Can a woman be a misogynist?

If the woman in question is Kathleen Parker, then the answer is "yes."

Her Wednesday column (the only online link I could find was at Town Hall -- sorry about that), snidely entitled "Powder Room Politics," appeared in the Palm Beach Post today. And it's as good an example of misogynism and inch-deep, hyper-generalized analysis as you'll find from any of the O'Reilly/Broder/Beck crowd. The gist of the column appears to be, essentially, that men should treat Hillary Clinton nicely because if they don't, women will elect her president.

Disclosure: I'm no fan of Sen. Clinton, particularly. However, my feelings about her have nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman and everything to do with what I believe to be her less-than-progressive positions on Iraq and Iran. Moreover, if she wins the Democratic nomination, I will do everything I can to ensure that she becomes our 44th president.

But, in order to do so, I guess she's going to have to continue to deal with asshattery like this from Parker.

Will women vote for Hillary Clinton only because she's a woman?

That question keeps getting bounced around and I've recently revised my answer from "no" to "yes."

That is, yes, women will vote for Clinton because she's a woman -- if men target her as a woman.

Translation: Gentlemen, if you don't want another Clinton in the White House, do not say unkind things about her persona, demeanor, appearance -- even if bull's-eye true. Not even in your own kitchen with your own wife.

Women have radar for anti-woman sentiments -- and all guys have them to some degree. Blame Mom, if you haven't already. And no one has benefited more from being a victim than the candidate formerly known as Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Yeah, that's the kind of bullshit Parker's throwing around this time. According to Krazy Kathy ("Krazy Kitty" having already been used here), there evidently are plenty of "unkind things" to be said about Sen. Clinton's "persona, demeanor, [and] appearance." Never mind that we never learn exactly what makes those things relevant to being president of the United States. Moreover, as a penised-American, I must have some anti-woman sentiments. This comes as news to me, but Krazy Kathy knows I have them. Perhaps she is using her radar, or she is hiding in my house, recording my incessant tirades against all things female. (Allegedly.)

I used to think she was relatively moderate, but she's becoming more and more shrill with each passing column, definitely in the Bobo caliber of Repuke-fellating and Clinton-hating. Oops -- did I say "shrill?"

Women may attack each other -- I've been known to observe the shrillness of Hillary's voice -- but when a man does it, something female kicks in among even the least girly of us. Bottom line: What women have in common with Hillary Clinton will always exceed what they have in common with men. This is powder room wisdom.

Once again, to wingnuts, a shrill voice is an automatic disqualification for the presidency. Good thing we have the dulcet tones of Drunky McStagger to remind us what an unshrill voice sounds like.

But wait ... there's more:

Today we have a different Hillary Clinton. Now a consummate politician in her own right, Clinton has a record and a position (or two or three) on national issues that transcend her domestic life. Criticism of her policies isn't just appropriate, but necessary.

But she should lose the presidency for legitimate reasons, not because men find her unappealing.

What policies transcend Sen. Clinton's domestic life? Why is criticism of those policies not "just appropriate, but necessary?" Krazy Kathy doesn't tell us. Indeed, she can't tell us, because doing so would ruin the simple beauty of her ad hominem attacks. And, remember, "men find [Clinton] unappealing." Thanks for that reminder ... for a moment there, I was beginning to like Hillary. Whew!

I can't take much more of this garbage ... but you have to see the closing passage:

Similarly, what men have in common with Bill Clinton exceeds what they have in common with women -- even if they are contemptuous of his narcissism and lack of self-control.

Many of us witnessed this in our own kitchens during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The deeper Ken Starr cut into Bill Clinton's very private life, the more men felt sympathy for and aligned themselves with the president. In the locker room, schadenfreude has its limits.

Will women vote for Hillary just because she's a woman? Only if men attack Hillary as a woman.

So be nice, boys, or you may end up choking on the words "Madam President."

Do I have to parse that last bit? Please. Look, bottom line: Kathleen Parker is a pathetic, whining shrew (how's that for ad hominem?) and her column merely reflects her own self-loathing feelings about a strong female presidential candidate. I may not support Sen. Clinton as a candidate right now, but I sure as hell admire her, and that is in no small part because she is a woman. Parker has it completely backwards: a woman seriously considered as a candidate for president isn't something to fear and belittle. It's something to applaud as well overdue.

WATB of the Week: Kathleen Parker

Did you see the latest inanity spewed forth by WaPo syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker? This week, Parker whined about the supposed slamming of her BFF Laura Bush following the First Robot's donning of a Muslim head scarf during a visit to Saudi Arabia.

Check this out:

Unlike most who have commented, I was there. The controversial photo shows Mrs. Bush donning a black headscarf decorated with the iconic pink bows signifying breast cancer awareness. It was the only time Mrs. Bush covered her head during the trip, and the episode lasted perhaps a minute.

The scarf was a gift to Mrs. Bush from a dozen Saudi women who shared their experiences fighting breast cancer with the first lady. The morning meeting was touching and intimate, the sort of bonding experience that opens hearts and minds in diplomatically useful ways.

Upon receiving the gift, Mrs. Bush did what any decent, well-mannered person would do. She demonstrated her appreciation by placing the scarf on her head. In Saudi Arabia, it was a sweet, wordless gesture of friendship and mutual respect.

Yet to read and hear remarks over the past few days, you'd think Mrs. Bush had organized a pilgrimage to the stoning fields.

Oh, puke. Look, Kathy, if you love Laura that much, why don't you just marry her? Or just, you know, rearrange her circuitry?

It gets better:

On Monday, a column posted on The Jerusalem Post's Web site carried the headline, "Our World: Laura Bush's embrace of tyranny." Huh? Columnist Caroline Glick wrote that Mrs. Bush's donning of the scarf and her visit in general were symbolically "deeply disturbing."

Ms. Glick's point, reiterated elsewhere throughout the blogosphere, was that Mrs. Bush was effectively endorsing the subjugation of Saudi women by wearing the scarf.

And that, my friends, is basically the last you hear of Laurabot's scarf episode, as Parker takes a sharp right turn (what else?) to harp about what a wonderful diplomat Mrs. McStagger was as she traveled to raise awareness about breast cancer, yadda, yadda.

Could it be that Parker subtly sidestepped the scarf issue -- after bringing it up and whining about it -- because it would seem hypocritical? A right-wing columnist hypocritical? Perish the thought ...

But the Right hammered Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for doing the same thing six months (or, if you prefer, one Friedman Unit) ago! HuffPo collects the atrocities.

Now, I can't find a specific example of Parker criticizing Pelosi for the scarf, but since so many of Parker's ideological allies do, it stands to reason that she would have, given the opportunity. And if there's one thing I can't stand, it's hypocrisy. So, Kathy, I'd like to offer you a frosty mug of shut the fuck up. Come back when you think you have the moral high ground again, so I can slap you down once more. It's fun!

The opinion page from hell

Yes, that's what the Palm Beach Post has offered us today. A big, heaping helping of bullshit, starring the Usual Suspects.

First, we have to deal with the incomparable Bobo. David Brooks' column today (originally published in the New York Times yesterday) is, typically, full of strawmen and tortured logic. I'd link to it here, but (1) I don't want to give him the traffic, meager though it may be, and (2) I can't find the column anywhere that doesn't require a paid registration (e.g., the Times' own "TimesSelect" feature -- if you happen to be a member and a masochist, Bobo's column is here). But let me just summarize, if I can: Republicans already are running against Hillary Clinton, John McCain is talking straight, and Mitt Romney has broad shoulders. Or something like that. Anyway, here's an excerpt:

But there are flashes. There are times when [Republican candidates] break out of the conventional trench warfare and touch the anger and longing that define this historical moment.

One occurred at a McCain event on Wednesday. In Washington, the McCain campaign is considered dead, but somebody seems to have forgotten to tell the people up here [in New Hampshire]. A man at one packed event rose to vent his outrage at Washington. He ignited something in John McCain, who started talking about what he'd learned from the failure of immigration reform. Sen. McCain worked himself up, recounting one failure and disgrace after another, culminating finally with an angry bellow: "Nobody trusts us to do what we say we're going to do!"

It wasn't a Howard Beale Network moment, but it touched something. The crowd was with him all the way.

The other flash I saw was at a Romney event at the Lincoln Financial Group in Concord. Mr. Romney had slipped away from the policy chunks of his stump speech and was talking about his success in business and in running the Olympics. He was talking about how you assemble a team of people with complementary skills. How you use data and analysis to replace opinion. How you set benchmarks and how often you should perform self-evaluation.

It wasn't impassioned or angry (he doesn't do anger). But it was Mr. Romney losing himself in something he cares about, and it opened up a vista of how government might operate.

The McCain and Romney flashes weren't about policy. They weren't part of the normal Republican vs. Democratic dynamic. They were about leadership, honor, intelligence. If Republicans are going to have a chance, it'll be because, by focusing on the state of American politics, they reshape the battleground under everyone's feet.

Jesus, Bobo, how long did you work to come up with that closing sentence? The only thing Republicans are reshaping is the level of stupidity in politics, by increasing it.

And don't you love the fawning over McCain and Romney? First, Saint John, who's tanking even in, yes, New Hampshire ("somebody seems to have forgotten to tell them," my ass), gets fired up about -- of all things -- immigration reform, a topic that even his own party can't agree on (witness the GOP criticism of Drunky McStagger's proposals). Then Mitt "[lost] himself in something he cares about," namely, himself! Bobo just finished telling us how Mitt was talking about his business success and the Olympics ...

You know, this stuff just isn't that hard to parse.

But the Post didn't stop there. No, they also gave us Kathleen Parker, who keeps descending further and further into the batshit crazy wingnut abyss. She chose to go after the "Baghdad Diarist," an American soldier who is reporting atrocities by other American soldiers in Iraq. But, even in disputing the authenticity of the reports, she minimizes the allegations to the point of absurdity:

The New Republic editors say they're investigating the reports, but refuse to reveal the author's identity. There's always a chance, of course, that these stories have some truth to them. Maybe a guy made an unkind remark about a poor woman's burned face. Maybe a dog got run over. Maybe a grave was found and a soldier capped his head with a skull part.

Stranger - and far worse - things have happened in war. But people who have served in Iraq have raised enough questions about these particular anecdotes that one is justified in questioning whether they are true.

Ah, I see. So it's okay if someone "cap[s] his head with a skull part," so long as it's not "playing with dead baby parts found in a mass grave" (her words), right? Parker's rationalization and condoning of such behavior is appalling. And her justification for her position?

Mike Nifong, the North Carolina prosecutor in the alleged Duke lacrosse team rape case, was able to convince a credulous community of residents, academics and especially journalists that the three falsely accused men had raped a black stripper despite compelling evidence to the contrary.

Why? Because the lies supported their own truths. In the case of Duke, that "truth" was that privileged white athletes are racist pigs who of course would rape a black woman given half a chance and a bottle o' beer.

In the case of Scott Thomas, the "truth" that American soldiers are woman-hating, dog-killing, grave-robbing monsters confirms what many among the anti-war left believe about the military, despite their protestations that they "support the troops."

We tend to believe what we want to believe, in other words.

I don't remember any of the "anti-war left" alleging that American soldiers are such monsters. It's just another strawman, the specialty of the warmongering press (as opposed to, you know, the "anti-war left"). Then, she calls some two-thirds of the nation, who oppose the war in Iraq, liars, since if they say they "support the troops," they really don't. Goddamn, I'm sick of the meme that opposition to the war and support of the troops are mutually exclusive. It is possible to support the troops and oppose the war, in the same way that Christians say they "love the sinner and hate the sin." It's the same thing ... go ahead, argue with me otherwise. You'll lose.

Finally, the Post offers up one of their own, Stebbins Jefferson, under the headline, "In this war, give Bush credit." Only she doesn't mean Iraq ... she means Darfur.

Before you conclude that this discussion is a partisan indictment of callous disregard on the part of the Bush administration, please note that this information from the "Save Darfur Coalition" in Washington reported earlier this year that President Bush demanded prompt action be taken by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashar to end the slaughter, admit United Nations peacekeepers into Darfur, and stop blocking humanitarian aid. Mr. Bush warned that if those steps were not taken, the United States would impose unilateral economic sanctions targeting 31 companies owned, controlled or affiliated with the government. Sudanese officials ignored these demands. On May 29, President Bush implemented the unilateral sanctions.

So far, imposition of economic sanctions by one nation has made no significant impact on stopping the genocide. Multilateral sanctions with the cooperation of Sudan's biggest economic partners, such as China, Russia and India, are needed. Nevertheless, the U.S. is doing something while the U.N. continues to juggle impressive but ineffective resolutions for an international peacekeeping force.

So, we should applaud Drunky for sticking his neck out there and imposing unilateral sanctions on Sudan, sanctions that demonstrably have had no effect and with which there has been no international cooperation. Not to minimize the genocide in Darfur, but why does Drunky seem to care about those lives and not the lives of the American soldiers he's sending to Iraq and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died for his vendetta? The answer is, clearly, that it's easy to impose sanctions and say you're doing something about Darfur, when you know that there'd be no controversy about it and you also know you're not going to have to back up your sanctions with anything stronger.

I generally appreciate the things the Post has to say in its own editorials. But the fact that they still provide a forum for people like Bobo and Parker, who have been so stunningly, historically wrong over and over and over again, definitely gives me cause to wonder about whether they deserve my subscription money.