I wake up, send off the Morning Jolt, drop off the kids at school, get a cup of coffee, pick up a print edition of the Washington Post, turn to the op-ed section, and near the top of the page find Ruth Marcus’s column and see . . .
This is a pathetic commentary on the state of civil discourse in 2013. The award went jointly to Bush’s father and Clinton’s husband in 2006, and to a predecessor as secretary of state, Colin Powell, in 2002 with nary a peep. But such is the remarkable depth of Hillary hatred — and fear.
That’s in reference to this:
— Jim Geraghty (@jimgeraghty) September 3, 2013
I could get bothered by the fact that a rather mundane and accurate assessment is characterized as pathetic, damaging to civil discourse, and an expression of hatred and fear. I could wonder aloud whether public discourse is so well served when columnists compare the selling of a newspaper to Sophie’s Choice, or the recommend the sending of politicians she deems insufficiently agreeable to a “stinky cruise ship.” Or I could point to the Washington Post’s own staffers with ignoble moments more indisputably damaging to civil discourse.
But really . . . what difference, at this point, does it make?