« The House and Wall Street | Main | Meanwhile »
September 18, 2006
The First Refuge Of The Scoundrel
I've been a little loathe to enter the furor over Ann Althouse's repulsive smear of Jessica, if only because Althouse's point was so self-evidently cruel and unfair that it seemed unworthy of further publicity. But PZ Myers' post reminds me that there's a larger issue at stake. For those blissfully unaware, Jessica's summary of the hubbub is here, but the tale is simple enough: Jessica's extraordinary work on Feministing -- and, more generally, as a young feminist trying to fashion a relevant and resonant feminist message for her generation -- got her invited to the recent blogger lunch with Bill Clinton. During the group picture that closed out the meal, she, like everyone else, did a three-quarter turn. The problem? Jessica was wearing her breasts at the time, and their outline was vaguely visible beneath her sweater. Ann Althouse was scandalized.
Sorry -- you can't see it, but I just burst out laughing. Of course Althouse wasn't scandalized: She knows what breasts are, she knows that they've the nasty habit of changing a chest's side profile, she knows there was nothing revealing or untoward about Jessica's outfit. Here's the picture, see for yourself. Althouse was trying to discredit Jessica. She dislikes her ideology, dislikes her brand of feminism, dislikes the political leader she was meeting with, and she went for the kneecap. Classy.
As PZ argues, Althouse was trying an old trick: Subtly insinuating that Jessica's looks, and not her talent, dedication, or intelligence, are the issue. See, Jessica is young and attractive, has the misfortune to look like she's young and attractive, and we all know that young, attractive people (particularly young, attractive women) are morons. The temerity that she'd prove otherwise while continuing to look young and attractive. Whore.
There's a reason why, when I was on C-SPAN the first time, I refused to reveal my age. There's a reason why, when Lee Siegel was offended by my comments to him, he attacked my supposed ambition, youth, and family. And there's a reason Althouse went after Jessica's looks. This is supposed to be a realm where ideas rule, where argument matters, where the playing ground is level. It's supposed to be a place where academics debate laymen, professional professional journalists mix it up with political junkies, and all ages, genders, and races participate without baggage. That's what it's supposed to be. But that can only last so long.
Eventually, inevitably, people like Althouse or Siegel get scared, or beat, or defensive, and they fall back on what's easiest: Trying to discredit, rather than debate. It's the first refuge of the scoundrel, and that's what Althouse proved herself. She's not only brought dishonor on her own reputation, she took what should've been a proud day for bloggers and the blogosphere and irreparably marred it for those involved, Jessica in particular. She sank low, hit hard, and smeared cruelly. That's not what this medium is supposed to be about. Althouse should be ashamed.
September 18, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
Excellent post. I feel that I'm personally blind to a lot of these dynamics.
On the C-SPAN age issue, I thought that revealing your age wouldn't necessarily have been a losing move. There's sort of a "Boy Wonder" thing that can work in your favor in these cases, plus whatever support you get from avuncular older folks on your side who like to see the younger generation doing right. I'm guessing that this would more or less offset the problems you discuss, but maybe that's too optimistic.
It's a lot harder in Jessica's case, since there isn't really a corresponding "Boob Wonder" persona widely accepted in our culture where you're the smart and capable woman with breasts. In fact, things get taken the other way, and that's what Althouse was trying to exploit.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Sep 17, 2006 9:59:01 PM
There is and there isn't. For those on my side, there can be a pleasant effect. For those not, they feel they can safely discount my opinion, or explain how, while I'm very smart for my age, in a couple years I'll...
Fact of it is, there are 84-year-olds who hold my positions. There are 84-year-olds on the opposite side. I want my arguments judged by their strength and potency, not dismissed, discounted, or colored by the life expertiences, or lack thereof, imputed or insinuated when folks have to chew over my age. Whether people would react well or poorly, I want my ideas to have the force they should our shouldn't -- not be overshadowed by whether I'm a boy wonder or an immature sprout.
Posted by: Ezra | Sep 17, 2006 10:04:08 PM
I disagree, and have no reason to believe that Jessica was or is particularly important to Althouse, say over a dozen other feminist bloggers I could name, or, for instance, the other women in the picture and meeting, so that Ann Althouse would single her out for attack. Certainly Merritt is more powerful. Nor do I see a general agenda for Althouse in attacking feminist bloggers, or discrediting liberal women by using their looks.
It was about Clinton, and Jessica was collateral damage. It was also typical right-wing tactics of stirring up as much mu as possible, in the hopes that some of it sticks to Clinton. The lefty blogosphere was essentially defensive, allowed Althouse to set the agenda, and I suspect Clinton was just a little more damaged. Counter-productive.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Sep 17, 2006 10:10:05 PM
That's an admirable thing to want, Ezra! Socrates would be proud.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Sep 17, 2006 10:20:45 PM
You're ducking the real issue. It's a bit ironic for a self-described feminist to cheerfully hang out with a man infamous for exploiting women. It's much like the constant criticism of black/gay republicans by the left. I've read you a long time, and I've never seen you criticize that, even when a high profile lefty put an african american politician in blackface...
Posted by: American Hawk | Sep 17, 2006 10:27:24 PM
I'm 56. I remember the first time I saw you on C-Span. I was really suprised. The name "Ezra Klein" conjured up a sort of gray eminence in my mind, not a someone the same age as my youngest kid, or maybe even younger. I'm a huge fan. I think you're one of the most intelligent and credible political writers around right now, but I do think every so often that your parents must be very proud. Of course, luckily for you, you don't have breasts or it might be a whole different story.
Posted by: zenyenta | Sep 17, 2006 10:40:16 PM
It's not so much that it was about Clinton or about Jessica, it was about getting two birds with one stone. Althouse saw an opportunity to belittle a woman who dares disagree with her and a chance to raise the specter of Bill Clinton among the wingnuts, whose obsession of all things Bill continues unabated.
Part of the scandal for the wingers is that feminists are supposed to be unattractive. Since most of their ideology is based upon a couple of myths, it's really unsettling when they are faced with irrefutable proof that they are full of shit.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 17, 2006 10:40:32 PM
Except for Althouse had no idea who Jessica was when she wrote the post and neither did her commentators...
Posted by: Polybius | Sep 17, 2006 10:47:36 PM
This is all Clinton's fault.
Posted by: apantomimehorse | Sep 17, 2006 10:55:49 PM
Damnit!!! No one knows if Althouse binds her breasts for all appearances. Breasts are of critical importance to Althouse, so does she or does she not bind or knowingly hide her breasts for appearances to keep from looking like what she hates?
Posted by: Silver Owl | Sep 17, 2006 10:59:17 PM
Good post. The weird thing about Althouse is that she says she voted for Clinton twice (in a past life, I guess) and circulated a lawyers against impeachment petition. But then, after he was charged by the House, she circulated a petition saying he should resign. Something happened in there, God knows what. Ever since she's had a pathological hatred of Clinton, and stops at nothing trying -- she thinks -- to discredit him. So that's a big part of it. But there's also this:
It really must be sweeps week in Right Blogistan. I wouldn't mention it again, but she's starting all over again. The hits seemed to start slowing down today, so wouldn't you know, this afternoon, after days of sound and fury signifying very little, Ann Althouse went back back to blogging about boobs, throwing in necrophilia for good measure (separate posts, thank God). Still claiming to be more sinned against than sinning. But basically just driving traffic to her blog. Her cynical opportunism is as breathtaking as her misogyny.
See her Site meter and what she has to say about it and blogging: "What would we do without Site Meter?" -- Ann Althouse, 9/02/06. Watch the numbers pile up.
Posted by: Madison Guy | Sep 17, 2006 11:17:07 PM
it's a bit ironic for a self-described feminist to cheerfully hang out with a man infamous for exploiting women.
of course, that's a premise that only the right-wing buys into, and thereon hangs althouse's house of cards, which falls at the first break of daylight, if i may mix my metaphors more thoroughly than a margarita.
unless you count abusing hillary's vows as exploitation (and, as a side note, none of us know what understanding bill and hill have about his extra-cirricular activities), bill isn't particularly known for "exploting women." at least not monica, who wasn't feeling particularly exploited. and paula jones wasn't feeling very exploited until the right encouraged her to file her law suit.
note to the hardly-ever-right wing: having sex with someone you're attracted to is not the same as being exploited.
but the whole idea of having sex, especially with someone you're attracted to, is the very antithesis of most of the premises of the hardly-ever-right wing, which ezra kinda touched on.
Posted by: skippy | Sep 17, 2006 11:18:14 PM
Your post is good,but the whole idea of responding to such utter nonsense is way beyond my tolerance for stupidity and vapidity, even as purveyed by a rather vicious bunch of right-wing toadies.
Posted by: della Rovere | Sep 17, 2006 11:22:12 PM
American Hawk said, ..."even when a high profile lefty put an african american politician in blackface..."
Joe Lieberman is an African-American? Huh.
"It's a bit ironic for a self-described feminist to cheerfully hang out with a man infamous for exploiting women."
Clinton's affairs exploit women? I mean, he's an asshole for breaking his wedding vows and all that. But how do affairs exploit the mistresses? Do any and all sexual acts exploit women?
Unless this is a sudden concern for Hillary Clinton, who, one can argue, might have been exploited by her husband. This empathy for Hillary is very touching, AH.
D'oh! Skippy made the same point. Well, at least I know my way of thinking isn't unique to my damaged brain. :D
Posted by: Jonathan Russell | Sep 17, 2006 11:24:25 PM
Well, here's an odd coincidence: the "last refuge of a scoundrel" remark, referring to patriotism, is Dr. Johnson's. And September 18 being his birthday, I'm kinda wondering if Ezra is a closet Johnsonian? He's not on the member list of the Yahoo! Johnsonian group... Maybe this was just a silent shout-out to me and all the work I've done on that Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page. Yeah, that's the ticket...
Posted by: Frank | Sep 17, 2006 11:41:05 PM
Republican sex is, by definition, exploitation.
Democrats, on the other hand, have good old American sex, where both partners usually actually like each other and enjoy each other's company.
This is a true fact.
Posted by: Nancy Richardson | Sep 17, 2006 11:42:55 PM
I think Althouse has aging (and professional jealousy) issues. When she was stupid enough to reveal that on her blog, and was called on it, she covered it up with "Look! Over there! Monica!"
Posted by: Sharoney | Sep 17, 2006 11:46:42 PM
The real key to this is that Althouse despises men. Thus her viscerial hatred of Clinton, and by association anyone who associates with him especially other women.
Her groupies are a very slow bunch. She leaves lots of clues around.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | Sep 17, 2006 11:47:33 PM
There's no need to psychoanalyze Althouse. She is dull, her opinions are trite and her blog defines banality. If she weren't a law professor benefitting from generous Knoxville Blog Welfare, she'd be as prominent a figure in political blogging as several million people with MySpace pages.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Sep 18, 2006 12:02:19 AM
Oh, and Madison Guy is on the money: Althouse is trolling.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Sep 18, 2006 12:04:17 AM
According to Atrios you are an old man - for shame - also for the record I'm a year behind you and hope to wear it as well as you.
Your age is always what you make it.
Posted by: Richard | Sep 18, 2006 12:06:45 AM
You think these people -- Althouse, Reynolds, Dr Helen -- are capable of feeling shame?
Posted by: paul | Sep 18, 2006 12:09:01 AM
I'm not psychoanalyzing Althouse. I'm practically quoting from things she has written. She says that men are very much inferior to women. You have to go look for the stuff, but it is there.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | Sep 18, 2006 12:17:19 AM
Okay -
A lot of us think AA's opinions are for shit. That of course is always a matter for argument, among friends or otherwise. But now we know that she's personally an asshole. What a surprise! You hit the nail on the head: her post is at lazy, invidious, and just flat out lame. Fuck her.
As for Jessica: she's a chick who knows how to use a computer -- why doesn't she have a pocket protector glued to those breasts.
Posted by: abc | Sep 18, 2006 12:21:20 AM
This episode confirms that Althouse is officially nuts, however, I find delight in wondering what she thought of the infamous Commander Codpiece.
Posted by: Maggie | Sep 18, 2006 12:21:37 AM
There's only one thing that Althouse and Instahack have taught me: law professors do not deserve any degree of automatic respect at all. I used to think you'd at least have to have some ability to think coherently in order to teach law. They have shown me that this isn't the case.
Posted by: Von Rex | Sep 18, 2006 12:23:03 AM
I'm not psychoanalyzing Althouse. I'm practically quoting from things she has written.
Oh, I wasn't referring to that: it's the 'she's jealous' stuff. There is so much (or rather 'so much of so little') to work with already.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Sep 18, 2006 12:31:52 AM
Here's what sucks...
One of my best friends had Bughouse as an adviser when she (my friend) was in law school at Wisconsin.
She LIKES Bughouse.
And week after week I have to keep ramming Bughouse's nonsense down her email pipe... And she's coming back for homecoming in October and boy are we gonna have a talk.
Yeah, she knows Bughouse is a nut, but, see, Bughouse was nice to her.
Oh, boy.
Homecoming.
Posted by: Lettuce | Sep 18, 2006 12:32:39 AM
I have nothing against the photograph or the idea of being a young blogger and jumping at the chance to speak to a politician. But I'm not really sure I have the patience to figure out Jessica's brand of feminism. It seems to be wrapped up in sexuality and sexual expression. I have this opinion based on meeting her at the initial meeting of the Younger Women's Task Force, a project of the National Coalition of Women's Organizations and from occasionally reading her blog.
As a younger, female activist I'd like to know when we all will accept feminism as the radical notion of gender equality. I'd like to know when we're going to be taken seriously for our words, not our looks - when promoting our ideas is enough to get us noticed. And as the Program Chair of Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, US Section, I'd also like to know when we're going to be brought to the table on issues that don't involve our breasts. When will a feminist perspective on peace and justice be enough to get people to pay attention to us?
Posted by: C.J. Minster | Sep 18, 2006 1:00:03 AM
Except for Althouse had no idea who Jessica was when she wrote the post and neither did her commentators...
She was a liberal blogger near Bill Clinton. No research required.
Posted by: Righteous Bubba | Sep 18, 2006 1:05:08 AM
Well put, Ezra. Althouse is a disgrace. It boggles the mind that she is is a professor occupying an endowed chair at a respectable law school. It's incredibly low that she would attack after a much younger blogger for having the temerity to have breasts. I hope feminists at UW law school have a field day with this. What a fucking witch.
Posted by: Frederick | Sep 18, 2006 1:05:20 AM
The fact that Althouse, InstaHack and John Yoo all teach at taxpayer-supported institutions is an American tragedy.
Posted by: global yokel | Sep 18, 2006 1:36:54 AM
Tits and progressive politics. What could possibly be better?
Posted by: swamp dweller | Sep 18, 2006 1:38:02 AM
"It's a bit ironic for a self-described feminist to cheerfully hang out with a man infamous for exploiting women"
Yet Outhouse has aligned herself with a party where you don't get taken seriously until you've got your third wife, where half of the base demands women stay at home and raise babies, unless they are poor and black, in which case they bitch and moan that they should be out working.
Outhouse is a joke. Its not a hot picture at all, in fact, its the exact same pose and posture as the much older, less curvy woman on left side of the photo.
Shorter Outhouse: I need hits! Please respond to my worthless attack on a much better blogger!
Kind of Like Seigel attacking KOS, or that dumbass at TAPped Out attacking Atrios.
Posted by: Mysticdog | Sep 18, 2006 1:45:17 AM
I'm not really sure I have the patience to figure out Jessica's brand of feminism. It seems to be wrapped up in sexuality and sexual expression.
Oh, dear God, NOOOOOOOOO!!!
Posted by: dave | Sep 18, 2006 1:50:14 AM
Jessica's extraordinary work on Feministing ... got her invited to the recent blogger lunch with Bill Clinton
I guess that's one way to put it. Here's another:
Jessica's influence in the blogosphere, combined with her reputation for being a feminist, got her an invite to meet with Clinton - so she, like the rest of her wannabe friends, could be softened up for Hillary's push.
Is _anyone_ is the liberal blogosphere outraged by this? I mean, you all cry about the media all day, specifically about the conflicts of interest and the corporate control and influence, and then some of the top liberal bloggers on the net go meet with Clinton, who's wife is about to begin her presidential bid. It's pretty much the most absurd thing I've ever heard of.
Can anyone defend this move at all?
It's a complete, total sellout. Oh well, it's just make things a little more clear for the people who have no come around yet. Daily Kos and all the other top bloggers do not represent you, regular person - they represent Mark Warner and Hillary and Bill and 'respectability' and people who cut black kids off the welfare rolls and support wars and all the rest.
In fact, I think this clears things up a bit for me. I kinda knew the liberalosphere was very pro-Democratic Party, but I didn't know that it was, in fact, the Democratic Party's mouthpiece on the internets. At least, that is true for these bloggers - including one of my favorites - e.g. Atrios.
Brilliant. You think there'd be a little more outrage at this outrage, but with every pseudo-prominent liberal blogger vying for 'respectability', it's a race to the bottom. Pathetic.
I can see the headlines arleady:
"Top liberal bloggers getting respect"
"Top liberal bloggers gaining respectability"
"Top liberal bloggers unite to elect other rich white people"
"Top liberal bloggers unite to maintain family dynasty rule of government"
"Once outcasts, liberal bloggers go mainstream"
"Once a voice of the powerless, liberal bloggers now part of the establishment"
Unreal.
"Hey, let's go meet with Big Dog! A-mer-i-kah - f*ck yeah! Dude, I'm gonna have this plaque on my wall, and like I'll be in the papers, and people will like, know me and stuff, and it'll be _so_ _cool_. I'll be, like, _important_, and stuff. Yeah!"
The outrage at the outrage from both sides just distracts from what's really going on here - top liberal bloggers just sold their souls to the devil. They're no better now than the Bob Novaks and Peggy Noonans of the world.
Posted by: Peter | Sep 18, 2006 2:09:58 AM
Oh, so, let me understand. Althouse (which sounds like the German "Althaus" which translates to "old house") objects to the fact that Jessica was photographed wearing a knit shirt that displayed something of her physique. Because Jessica was--according to Althaus (and I'll accept her description for the moment)--a feminist. But she was not so "feministi" when she was displaying something of her physique. The display was discretely, of course--no wardrobe malfunctions to be seen.
Um, OK. Let's see.
I am old enough to recall feminist demonstrations of the 1960s into the early 1970s at which (at least some of) the feminists would tear off their bras and display their--something of their--physiques. One wonders, would AltHouse be similarly scandalized by their actions? Maybe, but doubtful. It was those feminists who probably made it easier for her to get into law school, much less to be invited to teach at one. Apparently, AltHaus is too young, ignorant or ideological to remember--or want to remember--the feminist demonstrations of the 1960s/70s.
I don't read much of AltHaus, after I concluded that she was probably another nut on the right-wing Republican payroll, but I wonder. Did she have a similar sentiment when CheerLeader-In-Chief Commander Codpiece sashayed across the deck of that aircraft carrier a few years ago, to declare "mission accomplished"? I recognize that a codpiece is not an accurate representation of the male--er--member, but if she did not criticize CiC Codpiece's "Tom Cruise" like performance--complete with codpiece--it seems to me that she has nothing to complain about regarding Jessica.
Posted by: raj | Sep 18, 2006 2:31:13 AM
It's a very odd discussion. It goes from sexism to racism to ageism, and then back again. And mostly the transitions go by unnoticed. That's one of the reasons I started feeling like pouring ashes on my head and ripping my jeans to shreds, too.
Posted by: Echidne of the snakes | Sep 18, 2006 2:35:58 AM
Peter, let me get this straight. You would pass up an opportunity to have a get together and talk with the current or any living former President of the United States. (Me, I've gone to grave sites of former presidents.) What, are your afraid it would cut into some of the time you devote to watching CNN Headline News?
Posted by: CMike | Sep 18, 2006 2:41:56 AM
I just can't believe that Althouse deliberately chose to discredit her. It's more that I can never believe that someone would be so cravenly dishonest. It's so much easier for me to believe that Althouse is simply bigoted enough that she cannot hold in her head that someone is younger, prettier, and smarter than she is. It's easier for me to believe that her ego forced her to go, "wait a second, SOMETHING'S got to give here" and she seized on the explanation that Jessica must be an opportunistic harlot. "It can't be her ideas, it's got to be her breasts." But for her to coldly calculate that Jessica had powerful ideas, that she didn't agree with them, that she knew she couldn't win on the merits, but thought she could do damage by discrediting her (therebye even lying to her own readers)...? That seems like a more complicated explanation than necessary. Althouse's post seemed more sour-grapes catty than machiavellian to me. (See, someone's got to stick up for althouse...)
Posted by: tunesmith | Sep 18, 2006 3:10:49 AM
Someone upthread said Althouse didn't know who Jessica was. I beg to differ.
Althouse went to Jessicas Flickr site to get a different picture from the one that was posted. The shot Althouse used showed higher contrast between the light colored sweater Jessica was wearing and the dark suit.
Posted by: thebewilderness | Sep 18, 2006 3:15:43 AM
And another thing.
Sexual harassment takes place in offices all over the country on a daily basis. The Congress is infamous for sexual harassment. Like most women Jessica puts up with catcalls from asshats every time she takes her breasts out on the street to go to lunch. The Clenis did not invent bad behavior by the boys who will be boys brigade. He just dragged it out of the closet. If feminist women refused to take meetings with politicians who had abused their authority in order to take advantage of women there would be hardly a politician that a feminist could meet with.
Posted by: thebewilderness | Sep 18, 2006 3:31:07 AM
Hey, Peter, any more irrational Clinton hatred to get off your chest? Oooh, he's all magical, and we'regonna get burned! You sound like Atlhouse's type, go troll LGF.
Posted by: ronjazz | Sep 18, 2006 3:40:48 AM
brought dishonor on her own reputation
what reputation?
Posted by: moron | Sep 18, 2006 5:47:52 AM
"Jessica was wearing her breasts at the time, and their outline was vaguely visible beneath her sweater. Ann Althouse was scandalized."
Uh huh. And what did Althouse write about Katherine Harris' habit of 'presenting' herself to the public? Harris seems to think her best campaign strategy is 'Bust or bust':
http://wizbangblog.com/2005/08/11/katherine-harriss-polarizing-figure.php
:D
Btw, does Althouse have a bust that is worth mentioning? If not, maybe this explains her outburst.
Posted by: Gray | Sep 18, 2006 6:23:00 AM
passing by, dropped in as i occasionally do - and discovered that you people (and a range of other sites allegedly concerned with wars, corruption and the violent creation of a global empire) are discussing . . . breasts.
jesus
Posted by: drago | Sep 18, 2006 6:23:51 AM
Any time we spend discussing breasts is time not spent discussing what an abject failure George Bush is.
We're also not discussing the fact that Ann Althouse knew that Bush would be this big a failure, and voted for him anyway. She knew he would flip off the world, raise taxes on the poor, have some big failures, like New ORleans, 9/11, Iraq, get 7000+ Americans killed in said failures, accellorate global warming, and voted for him anyway.
Ann wanted Americans to die. She wanted New Orleans to disappear. She wanted the US to lose all credibility in the world. By casting a vote for George Bush, she hoped to actualize world depression that dear leader would cause. She longed for an extended world war that would kill millions, and voted for it.
Posted by: leland | Sep 18, 2006 8:36:24 AM
Althouse is not a right winger, she plays one on the blogosphere. She also has a Flickr site.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | Sep 18, 2006 8:50:12 AM
It's a bit ironic for a self-described feminist to cheerfully hang out with a man infamous for exploiting women.
You mean like how Word Salad Pam of Atlas Shrugs paraded her largish breasts (covered, just like Jessica's) TWICE in front of accused harrasser of women JOHN BOLTON?
Eat it, right-wing hypocrite.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | Sep 18, 2006 9:05:54 AM
Oh, and by the way, wingnut Clinton haters:
Clinton never was shown to have done what the right-wing-backed attackers (Willey, Jones, etc.) said he'd done; in fact, their stories all collapsed when exposed to the light. (My own personal favorite was when the Jones story fell apart when it was revealed that Clinton was on the lawn of the Governor's Mansion, in the midst of a well-attended (and media-covered) public function, at the time Jones originally claimed she met Clinton. Ooooopsie!)
Even when he and Monica got together, it was on her initiative -- and because Linda Tripp, who was secretly taping her phone calls with Monica, egged on the unwitting office staffer SPECIFICALLY to entrap Clinton.
So eat it again, lying right-wing hypocrites.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | Sep 18, 2006 9:12:32 AM
I'm gonna have to side with Peter here.
As much as I love centrist policies, I really don't understand why so much of Left Blogistan passionately hates Rahn Emmanuel and Joe Lieberman, but swoons whenever Bill Clinton enters the room. He's just as corporatist and willing to insult Democrats to score political points as any other DLC golden child out there.
The laundry list of how liberalism was set back during Clinton's tenure is long and well-known. Why the swooning?
Posted by: Tony v | Sep 18, 2006 9:15:10 AM
Althouse was trying to discredit Jessica. She dislikes her ideology, dislikes her brand of feminism, dislikes the political leader she was meeting with, and she went for the kneecap. Classy.
I think where that falters a bit is that, until Jessica identified herself in the Althouse comments section, Ms. Althouse apparently had no idea who she was. Consequently, although Ms. Althouse may have a visceral reaction to folks who meet with Clinton, I doubt she could have had a view about Jesica's ideology or brand of feminism.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | Sep 18, 2006 9:26:55 AM
Clearly, this is all Jessica's fault. Everyone knows that liberal, feminist women are supposed to be plain, wear no makeup and not shave their legs or underarms. How dare Jessica be young and attractive, have breasts and not be a Republican. Of all the unmitigated gall. I, for one, am outraged.
At least she is not a blonde. That would have been simply too much.
Posted by: mjshep | Sep 18, 2006 10:33:38 AM
Consequently, although Ms. Althouse may have a visceral reaction to folks who meet with Clinton, I doubt she could have had a view about Jesica's ideology or brand of feminism.
While she may not have known specifically about Jessica's ideology, she knew that she was a liberal blogger and that was enough for her to start the slander.
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | Sep 18, 2006 10:34:04 AM
When I clicked over to that photo, my first reaction was not, Omigod, look at those provocative breasts, but rather, a sigh of dismay at how dreadfully casual--bordering on sloppy--these lunch attendees appear.
I spotted only two ties, and one of those is worn by President Clinton. John Aravosis' undershirt is on display, as is that of another man in the front row.
Perhaps these bloggers are so influential, so powerful, and so established, they feel they're well above dressing to impress--who knows? All I can say is that when I allowed myself a moment of Walter Mittyism and imagined being invited to have lunch with a former United States President, I definitely visualized exactly which suit I'd wear and which tasteful jewelry and heels I'd choose, too.
To my horror, Casual Friday has metastasized. Now there's Laid-back Lunch, in which the guest of honor happens to be a former president. At a recent funeral I attended, not only were there people wearing bright colors, some of the mourners wore tank tops.
There is simply no excuse for this plague of slovenly attire. And please don't try to say it's all bout being a starving artist/writer: been there, done that. In fact, the suit I had in mind--should I ever be fortunate enough to be invited to lunch by just about anyone in Washington, not just a former president--is a lovely, dark blue, fitted one from the 1940's that I bought for $7 in our local Goodwill.
Posted by: litbrit | Sep 18, 2006 10:38:37 AM
If I'm not mistaken, both of the following are true:
1. Ann didn't know who Jessica was when she put up her first post.
2. Ann had looked over Feministing by the time that she put up her second post, and that was where all this boob disparagement really got going.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Sep 18, 2006 10:39:40 AM
My first reaction on seeing the photo was to note that Clinton didn't push himself into a prominant position. Now, admittedly he's not chasing elections anymore, but that is still somewhat atypical for a politician.
Anybody think that GWB wouldn't put himself prominantly front-and-center, with all attention focussed on him?
Posted by: Satan luvvs Repugs | Sep 18, 2006 10:57:49 AM
Tony, you're not siding with Peter. You have legitimate reasons to dislike Clinton. Peter's just regurgitating right-wing garbage that was debunked to a fare-thee-well years ago.
The whole point of this was to give Althouse an excuse to raise up the long-since-discredited "Clinton's a sexual harrasser!" crap. Althouse didn't care who else got hurt in order for her to zap Clinton.
The ironic thing is that while none of the politically-motivated sexual-harrassment allegations against Clinton have held up, at least one of his attackers, Dick Armey, has had far more credible sexual-harrassment allegations lodged against him when he was head of the Economics Department at a Texas university. (One female graduate student of his actually transferred to another school to avoid Armey's gropings!)
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | Sep 18, 2006 11:15:19 AM
"Consequently, although Ms. Althouse may have a visceral reaction to folks who meet with Clinton, I doubt she could have had a view about Jesica's ideology or brand of feminism."
This, of course, doesn't explain the follow-up posts, which continued the despicable smears while also lying about the content at Feministing and making up lunactic conspiracy theories to explain the puzzle of why shorter people would be in the front row of a group picture.
Posted by: Scott Lemieux | Sep 18, 2006 12:16:01 PM
Personally, I only read Ezra because he is a hot young babe.
Obviously, I don't read Ann Althouse.
(God, it's hard to resist deliberately misspelling her name.)
Posted by: Avedon | Sep 18, 2006 2:55:22 PM
The outrage at the outrage from both sides just distracts from what's really going on here - top liberal bloggers just sold their souls to the devil. They're no better now than the Bob Novaks and Peggy Noonans of the world.
This is parody, right? For the love of god, somebody please tell me this is parody. I don't want to live in a world in which somebody would actually say this kind of thing with a straight face.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Sep 18, 2006 3:11:33 PM
Tom, why is it so easy for people to say the Richard Cohens and Joe Liebermans of the world sold their soul to be embraced by some homogenous elite, on scant evidence, but obviously bloggers will be immune to such criticism?
Posted by: Tony v | Sep 18, 2006 3:15:00 PM
Tom, it takes all kinds to make up the world, and sooner or later one of that kind is going to drop by a blog near you.
I'm kind of happy that its such an effective self-satire, since it makes it much less urgent to respond to it.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Sep 18, 2006 3:29:48 PM
It's a bit ironic for a self-described feminist to cheerfully hang out with a man infamous for exploiting women.
Apparently it's not at all ironic for a self-described feminist to invite her male commenters to stare at, mock and demean a young woman for having breasts.
Althouse's post may have originally been about Clinton, but the comments on that post--include Althouse's own comments--were clearly about sexually harassing Jessica. (Yes, it was sexual harassment).
Someone should tell all these right-wingers who are so concerned for Clinton's supposed victims that most feminists have to deal with misogynist male politicians at some point or another to get their views publicized.
Posted by: The Grouch | Sep 18, 2006 3:31:56 PM
"This is supposed to be a realm where ideas rule, where argument matters, where the playing ground is level. It's supposed to be a place where academics debate laymen, professional professional journalists mix it up with political junkies, and all ages, genders, and races participate without baggage. That's what it's supposed to be. But that can only last so long. Eventually, inevitably, people ... get scared, or beat, or defensive, and they fall back on what's easiest: Trying to discredit, rather than debate. It's the first refuge of the scoundrel..."
Having never read this site before, I will be adding it to my watch list.
Posted by: Lunchbreak | Sep 18, 2006 3:40:54 PM
Tom, why is it so easy for people to say the Richard Cohens and Joe Liebermans of the world sold their soul to be embraced by some homogenous elite, on scant evidence, but obviously bloggers will be immune to such criticism?
Tony, I would suggest you ask someone who actually says something like that, instead of asking me.
I don't generally talk about people selling their souls because it's nearly always a lame, simplistic cliché, used by people who huddle in the soft security of their unshakeable convictions. It's just kind of a silly concept in a world in which everything is compromise. Peter, if he was not writing parody (and I dearly hope he was), compounded the silliness by suggesting that simply by meeting with someone who did not meet his standard of purity, the bloggers in question sold their souls.
I do have a problem with both Lieberman and Cohen. Lieberman is a liability to the party because of his habit of attacking Democrats for the benefit of Republicans. Cohen is a problem because he writes things that are astonishingly stupid and wrong. I do not presume to have any knowledge as to the state of their souls.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Sep 18, 2006 4:01:34 PM
"It's a bit ironic for a self-described feminist to cheerfully hang out with a man infamous for exploiting women."
For the purposes of getting rid of an administration and party which wants to set women's rights back three generations or more? Not in the least surprising. And she hasn't said that Clinton is the greatest thing since sliced bread or anything like that.
"Politics makes strange bedfellows." Consider all the unsavory alliances which Carrie Chapman Catt negotiated in order to get the Voting Rights Amendment passed. Clinton is really a damn reasonable person to talk to compared to some of the people CCC dealt with.
Posted by: Nathanael Nerode | Sep 18, 2006 9:47:41 PM
"swoons whenever Bill Clinton enters the room."
I think because for all his many faults, he did prevent the Republicans from starting unneccessary wars, destroying the environment, invading our bedrooms, and so forth for eight whole years.
And that's nothing to sneeze at these days.
Posted by: Nathanael Nerode | Sep 18, 2006 9:50:13 PM
If I can throw a little water (or gasoline) on the fire, I think Althouse has actually been pretty unfairly treated here herself.
A couple of her statements from her last comment thread:
The breasts I wrote about were the images on Jessica's blog, which she uses to get attention to her blog. I did not begin by writing about her. She showed up in my comments to draw attention to herself, which motivated me to laugh at the way her blog looks. Since then, a horde of people have been insulting me, distorting what I said, and plainly lying as well. They've also been resorting to some of the lowest sexist and ageist hate speech. Why don't you address that?...
I never said I was just kidding. I was mocking Jessica for her hypocrisy for running a blog that traffics in breast imagery and for showing up and posing at a Clinton event.
As to whether her blog is well-written, I've said nothing. I've never read her blog, only looked at the design of it, which I found ridiculous and made fun of. And the photograph from the lunch is laughable in that context. It just is. I'm not kidding. I could have written a less lighthearted post and really slammed her for the hypocrisy.
Now, I realize this puts me on the wrong side of the blogwars, but what the hell. I think you can disagree with Althouse's characterization of the picture. I think you can disagree with her characterization of Feministing. To call her a scoundrel for trying to discredit Jessica, though, just isn't true. If you look at the way the conversation arose, Althouse was poking fun solely at the way Jessica was standing (and that, only to poke fun at Clinton) -- as she said, in the way that people razz Katherine Harris. It was only when she found Feministing that she started laughing at the breast thing. If you look at this from Althouse's perspective, I think it's pretty hard to imagine why she wouldn't.
A commenter in another post suggested that this really shows the difference between old guard and new guard feminists. I think there was a lot of truth to that. Say what you want, I just think it's a bit silly to suggest that Althouse was really trying to discredit people for having breasts, being young, or being good-looking.
Posted by: Marcus | Sep 19, 2006 10:45:00 AM
She showed up in my comments to draw attention to herself
No, Ann, Jessica showed up in your comments to defend herself. And no, Ann, I'm not going to post this response directly on your blog because I have better things to do with my thirty seconds than give your website the hits you obviously crave.
I was mocking Jessica for her hypocrisy for running a blog that traffics in breast imagery and for showing up and posing at a Clinton event.
Spin, spin, spin. Now it's not either/or, but both?
You're reaching, dear. Try again.
And Marcus, you are deliberately being disingenuous, or you are completely missing the point. Ann went WAY beyond "poking fun." She is an envious Heather who has yet to grow up emotionally, and yet ironically has revealed her insecurities about her own advancing age (which neither hair dyed to resemble a haystack nor slutty lipstick can hide), pure and simple. She's the last person who should be complaining about ageist and sexist speech.
I don't know what's worse, Ann the ignorant, jealous harpy or Ann the wimpering victim who can't take the attention her own stupid and ignorant posts got her. ("Oooh! Poor me! Look what you made me do--I hurt my arm hitting you!")
Posted by: Sharoney | Sep 20, 2006 7:38:33 PM
Sharoney,
I didn't miss your point, I just disagree. I don't think Althouse was jealous of Jessica in that photo. I think that actually misses Althouse's motivations pretty broadly. Basically, I'm much more persuaded by her own explanation for why she made her comments, which is why I also think the retaliatory attacks on Althouse have been unfair.
Posted by: Marcus | Sep 21, 2006 3:45:07 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
