'The Hillary Clinton Softening'

Getty Images

Today for a change, I have decided to channel Glenn Reynolds @ Instapundit, I am simply going to share with you a great article in it's entirety, written by John Fund, published today in the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page. Michelle Malkin has it too.

"Political pundits speculate endlessly, about a possible Hillary-Condi match-up in 2008. Thus the mood was positively giddy at last week's parties celebrating "Commander in Chief," ABC's new series about a female president who assumes office after the incumbent dies."

Now I will simply say "Really?", "the show is softening up the country for Hillary".

Ooohh, I am really getting to like this. It's really tempting, no writing the articles myself, no struggling with themes, no sleepless nights with my husband finding me slumped over the computer, with my nails deeply embedded into the keyboard. Having to be extracted from a 'rigor mortis' position, bent up double like a hernia patient at my desk. Sleep, what an exciting prospect!

"The series pits Academy Award-winner Geena Davis against the patriarchal world of national politics until her "You Go, Girl!" attitude puts to rest the doubts of her many detractors. The creator of "Commander in Chief," Rod Lurie, is apparently trying to broaden the show's appeal by promising that he won't be using it as a soapbox for his admittedly liberal views. He is quick to note that Ms. Davis isn't playing a Democrat. Instead she is an independent who landed on a Republican ticket in order to offset a conservative candidate's low approval rating among women.

The Clinton Administration 'Deaf Dumb Blind' Approach, well it does run in the family....

Mr. Lurie insists that red-state viewers need not shun the show. He admits that he "can't write to a belief system that I can't swallow myself," but he says that he has hired some conservative writers to make up for his deficit. Not that a balanced approach was evident at last week's series-celebrating parties, in Washington and New York, hosted by the feminist White House Project.

Marie Wilson, the founder of the White House Project, told attendees how she struggled for years to convince Hollywood to do a show about a woman in the Oval Office. "We offered a prize, we offered to pay for a script. But they still didn't think it would interest people," she lamented. "Then like out of some Zen moment they suddenly decided the time was now." And maybe the time is now: The latest Rasmussen Poll finds that more than three-quarters of voters are comfortable with the idea of a female president. All the Hillary-Condi talk clearly means something.

But Condi had nothing to do with the conversations at the White House Project parties. Attendees made it abundantly clear that they see the show as a liberal fantasy. Much as "The West Wing" portrayed the White House that liberals wish Bill Clinton had run, "Commander in Chief" will look forward to something resembling a Hillary Clinton presidency, or so its fans presume.

Getty Images
'The Softening up the Country for Hillary' Moment

After the Washington premiere, Steve Cohen, a writer for the series who was Mrs. Clinton's deputy White House communications director, was mobbed by the senator's fans. One of the few Republicans in attendance, Rep. Katherine Harris of Florida, noted that the show "is softening up the country for Hillary." In a postscreening panel discussion, Eleanor Clift of Newsweek agreed that "Commander in Chief" would help Sen. Clinton. "It's so idealistic, calling us to a higher purpose," she told the audience.

Idealistic to some, stereotypical to others. We'll let the critics decide. Suffice it to say, for now, that the first episode involved an effort by the dying (Republican) president to shunt aside the vice president (Ms. Davis) so that a malevolently conservative House speaker can take over. (Right, that would happen.) A member of the vice president's staff says that the speaker stands for "the return of book burning, creationism in the classroom and invading every Third World country." The statement is not meant as a compliment. For balance, the new President Allen will supposedly have a few views that Mr. Lurie says are conservative, like abstinence education--although even Hillary has endorsed that one.

Mr. Lurie acknowledges that his TV series is a direct descendant of his film "The Contender," which starred Joan Allen as a Democratic senator who becomes a piñata for conservatives during her confirmation hearings to replace a deceased vice president. This movie was such an egregiously crude version of the "virtuous liberal vs. conservative slime-ball" genre that Gary Oldman, one of the movie's stars, called it "a piece of propaganda" designed to help Al Gore. The movie was released a month before the 2000 election.

Mr. Lurie recognizes that his show should stay "centered" to have the best chance at commercial success. But even he acknowledges the temptation to tug left. Last year he told the Baltimore Sun that "the world has become so partisan--and I'm as guilty of this as the next guy--that there is always a dark side of the force." President Allen, meet Darth Vader."

For the Condi Rice fans check out my friend Frank Di Salle @ Condipundit:

"Our state chair Shari Demers has been bombarded with requests for interviews, (over 25) since our ad played on “Commander in Chief” in New Hampshire. In fact, it was the highest rated/most viewed TV show that night in the state. ABC news and Good Morning America also gave us a bit of broadcast time since we acknowleged, with our ad buy, just how important the show was to create a positive image for a woman in the role as president.

Rumor has it that a certain New York Senator is miffed at the huge media blitz which erupted over our ad on ABC. Dear me, any political ad from any other woman with the support of the people could have played on the premiere. Unless, of course, it is some dopey looking cartoon passing itself off as a commercial."

California Conservative thinks that "Hillary might use the “You go, girl” for her campaign message. Depends on the ratings" and the latest agenda.

Professor Bainbridge is calling in the Roberts promise.

Comments

[MARK PATTERSON]

"judeo christian",THAT IS TRULY A OXYMORON. most christians,especially the fervent EVANGELICAL "BORN AGAINS" truly do believe all jews are doomed, THEY ARE FLYING RIGHT INTO HELL BECAUSE THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS,RIGHT. i have some friends who believe and believed in this sort of "faith",many "christians" because of certain phrases in the bible believe they must FIRST PRAY TO JESUS,TO GET TO GOD. so jews,moslems,hindu's,buddhists,CANNOT EVER BE "SAVED",THEY DO NOT PRAY TO JESUS FIRST,ECT. so what is this "judeo-christian" stuff,i do not comprehend it.also most jews believe "christians" are not really saved either,go figure. many religions which are christian think each other is "doomed",example the catholic versus lutheran,mormon versus jehovah's witness,it goes on and on.

[russ willliams]

NbyNW,

For the sake of argument, I'll concede to your statistics again, but consisder this: If the U.S. is such a crummy place to live, why are people dying (literally) to get here? What other country in the world does more for more people who don't live here ... all the time? If we got rid of religion (churches) in America, who would take care of the orphans, rehabilitate criminals, feed the hungry, and rebuild communities following natural disasters? The government? Puleeese!

[Kenny Pierce]

>
I am Anglican also by the way, and have a freakish fascination for statistics
>

After my own heart! [grinning]

Next you'll be telling me you like Samuel Smith's Nut Brown Ale.

[North by Northwest]

Well Kenny,the answer to your last question is 'touché'; I dislike the French, the Dutch are too stoned and generally strange, and I love America. I am Anglican also by the way, and have a freakish fascination for statistics. No offense taken,I was just putting it out there, but now I'd like to ponder a little on this one, and come back to you.

[Kenny Pierce]

As a purely anecdotal reaction to the study referred to above, I ask this simple question. Where would you rather live: France, the Netherlands, or America?

[Kenny Pierce]

NxN,

You wouldn’t have any way of knowing this, unless you happen to share my highly idiosyncratic interest in the abuse of statistics; but the particular study Ruthie G. is referring to is SO bad that I’m already familiar with it, as it has been gleefully lampooned on various sites with particular interest in exposing statistical fraud. The best treatment of it comes from the “Magic Statistics” blog, which has a two-parter here and here. The guy is not a qualified sociologist, nor a trained statistician – he is an mediocre paleontologist who has gotten all worked up over “intelligent design” (because he considers that anybody who leaves room for belief in God is not a “real” scientist). So he decided he was going to prove that society is better off without religious people. The howlers in his “study” (for lack of a better word) are ROTFLOL-funny to people who actually know anything about statistics. The guy appears to know just about as much about statistics as my neighbors’ Chihuahua, which is something of a coincidence since they sound about equally silly when yapping.

I grant you that, strictly speaking, The Journal of Religion and Society is an “American academic journal,” but it’s hardly the sort of journal to which a reputable sociologist would rush to submit a manuscript. Let’s just say that peer review of papers in sociology is not this particular journal’s strong point, and leave it at that. Or no, let's not leave it at that; let's quote the Magic Statistics dude:

The Journal of Religion and Society (JRS), where Mr Paul’s paper was published, is apparently willing to publish articles contributed by authors with no expertise or qualifications in their area of study. The table of contents of the current issue of the JRS lists affiliations for most contributors, but Mr Paul is listed only as:Gregory S. Paul, Baltimore, Maryland. One could conclude that he does not hold a relevant position at an academic or other research institution. In view of the poor quality of Mr Paul’s analysis, I’d be interested to know if the JRS is a refereed journal, or do they publish just about anything they receive?

An enterprising blogger named John Williams at Thudfactor went so far as to e-mail the Journal of Religion and Society to ask if they had any further information about Mr Paul’s experience and credentials. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, but still I was astonished to read that the JRS knows nothing about this fellow--except that the e-mail address he provided to the journal is no longer in service. (Didn’t they even get a mailing address from this guy?)...

And on top of all that -- yes, there's yet more -- you also wouldn’t have any way of knowing this unless you were (like me) Anglican or else a regular reader of the Times’s religion section, but Ruth Gledhill is notorious in Anglican circles. I can say with some confidence that you would be hard pressed to find a consistently dimmer bulb. I have no doubt that Ms. G. was honestly impressed with the study; for that matter, if the study had been produced by the aforesaid Chihuahua Ruthie would probably have been impressed, as long as Poochie’s conclusions were sufficiently politically correct.

Again, I’m not slamming you, NxN; I just happen to be an Anglican with an oddball interest in bad statistics; so that this study and Ms. Gledhill are both part of my obscure subculture. If the study actually had any validity, it would indeed be a fabulous discussion-starter, and it’s not your fault that the study is worthless – you didn’t write it, after all.

[North by Northwest]

Would you first save the dog you love or a stranger if both were drowning?

My daughter of 6 1/2 didn't hesitate and picked the dog... Is she still too young? I would like to add the following to this discussion as it has certainly rattled my cage:

The answer depends on your value system.

One of the most obvious and significant differences between secular and Judeo-Christian values concerns human worth. One of the great ironies of secular humanism is that it devalues the worth of human beings. As ironic as it may sound, the God-based Judeo-Christian value system renders man infinitely more valuable and significant than any humanistic value system.

The reason is simple: Only if there is a God who created man is man worth anything beyond the chemicals of which he is composed. Judeo-Christian religions hold that human beings are created in the image of God. If we are not, we are created in the image of carbon dioxide. Which has a higher value is not difficult to determine.

Contemporary secular society has rendered human beings less significant than at any time in Western history.

Dennis Prager's definition is helpful: What does "Judeo-Christian" mean?

The United States of America is the only country in history to have defined itself as Judeo-Christian. While the Western world has consisted of many Christian countries and consists today of many secular countries, only America has called itself Judeo-Christian. America is also unique in that it has always combined secular government with a society based on religious values.
But what does "Judeo-Christian" mean? We need to know. Along with the belief in liberty – as opposed to, for example, the European belief in equality, the Muslim belief in theocracy, and the Eastern belief in social conformity – Judeo-Christian values are what distinguish America from all other countries. That is why American coins feature these two messages: "In God we trust" and "Liberty."
Yet, for all its importance and its repeated mention, the term is not widely understood. It urgently needs to be because it is under ferocious assault, and if we do not understand it, we will be unable to defend it. And if we cannot defend it, America will become as amoral as France, Germany, Russia, et al.

But this certainly stands in stark contrast to a recent paper, published earlier this week in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal. The Times in Britain reported Tuesday Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'

RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today. [...] It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.
[...]
“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”
[...]
The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul [the author] said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “ uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.
[...]
He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added.
[...]
“The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.

“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”

Now there is some fruit for thought...

[Kenny Pierce]

Just a brief little comment: in politics, "Judeo-Christian" might as well mean "conservative Christian." The ethos is Judeo-Christian, but until the refounding of the nation of Israel it had been almost two millenia since "government doing the will of God" had done anything to Jews except kill them. This country was at its inception a Deist/Christian nation; but it has never been a Jewish nation and the Jewish people have largely known it. So Jewish American politics have never been about religion in the sense that the Religious Right attempts to advance a self-consciously religious agenda through force of government arms.

The Jewish tradition seems to lend itself to the sort of social consciousness that supports government intervention, not for religious purposes, but for social purposes. Therefore Jewish people for the last century have consistently voted heavily for the Democratic Party. Attempts on the part of conservative Christians to appeal to "the Judeo-Christian ethic" as a reason to have the government support the aims of the Religious Right, are largely in vain, because Jewish history makes it all too plain that in the mouth of a Christian armed with the government's sword, "the Judeo-Christian ethic" seems usually to involve killing Jewish people.

In private morality? Sure, there tends to be a similarity in moral codes. In government where Jews perceive themselves as in the majority (that is, Israel)? Sure, throw the whole force of the government behind the Orthodox religious agenda. But in America, where Jews know that as long as America is America the goyim will outnumber the Jewish folks? Good luck getting Jewish people to support religion-by-government, which could turn against them at any time.

And I would also point out that the Jewish version of Judeo-Christian is heavily Family-oriented while the Christian version is heavily Fact-oriented, which militates against support of enforcing religious beliefs on everybody equally, except that I don't want you guys to get tired of hearing about those religious metaphors every time you turn around.

Finally, what people seem to have in mind when they use the phrase "Judeo-Christian" in a political context, has a heckuva lot more Lockian British influence in it than Jewish...that is, the British influence is direct and recent, while the Jewish influence is indirect and mediated through the Christian and British influence. I personally think "Anglo-Christian" is a much more accurate term than Judeo-Christian -- all of Latin America, for example, has at least as much Jewish and Christian influence on its culture as does America, but the political culture that results is radically, radically, radically different from the culture of the Anglosphere. And besides, as has already been pointed out in more than one post, Jewish people overwhelmingly decline to be part of the "Judeo-Christian" political movement, which in itself seems to imply that "Judeo-Christian" is an ill-chosen term.

[Alexandra]

I don't know whether Russ meant to say "Yeah" or "Yay!", but may I say "Yay!!!" to both of you.

For me what is crucial in this issue is the (final) discovery how prejudiced the decidedly left leaning actually are! Having now participated in a few discussions (and Frank you have been with me on a few) in the comments sections such as this, the venom which is spat at me for being a 'white conservative female' is extraordinary. Whatever I say is misinterpreted and misconstrued and pre-judged and misunderstood, in the premise before I have ever uttered a word. Then when I actually say something where I dare express my non-racist views (as an example discussing the whole 'articulate' is a racist word on Oliver Willis site, Russ see my post 'You just Need to Walk Away' and the comments section), I am immediately branded a racist! So when I say something positive it's turned into a negative, when I have views on democracy (for which my family has fought for all their lives) I am laughed at because apparently conservatives have no idea what that word actually means (being successful at a few attempts to re-write history seems to give the left ownership of that word too).

And this whole obsession with sexist comments, and the definition of...is just simply beyond me...

I was born in Europe and educated in England, and for me I always find this intensity and aggression around the divisions in politics difficult to grasp, and fall into the trap every time. I guess I'll learn the hard way. There is no other media that will sharpen my teeth as quickly as this one, or give me 'lock jaw'! LOL!!!

I am however concerned that the Judeo-Christian values that we hold so dear are being crushed by this left wing intensity full of prejudice, attempting to do exactly what you Russ are saying: "...replace mainstream religion with Human Secularism, which is hostile to the idea of God, denies individual responsibility, and would have us adopt a culture of personal indulgence".

[fd10801]

Thank you, Russell

Well said! And I don't think we disagree!

However, was that "Yea!" a "Yeah" or a "Yay!"

I crave approval =:-}

[russ willliams]

North by Northwest,
Your statistics seem to be well documented and accurate, but in every corner of America, conservative/Judeo-Christian candidates are winning elections. Go figure. Your statistics fail to account for one important truth: Evangelicals aren't black, white, yellow, red, poor, rich, or anything other than evangelical. This group of voters, hard to define as your referenced article illustrated, but nonetheless, skewed the vote in the last two major elections ... despite the statistical analysis and pundit spin. Truth trumps statistics every time.

[russ willliams]

Alexandra, et. al. , I didn't realize such a firestorm would erupt with such an overstated comment. To respond ... could it be said better than fd10801's post? (yea!) But since the opportunity exists, I would add that the person who best fits the Right Wing/Judeo-Christian profile is one whose faith is placed somewhere other than in a governmental entity. When one makes the government a god, then it becomes very easy to rely on that god to solve problems (left leaning). When one adopts a doctrine of utopianism, it becomes easy to blame others for a range of social and cultural issues (left leaning). When one denies that evil exists in the hearts of men, it becomes easy to blame crime, poverty, and even terrorism on external forces, i.e. foriegn and domestic policy, political parties, economic status, ambition, etc. (left leaning).

The Left Leaning agenda, I would argue, is radical at it's very foundation, whereby the goal is to reform the value system upon which our government was established. (Don't even try to argue that those responsible for the birth of our nation were not Christian. The facts are against you.)
The framers of our highly successful form of government declared that individual rights are maintained and tempered through individual responsibility, they demanded the confrontation of evil and wrongdoing with the agressive use of force, and were adamant concerning the freedom to pursue and propogate religion without the incumbrance of government, which, by-the-way, was the original intent of the separation of church and state doctrine. We who lean right simply want to preserve those precepts. We see these as fundamental to our success as a culture and as a nation.

The problem for the left is that their agenda has one giant obstacle: Our National Heritage. To ovecome this obstacle they will have to rewrite history ... which is being accomplished at a level that should alarm all intelligent and honest Americans. They have to rewrite or reinterpret law ... primarily through activist judges, and they have to replace mainstream religion with Human Secularism, which is hostile to the idea of God, denies individual responsibility, and would have us adopt a culture of personal indulgence. Tell me I'm wrong.

R. Russell Williams
Decidedly Right Leaning

[fd10801]

Perhaps, to be more accurate I should have introduced the idea of a spectrum. We don't have Right and Left Parties in this country, even though there are states with Liberal and Conservative Parties, such as mine (NY). A few elections back, the Liberal Party in NYC endorsed Rudy Giuliani for Mayor because of some falling out with the local Dems.

To return to the spectrum: It would probably be more accurate to put those values I characterized as Judaeo - Christian on the right of the spectrum at the same distance from the center as the values I characterized as Left wing values.

Thus, like a Bell Curve, the vast majority of voters would be found between the two ends, and a very small amount of voters would be found outside of each end.

If you look at the curve in the link, the red and green areas account for 95%. This also helps to explain why elections have become so close.

According to your (the Bliss) survey, "Centrists" are more likely to identify themselves as Democrats. By my reckoning, that would make no sense, unless one - half of the "centrists" identified themselves as Republicans, as well.

I hope that clarifies my statements for you.

[North by Northwest]

fd10801,

May I please ask for some clarification on the characterisation of 'Left Wing' and 'Right Wing'. In most of these exchanges, it would seem, that being a 'left-winger' politically precludes adhering to traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and values.

Isn't it in fact a common misconception, that all, or at least the overwhelming majority of Jews and Evangelical Christians vote politically 'right-wing', i.e. Republican. These numbers certainly seem to suggest so:

The Solomon Group analysis took a new look [April 2005] at polling data and concluded that 77% of Jewish Americans voted for Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry, an increase from previous results. Not only did Senator Kerry receive most of the Jewish vote, but a large majority of Jews, up to 74%, continue to identify as Democrats. In fact, these results were reflected among both genders and across all age groups.

And as to the Evangelicals, read "Evangelicals impossible to pinpoint" as well as comments relating to the article posted on the Democratic Party's official website:

This certainly helped me to get a handle on the numbers:

Traditionalists: They are characterized by efforts to maintain traditional beliefs and practices in the face of a changing society. Predominantly Republican (70 percent, compared with 10 percent independent and 20 percent Democrat), this group of Protestants with well-developed, conservative political connections and ambitions is closest to the popular notion of the "religious right." They represent about 12.6 percent of the population, or 28 million adults, according to last year's National Survey of Religion and Politics by the Bliss Institute of the University of Akron in Ohio.

Centrists and modernists: They are less tradition-oriented and more willing to adapt their beliefs and practices. They are more likely to identify themselves as Democrats or independents than as Republicans. They represent about 13.7 percent of the population, according to the Bliss survey, or about 30 million people.

Black evangelicals: Most of the nation's 21 million black Protestants fit the evangelical definition, but their politics are the reverse of the white traditionalists: 71 percent identify themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans, according to the Bliss survey.

Hispanic evangelicals: Many of the 6 million Hispanic Protestants are converts from Catholicism, and they skew slightly toward Democratic politics.

Your thoughts please!

[fd10801]

Russ, what do you think is in the left leaning agenda that attacks the Judeo-Christian values? Do you think it is simply because there are alternatives presented which they lean towards, or do you think that Christian faith is simply too Orthodox for them? -- Alexandra

I'd love to answer that question:
First and foremost: Judaeo - Christian values are absolute; left - wing values are relativistic.
Second, Judaeo - Christian values are oriented towards community living. What the left wing calls "pressure to conform" the right wing calls tradition.
Third, while Judaeo - Christian values seem universal (i.e., 'small c' "catholic") to left wingers they are parochial.
Finally (for now - there are more), Judaeo - Christians seem, to me, profound; to left wingers they are unsophisticated and anti - intellectual (as witness, the Creationist / Intelligent Design vs. evolution debate). Apparently, they've never read G.K. Chesterton, Malcolm Muggeridge, or C.S. Lewis, giant intellects, and Christians, all.

For more on the psyche of liberals, see James Burnham's Suicide of the West, and Thomas Sowell' Vision of the Anointed.

[fd10801]

Thanks very much for the plug.

I can't wait for a Hillary - Condi match up. Have you heard of the peanut butter bread -- falling cat perpetual motion machine?

A slice of bread with peanut butter on it always lands on the peanut butter side, right?

Cats always land on their feet, right?

So... Tie a piece with peanut butter on it to the back of a cat, peanut butter side up... It'll keep spinning and spinning and spinning and spinning...

Similarly, put a liberal in a voting booth November 2008:

Wife of former President Bill (blessed be his name) Clinton -- intelligent black woman -- Wife of former President Bill (blessed be his name) Clinton -- intelligent black woman -- Wife of former President Bill (blessed be his name) Clinton -- intelligent black woman -- Wife of former President Bill (blessed be his name) Clinton -- intelligent black woman -- Wife of former President Bill (blessed be his name) Clinton -- intelligent black woman -- Wife of former President Bill (blessed be his name) Clinton -- intelligent black woman --

I can't wait! Hehe

[Alexandra]

Russ, what do you think is in the left leaning agenda that attacks the Judeo-Christian values? Do you think it is simply because there are alternatives presented which they lean towards, or do you think that Christian faith is simply too Orthodox for them?

[russ willliams]

Yes, The country is being softened for the Hillary run in the next election ... no doubt about it. Anyone who would deny this either has no political savvy or is being disingenuous.
I'm hoping it backfires ... demonstrating to America not what a Woman would bring to the White House, but what a decidedly Left Leaning agenda would bring ... i.e, a pacifist approash to terrorism, and a continued assault on Judeo-Christian values.

russ williams
Glendale, AZ

[Kenny Pierce]

I don't blame anybody who doesn't like P.J. For that matter, I often enjoy Ann Coulter and Molly Ivins as well (I've thought of Dubya as "Shrub," i.e., "the little Bush" ever since I first heard Molly refer to him as such), and I had a great time listening to Jon Stewart until, as some very insightful person pointed out a while back, he stopped playing for laughs and started playing for cheers. But I certainly don't blame anyone who dislikes the more merciless regions on the humor map.

I like P.J. more than Ann and Molly, though, because P.J. every so often makes fun of himself in a way that shows you that his mind is still rather more open than are Ann's, Molly's, Maher's, Rush's, etc. P.J. still occasionally surprises me with an opinion I wouldn't have expected to come from his direction. That hasn't happened with the rest of that crew in a long time.

[Alexandra]

I have decided to tell all and sundry that I have been getting fan mail for our Kenny. He is now called 'our Kenny' because....well just because.

The Kenny Comment section is getting so popular, we will practically have to hire people to be challenging our Kenny and making sure that he is intellectually stimulated at all times to keep the pearls of wisdom flowing. Wednesday's 'Theology Matters' post now has bandwidth of its own to cater for the Kenny traffic!!!!

[Semanticleo]

Kenny;

I have read and watched P J O'Rourke and have noticed a bitterness seems to float on the water-table of his comedy routine. Can't say I enjoy his brand of humor.

[Kenny Pierce]

Before I go any further: Semanticleo, I'm not squelching your story, which is a very good one. I'm just in a silly, non-serious mood, and P.J. O'Rourke generally suits me when in that particular mood, and your story triggered a train of thought that landed in P.J.-land.

Anyway, P.J. pointed out years ago (in Parliament of Whores) that one thing most Senators and similar politicians do very, very, very well, is make sure their staff sees to it that anybody who writes to them, gets action taken. Even the crazy people; P.J. gives the example of a guy who wrote one particular Senator every week for over a year complaining that the C.I.A. was using microwaves to read his mind. Every week they very politely answered his letter. In the end it occurred to one of the staffers to suggest, still with unfailing politeness, that he try lining his hat with tinfoil. They have not heard from him since so it must have worked.

P.J. went on to say, "The Senator is genuinely interested in people. This is not necessarily a virtue. Fleas are genuinely interested in dogs."

So for most of the chapter P.J. is being his typical irreverent self. But then he gets to the end of the chapter -- and I'm going from memory here so I won't get the numbers or the wording exactly correct, only the tone and the general point -- and he wraps it up more or less like this:

--
I read the Senator's mail for a week. There were over 750 letters, complaints, requests for assistance...each one was answered promptly, politely, and wherever possible, helpfully.

There were three thank-you letters.
--

Kenny

[Alexandra]

WOW!!!!! What a story!!!! How could you not think she is incredible after that!!! Well, certainly incredibly well organized.

I had the privilege and still do, of spending private quality time with Lady Thatcher over the years. She was as Prime Minister and still is a lady of force to be reckoned with, in all aspects.

In fact the above article's first paragraph, which I edited out, was about Lady Thatcher:

"When Margaret Thatcher led Britain in the 1980s, there was much speculation about women finally breaking the glass ceiling of America's governing class. There was also much horror, in certain circles, that they might share Mrs. Thatcher's politics. It would have made an interesting TV show, a Thatcher-like figure putting some spine into her male subordinates, telling them not to go wobbly and otherwise keeping standards up."

It is about time we had a woman President, but who and when I do not know!!!

[Semanticleo]

I wish I could remember the artist who did the politcal cartoon that best describes this. Try to picture two people watching another foam at the mouth and the fellow says to the other "Why do democrats have such a programmed reaction when they hear the name 'George Bush'

The other fellow turns to him and says; "Hillary" and that guy starts foaming at the mouth.

I think this conspiracy theory is not quite as bad as the alien theology of L. Ron Hubbard, but it's close.

I know everyone has their own story about Hillary Clinton and I am no different.

About 12 years ago my ex and I were both melting down financially due to two failing businesses and had filed for bankruptcy.

It was a difficult time for us and it was taking it's toll on us and our two boys.

To make a long story into a short one, we had a problem with the Trustee and his staff who were telling us we hadn't shown up in court, we hadn't filed proper docs and such. We could not get anywhere with this bureauracy.

I wrote a letter to Hillary and within one week of sending the letter we were contacted by phone by THE TRUSTEE HIMSELF.

He made an appointment with us for the next day.

When we arrived he was beside himself. A clerk whom he had just let go had been burying paperwork. He handled our case and within two weeks our case had been discharged. We had no connections; no politcal influence. Yet this trustee asked how we knew the First Lady! That will stay with me forever.