Of the 8,200 new troops, 4,700 will head to Iraq, while 3,500 will be sent to Afghanistan, bringing the number of American soldiers in that country to its highest level ever, the Post reports. House Democrats don't much like the idea, nor do they like Bush's request for an additional $3.4 billion to pay for the troops.
See Slate's Today's Papers. This is a test. Congress has the power of the purse, something that cannot be explained away by the problems of filibusters or vetoes. Funding the war is an affirmative act. If Congress, without at least getting an agreement to no veto of their latest timetable proposal (see Talking Points Memo for updates), agrees to such funding they will rightly be deemed hypocrites. Time to do something truly serious to promote reason and the will of the people who put them in power.
Personally, I don't actually see Edwards as feminine, but if he does have feminine qualities, I don't see why that makes him unable to lead our country. Look at a stereotypical feminine qualities of Bill Clinton, for which he was much maligned: the ability to listen to others, make them feel he really felt for them, and an apparent willingness to empathize. Then look at a stereotypically masculine quality of his: unbounded sexual appetite (and, to some, sex appeal). Our current Commander in Chief apparently, or at least to me, has reverse qualities: no ability to empathize or hear others (and a certainty that he is right) and a tight rein over his emotions and sexuality (or at least no visible sensual nature that I can see, but these things are notoriously hard to judge).
-- Foilwoman
I see these things much the same way as I see private morality and religion. I don't think those things ought to be relevant to political choices, but those who make them relevant by constantly injecting them into our discourse have to be subjected to the standards they espouse.
-- GlennGreenwald
I think this a useful expansive look at the broader nature of Ann Coutler's remarks, other than as a reflective of how such poison pills are more "mainstream" parts of the conservative movement than some might wish to admit (ignoring such things is how the "liberal" MSM promotes anti-liberal messages). One excuse for the remark was that it was not meant to be anti-gay, but a taunt on Edwards' toughness. In fact, it reflects the simplistic understanding of sex/gender expressed in this country. GG in fact somewhat wickedly underlines the point by printing the photos of two "manly men" who question Edwards masculinity.
Now, the fact Edwards is "pretty" is not news. His wife joked about his youth and hair in her charming book. The "attractive" nature of candidates, not just in the Obama/Biden broader sense, has long been a draw -- one both sides. And, we even have a new word for that sort of man with it all -- metrosexual. Many think such characters are good in various ways, but surely many men care about their appearance (often as a matter of status) and so forth. Others, sometimes the same ones, are warily about appearing "gay" or "feminine" (deemed similar to many).
So, the outer appearance of masculinity is important. Thus, fake sorts like Bush and Reagan are worshiped. This is related to those who cynically use religion/religious believers, such as those who support movements who think his daughter is going to hell. This is on some level sad, but all to often is quite dangerous -- many people are victims of those who feel weak or thinks (sometimes on some level rightly) that they must defend their image. We can see this writ large in our foreign policy. It is "wimpy" to not mindlessly go to war. Those "pansies" like Kerry who actually did go to war just don't realize such things.
A word also on GG's comment. On some level, it annoys me when people -- yeah I mean you Sam Seder/Randy Rhodes -- sneer at the fact certain people in the Republican hierarchy appear to be gay (SS has a closet door sound effect), that Rudy G. married his second cousin (who cares?), or Libby wrote a disgusting sounding novel involving a child prostitute trained by keeping her trapped with a bear that sodomizes her (really). Oh, and Jeff Gannon made such sorts nearly wet themselves.
But, yes, there is hypocrisy there, and a major draw/danger of the party is the idea that they are the moral ones, and we need to be just like them -- including under the force of law. Bush is an asshole ... but we are supposed to think he is so much classier than Clinton. Yeah right.* So, yeah, if some people who are morally dubious and if anything are pretty wimpy want to sneer at those who they deem feminine reprobates, on some level they have it coming to them.
But, watch out. Laying it on too thick is icky too. Mention the hypocrisy, but watch the childish taunts a bit, okay?
---
* Have I said that I really don't want HC running? I am sick of the hatred that poisons things today, and as a Nation piece notes, she is a voice from the past as well. Imagine if it's her against Rudy? What a f-ing poison pill that will be, real debate being an uphill battle.
The early evening host of Air America, who I like, recently promoted Al Gore ... playing a clip from 2002 on Iraq. I doubt he will run, but she's right. Edwards -- see The Nation as well -- is also a good choice. I still think him a bit green, and his vote in 2002 rankles. Since I think Obama even more green in some ways etc., his opposition doesn't quite help. Might want to check out Dodd. Oh well. Early yet ... first primary isn't due to at least September, right?