Yeah this is risible.

Remember, Kristol also said "White women are a problem, that's, you know -- we all live with that."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806290001?f=s_search

How did this nepotism casualty get a slot on the NYT op-ed page?

I just love when liberals do this. The point is not about Kristol, its about the Democrats that keep telling uus that they do so much for women and minorities.

Just like Al Gore telling us he's all about the environment, then has his houseboat with two electrical plugs in the dock, etc.

Same with barack who pays the women in his office less then men, while McCains office the women make more then men.

He's just holding the elft accountable for their own policy positions they claim to support, Kristol doesn't claim to support then, you do. Simply practice what you preach.

Anonymous:

Sorry, no McCain points for you. By posting anonymously, like the total pussy that you are, the campaign won't know who to credit.

And by misspelling "elft," the morons presumably persuadable by your nonsense won't be able understand your comment.

Reviewing The American Prospect; I see no one put in charge after 143 days in the business.

That, after all, is the only possible explanation for Hillary Clinton not being chosen for the vice-presidency.

Exactly! And if Obama loses, it won't be because of his lack of experience or his radical leftism....it will be because he's a black man. After all, that will be the only possible explanation, won't it? I can almost hear the caterwalling now.

Bill Kristol's feminist side is so touching, though he must have forgotten the campaign Republicans thought they were going to run.

Around Memorial Day, I saw a bumper sticker on a big white truck that read: "Life's a bitch, so don't vote for one" with a photo of Hillary Clinton with a line drawn diagnonally through it.

Of course, the dude in the white truck hadn't got the message from Dittohead Central: We like Clinton now, it's the exotic half-breed we now despise.

Just a useful reminder of where the campaign would be had Hillary won the nomination.

I see the trolls are out in force today.

El Viajero writes:

Exactly! And if Obama loses, it won't be because of his lack of experience or his radical leftism....it will be because he's a black man. After all, that will be the only possible explanation, won't it? I can almost hear the caterwalling now.

He thus expertly mimics a preposterous argument put forth by a contributing editor to Bill Kristol’s rag, one Noemie Emery, who claims that white working class reluctance to support Obama is due to his (and the Democratic Party’s) stance on foreign policy, not race. (She then tops it off with a pseudo-theoretical application of the usual GOP insults and taunts to a bizarrely twisted pseudo-history of postwar America, itself untainted by empirical evidence.)

I posted a detailed response to this rot here a while ago.

Better trolls please.

Has anyone else noted that El Viajero loves to change the subject rather than answer the charge?

Surely, El Viajero has an opinion about whether Kristol is a real feminist or is just cynically raising a feminist argument for political purposes. So why doesn't he give us that opinion?

There should be a rule against hypocrisy or inconsistency charges-- you don't get to make them until you actually opine on the merits on the issue. People should be honest, and that includes conservative trolls admitting when liberals have a valid point rather than immediately switching to "you do it too".

People standing on glass ceilings shouldn't throw stones.

People should be honest...

Great! Where are the liberals' complaints about the obvious racism in the black community when the openly tell reporters that the reason why an estimated 98% of the black voters are voting race....that's right RACE. And yet, Dilan Esper et al are strangely silent.

It appears that in Dilan's eyes, one must be white to be a racist.

That about it?

The GOP has been doing the concern troll thing on equity/social justice issues throughout the Bush years. I'm thinking in particular of using the treatment of women under fundamentalist Islam as another reason to invade Afghanistan and even Iraq. I think some of them are being cynical in trying to exploit those issues for their own gain and others genuinely think it's a compelling argument that they personally believe, even while ignoring problems in countries they're less interested in invading.

And brewmn, using words like "pussy" to denigrate someone isn't exactly going to help demonstrate your feminist bona fides.

Wither Geraldine Ferraro?

Exactly! And if Obama loses, it won't be because of his lack of experience or his radical leftism....it will be because he's a black man. After all, that will be the only possible explanation, won't it? I can almost hear the caterwalling now.

That's exactly right. That's exactly how it's going to be plaid, and that will be the narrative in the end. In fact, it's likely to be the narrative no matter what happens, because the left regards pretty much every white person that isn't them (and perhaps a few close friends) to be a racist.

I don't know if Kristol's point was valid in this particular case. Maybe it wasn't. But, certainly, it's clear that many of the left aren't any better than those on the right (and arguably worse) regarding practicing what they preach when they actually have to put their money (not the tax payer's money--theirs) where their mouth is.

Obama's miserly charitable donations? It's fine for the American tax payer to "care" for the poor, but Obama himself can't be bothered. Windmill farms? Great! Get rid of that evil oil. Just, uh, not in my neighborhood. Or within 50 miles of it. And, ah, that recycling center. Same deal. I mean, I support recycling and all. Just not in my neighborhood. Or near any streets I drive down . . .

Yes, many folks on the right are hypocrites (especially our closeted homosexual politicians), but the left isn't any better, in the end. If that's Kristol's point, then, sure, I grant it. If he's saying the Democrats have a glass ceiling and that's why Hillary didn't get the nomination? I don't buy that argument at all.

Melinda writes:

I think some of them are being cynical in trying to exploit those issues for their own gain and others genuinely think it's a compelling argument that they personally believe, even while ignoring problems in countries they're less interested in invading.

I hear this a lot, but I'm not sure if I buy it. I think the vast majority of them believe the argument. Why tackle sex trafficking? Where's the oil in trying to fight the global sex trafficking industry? It's a real legitimate reason to tackle despotic regimes, and it's one they use because there is general agreement on it. Most folks on the left don't care for how radical Islam treats women, and some can even admit it's worse than how the average American husband treats his wife.

And, if we're going to end the oppression of women everywhere (or, at least, fight it), do you want to invade every country? I'm not sure we could. What's the answer, otherwise? Sending money to the despotic regimes that ends up propping them up doesn't seem to help the victims of the despots a lot. Could we be less friendly with oppressive regimes? That much I can agree with. I'd rather piss of Saudi Arabia that underwrite them, even if it meant paying more at the pump. Heck, they send most of the 9/11 hijackers here--I think we should have severed ties with Saudi Arabia. But . . . I'm in a minority on that one, I think.

El Viajero:

It appears that in Dilan's eyes, one must be white to be a racist.

Correct. Not only that, depending on circumstances, you are naturally racist and there's nothing you can do about it. Born in the south? Racist. You are. Always will be. Can't help it. Think your liberal, and you were born in the south? Still racist. Always will be. Can't help it. Like blues music? You're exploiting African-Americans. And on and on and on.

Some northern liberals helped educate me on the issue, years ago.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Kevin.

It's good to know that blacks can vote for the color of one's skin without being the dreaded RACIST, 'cause that's what's happening now.

So, what is this phenomenon called if not RACIST?

Perhaps BIGOTRY would be the term?

"Where are the liberals' complaints about the obvious racism in the black community when the openly tell reporters that the reason why an estimated 98% of the black voters are voting race....that's right RACE."

Acutally, there is a way to deter black voters from voting for a black candidate: Make sure the black candidate is a Republican.

Lynn Swann, Michael Steele and Kenneth Blackwell discovered the hard way that blacks don't vote race, blacks vote party.

If there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that racism always functions in a perfectly symmetrical manner, since blacks and whites are equally positioned in society, economics, and history.

Really racism has just been one long family feud, like the Hatfields and the McCoys. Who's to say, really, who is right and who is wrong, or who started what? The thing to do is forgive and forget. Can't we all just get along?

Great! Where are the liberals' complaints about the obvious racism in the black community when the openly tell reporters that the reason why an estimated 98% of the black voters are voting race....that's right RACE. And yet, Dilan Esper et al are strangely silent.

Before I do that, why don't you tell us what you think about whether Bill Kristol's purporting to take a feminist position in his article is sincere?

Again, you don't get to change the subject until you be honest about your opinion on the subject at hand. "They do it too" is too often a version of "I don't want to admit that liberals have a point, so I am going to change the subject."

If you give me that opinion, then I will answer your question about Obama's black supporters.

Best closer ever! Keep it up Ezra.