[As we like to say in Washington, I've revised and extended my remarks.] In a world of ridiculous op-ed columnists, it is easy now and again to forget some of the offenders. Really, one has only so much time for moral outrage in a given day. As a result, I have been neglecting good friend Richard Cohen in recent weeks because of the greater offenses given by his brethren.
I saw, however, that Cohen had return to claim yet another coveted "Wanker of the Day" award from Atrios and felt compelled to actually read the offending column. All I can say is wow! This is Grade A Village wankery of the highest order -- arrogant, clueless, condescending, with a finely narrowed world view and not a hint, I mean not a scintilla. of self-awareness or humility.
Where to begin, there are so many nuggets of classic bullshit:
I attribute Obama's predicament to inexperience and a certain worrisome naivete. When he said he would negotiate with Iran he might not have realized exactly what he was saying.
He then describes Obama as a naif. Was Nixon a naif (makes you laugh just typing it) when he sat down with Mao? Or Brezhnev? Was Kennedy suffering from naivete when he talked to Kruschev? Strangely enough, the people with whom we have conflicts are often not the most savory people in the world. Yet, these are the people with whom we often have to deal to resolve these conflicts. Why acknowledging this is somehow seen as weak or fuzzy headed I cannot say.
This high handedness of Cohen's would be sad were it not so amusing. Or do I have that backwards? Here is a man whose credulity with respect to the Bush Administration and the Iraq War is seemingly infinite. (See this lovely dismantling of the bearded clown performed by Attaturk at Firedoglake, who dubs him "America's Concern Troll" a moniker that really can't be improved upon.) Someone who thinks that characterizing a point of view as "French" is the height of withering argument. That this clown is confused by the Post's Ombudswomen as a liberal can only make one shake one's head.
Cohen does get one thing right though -- he says that "[c]ampaigns tend to make idiots out of really smart people." They evidently don't do a lot for dumb asses either.
I wonder when Atrios is going award Cohen permanent "Wanker" status. Like "Wanker Emeritus" or something.
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | May 27, 2008 at 08:02 AM
Wanker Emeritus indeed -- I believe it entitles you to the Palm D'Hair -- a gnarled hand grasping a withered shaft.
Posted by: Sir Charles | May 27, 2008 at 09:31 AM
Balls not included.
Posted by: Sir Charles | May 27, 2008 at 09:31 AM
A bit off-topic, but did anyone make note of the Lanny Davis column in Politico yesterday? Much of it seems like standard ultra-pro-Clinton spin, giving Clinton every benefit of the doubt and blaming Obama for everything, but this part really made me look twice, when he discusses what could be done with the "Uncommitted" pledges from Michigan:
The Rules Committee has several options. The fairest would be to allocate those 57 pledged delegates, to Clinton and Obama by the same ratio of their standing to one another in the average of the most recent Michigan statewide polls prior to the Jan. 15 primary. Or perhaps one Solomonic compromise, more generous to Obama than to Clinton, would be to divide the remaining delegates approximately 50-50 between the two of them, 28-27 (giving Clinton the extra delegate since she led in all the latest statewide polls prior to Jan. 15).
King Solomon must be rolling over in his grave by the invocation of his name to emphasize the fairness of a proposal that gives Clinton all of the Clinton delegates, PLUS a little more than half of the Uncommitted delegates...
Posted by: Scott K | May 27, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Cohen? the guy who thought that we should just "leave the lights off" in the Scooter Libby case? The guy who thinks algebra is too hard?
The curious thing is that the Post seems to think he is a liberal...
Posted by: MR Bill | May 27, 2008 at 11:04 AM
MR Bill,
Yes that self same Richard Cohen -- intrepid liberal. Oy!
Your comment made me think of one of my favorite Tom Waits' lines -- "I'm gettin' harder than Chinese algebra." Well it has nothing to do with Cohen, but I just like it.
Posted by: Sir Charles | May 27, 2008 at 01:14 PM
The WaPo op-ed page writers should simply be put out to pasture so they can start over. I'd be willing to give up Dionne, Meyerson, and Robinson if it meant I'd never again see columns by Broder, Will, Cohen, Samuelson, Applebaum, Krauthammer, Hoagland, Hiatt, Diehl, Kagan, and all the other worthless old farts currently occupying that space.
Even Little Debbie, who is so confused that she thinks Richard Cohen is a liberal, has noticed that the WaPo op-ed page is too old, too white, and too male.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | May 27, 2008 at 02:30 PM
l-t c,
I was planning on posting something about Little Debbie's (my favorite name for her too) column -- it was a fascinating read. Her sense of who is not conservative is pretty interesting.
Posted by: Sir Charles | May 27, 2008 at 02:41 PM
Low=tech, you missed Bob Novak, Traitor, Prince of Darkness, Defender of Fetuses and Executive Privilege. That he's still there says loads. A newpaper friend (now dead) always called (Rowland)Evans and Novak errors a
I took a WaPo survey the other day, and it asked what they could do to keep my interest (and I look at them, if not daily, several times a week, mostly to be appalled, but Froomkin is good and I'm told, not really considered one of the real Post guys by the dead tree pundits). I told them to achieve real balance, to identify political spin and cover all the new honestly. And retire Broder, Will, Cohen, et al, leaving Krauthammer and Novak for an institutionalization.
Posted by: MR Bill | May 27, 2008 at 03:13 PM
crap, should read (Rowland) Evans and Novak "Errors and NoFacts".
Posted by: MR Bill | May 27, 2008 at 03:15 PM