Did anyone else find Broderella’s column today as offensive as I did?

Let’s start with the title.  Gee, looky what we have here:  "Clinton’s Presidential Posturing."  How astute!  How discerning!  You see, when Hillary does it - because, of course, this is Hillary we’re talking about here - it’s "posturing."  When it’s, oh, say, Holy Joe Lieberman doing the talking, it’s principled, bipartisan, independent - you know, everything we dirty fucking hippies are not.

So what were Hillary’s sins?  Let’s see:

"[V]irtually all members of the committee were present, and senators of both parties recognized the value of probing this experienced and candid witness.

With one exception. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York used her time to make a speech about Iraq policy and did not ask a single question of the man who will be leading the military campaign."

She made a speech?  Good heavens!  Whatever could she have been thinking?  After all, it’s not as though any male senators have ever used hearings to "make a speech" - and certainly no Republican senators would ever dream of doing such a thing.  But wait . . . there’s more:

"She began by blaming the Iraq crisis on a "Congress [that] was supine under the Republican majority, failing to conduct oversight and demanding accountability, and because the president and his team, particularly the former secretary of defense, refused to adapt to the changing circumstances on the ground."

From that partisan opening, Clinton went on to decry "the failures of the Iraqis to step up and take responsibility for their own future." She said that the escalation Bush ordered was too little and too late and instead called on Congress to "threaten to cut money for the Iraqi troops and for the security for the Iraqi leadership," as a way to break the political gridlock in Baghdad and force efforts at national reconciliation."

Re-read that second graf again, especially the first four words.  Got that?  In the, um, er, inherently partisan institution that is the U.S. Senate, the bitch had the temerity to deliver a "partisan opening."

Then he excoriates her for asking Petraeus for his "assurance that ‘we have every possible piece of equipment and resource necessary to protect these young men and women’ going into battle," which elicited a "four-word response," and then being "finished."  Because, remember, "[s]he had no questions to ask."

Then, our pearl-clutching pundit turns to one of his favorite "bipartisan" types:  St. John of the Surge.  Oh, yes, indeedy-do.   

Let’s see what Broderella has to say about McCain:

"McCain asked Petraeus 14 questions, ranging from the political situation in Iraq to the morale of the troops to the timeline for the planned ’surge.’ He ran out of time before he ran out of questions — quite a contrast to Clinton."

‘Cause, you know, none of St. John’s questions could possibly have been considered "posturing."  Nor could Holy Joe Lieberman’s whining administration handjob question, or Saxby "Max Cleland [Hearts] Osama" Chambliss’s surge suckup question.

But then we get to the real point:

"Clinton aides said that the senator thought it was important to rebut the comments from several other committee members suggesting that congressional resolutions opposing the president’s policy would "undercut the troops," so she used her time for that purpose. But I can think of three other possible explanations for her remarkable reluctance to probe the general’s thinking."

I’ll bet you can, Broderella.  Of course, they might be fantasies as much as "possible explanations," but why let that stop you?  And, of course, he doesn’t:

"First, she has been treading a careful line from her early support of military action against Saddam Hussein to an increasingly sharp criticism of the war and calls for troop reductions. Perhaps she feared that dialogue with Petraeus would lead her into dangerous, uncharted waters. Caution is commendable, but she is sometimes faulted for being too calculating."

‘Cause, like, no male senator would ever be "calculating."  And, of course, being Hillary, she’s afraid - you know, of all those "dangerous, uncharted waters."

"Second, the hearing came only three days after she announced her presidential exploratory committee, and she may have decided it was a good opportunity to repeat her views on Iraq policy before TV cameras rather than share time with the general. That wouldn’t say much about her priorities as she begins a second six-year term as senator, but New York voters presumably knew in November that she might have loftier goals than just minding her Senate duties."

Again, a male candidate - especially a Republican one like St. John - would never, ever take advantage of "a good opportunity" "before TV cameras" to push
his message.  And, of course, we all know how greedy she is - look!  She doesn’t even want to "share time with the general"!  Which, of course, gives Broderella license to slam her "priorities" and unwillingness to "mind[] her Senate duties."

But Broderella’s not done.  In fact, he’s just warming up:

"The third, less benign possibility is that Clinton is reverting to the mode of her ill-fated 1993-94 health-care initiative, when she gave members of Congress and other interested folks the impression that she thought she had all the answers — so please just do as I say. In that period, she and her deputy, Ira Magaziner, two of the smartest policy wonks in captivity, were also supremely self-confident — and in some eyes, arrogant. And it cost them support, even among potential allies."

You mean those two previous accusations were "benign?"  Pardon me all to hell; I didn’t realize.

No, here we get to the thrust of his Hillary-hating:  "[S]he thought she had all the answers."  She told everyone, "please just do as I say."  She was "supremely self-confident" (which, of course, is not a cardinal sin for a male pol; no, it’s an asset).  And she was, "in some eyes, arrogant" [emphasis added].  Um, Dave?  Whose eyes would those be?  Not yours, by chance?

Broderella’s conclusion?

"This month Clinton began her presidential campaign, as she did her first race for the Senate in New York, by saying that she wanted to do a lot of listening. She sure wasn’t listening to Gen. Petraeus. She wasn’t even asking."

Dave, put down your pearls for a minute and listen to me.  Slowly.  Carefully.  It’s two-thousand-seven.  The twenty-first century.  Women are allowed to run for office now.  Even the top office.  And they’re allowed to have opinions, and run campaigns, and take advantage of the spotlight when the opportunity presents itself.  They’re also allowed to be knowledgeable - confident, even.  And they don’t need your permission, or your approval.  But considering the influence you have from your lofty pundit’s highchair - influence utterly disproportionate to your intellect or talent, I realize, but life ain’t fair - could you at least make a minimal attempt to pretend that you’re 1) not a complete sexist, and 2) not a rabid wingnut Hillary-hater?  Oh, and while you’re at it, could you maybe run some columns that are equally snide about male pols?

I’ll wait with bated breath . . . .