…ok then.

You should look more closely, too, at the details of Althouse’s attack on the content of this particular Greenwald article. Given that you (and I) agree with at least one of Greenwald’s points, the fascination of the mass media punditocracy with unimportant nonsense like after shave, it’s worth exploring why or in what way Althouse—herself no friend of the “MSM”—reaches her negative conclusions.

Most of Greenwald’s essay is about the particular choice of trivium that Matthews was discussing: the ascription of masculinity to Republicans and conservatives, the converse insinuation that liberals and Democrats are wimps who will not protect you from terrorists and are turning America into a nation of wimps, which he shows has become an obsession of Reynolds, Limbaugh, and others. Greenwald shows the photo evidence: the conservative pundits calling Democrats wimps are a collection of flaccid, often-bloated, totally unathletic mouse potatoes not one of whom you’d want covering your back in a bar fight, much less armed combat (which, of course, few of them have ever seen). The fact that this theme has worked splendidly for Republican candidates (see under: Kerry) means that the Democrats have to engage it, e.g. by recruiting military veterans to run, out of self-defense. The trivialization of politics is the issue, not something that can be ignored.

Althouse’s analysis misses this point (on purpose), aiming for a nearby but different target.

Greenwald started out by mocking Chris Matthews for the analysis of sexual feeling in politics, and then he ended up analyzing sexual feelings in politics.

Whether it’s right or wrong, Greenwald’s analysis of how “masculinity” plays out in current American politics is not trivial. I don’t think you can say that about Matthews’ talking about after shave in the throes of his latest man-crush. Althouse again

He mocks Glenn Reynolds for talking about what a geek he is, but self-examination and self-deprecation are good — and are not evidence of someone with a “pervasive and insecure craving for artificial masculinity [that] supplants rational and substantive political considerations.”

But this completely misrepresents Greenwald’s point. Nothing Greenwald says is against self-examination, and I don’t think at any point Greenwald (who is openly gay and whom Althouse referred to as ‘lolglenn’ under his photo) is claiming to be more macho than Reynolds, et. al.— he’s talking about their obsession with machismo and its implications for both political discourse and foreign policy.

This would be a good place for me to reiterate my standard belief about “chicken hawk” arguments: the fact that a pro-war supporter has no military service is irrelevant. We couldn’t send Limbaugh to Vietnam, ass-pimple or otherwise, since we still adhered back then to the Geneva Conventions and they prohibit poison gas. However, war supporters who have never served don’t get to call anti-war advocates cowardly, wimpy, etc. History shows that it’s cheap courage to send other families’ children off to die. I had thought the British WWI poets had settled this.

also: fred thompson a sex symbol? this is hard for me to imagine. do women really go for that? is there the slightest risk that he’ll be our next president because millions of women will surrender their hearts and votes to a daddy-figure with whom they’re not actually biologically related, so it’s ok to snuggle up to him as close as they can? sounds like one of the male righty pundits was snuggling up to him too; when did this achillean homoeroticism infect your grand old party? do i have to wear english leather to get elected? (and i don’t capitalize either, so there!) as a nation and a society, we’re going down the tubes.

He opened his show like a bad sportscaster, “Three trains bombed in Spain, over 200 dead, who does it help Bush or Kerry.” I could not imagine a dumber question.

No! You think?

That Shakespeare guy was tedious as well.

I find those folks who bemoan the drone of alliteration have the least imagination and just a tinge of envy.