Don’t forget to vote for your favorite blogs, starting with this one!
——————————————————————-
The humor and irony of Ann Coulter’s latest column is rich. She illustrates the duplicitous nature of Democrats who claim that Condoleezza Rice is not qualified to run the State Department. Coulter notes the “qualifications” of various liberals, and zeroes in on Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State:
Apparently, liberals believe Rice compares unfavorably to Madeline Albright, whose principle accomplishment before becoming secretary of state was managing to attain the age of 60 without realizing she was Jewish. That was raw competence.I take that back: Albright also taught at Georgetown University. Of course, American universities make professors of people like Eldridge Cleaver’s wife. (Kathleen Cleaver is currently at Yale law school; Susan Rosenberg, a participant in a Brinks car robbery, teaches at Hamilton College; former Weatherman Bill Ayers is a distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago; and former Weatherman Bernardine Dohrn is the director of a legal clinic at Northwestern University.)
Or how about Clinton’s first secretary of state, Warren Christopher, a lawyer whose dazzling foreign policy experience consisted of being President Carter’s chief negotiator for the hostages in Iran? That’s almost as impressive a resume entry as “Chief Iceberg Lookout, the Titanic,” “Senior Design Engineer, the Edsel,” “Navigator, Exxon Valdez,” or “Writer/Executive Producer, ‘Alexander.’”
Chief Iceberg Lookout, the Titanic. Thanks for the laugh, Ann. Happy Friday! 
We all noticed, too, that liberals’ fascination with skin color extends only to other like-minded liberals, not to blacks or Asians or Hispanics in general.
“In light of their reaction to the nomination of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, I gather liberals have gotten over their enthusiasm for multiculturalist milestones. It’s interesting that they dropped their celebrations of the ‘first woman!’ ‘first black!’ ‘first Asian!’ designations at the precise moment that we are about to get our first black female secretary of state,” Coulter writes.
The rest of the column is good, especially the part about Donna Brazile and her “white boys” comments:
It’s extremely valuable for Democrats to be able to campaign in black neighborhoods while talking about the “white boys” running the Republican Party. When she was managing Al Gore’s 2000 campaign, Donna Brazile said she was not going to “let the white boys win in this election.” (If I had a nickel for every time I’ve confused Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, Terry McAuliffe, Paul Begala and James Carville for the Jackson Five…)Sure enough, Brazile was instrumental in not letting a couple of white boys “named Al and Joe” win the election. I guess that’s liberals’ idea of a “competent” black woman.
Democrats do seem to downplay Bush’s cabinet appointments. I share Coulter’s opinion that they’re afraid blacks might start to notice the Democrats’ own lack of “diversity” in high-level positions. In that regard, do you think the DNC will choose Brazile, a black woman (two diversity birds, one stone!) as it’s next leader? Not a chance.
Who do you think they are, Republicans?
Update: Check out David Limbaugh’s latest column.
Update II: Did you know that you can vote for your favorite blogs once a day until December 12? Don’t worry about forgetting. I’ll remind you every day until then!
Update III (12/4): Liberal bloggers have reached a consensus. They all hate Ann Coulter, and a few are on my case for linking to her column. I love it! But here’s a suggestion. If you want to criticize Coulter and link to me while you’re at it, at least engage in some sort of intellectual discourse you imply Coulter and I lack. What is it about her column you don’t like? Which arguments are faulty and which facts are untrue or misleading? Give me something to work with, people. The name-calling and invective is tedious!
By the way, in case you neophyte liberal bloggers (experienced bloggers not excluded) don’t know this, when you link to this blog, you cause me to rise in the blogosphere ecosystem. While you offer no reasoned critiques of the substance of my posts, at least I benefit from your sad attempts at sarcasm and ridicule. Thanks!
Baldilocks blogs about Coulter’s column.
Update IV: A commenter provides a link to a Bill Moyers video that parrots the same “Condi lied” liberal line that surfaced after her testimony before the 911 Commission. There’s nothing new in the video that hasn’t been said or written before.
The comment itself isn’t illuminating, so don’t expect rational discourse. To rebut some of the blatantly partisan remarks in this heavily-edited video, I’m posting a link to the transcript of the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) that was the subject of so much contempt-disguised-as-questions at the hearing.
Thomas Patrick Carroll, former officer in the Clandestine Service of the CIA, on the PDB: “Not only was this particular PDB article not used to alert the President of an impending terrorist attack, no PDB is ever used that way. Never, ever. Not only was Ben-Veniste wrong, he could not possibly have been right.
Once you know the difference between the PDB and a threat report — and if Ben-Veniste doesn’t know the difference, he has even less business being on the Commission than is already obvious — you know his insinuations simply had to be bogus.”
Reminder: Don’t forget to vote today!
Update V (12/5): Moderate Voice on the qualities of a new DNC Chair.
