2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSusan Rice’s cowardly critics; Even some liberal pundits are providing ammunition for John McCain
Even some liberal pundits are providing ammunition for John McCain -- with anonymous sources, of course
BY JOAN WALSH
U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice isnt just facing down right-wing GOP attacks these days, shes taking incoming fire from pundits widely perceived as liberal. Maureen Dowd went all in on Rice in a nasty column Sunday, while the Washington Posts Dana Milbank termed Rice ill-equipped to be the nations top diplomat for reasons that have little to do with Libya.
Dowd paints Rice as looking to close an alleged stature gap with her Benghazi Sunday show statements, quoting a colleague blaming her troubles on being focused on the performance, not the content. Milbank says shes made an impressive array of enemies on Capitol Hill, in Foggy Bottom and abroad. Both Milbank and Dowd seem to rely entirely on the anonymous testimony of such enemies; there isnt a single named source in either piece.
I wasnt going to write about either column until I heard Milbank on Brian Lehrers WNYC show today, promoting his piece. Before Milbanks segment, Lehrer asked his prior guest, New York Times correspondent David Sanger, about Milbanks claim that Rice wasnt much of a diplomat, and Sanger pointed to her role in negotiating tough sanctions on Iran supported by both China and Russia as evidence of her skills.
When he had the floor, after Sanger departed, Milbank dismissed Sangers Rice defense as insincere. Youre asking him on the record, on the radio what else is he going to say? Thats exactly the same answer Id give in his position. Off the record, he insisted, is the way people unload on Rice. Stunningly, Milbank was implying Sanger would do the same thing, given the chance. I hope Sanger was listening.
more:
http://www.salon.com/2012/11/20/susan_rices_cowardly_critics/
Filibuster Harry
(666 posts)McCain to win the election? Enough said.
bbrady42
(175 posts)DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Economic warfare and escalation of tensions toward a regional religious war is not a truly diplomatic function. She'd be better suited to a CIA or Pentagon job.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)I don't know if Susan Rice would make a good SoS or not. That is why everyone should chill and see if the President nominates her and then have Senate hearings. But the fact that she is seemingly doing a good job as UN ambassador and not drawing attention to herself (unlike John Bolton during Bush II) speaks well regarding to her diplomatic creds far more than people whispering in Milbank's ear. And if Obama has enough confidence in her to nominate her for SoS, that is good enough for me.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)Because I've always thought Milbank was a star-struck trendwhoring leech who attached himself to whatever was popular and Maureen Dowd was just catty, shallow, and insulting.
Cha
(297,274 posts)start with some credible sources in the "liberal" community. Milbank and Dowd are all about Milbank and Dowd..and as you so aptly describe them, Arkana.
Cha
(297,274 posts)How relevant is it that both Rice and Sotomayor, two women of color, both wound up derided as bullies who arent qualified? Hard not to notice; Ill let the reader judge what it means.
Thanks for the article, DonViejo!
wisteria
(19,581 posts)but you have to ask why these two people would say anything at all unless they had concerns. What exactly does Doud and Milbanks gain by going on the record and questioning Rice's record? I fail to see what they gain by writing what they have about Rice. Are their points of view, racist and sexist too? Are they being honest or just trying to stir up some more controversy? Frankly, I am beginning to think Rice might have some baggage we should be concerned about. Just saying.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)If Joe S. with his 3 hour bully pulpit is off the conspiracy bandwagon, I guess this means we can finally move on.
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)She's a "windsock" opinion writer - who mostly blows with what she sees as the prevailing winds. She also has the "Queen Bee" syndrome and can be quite quite cattily nasty towards women in politics.
Like a stopped clock being right on occasion, she occasionally writes a column that is spot on. But most of the time she's not even worth the effort.
Milbank is worse. He's like Dowd in his "windsockey-ness." But she writes better than he does and is likely more intelligent. Of course, it wouldn't take much to surpass him.