Susan Estrich

Remember when liberals brushed aside any criticism of candidate Barack Obama being unqualified to become president because of his lack of executive experience? Well, that was then and this is now because Susan Estrich has suddenly developed "concern" over the qualifications of the Tea Party backed Republican gubernatorial candidate in New York, Carl Paladino. A skeptic might rightly believe this recent Estrich infatuation with qualifications could be inspired by the fact that Paladino is closing the gap in the polls with the Democrat candidate, Andrew Cuomo.

Here is Estrich with her newly developed qualifications concern:

The Republican nominee for governor of New York doesn't spend a lot of time talking about himself, which is both good and bad. It's good because, in truth, his surprise victory over the "establishment" favorite (and Conservative Party candidate) Rick Lazio had very little to do with his qualifications and agenda, and everything to do with his tea party-infused attacks on Albany, government and the powers that are. It's bad, of course, for precisely the same reason.

Is Carl Paladino actually qualified to be governor of New York?

The dog ate my homework.

That's not much of an excuse but at least it is better than the one Susan Estrich came up with as to one of the reasons why she changed her mind on the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. Estrich claims she thought they were talking about another mosque when Fox News asked her to comment on the mosque controversy. What other mosque? Anybody even slightly knowledgeable about current events will now instantly think "Ground Zero Mosque" when they hear about a mosque controversy. Not Susan Estrich. Here she is delivering her laughable excuse:

Recently, I found myself on Fox News defending the "Ground Zero mosque" before I'd fully thought it through. Truth be told, when someone called to set up the "hit," I thought they were talking about another mosque project I'd heard about on the radio. So there I was, invoking the First Amendment, arguing that our enemy is terrorism, and that the only way we would ever win that fight is by gaining the support of the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are not our enemies and who we need to respect as friends. All true.

There are some stories that make you cover your eyes with your hand and groan. And this column by Susan Estrich about what she thinks is the poorly named Apple iPad is definitely one of those. Here is Estrich putting on her feminist cap and making a very long stretch on blaming the name "iPad" on a "lack of diversity" at Apple:

Is there a woman in America who did not laugh, or at least roll her eyes, the minute she heard that the newest, hottest tablet computer from one of America's most ingenuous companies was going to sound like a feminine hygiene product? The iKotex is what most people I know are calling it, with apologies to Kotex.

So where were those women? The short answer is that, plainly, they were not in the room. Go to Apple's home page and look at the pictures and bios of key executives. I'll tell you who you'll find: Steve, Timothy, Scott, Jonathan, Ron, Bob, Peter, Mark, Philip, Bertrand and Bruce. All white, all men. If there is a "top" woman at Apple, at best she's No. 12.

Susan Estrich worked for a number of years on the staff of Senator Ted Kennedy. Of course, she has some warm memories about working for him. However, in contrast to the almost uncritical lionization of Kennedy by such outlets as the Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times as well as by Evan Thomas of Newsweek, Estrich was able to look at her former boss, warts and all,  in a surprisingly frank remembrance in her column. She did not attempt to bury his faults as you can see in this critique of his speaking style:

The first time I wrote "talking points" for him, for a floor statement on something 30 years ago next week, I hid in the back of the Senate gallery as he mumbled his way through it, adding "uhs" instead of verbs. I saw what America did in November of that year, in that famous Roger Mudd interview, which sounded like my floor speech.

It is one thing for conservatives to criticize President Obama's QAHCAA (Quality, Affordable Health Coverage for All Americans) health care plan but now even a number of liberals are attacking it as unworkable. We recently saw skepticism emanating from Morning Joe's Mika Brzezinski and now fellow liberal Susan Estrich is expressing deep doubt that any such plan is economically feasable. Estrich kicks off her column with a sarcastic look at the "success" of Obama's stimulus plan:

The stimulus program must really be succeeding in Washington, D.C. Government is hiring; people are working. In fact, if news reports are to be believed, they're working night and day. So maybe there's some sleep deprivation thrown in for good measure. And don't forget the legendary heat and humidity that made service in the nation's Capitol hazardous before the advent of air conditioning.

What other explanation could there be for my friends in Congress and the administration thinking that what the country wants them to do right now is raise taxes and spend a trillion dollars to overhaul health care, much less to push it through in a month in a 1,000-page bill being rewritten every day?

Susan Estrich is worried. Very worried. She believes that the current coordinated Democrat strategy of attacking Rush Limbaugh is completely counterproductive. And she's right:

He talks for hours every day. He gets paid to talk. Just talk. Doing it well is no small thing; witness the number of people who have tried to be him, or be the NOT-him, and failed. But he doesn't have to build a coalition. He doesn't need the votes of the other side to earn his check. He doesn't have to write the legislation, convince Olympia Snowe, raise money to keep the lights on, put his name on the ballot. All the things he doesn't have to do give him the freedom to be as effective as he is at what he does.

Trying to beat him at his own game when your own game is played by a different set of rules is a losing proposition. He knows that.

They say love conquers all and that might just be the case with Susan Estrich. The normally liberal columnist seems to be absolutely smitten with Todd Palin. Her recent column sounds more like a love note to him than a political analysis:

First Dude. That's what they call him in Alaska. It's OK. Todd's Ok. Whatever. He smiles at Greta Van Susteren. Not a touch of noblesse. More like plan old politesse. I always laugh a little when I see people who are very much not ordinary Americans in any respect (pay, fame, education or overall wealth, for starters) try to speak for them. "This is what ordinary Americans want," says someone whose only contact with them may be while his face is getting powdered for TV.

You can almost hear "Love Is A Many Splendored Thing" playing in the background as Susan  continues to verbally ogle Todd:

There may be only one truly regular guy, a guy regular enough that he doesn't begin to have the arrogance to believe he speaks for anyone other than himself, in this race. And therefore, of course, he does.

During FNC’s Republican Convention live coverage, former Dukakis campaign manager and liberal FNC analyst Susan Estrich voiced her disapproval of the "vicious and mean-spirited attacks" on Sarah Palin by the media as she appeared late Tuesday/early Wednesday night with anchor Greta van Susteren. Estrich: "I’ve never seen anything this bad in my life ... I was with Geraldine Ferraro in ‘84 – and this is worse. ... I have never seen from some of my friends such vicious and mean-spirited attacks on her most personal choices, which is what they are."

A bit earlier at about 12:05 a.m., conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham had also complained of Palin’s treatment. Asked by van Susteren if Palin was getting "fair treatment," Ingraham argued that Palin is being "reviled and hated" because she is conservative and pro-life. In response to van Susteren’s question of "who’s reviling her," Ingraham elaborated: "Did you read the New York Times today? Have you read some of the left-wing blogs about her? Have you heard some of the comments on our competitor networks? It’s vile, it’s nasty, it’s vicious."

After telling her readers on July 16 how nervous she was about Barack Obama's chances to win the White House this November, Michael Dukakis's former campaign manager, Susan Estrich, was clearly less impressed with the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee's world tour than most folks that consider themselves journalists.

In a column published Friday entitled "Arrogance Will Not Help Get Obama Elected," Estrich came across as a female version of the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz (photo courtesy USC).

In some ways, she was even harsher with her criticism (emphasis added):

Susan Estrich, who is best known to the public for her fascinating psychological unraveling on Fox News on election night 2004, is now "nervous" about the electoral chances of Barack Obama. In the process she makes a startling admission that might cause her to lose friends in the mainstream media. First let us listen to Susan as she tells us why July polls are meaningless...or maybe not:

July polls don’t tell you who’s going to win in November. Just ask President Dukakis or President Gore, both of whom were well ahead in July and went on to lose in the fall (although Mr. Gore still doesn’t quite see it that way). Or ask President Clinton, who was running third in some polls after clinching his party’s nomination, and won comfortably in the fall. Polls are, at best, snapshots of the present, not predictors of the future.

Although the term isn't used, it's clear that the Obama campaign sees itself and their candidate as victims of a vast conspiracy of right-wingers.

Going all the way back to the 1988 presidential election, Obama's "Fight the Smears" chart (featuring the campaign's new sort-of "presidential seal," replacing the one that was "dropped," at the top left) purports to tell us "Who's Behind These Lies."

If the page's historical starting points are any indication, to paraphrase Jerry Lee Lewis, there may not be "a whole lotta smearin' goin' on" among the current "smearing" parties it identifies: