I wrote yesterday in comments at Democracy Lover's blog:
I . . . think that it is far too dangerous to go after Hillary Clinton from the left. That feeds right-wing talking points that are based less on a rational consideration of her policy positions and more on some kind of hatred and fear rooted in all sorts of Freudian overtones. This is why, while I disagree with her, and think she would be, at best, the least-worst choice among the major candidates, I will not talk against her, or refuse to vote for her should she get the nomination. . . .
The next Presidential election, like the previous two, is among the most important in our nation's history. The election of any of the Republicans, but most especially Rudy Giuliani, would only be a disaster. As I stated above, Clinton's election would be my least favorite choice, but still be far better than anything the Republicans could offer (as a side note, please notice just how abysmal the choices among the Republican candidates are; that should tell us all we need to know about the current state of the Republican Party).
If you are wondering what is so awful about Dowd's column, here is the opener:
It’s an odd cultural inversion.
The French first lady, the one in a role where wives traditionally ignored and overlooked their husbands’ peccadilloes for the greater gain of keeping their marriages intact and running the Élysée Palace, has fled her gilded perch, acting all-American and brimming over with feelings and feminist impulses.
The former American first lady, the one who’s supposed to be brimming over with feminist impulses, has ignored and overlooked her husband’s peccadilloes for the greater gain of keeping her marriage intact, as she tries to return to the gilded perch and run the White House.
Cécilia Sarkozy acts so American, while Hillary Clinton acts so French.
Combing a supercilious obsession with how horrid "the French" are, with the disdain only hauteur can bring to Sen. Clinton's management of her private affairs (no pun intended), I grieve that the person who wrote this column has an elite perch on the op-ed pages of the most important newspaper in the country, offering us drivel like this in place of serious commentary.
In short, I do not think that piling on Sen. Clinton with attacks from her left flank help her out. Indeed, they only feed the right-wing hate-machine that already considers her something of an anti-Christ figure. The mainstream media, in the persons of caricatures such as Dowd, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, and others, continually use right-wing talking points, and often subliminally anti-woman, odd, Freudian-like hysteria to go after her; why in the world should we, right now, add to this kind of nonsense?
Things are far too precarious right now, and our public discourse infected with far too much venom for me to rest comfortably with the self-assured position that my own disagreements with Sen. Clinton exist on some higher plane than those on the right. By pouring blood in the water surrounding her, only more sharks, already circling, will come and feed.
Perhaps this is evidence of my own rather calculating political cowardice. I don't know. All I know is I do not wish to be even one more tiny voice in the swelling chorus of those who go after Sen. Clinton.
Scarecrow at Fire Dog Lake has more.
