The Dishonest BS of Krazy Kristol
Bill “Krazy” Kristol had this to say in his column in the Times yesterday:
I do think I can speak for most of my fellow right-wingers when I say this: We once looked forward with unambivalent glee to the fall of the house of Clinton. Many of us still do. But we also see the liberal media failing to give Hillary Clinton the respect she deserves. So, since we conservatives believe in giving credit where credit is due, it falls to us to praise Hillary.
The fact is Hillary Clinton has turned out to be an impressive candidate.
*****
She is, of course, still behind in the race, and Obama will most likely be the nominee. His team has run the better campaign. In particular, it realized how important the caucus states could be: Obama’s delegate lead depends on his caucus victories.
But Hillary may well be the better candidate…
Riiiiiiiiiiight.
I’m sure he cares deeply about Hillary. (Because, of course, he had nothing to do with destroying Hillarycare way back when.) I’m sure he lavishes such praise on her sincerely and without any ulterior motives whatsoever. I’m sure his view that she’s “the better candidate” reflects thoughtful political analysis rather than extreme partisanship. I’m sure he really wants McCain, upon whom he has long had a serious crush (the krazy neocon hegemonist supporting the crazy warmonger and neo-Cold Warrior), to go up against “the better candidate” in November. And I’m sure his regurgitation of Hillaryland spin (Hillary could be ahead in the popular vote, if you don’t count Michigan and Florida and you twist the caucus results) is just a coincidence.
(Quite the convenient, partisan flip-flopper he is: Back in 2000, he argued against popular-vote-based democracy — you know, when Gore won the popular vote.)
But at least he gets to attack “the liberal media” — you know, like his employers at the Times, the publisher of which is ardently pro-Hillary. Does Krazy Kristol even know that? Maybe, but what “liberal media” exactly is he attacking? The “liberal media” that turned on Obama a long time ago, well before Ohio and Texas, the “liberal media” that keep hammering Obama on Wright and Bittergate, the “liberal media” that also regurgitate the Hillaryland spin about how so much more important the big states are, about how she’s got the momentum now?
It doesn’t really matter. There is no “liberal media” of the kind Krazy Kristol and his krazy right-wing pals claim there is. It’s all just propaganda. And, for now, the anti-”liberal media” propaganda has been fused with some pro-Hillary propaganda. Hillary cozied up to one of the leaders of the vast right-wing conspiracy, Dick Scaife, ending up with his endorsement, but Kristol is a “friend” she can do without. He’s not looking to help her, just trying to keep the Democrats divided and — behind the typically dishonest BS — to gloat over the plight, the ongoing campaign, of his (and McCain’s) opponents.
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
opinions powered by SendLove.to
6 Responses to “The Dishonest BS of Krazy Kristol”
Clearly what he means is that Hillary is the best democratic candidate… for McCain to run against.
Kritsol is a puppet, like Coulter, Hannity and Rush. They will say whatever the GOP fist shoved up their backside wants them to say.
Michael, when it comes to the Middle East I prefer Bill Kristol's analyses to yours.
Stickings is just being on drugs again. Maybe it's a bizarre reaction to Obama's current troubles. Calm down, Mikey; it's not the end of his campaign. What it has done is spawn other inept commentary. And is there any insight why Kagan's brother rather than the “real” Kagan we know got published? You're too immature to simply wonder if it's because the “real” Kagan has been discredited. Meanwhile, here, childish authors can't even spell “korrectly.”
He does have a point (Kristal), I really dislike Clinton and have for years. Here with all the Obama dems lashing out I find myself defending her. Like Shaun's misogynistic like attack, it just seems beyond the pale to that level of disrespect.
Hillary being the best candidate seems quite conistent with Kristol's general syle.
His foreigh policy, likewide, is based on force first and thinking later, whern it's too late. Consequences don't figure into the calculations, in a realistic way..
That's exactly where both Kristol and Hilllary are wrong, IMO.
Hillary's kind of victory is likely to drive Independents to MCain, resulting in a loss for the Democratic Party.
Kristol's kind of foreign policy is likely to drive support for both Israel and the US away,, resulting in a loss for both.
Cosequences matter a whole lot in my calcualtons.
I can understand the appeal of imagining the vanquishment ot enemies, political or otherwise. Throwing a punch that backfires in order to do so, defeats the purrpose of the punch.