WaPo Consults Ministry of Silly Walks, Backtracks From Obama Conspiracy

"Listen to me! Please listen! If you don't, if you won't, if you fail to understand, then the same incredible terror that's menacing me WILL STRIKE AT YOU!"

Forget about Obama and the Canadian Embassy, The Washington Post, apparently, huddled with Monty Pythons' "Ministry of Silly Walks" and rocketed backwards, from their their Woman-Bashing Op-Ed of Sunday.

The Washington Post’s failed effort at satire?

“If it insulted people, that was not the intent,” Outlook editor John Pomfret told me this morning, calling the piece “tongue-in-cheek.” […]

Pomfret said that being an opinion article, he’s not surprised readers reacted to it strongly. But added: “Perhaps it wasn’t packaged well enough to make it clear that it was tongue-in-cheek.”

Even if intended as a joke, the Allen piece clearly isn’t the best way for the Post to achieve its goal of bringing in more women readers, and it remains to be seen if the fallout continues today.

They even changed the headline!

And WaPo's Ombudsman isn't buying into it.

As The Garlic pointed out, this appeared to be a very sly, crafty collaboration, between the WaPo, Charlotte Allen and Hillary Clinton, to put out such an offensive Op-Ed, insulting and degrading woman, two-days before Little Super Tuesday, and look what happened;

Clinton revives campaign in Ohio, Texas

And, as we cautioned;

"And they come out with this, what do we want to call it, this Hillary Manifesto, at this late stage ... Yes, Allen and The Washington Post has thrown in their lot with the Freakshow ... They want a Hillary-McCain finale ... Their in league with McCain and the RNC ...

So, how do you explain this;

Limbaugh urges listeners to vote for Clinton

And Hillary, seemingly, returning the favor;

Clinton praises McCain’s experience

Even the one of the Freakshow's biggest Freaks has questions, as do the exit polls.

Was this woman-bashing Op-Ed part of the Clinton Campaign's "Kitchen Sink" strategy?

If so, watch out ladies, there'll be more incoming ... Perhaps a new batch of 3AM Ads- something like 3:15AM and 3:30AM, just to keep the pressure on, to maintain the fear level just right ... To keep woman awake, sleepless, and getting angry about it

And then, WHAMO!, Hillary and her cohorts hit with another insulting piece, probably dissing woman, for not being able to trust a candidate who will allow them the luxury of a decent night's sleep.

Maybe, after all those years of railing against the "vast rightwing conspiracy", Hillary has decided to team up with it

Obama can't keep you safe ... Obama won't let you sleep ...

Watch out, all you people in Pennsylvania ...

Think of this post (and taking a liberty) as Kevin McCarthy, in the waning moments of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"

"She's here already! You're next!!"

Bonus Links

Monty Python - Ministry of Silly Walks

Media Matters: Despite paper's concern "about keeping women as newspaper readers," Wash. Post published essay calling women "kind of dim" and "the stupid sex"

Crooks and Liars: Why the Washington Post can’t satisfy their women (or, Tweety eat yer heart out!)

Jane Hamsher: “Tongue In Cheek?” Nice Try

Rachel Sklar: WaPo Writer Proves Own Thesis With Inane Op-Ed

Jeff Fecke: Don't You Angry Feminists Have a Sense of Humor?

What Else Could It Be? ... WaPo Launches Plan, Push To Elect Hillary!

Am I the only one that sees this?

The blogosphere and World Wide Web is in conflagration today, over the Op-Ed piece, in The Washington Post by Charlotte Allen;

We Scream, We Swoon. How Dumb Can We Get?

This is how it opens;

"Here's Agence France-Presse reporting on a rally for Sen. Barack Obama at the University of Maryland on Feb. 11: "He did not flinch when women screamed as he was in mid-sentence, and even broke off once to answer a female's cry of 'I love you, Obama!' with a reassuring 'I love you back.' " Women screamed? What was this, the Beatles tour of 1964? And when they weren't screaming, the fair-sex Obama fans who dominated the rally of 16,000 were saying things like: "Every time I hear him speak, I become more hopeful." Huh?

“Women ‘Falling for Obama,’ ” the story’s headline read. Elsewhere around the country, women were falling for the presidential candidate literally. Connecticut radio talk show host Jim Vicevich has counted five separate instances in which women fainted at Obama rallies since last September. And I thought such fainting was supposed to be a relic of the sexist past, when patriarchs forced their wives and daughters to lace themselves into corsets that cut off their oxygen.

I can’t help it, but reading about such episodes of screaming, gushing and swooning makes me wonder whether women — I should say, “we women,” of course — aren’t the weaker sex after all. Or even the stupid sex, our brains permanently occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction by the superficial. Women “are only children of a larger growth,” wrote the 18th-century Earl of Chesterfield. Could he have been right?"

And it goes on (and on) evoking every slight, slander and stereotype against woman.

The above-mention conflagration?

How Dumb?, says Mustang Bobby ... "Outrageous" screams Jay Newton-Small... "Speak for Yourself, Charlotte" cautions Maha ... Taking a more noble approach, The Carpetbagger Report with its' "In defense of women everywhere"

And Jane Hamsher, over on Firedoglake, is fit-to-be-tied;

"I hope you, like any thinking person, are completely horrified that the Post would publish the insane, sexist screed by Charlotte F. Allen that appeared in your paper today. And no, just because it got farmed out to some woman eager to advance herself at the expense of the rest of us does not make it okay (one Maureen Dowd on the planet is one too many, thank you very much).

I'd very much like to know who assigned this piece, who edited it, what the reaction is from women who work there, and anything you can tell me about how this insufferably ignorant woman made her way into your pages.

You can contact me at firedoglake AT gmail.com.

All communications will be kept confidential."

Admittedly, I had to check the byline a few times ... In my head, I kept expecting to see the name "Ann Coulter" or, perhaps, "Debbie Schlussel" but no, there it was, Charlotte Allen

Oh, man, how can no one else see this for what it is?

I mean, clearly, this is an attempt by Allen, and The Washington Post, to give Hillary and her campaign a huge push, a rallying cry, a clarion bell wake-up call.

I'm sure that they are expecting, just so that woman won't stand accused of following the script of Allen, and the Washington Post, woman will stop fainting and swooning at Obama rallies. The Obama staff can save some of the outrageous sums of money they are raising, by dismissing the ambulance and medical staff ... No Fainting Here is now the order.

Heck, they're probably looking for the credit when woman will just stop going to Obama rallies ... Perhaps they'll show up at Hillary's events, and begin fainting and swooning there.

That, I believe must be what Allen, and the WaPo are aiming for ... Subtle, but so deft of them.

A few harsh words here, a crazy paragraph there ... Dissing Hillary's campaign, her staff ...

Tough Love, I suppose ...

It, I'm sure they have it planned, that, though not limited to just females, woman, in staggering, astronomical numbers, will be so outraged by this essay, they will march to the polls, by the scores-of-thousands (heck, it will almost look like an Obama rally), to vote for Hillary.

They'll be chanting "No More Questions ,,, Hillary's The Answer!", and, not to emulate Allen's essay in anyway, dressed in dirty tee-shirts, some wearing those plastic helmets that can hold two beer cans, with straws dangling down ...Some will be in construction clothes ... Others, in softball or baseball uniforms ... It will be, as Hillary recently mocked, like the heavens opening up ... Woman, not throwing the kitchen sink at Obama, but woman who design kitchen sinks .. Woman who install kitchen sinks ... All these people - woman - marching for Hillary ... Coming to save Hillary ...

A pox on Charlotte Allen ... And, oh, those dastardly editors at The Washington Post ...

Springing this kind of Obama attack, less than 100-hours before the big voting day of March 4th.

Are they breaking the unwritten rule?

They know, its supposed to be all-glowing coverage for Obama, and scraps-and-dirges for Hillary.

And they come out with this, what do we want to call it, this Hillary Manifesto, at this late stage ... Yes, Allen and The Washington Post has thrown in their lot with the Freakshow ... They want a Hillary-McCain finale ... Their in league with McCain and the RNC ...

Maybe the WaPo just wants Hillary in the general election, to drive thousands-and-thousands to their archives, to read all the old 1990's stuff ... The RNC doesn't have to spend money, setting up Swift Boat fronts, or making videos ... The Freakshow will just say that "you can look it up in The Washington Post" and bingo, smear city all over again.

Yes, it's a risk, a gamble, to go out on the limb of insulting, not just woman but ... Well, nearly every rational, thinking person out there.

I mean, if this isn't some grand scheme to aid Hillary, and push her over the hump to beat Obama ...

Then WTF!

All I can say is that Charlotte Allen, and The Washington Post, made Ed Anger, from the 'World Weekly News', a very happy man...

They validated his entire career today.

Surprise, Surprise! ... Rove Blames - Can You Guess - The Democrats!

In the eerie, suspenseful Charles Laughton classic, "The Night of the Hunter", Robert Mitchum (yes, playing the bad guy), has tattooed on his knuckles the words "Love" and "Hate".

Has anyone checked Karl Rove's paws?

If he was to be emulating Mitchum, undoubtedly, he would have "Hate" and "Hate" on his.

The Turd Blossom has stuck his bloated cranium out today, penning the Sunday morning news show talking points, err, excuse me, an Op-Ed in Ruppert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal today, under the banner of "Opposite of Progress";

A Failure to Lead; The Democratic Congress is more interested in acting out than in taking positive action.

Hmmm ... Seems like that title "A Failure to Lead" could be applied, more aptly, to his former boss.

And, let's take another wild guess here, that this leaker of Valerie Plame will be all over Fox News today, dishing out the caveats of his diatribe like happy soup.

It's a rambling laundry list that everything, and I mean everything, that is wrong in our country today, the blame lies at the feet of the Democratic-controlled Congress.

And, boy, is he still pissed that his "New Math" failed so miserably in last years' Mid-Term elections;

"The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast. A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead."

Hey, Turd Blossom, you lost, get over it.

But that's a pretty good epitaph you have there - for the Republicans;

" ... Quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead ..."

And, your former boss, partly due to your advice and counsel, partly due to your warped, partisan policies, will be going down in history, in infamy, as the worst U.S. President ever.

Only, Turd Blossom, if you were to write an Op-Ed of The Commander Guy, you'd have to fly it under a banner titled "Opposite of Competent".

Bonus Mr.-Five-Times-Before-The-Grand-Jury Links

Rove Doing His Part to Help Shape a Positive Legacy for Bush

Are Rove's Missing Emails the Smoking Guns of the Stolen 2004 Election?

Rove Decries ‘Nutty’ ‘Vitriolic’ Bloggers Who Spew ‘Bad Words’

Developing Story! Rove Has Gone From “Bush’s Brain” To “Bush’s Drain”; White House In Crises, As Rove Takes Credit For North Korean Nuke Test; Sources Say ‘Bush’s Brain” Weary From Sinking Polls, Fundraising; Too Tired To Come Up With New October Surprise

Oxymoron of the Day: Karl Rove at an Idea Festival

Bush Grindhouse Launches "We Want Angel Back" Approach Over Telcom Amnesty

In the Sam Peckinpah masterpiece, "The Wild Bunch", the classic finale is set up with Pike Bishop (William Holden), Dutch Engstrom (Ernest Borgnine), Lyle Gorch (Warren Oates) and Tector Gorch (Ben Johnson) confronting the Mexican General, and his soldiers, with the demand "We want Angel back", their fallen, and tortured, comrade, and, within minutes, a ferocious, blazing, epic gun battle erupts.

Today, the Bush Grindhouse is giving their version of "We Want Angel Back", with a fusillade of Op-Eds, demanding that Congress give The Commander Guy the right to illegal wiretap American citizens, and to give the telecommunication companies immunity and amnesty from any lawsuits arising out of the illegal wiretapping.

In The Washington Post, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, pens "Partners In the War On Terror: Telecommunications Firms And the Senate's FISA Bill", which Glenn Greenwald, in Salon, characterizes it as "Jay Rockefeller channels Dick Cheney's fear-mongering to urge telecom amnesty".

Over in Ruppert Murdoch;s Wall Street Journal, a trio of heavyweights - Mr. Civiletti/U.S. attorney general under President Jimmy Carter, Mr. Thornburgh/U.S. attorney general under President George H.W. Bush and Judge Webster/former director of the CIA and former director of the FBI - don't pull any punches, kick starting it right in the headline with "AT WAR - Surveillance Sanity: Companies that help protect the U.S. against attack deserve immunity from frivolous lawsuits."

Hmmm ... Let's get this right ... Trampling the Constitution and violating our civil rights = "frivolous lawsuits".

Basic sum-up of them - If we don't let The Commander Guy do whatever he wants, and if we don't let the telecom companies off the hook with lawsuits, terrorists are going to come to your house and kill you.

And, in case you missed it, the ground cover for todays attack got laid down yesterday, with Neocon Pimp Norman Podhoretz throwing a dementia fit about how we have to attack and bomb Iran, and if you don't go along with that, Anyone Who Doesn’t Want To ‘Bomb Iran’ Is Appeasing ‘Hitler’.

Glenn Greenwald chimes in on this one as well, with "Hitlers, Hitlers and more Hitlers" and Steve Benin, over at The Carpetbagger Report works the thematic geography angle with "Connecting 2007 Iran to 1933 Germany".

Here's Some Sanity

Hitting on both Telcom/Wiretapping battle, and the drumbeat for war with Iran, were two exceptional Op-Eds this past weekend.

In this past Sunday's The New York Times, the Op-Ed page carried both Studs Terkel, and their own Paul Krugman, these gentleman, essential hitting on similar themes - Fear ... Ignorance ... An abusive, over-reaching, fear-mongering government.

Check them out;

Stud Terkel - The Wiretap This Time

Paul Krugman - Fearing Fear Itself

Oh yeah, if you have never seen "The Wild Bunch", you don't want to know how it ends.

New Liz Cheney Op-Ed!

Last week, Liz Cheney, a former principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs and the straight daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, offered some unsolicted advise to Senator Hillary Clinton.

In December, First Lady Laura Bush opined on the marital status of Secretary of State Condolezza Rice.

Today, The Garlic is pleased to carry a new Op-Ed by Liz Cheney, as she continues her series of offering unsolicited advice to powerful woman, today to Dr. Rice.


Being Single Isn't An Option
By Liz Cheney

First Lady Laura Bush said last month that "Dr. Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate (for President), is not interested. Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she's an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job."

Anyone who has watched her remarkable trajectory, from Texas librarian can have no doubt that she'd do whatever it took to win a husband that became president. I wish more woman felt the same way about the marriage.

In fairness, Mrs. Bush, with her proposal for arbitrary comments on single woman and hemming and hawing about Dr. Rice being single has company on both sides of the aisle. Sen. Joseph Lieberman is the only national Democrat is the only national Democrat showing any courage on this issue. Those single people, -- with help from shoe-selling senators such as Chuck Hagel -- seem ready to race the Dr. Rice to the bottom.

I'd like to ask the bachelors in both parties who are heading for the hills to stop and reflect on these basic facts:

· We are at war. America faces an existential threat. This is not, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has claimed, a "singleness to be solved." It would be nice if we could wake up tomorrow and say, as Sen. Barack Obama suggested at a Jan. 11 hearing, "Enough is enough." Wishing doesn't make it so. We will have to fight these single woman, somewhere, sometime. We can't negotiate with them or "solve" their loneliness. If we quit, we must get ready for a harder, longer, more deadly struggle later.

· Quitting helps the single woman. Few single woman want to be known as spokesmen for loneliness. Instead we hear such words as "independence" "freedom" or "I'm fine." Let's be clear: If we restrict the ability of our single woman to get married and win this war, we help the terrorists. Don't take my word for it. Read the plans of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman Zawahiri to drive America from Iraq, establish a base for al-Qaeda and spread single woman across the Middle East. The terrorists are counting on us to lose our will and retreat under pressure. We're in danger of proving them right.

· Beware the polls. In November the American people expressed serious concerns about Dr. Rice (and about Republican corruption and scandals). They did not say that they want us to lose marriage. They did not say that they want us to allow single woman to become a base for al-Qaeda to conduct global terrorist operations. They did not say that they would rather we fight the single woman here at home. Until you see a poll that asks those questions, don't use election results as an excuse to retreat.

Retreat from marriage hurts us in the broader war. We are fighting the war on singleness with allies across the globe, leaders such as Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Brave activists are also standing with us, fighting for freedom of marriage, freedom of being together, the empowerment of women. They risk their lives every day to defeat the forces of singleness. They can't win without us, and many of them won't continue to fight if they believe we're abandoning them. Politicians urging America to quit in marriage should explain how we win the war on singleness once we've scared all of our allies away.

What about marriage? There is no doubt that an American retreat from marriage will embolden Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, making it even less likely that the Iranian president will bend to the will of the international community and halt his nuclear weapons program.

A member of Lebanon's parliament recently told me that Lebanese Sunnis, Shiites and Christians are lining up with Iran and Syria to fight against Sunnis, Shiites and Christians who want to stand with America. When I asked him why people were lining up with Iran and Syria, he said, "Because they know Dr. Rice and marriage aren't going anyplace. We're not so sure about America."

· Our soldiers will win if we let them. Read their blogs. Talk to them. They know that free people must fight to defend their freedom. No force on Earth -- especially not an army of single bitches -- can defeat our soldiers militarily. American troops will win if we show even one-tenth the courage here at home that they show every day on the battlefield. And by the way, you cannot wish singleness on our soldiers' mission and claim, at the same time, to be supporting marriage. It just doesn't compute.

I suppose Laura Bush's announcement was a sign of progress. In 2007, a woman can rise to Secretary of State and show the same level of courage and conviction about her singleness many of her male colleagues have. Steel in the spine? Not so much.

America deserves better. It's time for everyone -- Republicans and Democrats -- to stop trying to find ways for America to quit. Marriage is the only option. We must have the fortitude and the courage to do what it takes. In the words of Winston Churchill, we must deserve marriage.

Dr. Rice must be married to win.


Editor's Note: Following the submission of her essay, The Garlic asked Ms.Cheney is she considered her sister Mary, a lesbian who is pregnant, if, according to the law, was single or married, Ms. Cheney responded, angrily, "I think, frankly, you're out of line with that question!"

"The Garlic appreciates --"

Ms. Cheney interrupted: "I think you're out of line."

"The Garlic likes you and your sister. Believe me, We're very sympathetic to you and to Mary. We like both of you. That was a question that's come up, and it's a responsible, fair question."

"I just fundamentally disagree with you," Ms. Cheney said.


Links

Laura Bush gives Condi Rice "The Singles Treatment," and Only Keith Olbermann Notices

Retreat Isn't an Option

Top Ten Cloves: Things Lynne Cheney Didn’t Get To Tell Wolf Blitzer About Her New Book

Defending Iraq War, Defiant Cheney Cites 'Enormous Successes'


"Wishing doesn't make it so. We will have to fight these single woman, somewhere, sometime. We can't negotiate with them or "solve" their loneliness. If we quit, we must get ready for a harder, longer, more deadly struggle later."