George F. Will, male chauvanist pundit? It's hard to believe, well not really that Will wrote about Claire McCaskill, running for Senate from Missouri. Will who often seems to write things like this about Al Gore:
Nevertheless, the likelihood that Gore will seek the presidency is suggested not only by the logic of what he says but also by what he does not say. Given how clear and present he says the danger is, he should be more specific and radical regarding the economic, indeed civilizational, changes he considers necessary.
It's the mantra of the millionaire ivory-tower pundits to claim that Democrats have no message, that we float along on the tides of triangulations past, somehow hoping that a new force will send us into power and thus what they consider "relevance" once again.
So when will writes this about Claire McCaskill, it rings as hollow as a Ronald Reagan cowboy in a "B"-western.
McCaskill is imprudently forthright.
I guess that goes with being "unserious". McCaskill has opinions, she's not afraid to let the voters of Missouri know where she stands, and she's taking the fight to Talent in what she calls "Ashcroftland", the part of Missouri that reflects the former Attorney General who couldn't shoot straight (see: Padilla, Jose) but knew how to get some coverage on Faux news.
So it's better, in the opinion of Will to hide her views, be less than forthright, and most of all not have female genitalia while trying to fill a "mans job". That way he can continue to write his own unserious stuff in the Washington Post and make his appearances on PunditHead Programming where he can rail against the "unserious" Democrats who have no ideas, agendas, plans or reason for existance as a party.
"Mission Accomplished" for George Will is when he can beat up on a Democrat. No wonder the Post pays him.
