a-tank, looking like a Charles Schultz creation. Add soft-on-crime Willie Horton. Dukakis = wimp. Girly-man. Heavens!

Scandal over the insane price of Bill Clinton's haircuts, which proves he's a gurrl.

Hysterics over hysterical-Dean-scream Howard Dean.

Hysterics over the horrid girly price of John Edwards' haircuts, not to mention calling him "The Breck Girl."

Hysterics over patrician smartypants wussy effete ee-leete John "windsurfer" Kerry.

"Autumn Colors" smartypants wussy Al Gore.

You can't disparage someone in the US, at least overtly, for being of color. (You can do a miscegenation tap-dance, a la Harold Ford, certainly.)

But it's a-okay to disparage a man by labelling him as possessing the inherently inferior characteristics of the inherently inferior female class.

It's a-okay, because the belief of female inferiority is widely shared.

Not universally, but widely.

This is why all the sniggering fratboys (and their fratgirl enablers) of our media whore media continue to get away with it.

Why do we allow this to go on?

It is not unreasonable to try to portray one's opponent as weak, or stupid, or ill-informed.

It is wrong to attach a gender label to one's opponent for the sole purpose of disparaging their person.

It is sexist to do as Imus did recently, and call Obama "almost a bigger pussy than she is [referring to Hillary Clinton]."


Have we all had enough of this, one hopes? And if not -- why not?




The G Spot, here.

Thomas a Beckett's Ghost Asks: "Who Will Rid Me of This Meddlesome Female Candidate for U.S. President?"

Someone really really needs to get rid of Hillary Clinton.

Democrats really need someone who'll get rid of her, according to MSNBC's Howard Fineman, someone who'll "stop this thing."

Faux-Left Manichaean media darling Keith Olbermann agrees: "Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out."

(Thoughtful pause.)


"Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out."

O-kay.


Let's compare:

"We need someone to stop Barack Obama's campaign in its tracks."

"Right. Somebody who can throw him in the back of a pick-up, and string him up."



Raise your hands, boys and girls, if that metaphor works for you?

No? It doesn't work for you?

Well, it shouldn't.

Nor should the first one.

Sexism and racism are completely unacceptable.

Sexism is tolerated in the United States today in a way that racism is no longer tolerated.

Recognition of the pervasiveness of gender bias in the USA is not a reason to vote for Hillary Clinton; however, rampant sexism, particularly in the media, has adversely affected and continues to adversely affect her ability to communicate information on her actual plans and actual policy proposals.

Thus, the citizenry continues to be bombarded by sniggering fratboy vitriol that disparages Senator Clinton merely as a female, rather than engaging in an honorable war over her ideas, plans, and policies versus the ideas, plans, and policies of her opponents.

That's why the pervasive "just shut the fuck up, bitch" theme of her opponents is so very vile.

And that's why so many of us have our frickin' panties in a twist.

Just in case you'd been wondering.


.
Alegre, at No Quarter, here.

Poet Jane Cooper (1924-2007)

This morning I found out that my wonderful teacher and mentor, Jane Cooper, has died -- actually that she died last fall, a few months after Grace Paley. I knew about Grace from the Times, but somehow I missed Jane's obit, here.

Jane was kind enough to get me my first job -- an actual job in the actual field of poetry, a miracle in itself. We kept in touch until I moved to Asia -- pre-internet. I'm too sad to write more, but I wanted to note and honor her passing. Here's one of her poems:

Souvenirs

Anyway we are always waking
in bedrooms of the dead, smelling
musk of their winter jackets, tracking
prints of their heels across our blurred carpets.

So why hang onto a particular postcard?
If a child's lock of hair brings back
the look of that child, shall I
nevertheless not let it blow away?

Houses, houses, we lodge in such husks!
inhabit such promises, seeking the unborn
in a worn-out photograph, hoping to break free
even of our violent and faithful lives.

From: Calling Me From Sleep, by Jane Cooper

Hillary-Hating Uber Alles: Karl Rove's Wet Dream Comes True

What is wrong with these people?

Click on this, and scroll down to this headline:

HILLARYLAND IS A FAR MORE CONNIVING AND RAGE-FUELED PLACE THAN YOU HAD IMAGINED: THE EXCLUSIVE INSIDE STORY

Ok, boys and girls -- it's 2008, and guess what?

We at the New Republic ha ha are proudly using classic sexist stereotypes to trash a candidate from our own party!

"CONNIVING" is classic sexist spin-speak for "actually has the nerve to run for president"!

"RAGE-FUELED" is classic sexist spin-speak for "why won't the angry bitch shut up and roll over and die along with all those other uppity angry bitches who just won't shut up and roll over and die -- who do they think they are, anyhow?"!

Click on, and it's even better: anyone like Hillary who won't roll over and die at Obama's feet must be suffering from a whole bunch of Schneiderian psychotic symptoms! Ooh! Voices in her head! Ooh! She must be craaaaa-zy! Look at her hysterics in this Dean-screamy unbelievably unflattering photo! That angry f*cking bitch is f*cking craaazy!

VOICES IN HER HEAD --
INSIDE HILLARYLAND'S FATAL PSYCHODRAMA

by Michelle Cottle (Proving that females can be just as sexist as males. Ooh. But we knew that already, Michelle, dear.)

By the time Hillary Clinton's campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle finally packed up her lovely corner office with its fresh blue carpet and mini-fridge full of Diet Coke, her exit must have come as a relief--even to many of her friends on Team Hillary. Since Iowa, colleagues had been conducting an uneasy deathwatch for her.

"Lovely corner office" -- "fresh blue carpet" -- "mini-fridge full of Diet Coke" -- hmm. Interesting word choices.

[Then follows a boring account of supposed internecine warfare and slagging of Mark Penn, who I believe got canned some time ago. People I know and respect seem to hate this guy, I don't know why, and seem to hate Hillary's candidacy even more because of him. Me, what do I know?]

And so the jockeying and layering and squabbling grinds on, even as Hillary's chances of capturing the nomination grow ever more remote. [Translation: shut up and die, bitch]. From the outside, the struggle for control of a campaign that likely won't be around much longer [Translation: jeez, bitch, why won't you just shut up and die??] may appear absurd.

Not as absurd as this article -- not to mention its inflammatory headlines.

Who are you people?

Why are you so stupid and so awful? Shouldn't you know better?

Sadly, no.



--------------------------
Here's an article for persons who didn't get why The New Republic's coverage was sexist and why being explicitly anti-sexist actually matters.

Ditto, from Feministe (& not a pro-Hillary blog, btw).

Here's "Keith Olbermann's Head Explodes."

Here's Corrente on Obama, Sexism, and the Infantile Id.

Here's Watermelon Shuffle, reprised.

--------------------------
Hat tip on the NR article to Tennessee Guerrilla Women, who saays:

Hillary Sexism Watch: Cancel Your Subscription to The New Republic
Why does the lefty New Republic look just like the righty Free Republic?

If you don't already have a subscription to The New Republic, why would you ever want one?

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a woman who has inspired mothers, daughters and sisters all over the nation with the hope that women and girls will one day be treated fairly.

Portraying the first woman to have a chance at the presidency as a raving lunatic is what we have come to expect from progressives and conservatives alike.

Anyone who has graduated from feminist studies 101 knows that the portrayal of uppity women as raving lunatics is as old as the patriarchy itself. And hasn't it worked out really well for the chauvinists?

I should be used to it by now. But if this is what it means to be Democrat, I am not one.

-----------------------------------------------------

Full story, here.

The G Spot, here.

Rummy, Cheney, Bushist Fascists: Torture Gets Them Hard, Says Beaver (no, I'm not making this up)

Why aren't all the members of the pro-torture crowd safely rotting in jail?

On Tuesday, December 2 2002, Donald Rumsfeld signed a piece of paper that changed the course of history. That same day, President Bush signed a bill to put the Pentagon in funds for the next year. The US faced unprecedented challenges, Bush told a large and enthusiastic audience, and terror was one of them. The US would respond to these challenges, and it would do so in the "finest traditions of valour". And then he signed a large increase in the defence budget.

Elsewhere in the Pentagon, an event took place for which there was no comment, no fanfare. With a signature and a few scrawled words, Rumsfeld reneged on the tradition of valour to which Bush had referred. Principles for the conduct of interrogation, dating back more than a century to President Lincoln's famous instruction of 1863 that "military necessity does not admit of cruelty", were discarded. He approved new and aggressive interrogation [torture] techniques that would produce devastating consequences.

I don't know why they're not safely rotting away in jail.

[Staff Judge Advocate Lt. Col. Diane] Beaver recalled that smothering was thought to be particularly effective, and that [Major General Michael E.] Dunlavey, who'd been in Vietnam, was in favour because he knew it worked.

The younger men would get particularly agitated, excited even: "You could almost see their dicks getting hard as they got new ideas." A wan smile crossed Beaver's face. "And I said to myself, you know what, I don't have a dick to get hard. I can stay detached."

Beaver confirmed what Dunlavey had told me, that a delegation of senior lawyers came down to Guantánamo well before the list of techniques was sent up to Washington. They talked to the intelligence people, they even watched some interrogations. The message from the visitors was that they should do "whatever needed to be done", meaning a green light from the very top - from the lawyers for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the CIA.

I hope they begin rotting away in jail very soon, and for a very very long time.



Full story at the Guardian, here.

The Bitter Poor Have No Bread? Why, Then, Let Them Eat Arugula! (Hey. It's Bitter, too!)

I said he was a timid centrist.

I said he was Not Ready for Prime Time.

And I'm right.


Now that people are listening a little harder to what Obama says, he's starting to get caught saying just what he means. And get caught not saying what he should say -- like never apologizing for Randi Rhodes at an Obama fund-raiser calling a Presidential candidate FROM HIS OWN PARTY a "big fucking whore."

"Bitter" Pennsylvanians? Oh? Those poor poor people. Those poor dumb poor people. Clinging to their faith.

No, Barry's not sounding out of touch. Nope. Not at all. He'll do just fine against McCain. Pinky swear, I promise!

Bitter bitter bitter. Bitter as arugula. Yep. Trash the working poor, why don'tcha?

It's so Bushist -- so "poor people are poor because they are lazy." It's all their fault. (Just like every time Obama puts his foot in his mouth, it's Hillary Clinton's fault. Hunh?)

Complaining about the high price of arugula?

That was a good idea.


FOOT IN MOUTH.

We're not electing a Prom King, people.


Really, we're not.



.

It's the Sexism, Stupid!

Watch it at YouTube, here.

Watch it if you dare, testosterone-deprived acne-pocked media whore media sexist sniggering fratboys. [MSNBC, Matthews, Carlson, FlabbyMatt Taibbi, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Kristol, Olbermann, Shuster, Cafferty, Beck, Cavuto, Russert, Barnicle, Scarborough, Snyder, etc. etc.]

And all you sniggering fratboy sympathizers. [MoDo, HuffPo]

And the rest of some of the rest of you who are Faux-liberal Manichaean sexist sniggering fratboys who don't even know that you are sexist sniggering fratboys. [Kos, Aravosis, PDA, Move-on, Buzzflash, Olbermann, FlabbyMatt Taibbi, Shuster, Rich]

Watch it if you dare. All the way to the end.

But don't forget:

"While women have been elected to the highest offices in countries such as England, Germany, and India, [oh, and not to mention Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, New Zealand, Israel, and Ireland -- who have I forgotten?] the idea that a woman could be president of the United States provokes scoffs and ridicule.

The press portrays female candidates as unviable, unnatural, and incompetent, and often ignores or belittles women instead of reporting their ideas and intent. [What? They DO??]

Since voters learn most details about presidential candidates through media outlets, Falk asserts that this prevailing bias calls into question the modern democratic assumption that men and women have comparable access to positions of power." -- Women for President, Media Bias in Eight Campaigns

Sexism pervading America? What? Well, I must tell you that I'm shocked. Shocked.

[Why do I now call Matt Taibbi "FlabbyMatt"? Check out his most recent anti-Hillary screed, in which he leads off by disparaging the physical appearance of a leading candidate for President of the United States, hurling an insult that is at once both sexist AND ageist. Way to go, FlabbyMatt.]

Bill O'Reilly rips off my post title, here.

Obama's "F*cking Whore Fundraiser" Scandal: See No Evil? Hear No Evil? Really? Speak No Evil? Well, nevermind.

Obama's odd silence on the Fucking Whore Fundraiser Scandal is shocking, yet unsurprising. Somehow. And you'd think that this would be a major story for the media whore media, would you not? And yet that silence, too, is deafening.

Hmm. Whatup?

Presidential Candidate Barack Obama needs to denounce Randi "Clinton is a big fucking whore" Rhodes' comment. Right frickin' now. (Then Mr. Hope/Change/Hope can explain why he waited so long to do so, and why that behavior is not both sexist and majorly righwing.))

His continuing silence about this vulgar sexist attack gives consent and complicity, especially since it occurred at an Obama fundraising event.

Obama must denounce Rhodes' statements about both current presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and former vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, apologize for the sexist slurs being made at his fundraiser, and return all money that event made. [Update: didn't happen. Aint's gonna happen.]

And Randi Rhodes needs to have her head examined. (She's not the only one). I hadn't realized that the Democratic party was so severely infested with vulgar, sexist vitriolic boors masquerading as liberals -- so now there's a Pottymouth Cheney/Freeper wing of the Dem party, eh?

Makes me sick. Kos makes me sick, Progressive (sic) Dems of America makes me sick, BuzzFlash, Americablog, blah blah blah. Why do they think it's ok to behave this way? Shrieky hysterical mob mentality behavior from people who really really should know better -- but don't.

Shame on them. Feh.



More here, via No Quarter.

And good comments here at Anglachel:

[Update: I have to say that with every week, and with every passing day that brings more Hillary-hating hysteria and swiftboat slime, I am sliding further and further away from my vow of supporting the Democratic candidate whoever that might be. I have taken hard hits for supporting Hillary, both in RL and SL (oddly enough), and I'm telling you, I don't frickin' like it. Drummed out in RL of Americablog and HuffPo and Buzzflash and DU and Kos, I fled to the Hillaryblogs. Where I found myself with the similarly drummed-out with similar philosophies -- it sure feels like home. (And even SL is less so, though most I hang with have been very polite. I learned recently that one Obama supporter there was been spreading rumors behind my virtual back that I had said I was not going to vote for Obama, which I had never ever said. I'm adding that experience to my list of things that are starting to make me frickin' wonder.)

I don't like Obama's policies, and I don't like the way the more vocal of his supporters behave. My opinion of him has gone from generally favorable a few months back to generally unfavorable, as I have learned more about him. I think he is a timid centrist candidate who is not ready for prime time. I don't like how his team treats his opponent. At all. I don't like all this constant wierd-ass dismissive sexist crap, and I don't like what Leahy and Kerry and Kennedy and Carter are saying and doing; I don't like being vilified, I don't like the media whore media's sexist crap, especially not Frank Rich and Huffington and MoDo and Olbermann, and I particularly don't like the Faux-left's sexist crap, like that of Randi Rhodes, above. You act like that, you're not on my side. And I am not on yours. Forewarned is forearmed. So far I'm sticking to my pledge, but I'll tell you, as of about an hour ago, I've started wavering. And I am a big-time long-time ultra-progressive Democrat. A real one, not a timid centrist. Lose me if you dare.]

NYT Op-Ed to Tibetans: Shut Up and Die, Already

.



.














Enough of the Great Battle of Hill v. Barry.

Let's perk up with stories about the brutal genocidal Han Chinese oppression in Tibet!

(Say whut? Nothing-to-see-there-move-along.)

I don't know why the Red Chinese even bother to send out their brown-nosed army of propagandists, but they do. Maybe just in case George Bush reads a newspaper? Anyhow, today's propagandist rants in the New York Times today, here. But don't waste your energy linking.

Basically, it says that since the big bad Red Chinese are so very big and so very bad, the Tibetans should just give up and die, and the rest of their world-wide supporters should just shut up and die, too, because we little mosquitoes are just so um you know so annoying.

O-kay! If you say so, Patrick!



(Why did the New York Times even bother? Because they can't publish Judy Miller's tripe anymore, so they've gotta have someone to fill the tripe quota?)

DailyKos Is a Nappy-Headed Ho?

Amazing how fast a so-called liberal Dem site turns into fascist Freeperville, is it not?

Kos commenter Alegre calls out the evil evil-doers:

If you're sick of the way Hillary - a good and decent Democrat - has been vilified and attacked... if you've EVER recommended one of my dairies on this or any other site then please join me in this effort. Let's take a stand here and now and tell the world we will no longer remain silent in the face of the sexism, anger, irrational hate, lies and attacks against Hillary. Nor will we add to the bottom line of a site that continues to lead the charge in fueling it.

Yes, then Alegre asks for Kossacks to join the strike in via comments. And Markos disables the comments.

America, America, God shed his grace on thee.

Link here.
-----
UPDATE:
Tom Watson on the flight from DKos:

But much of it comes from boorish, Stalinist behavior online - the kind of "you're either with us or against us" attitude we saw so much of when the Bush crowd was flying high. It's disturbing, particularly because so many of the targets are women. This is not the Democratic Party many of us have worked for; this is not the progressive blogosphere we've supported. Without blaming the worthy candidacy of Senator Obama in any way, this is not a progressive movement - it's a harsh, echo-filled politburo bathed in faux post-racial hosannas and the gauzy camera lens of "hope."

More of Tom Watson's commentary on the strike, here.

UPDATE II:
This campaign is bringing all our proud American sexist fratboys proudly out of the closet.
Don't miss Hitchens telling us why broads just ain't funny, here.

UPDATE III:
Blogtopia responds with The Confluence.

Can we expect a "Strange Fruit" Watermelon Tap-Dance Shuffle from Oliphant Anytime Soon?

I'm guessing -- with apologies to Project Runway's Heidi Klum, that -- racism is still OUT, while sexism is still IN!


(Oh, and don't forget about this charmer from Andrew "Low On Testosterone" Sullivan, who writes a whole long swiftboating of Hillary, based on the premise that she IS her husband, and they are ONE! Barf-inspiration, here.


On TNR, at The G Spot, here.

The 3 AM Phone Call: President Obama Calls Hillary

Thank you , SNL.

Clip here.

Robert Reich to HRC: Shut Up, Bitch

Robert Reich has been one of my heroes.

I couldn't believe that he would write this, but he did.

Sigh.

Yes, it's fine for Obamists to trash Hillary, but uppity gurrl Hillary should just give up and shut up. For the good of the party, see?

Obama Campaign & Karl "Miss Piggy" Rove Are ONE: Hillary is a "Monster". Oh my.

With friend like these, who needs Miss Piggy.

Full story here.

Acne-Faced Fratboys on Fox: Sexism is Just So Mainstream in America's Media Whore Media

Hat tip to MediaMatters:


From the March 5 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

LUNTZ: You guys -- how many of you saw Saturday Night Live? Did it humanize Hillary Clinton to you, or did it ridicule her?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't think it ridiculed her at all. I think that, you know, she is who she is, and that's, you know, how she stands for, so --

LUNTZ: Do you think she's electable?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think she's very electable. You know, a lot of the hot stuff about Hillary is, you know, people -- since she's a woman running for the highest position in the world, she has to, you know, position herself in a place where she can be electable, and I think that she is. She has come out hard against a lot of issues, and as we just saw in this clip, you know, it's easy to see that she really is sincere in everything that she says.

LUNTZ: Andrew?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, but sound bites and tears or not, there's one person qualified to be the commander in chief, and that's John McCain. You know, the other candidates have this myth of experience, and McCain is the one with real experience.

LUNTZ: And by the way, Hillary Clinton would not be the first female president. Jimmy Carter was the first female president.

ALISYN CAMEROTA (co-host): Hey. All right, we have so much more with all the students from Ohio University. We'll be right back.

Because being a female is in itself an insult.

Thanks, Fox.

Thanks to all of America's splendid media whores.

Joe Wilson Draws the Curtain Back: Obama the Wizard of Oz? Uh -- NOT

A brilliant piece.

A scary piece.

It makes Obama look not merely inexperienced, but stupid.

Dangerously stupid.

Link here.



Update:

I don't have time to comment, but if you're looking for some nice fresh new juicy sexism, it's here for free at WaPo.

MSNBC by SNL: The Boyz Against the Gurrl

This latest clip is hilarious -- but will it put really Misogynist Sophomore News Broadcast Cablefrat boys to shame?

Nah.

Jack Nicholson: Let's Explode Karl Rove's Hillary-Hating Propaganda Filter! Right Now!

Jack Nicholson tells it like it is, here.

Obama Lauds Rummy

Oops.

SNL on MediaObamania

Great clip from SNL, here.

Tina Fey: Not Just Good, But -- Bitchin!

2. bitchin


Not just great, but bad-ass fine.

As in: Dude, look at that bitchin '32 roadster with the black pinstriping. Also written bitchen or bitchin' - and ALWAYS pronounced BIT-chin.

Tina Fey says it all, here.

Texas Debate: Sharp Wonkette Is Progressive, Presidential

The Aussies got it right.

Via the Sydney Morning Herald:
Plucky Clinton gives Texas her best shot

February 23, 2008

WITH Texas shaping as her Alamo - a victory or death struggle - Hillary Clinton grabbed the last word in the latest CNN debate held in the Lone Star state.

For the first time in weeks the audience on Thursday night glimpsed the real Hillary Clinton: a determined, feisty, woman, who has the toughness to be president.

The question that prompted it: "What's the biggest crisis you've faced?"

"Oh," said Senator Clinton, looking heavenward, as the audience suddenly straightened in their seats. "Well, I think everybody here knows I've lived through some crises and some challenging moments in my life."

She was interrupted by applause. "People often ask me, 'How do you do it? You know, how do you keep going?' And I just have to shake my head in wonderment, because with all of the challenges that I've had, they are nothing compared to what I see happening in the lives of Americans every single day."

She talked of injured veterans she had visited in a rehabilitation centre in Texas. And how her faith had called her to serve the American people. [And won a standing ovation from the very pro-Obama crowd.]

But she had trumped her opponent, Barack Obama, who had just answered the same question, but did not light up the audience.

Sharp Wonkette vs. Timid Centrist: Joe Wilson Backs Hillary

Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson:

With the emergence of Sen. John McCain as the presumptive Republican nominee, the choice for the Democrats in the 2008 presidential election now shifts to who is best positioned to beat him, in what promises to be a more hard-fought campaign -- and perhaps a nastier one -- than Democrats anticipated.

Sen. Barack Obama's promise of transformation and an end of partisan politics has its seductive appeal. The Bush-Cheney era, after all, has been punctuated by smear campaigns, character assassinations and ideological fervor.

Nobody dislikes such poisonous partisanship, especially in foreign policy, more than I do. I am one of very few Foreign Service officers who have served as ambassador in the administrations of both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, yet I have spent the past four years fighting a concerted character assassination campaign orchestrated by the George W. Bush White House.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of the few who fully understood the stakes in that battle. Time and again, she reached out to my wife -- outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson -- and me to remind us that as painful as the attacks were, we simply could not allow ourselves to be driven from the public square by bullying. To do so would validate the radical right's thesis that the way to win debates is to demonize opponents, taking full advantage of the natural desire to avoid confrontation, even if it means yielding on substantive issues. Hillary knew this from experience, having spent the better part of the past 20 years fighting the Republican attack machine. She is a fighter.

But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being "disingenuous," to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, "The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you." Then one of McCain's aides said of Obama, "Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."

Mr. McCain was insultingly dismissive but successful in intimidating his inexperienced colleague. Thus, in his one face-to-face encounter with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama failed to stand his ground.

What gives us confidence Mr. Obama will be stronger the next time he faces Mr. McCain, a seasoned political fighter with extensive national security credentials? Even more important, what special disadvantages does Mr. Obama carry into this contest on questions of national security?

How will Mr. Obama answer Mr. McCain about his careless remark about unilaterally bombing Pakistan -- perhaps blowing up an already difficult relationship with a nuclear state threatened by Islamic extremists? How will Mr. Obama respond to charges made by the Kenyan government that his campaigning activities in Kenya in support of his distant cousin running for president there made him "a stooge" and constituted interference in the politics of an important and besieged ally in the war on terror?

How will he answer charges that his desire for unstructured personal summits without preconditions with a host of America's adversaries, from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Kim Jong Il, would be little more than premature capitulation?

Senator Obama claims superior judgment on the war in Iraq based on one speech given as a state legislator representing the most liberal district in Illinois at an anti-war rally in Chicago, and in so doing impugns the integrity of those who were part of the debate on the national scene. In mischaracterizing the debate on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force as a declaration of war, he implicitly blames Democrats for George Bush's war of choice. Obama's negative attack line does not conform to the facts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I should know. I was among the most prominent anti-war voices at the time -- and never heard about or from then Illinois State Senator Obama.

George Bush made it clear publicly when lobbying for the bill that he wanted it not to go to war but to give him the leverage he needed to go to the United Nations and secure intrusive inspections of Saddam's suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction sites. Who could argue with that goal? Colin Powell made the same case individually to Senators in the run up to the vote, including to Senator Clinton. It is not credible that Senator Obama would not have succumbed to Secretary Powell's arguments had he been in Washington at the time. Why not? Obama himself suggested so in 2004. "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know." He also told the Chicago Tribune in 2004: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." According to press reports, Powell is now an informal adviser to Mr. Obama.

In his tendentious attack, Obama never mentions that Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, declared that without the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force the inspectors would never have been allowed into Iraq. Hillary's approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let the inspectors complete their work while building an international coalition. Hillary's was the road untaken. The betrayal of the American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his party's, not the Democrats.

Contrary to the myth of his campaign, 2008 is not the year for transcendental transformation. The task for the next administration will be to repair the damage done by eight years of radical rule. And the choice for Americans is clear: four more years of corrupt Republican rule, senseless wars, evisceration of the Constitution, emptying of the national treasury -- or rebuilding our government and our national reputation, piece by piece. Obama's overtures to Republicans, or "Obamacans" as the Senator calls them, is a substitute for true national unity based on a substantive program. His marginal appeals have marginally helped him in caucuses in Republican states that Democrats won't win in the general election. But his vapid rhetoric will not withstand the winds of November. His efforts will be correctly seen by the Republican leadership as a sign of weakness to be exploited. While disaffected Democrats may long for comity in our politics after years of being harangued and belittled by the right wing echo chamber, the Rovians currently promoting Obama are looking to destroy him should he become the nominee. Obama's claim to float uniquely above the fray and avoid polarization will be short-lived. He is no less mortal than any other Democrat -- Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry -- all untouched at the beginning of their campaigns and all mauled by the end. We should never forget recent history.

In order to effect practical change against a determined adversary, we do not need a would-be philosopher-king but a seasoned gladiator who understands the fight Democrats will face in the fall campaign and in governing.

Theodore Roosevelt once commented, "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly."

If he were around today, TR might be speaking of the woman in the arena. Hillary Clinton has been in that arena for a generation. She is one of the few to have defeated the attack machine that is today's Republican Party and to have emerged stronger. She is deeply knowledgeable about governing; she made herself into a power in the Senate; she is respected by our military; and she never flinches. She has never been intimidated, not by any Republican -- not even John McCain.

Barack Obama claims to represent the future, but it should be increasingly evident that he is not the man for this moment, especially with Mr. McCain's arrival. We've seen a preview of that contest already. It was a TKO.