A while back, I quit reading the Althouse blogspot. She was a former professor of mine, and while initially entertaining, I found her blog "work" to be more shoddy than to continue giving her the page hits.

But I do occasionally click on the InstaPundit, who of course gave Ann her big start, linking to the clever little posts she cooks up. Today, I read a link to Althouse's blog there "Why are the words 'NIG' on the child's pajamas?"

Again, as a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School, I've got to ask: when will her sub-par thinking skills be checked?

Years back, she got another landslide of page hits for a controversy she admits cleverly manipulating: a young blogger named Jessica Valenti attended a luncheon with ex-president Clinton, and Ann fueled comments that the woman was "posing" by sticking her breasts out to remind everyone of Monica Lewinsky (think she's a big Obama supporter nowadays, btw?) Many defended Valenti, saying, "Look, she's wearing a bra, in a modest shirt, and turned her body slightly to the side as did others in the group photo, which is a common way to pose when you take a picture of several people in line."

Well Ann played and played and played that one, for all it was worth. She admitted she loved the numbers of outraged readers it brought her blog, in terms of quantity of clicks. Seems today she's at it again...

I won't link there, but here is a concise debunking of the myth she is again trying to spread. I saw the Clinton ad when I woke up this morning on the news; essentially, it shows sleeping children and makes the point, "If there's trouble in the world, a crisis in say the Middle East, do you really feel comfortable with a first-term senator in charge of the country, or would you feel better if there was a more experienced president in the White House taking that call in the middle of the night." The sleeping children, I think, meant to appeal to the security of our American children's future.

You could honestly criticize that approach, or even defend Obama in "taking the call" so to speak (although somehow I don't think him saying into the receiver, "But I would have voted against invading Iraq! Please leave us alone!" would carry much weight... :)

But in Ann's comments, somebody asks the question above, and Ann -- probably sensing a way to further her name and blog in the new news media business -- runs with it. "Why are the words 'NIG' on the child's pajamas?"

Again, she's seeing something that is not there, I think most rational people would agree. Watch the ad and see for yourself. This is not Huckabee's "floating cross". It's more like the time she psychoanalyzed a skit involving Bill and Hillary eating some onion rings and carrot sticks, I think it was, and determined that was a play on Bill's castration. (Don't quote me on the details, but I think that was the gist of what she saw, and insisted was there.)

I for one, as an intelligent adult, and especially a former UW student, find her stooping to racial antagonism in this one to be pitiful. I sat in her classroom -- there will be no apology, or admission of perhaps error coming, when people point out there's no "NIG" there -- that the writing on the pajamas merely says, "Good night", which one might argue is more in line with the ad's message. But racial baiting? By golly, that's LOW. And we've seen so much early "hands-off" on questioning whether the Obama campaign themselves were playing the race card, hiding behind honest criticism by implying that Bill Clinton after the S.C. election and others were trying to pigeonhole Obama as the black candidate. I've said it before, I'll say it again: were it not for his color, much of the "inspiration" would be sucked out of his speeches, and were he merely Barry O'Brien, first-term senator from the cauldron that is Illinois politics, darned tootin he'd be scrutinized more carefully for his personal connections with Tony Rezko, if his campaign was not ignored altogether.

So having it both ways... no. Sorry. And Ann, why not stay in Brooklyn and don't deign to come back to old Wisconsin if this is the intellectual honesty you display on your blog. We really don't need that type of race-baiting here, seeing things that aren't there, and subtly accusing others of being racists. If you want to criticize the ad, do so honestly. Don't stir the pot just because it might bring you personal gain. Or if you do want to play that way, please toss off the intellectual scholar label that ties you into UW Law School, at least.

People really have worked hard to build a brand there, and your silliness in pursuit of your own dishonest ends can destroy it quickly.
-----------------

In other Obama news, here's a Susan Estrich column "Friendship in the Fourth Estate" you might find worth reading.

A funny thing is about to happen to Barack Obama. No matter how much he thinks he's ready for it, he isn't. No matter how many people warn him, he'll be surprised. And hurt. And angry.

His friends in the press are about to turn on him.

They may not even know it yet, but they will.

They can't help themselves. They've been caught fawning, made fun of for favoritism, become the subject of their own scrutiny.

Which means they won't be able to resist.
...
It's the press's nature to turn on those they most adore. The bigger the buildup, the bigger the letdown. Watch the balloon fill with air. Watch them start pricking holes. Watch the balloon lose air. Wait to see if there's still a balloon at all in the end.

Mark my words. It's about to begin.

This is not, as conservatives like to believe, an ideological thing. The press may be liberal, in the sense that most of them vote that way and are almost certainly voting for Obama. But they are simultaneously drawn to and repulsed by their own desire for attention, their own importance, their role as makers, cheerleaders and faithless friends.

The press had plenty of reason to feel burnt by the Clintons, having fallen for him once, big time, only to find themselves, in their book, manipulated and misled.
That is not, I should add, how the Clintons saw it. They saw it as the press turning on them, which was also true. That is no doubt how Barack Obama will also see it, and he will, to a certain extent, be right.

Here it comes: Is Barack pro-Israel enough? Is he tough enough? Is he substantive enough? What about his past? What about those votes in the Illinois Senate? What exactly has he accomplished?

And, most important of all, has he been getting a free ride?

It's not that these questions shouldn't be asked. They should. But they should be asked throughout the process, not, as is about to happen, in an avalanche, a storm of scrutiny, a blizzard of second-guessing from the very gushers who were, only a few short weeks ago, so busy guzzling Kool-Aid that they didn't even look to see what it was made of.