You'd think that Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, and Golda Meir would have changed a few minds, but these people have weak minds easily colonized by stupid cliches. It's amazing to me how many media people are still repeating the pre-election conventional wisdom, most of which go all the way back to about 1988). Of course, Hillary and Rahm and Carville still are repeating the old cliches themselves.

What struck me about this article when I read it was the conspicuous absence of the left wing blogosphere/netroots. We've been reading about the "alpha males" like Webb and Tester for at least a year now. But Emanuel and Schumer are mentioned as the brains behind the operation.

Am I wrong in thinking that we in blog land were much more aware of the alpha males before Emanuel and Schumer? Weren't they a little late in the game?

Dissent Protects Democracy.

That NYT article had absolutely no substantive points. It was a typical mainstream media puff piece-- talk about image, quote James Carville, and wave a magic smokescreen. This is what passes for journalism these days. Tragic.

Come on. All of these people are sons or daughters of rich people and have spent their entire existence in the upper tax brackets. And you actually think they have blue collar workers in mind?

And this is a criticism of both parties, just for the record.

It's a concern troll hit piece, and this issue of the NYT has several other concern troll pieces. Perhaps this is going to be the NYT's strategy.

Apropos of the glass ceiling in this discussion, I occasionally wonder if the more relevant material is not the strength of the ceiling, but the poor fit of the spectacles needed by the MSM. There is a continuing focus on...well, victimization isn't quite the word I want, but it will do.

Take that most macho of organizations, the military. Yes, there is discrimination, but I know enough women in service that tell me that once they prove they know what they are doing, they are accepted.

As one example of the problems of perception, when people think of Abu Ghraib, the first person that comes to mind is a very junior soldier named Lynndie England. The apparent "ringleader", who would never have managed the acts had their been proper supervision, is male.

Yet it's only occasionally that people mention the demoted brigadier, COL Janis Karpinski, and only specialists seem to think of the head of intelligence in Iraq, MG Barbara Fast. Fast was cleared by the investigators but remains controversial.

One of my points here is that neither the female heroes nor villains seem to be noticed. Now, I grew up with a mother who was an Army officer, and enlisted Navy during WWII. That women weren't competent tended not to occur to me.

Yet if we turn again to Iraq, Jessica Lynch is well known, but what about Leigh Ann Hester?? I linked a more detailed article about the Raven 42 action in which SGT Hester, among other things, was the first woman to be awarded the Silver Star (3rd highest US decoration for valor) for direct combat action. Hester's individual competence was one thing, but if people read the After-Action Report in some detail, she wasn't the only woman to excel -- and the patrol itself is an absolute textbook example of how thorough training and teamwork wins.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Might I observe that some of the most respected leaders in the military may be the antithesis of machismo in their personal presentation, preferring to let actions speak for themselves, praising in public and criticizing in private?

It's unfortunate, for example, that the media have picked up only on one aspect of the reason now-Colonel HR McMaster gained respect in the First Gulf War. He is fairly well known for a lopsided combat victory at the Battle of 73 Easting, destroying, without US casualties, an Iraqi force somewhere between 6 and 9 times his unit's power.

Outside military publications and blogs, however, I have not seen mention of an incident a short time after 73 Easting. McMaster's unit came up on a group of Iraqi Republican Guards, who gave every indication of being willing and competent to fight to the death. McMaster could simply have stayed out of their range, called in air and artillery strikes, and destroyed the unit. Instead, he called for a loudspeaker team and interpreter, and spent about 30 minutes convincing the enemy to surrender with honor, and without bloodshed on either side.

That's not what I think of as macho swagger.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I assume the educational requirements on history, culture, and politic behavior are a bit higher for senior military officers than they are for politicians.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Again, I'm not seeing your point. There has been more senior military criticism of this Administration than in any US operation since the Civil War. It started with Congressional testimony from people like Shinseki, disputing the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld view. It continued with more and more retired officers becoming vocal. The retiring head of Central Command, John Abizaid, has been critical, even though on his way out, in a manner that officers traditionally never did in uniform.

Casey has essentially been kicked upstairs; Chief of Staff of the Army is not in the chain of command. His replacement, Petraeus, indeed is rocketing up the ranks, but is widely considered to have both wisdom and integrity.

There's been a protest group forming at lower ranks, which has been very carefully crafted such that its statements are Constitutional and do not go against the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

In no way am I suggesting a military coup, but I would tend to say that the relationship between the senior military and the civilian leadership is as bad, or worse, than it has been for decades.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I'm not trying to be critical of the military at all. My criticism is directed at Congress, wonks, pundits, neocons and chickenhawks who aren't willing to do their own jobs with the courage to make difficult decisions or the discipline and effort needed to learn what they need to know but who'd rather pull in a military uniform either as window dressing or as a scapegoat depending on their expedient need at the time.

The military is not the answer to all problems. Poor Kucinich is not nearly "macho" enough for a Presidential race but I liked what he said today about not using war to make policy.

Military service may well teach you many things that are useful in Congress or in the civilian agencies, but the purpose of the military isn't to run Congress or civilian agencies. I just don't like the "all we need is a uniform to run for office/run the country" mindset. It's not coming from the military. It's coming from politicians too lazy or too gutless to make policy and hold themselves accountable for it.

Plus, it distorts priorities. How about a few "Support our Nurses" magnets on cars. Run a nurse for Congress - maybe somebody would talk about health care again.

It's fair to say that while the military is institutionally and Constitutionally tasked with respecting civilian office, the holders of those offices still have to earn personal respect, and the policies they are following have to pass the wacko test. A lack of personal respect for the executive branch would not preclude following orders but would make for a less enthusiastic and creative effort.

For the command structure to follow a clearly insane order is anti-macho, by being robotic. We may see a test of this re Iran.

To be sure, Ryan Lizza's article is to public policy what Entertainment Tonight is to dramatic art... completely beside the point.

And yet Lizza serves up an insidious obscuring of reality here. Jo-Ann, you point out that "According to the article, the Dems, led by Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer, no shrinking violets themselves, intentionally recruited former CIA agents and war veterans to run this round," but fail to challenge the implication that the Dem's victory was substantially, if not entirely, the fruit of Emanuel's and Schumer's savvy hand-picking.

How soon we forget! Here's a tidbit from the Montana Standard, 6/7/06:

"Although Tester was the decided underdog in the five-candidate Democratic Senate race, he gained great momentum in closing weeks of the campaign through an extensive grass-roots effort...Tester attributed his win to his campaign’s grass-roots efforts involving hundreds of volunteers. Morrison outspent him $1.14 million to $662,805."

Now having a guy run in a five-way primary while being outspent by several hujndred thousand bucks is a funny way of demonstrating intentional recruiting, I think!

Also, can anyone say "Dean?"

Long story short: behind his puff, Lizza's revisionism attempts to reinforce the myth that anything that matters gets decided and done inside the beltway. No wonder Carville get a mention!

“Presidential politics, but also the rest of national political leadership, has a lot to do with the understandable desire of voters for leadership, strength, clarity and sureness.... Frankly, in the post-Vietnam era, Democrats have come up short by those measures too frequently.”

Amazing how not a word on actual substance enters into that equation. Hitler had Leadership skills, Strength, Clarity and Sureness (even cock-sureness). And so does Bush. And both are total fuck ups. So please quit yearning for theatrics. We need above all, WISDOM and in my book Al Gore has it. Leadership, for example is teaching the populus lessons, not indulging them in infantile fantasies about what it takes to run a successful nation-state. The poor dears did not like Al Gore cause he was so-so…whatever, and Bush with his dick swinging “bring it on” swagger they loved, and the result is we are fucked in Iraq and practically everywhere else. I don’t dismiss theatrics entirely as the Romans used to say "populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur" (the populace wants to be deceived, therefore let it be deceived) but ultimately responsible leadership also needs to be an exemplar for the nation.

Whether the Dems can strengthen their leadership in 2007 and win back the White House in 2008 will have to do less with who wears the pants and more with how they promote policies that will put the pearls before the swine...

----
I am not sure what Ms. Mort is trying to say by invoking this parable of Jesus. In the parable, Jesus instructs his disciples that if people are not willing to hear the Good News after the disciples have told them of it, the disciples should move along to speak to others, rather than wasting their time, casting "pearls before swine." As such, in the parable Jesus says one should never cast "pearls before swine" because it is by definition a fruitless, wasted effort.

A challenging post, which connects to me at several personal levels, some of which still have a good deal to do with policy. Professionally, I've done a good deal of work in risk assessment and protection for critical national infrastructure, in areas including communications, chemical production, and electrical power. I see some quite real vulnerabilities in aspects of these and other areas. Some of the vulnerabilities are simply waiting for natural disasters or accidents, as with the Gulf hurricanes or at least the early phases of the 2003 Ohio Valley blackout. Others could be sabotaged by a few skilled people in the right places. In yet other cases, we can reduce vulnerability by things with price tags in the low millions to mid-billions, the higher-priced threats coming, in part, from unforeseen consequences of deregulation (e.g., electrical power).

Let me turn to healthcare. At the macro level, there is a value in universal access, and, with due privacy safeguards, screening for early natural or deliberate disease outbreaks. While I generally hear much FUD about avian influenza, we don't need terrorism to cause cartain other pandemics -- and, indeed, with things from antibiotic growth supplements in agriculture to excessive use of disinfectants, we are lowering what is technically called "herd immunity" -- the herd in question being human.

On a personal level, a few years back, while well covered, I had a pacemaker installed. Among assorted well-managed cardiac disorders, I have an atypical form of what is called sick sinus syndrome. What this means is that during sleep, my heart will forget to beat for varying lengths of time; the longer pauses happened to be while under monitoring and very close support was applied. My reality is that I have a couple of years before the pacemaker battery needs to be replaced. I do have improved coverage, not from work that converted to contractor from employee. Otherwise, within a time far shorter than it would take to have Iran develop deliverable nuclear weapons, I simply would go to sleep one night and never wake up.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Just to pick nits, there are some politicians that aren't from 'money.' Rod Blagoyevich who is IL Governor was raised in an apartment in Chicago by a steel mill worker father.

Moreover, I don't buy the idea that any person who is privileged can't support fair play. FDR was as 'old money' as it gets, but he is the best friend the working man ever had.

In Pelosi's '88 congressional run, a debate panelist said Pelosi was too rich to understand plebian concerns. She responded that you don't have to be sick to be a doctor - the idea being that you can relieve suffering without suffering yourself.

It mattered that they got Bob Casey to run.

In what way did it matter? In the final weeks of the campaign, every poll done in Pennsylvania showed that about 60% Casey's votes were "Against Santorum" as opposed to "For Casey." Many, many people didn't even have an idea who Bob Casey was until the last month of the campaign.

Since Casey won about 60/40, we can see that about 35% of the electorate in Pennsylvania were going go vote for Anybody But Santorum.

The Democrats could have run Humpty Dumpty and won. Better yet, they could have run a Democrat.

BTW, convincing Bob Casey to run for US Senate from his job as Auditor General was approximately as difficult as convincing your parrot to eat hulled sunflower seeds.

In what way did it matter? In the final weeks of the campaign, every poll done in Pennsylvania showed that about 60% Casey's votes were "Against Santorum" as opposed to "For Casey." Many, many people didn't even have an idea who Bob Casey was until the last month of the campaign.

This is a meaningless statistic in the context of this discussion.  In every election in which an incumbent is running for re-election, the voter asks him or herself two questions: do I want to fire the incumbent and do I feel comfortable with the challenger.  In that order.  So of course more people said they were voting against Santorum rather than for Casey.  That's ALWAYS THE CASE when an incumbent loses.  The key thing is that people felt comfortable with the challenger.  There are many cases where people are unhappy with the incumbent but re-elect him anyway due to their lack of comfort with the challenger.  Case in point is George W. Bush and John Kerry.  Bush's approval ratings were in the mid-40's, yet he still won because too many people thought Kerry was a doofus. 

So the crack about running Humpty-Dumpty is, along with the rest of your post, sheer nonsense.

There are many ways to fight -- the "alpha male" is often a false stereotype. A moron who gets snuffed the first time he wonders outside of his World Wrestling Federation fantasy into the real world.

Anyone remember George Bush in the aviator's suit under the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner on the aircraft carrier -- safely anchored in San Diego Bay? How many of our bootlicking pundits noted at that time that the Bush/Cheney military tradition had been to never get within 1000 miles of an active battlefield?

Rahm Emanuel went into Chicago politics wearing a tutu and not only survived but prospered. That tells you he is a tough --and smart -- sonofabitch.

Dimwit pundits who swoon over surface props (like Bush's cowboy hat and pickup truck) never get the point. But then, when was the last time someone in the 82 Airborne or Marines wrote for the New York Times?

The socalled "image problem" heaped on the democrats is a GOP and Bush government conjuring, having no basis in reality, and totally unsubstantiaed.

The real image problem is the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government and the republican reich repeatedly and insistantly DECEIVING, ABUSING, and FAILING the American public, and profiteering WANTONLY in and from the fetid process. No need to remind the wingnutsia truebelievers and lockstep partisans of Abramoff, Foley, Cunningham, and all the cost bloody noendinsight horrors ongoing in Iraq, or of the FAILURE to complete the mission in Afghanistan, or the energy policy written by oil and energy oligarchs in secret, health care policies back by HMO's and insurance lobbies, bankruptsy laws drafted by credit companies and banks, and the brutal factbasedrealities of tax and economic policies robbing from poor and middle class Americans to feed the superrich. I could go on for pages, but the hypocrisy sliming the DNC with image issues is a laughable joke in light of the factbasedrealities and well documented DECEPTIONS, ABUSES, FAILURES, and WANTON PROFITEERING of the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government and the republican reich.

So when wingnutsia partisan mentions an image problem, they need to look in the mirror and recognize that the grotesque image problem, and astonomical credibility gap falls squarely and justifiably upon the criminal oleaginous laps of the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government and the republican reich. The truth will set you free, - wingnutsia truebelievers might want to look into it.

Thanks; I think I see where I've been missing your point.

At the same time, the amount of concern -- protest doesn't seem the right word -- from senior military people, either retired or close enough that they have nothing to gain, is unprecedented since the Civil War. I highly recommend HR McMaster's Dereliction of Duty, which deals with much of the senior military thinking during Vietnam. A fair number of three- and four-stars kept silent because they felt they could have more influence that way. Most terribly regret the decision; Army Chief of Staff Harold Johnson agonized over resigning in protest -- and felt, in retrospect, he made the wrong decision.

Linking Fallon and Iran is quite a mental leap, but it's a scary one if there is anything to it.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Linking Fallon and Iran is quite a mental leap, but it's a scary one if there is anything to it."

You aren't the only one making this leap although some are waxing priapic in anticipation that it's rewyrewytwew.

It turns out that "Fox" Fallon once commanded notorious neocon master warplanner "Skipper" William J Luti who was embedded in the DOD at the OSP. The WP's Tom Ricks reported that Fallon "chuckled" at the very notion that Luti could be involved in distorting intel on Saddam's WMDs.

The Admiral and Rumsfeld's man Peter "He [Rummy] leads in a way that the good Lord tells him is best for our country" Pace are also well acquainted and co-authored a ca.1999 policy paper on why we needed to keep on bombiing Vieques.

Rumsfeld-as-true-believer explains it all in this portion of his ceremonial farewell address:

"America is not what's wrong with this world," he said. "Ours is a message that was heard and fought for in places like Berlin, Prague, Riga, Tokyo, Seoul, San Salvador, Vilnius, and Warsaw, and that message is even now being whispered in the coffee houses and the streets of Damascus and Tehran and Pyongyang. The great sweep of human history is for freedom, and America is on freedom's side."
http://www.blackanthem.com/News/International_21/DoD_Honors_Rumsfeld_Bids_Farewell2841.shtml

( Beirut takes a deep breath and slowly releases it part way)