I missed Michelle Malkin's appearance on Hardball last night, but I saw some extended replays on tonight's show (hosted by Andrea Mitchell).
Michelle's take on it can be found HERE.
There's an issue, it seems, about why she didn't say "yes" or "no" to whether she was accusing John Kerry of shooting himself on purpose. She tried to give a lengthy, detailed, accurate response. Now, while I like Michelle of course, here is my opinion on her "tear up" with Chris Mathews:
Michelle blew it. She blew it because she failed to recognize early enough that Chris didn't understand that "self-inflicted wound" is NOT synonymous with "shot himself on purpose".
Even after Chris acknowledged that he hadn't read the book, Unfit For Command, and he kept badgering her for a yes-or-no answer to the "shot himself on purpose" accusation, Michelle still kept trying to give the same answer -- which Mathews wouldn't let her finish.
All she had to do was say, when asked for a "yes" or "no" was: "Fercryingoutloud, of course not, Chris! 'Self-inflicted' does NOT mean that he did it ON PURPOSE! It's a descriptive term that means that if his wound was the result of shrapnel spewed from a grenade that he himself had fired then it's a friggin' 'self-inflicted wound'!! Get a clue and stop thinking that I'm wondering if he shot himself on purpose!!!"
If Michelle had said that then, I believe, Chris would have listened and that whole ugly badgering / defensiveness episode would have been nipped in the bud.
The problem, I think, is that Michelle goes on these programs (we wont mention her appearance on Bill Maher's show) that she's not really.. hmmm... suited for.
Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham could have put Mathews or Maher right, but, Michelle seems more geared to the tempo of a Ted Koppel, Tom Brokaw, Hannity and Colmes even. Or even Bill O'Reilly when he does his relaxed "on-location" interviews. Michelle doesn't seem equipped to deal with the belligerent nature of some the shows she's, inexplicably, recently been willing to subject herself to.
She knows she'll receive a hostile host and/or audience, but goes in thinking that she'll be ready to deal with it. The problem is that she doesn't even want to deal with it. She knows she'd be more comfortable talking to an interviewer who's willing to actually listen to her answers to their questions, yet goes into the mayhem anyway.
Word to Michelle: Stop thinking that you're in the same zone as Chris Mathews, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Bill Maher, Paul Begala, Madcow, etc. You're not! And if you keep trying to match them -- while trying to, simultaneously, give studied answers in 3 second bytes -- you're only gonna keep looking like you're out of your element... because you are.
Allow yourself to speak and think at your pace and, ferchrissakes, leave Hardball and Bill Maher to those who actually want to deal with that rot. Jus' know your strengths, and know your weaknesses.
I go back into lurking mode now...
UPDATE: I just caught Ms Malkin on Hannity & Colmes, and it was interesting.
Michelle seemed to be more in her element -- as Sean and Alan treated her with respect and gave her time to answer their questions.
But, the thing is, she was defending racial profiling, and both Sean and Alan took her to task on it (though much more gently than Mathews & Maher would have).
Michelle, I understand your concerns. Belie-e-e-ve me, I do. But some folks have started to wonder if you're a "self-hating" Asian-American, and I didn't find this segment to be very encouraging. You noted that a significant percentage of the interned had had actual ties (or reasonably may have had ties) to operatives of Imperial Japan.
But, I says t' you I says: to stifle the Liberty of the People just to be on the safe side is the act of a tyrant, not an American.
I know that you're only asking for common sense in tbat Islamists are most likely to be Arabs, and so there we oughta look.
But also think hard and long about this: How many lives were lost in the Revolution? In the Civil War? In World War II? How many lives do we honor for giving themselves up for our Freedoms? It numbers in the millions. Shall we give up the very Freedoms that we've fought for for the sake of saving several lives?
That sounds callous at first, I know, but zone in on it. Are you claiming that individuals are less important than Liberty? I only ask 'cause, seems to me, that'd be a contradiction in terms. Liberty is all about the Individual, no?!
Protecting the Liberties of all is what we're all about. Power picking and choosing who has Liberty and who doesn't, as we go, is what we're fighting against.
We either fight with our Principles or we die with them.
Live long and prosper.
;)
She isn't a self-hating Japanese. She's Philipino, or half Philipino. And frankly, the point she makes about how we should use racial profiling makes sense. We weren't attacked on 9/11 by a bunch of Irish Catholics from South Boston, or a bunch of Homeboys from Bedford Stuyvesant. We have forced old women, little kids, and a whole slew of people to be inconvenienced because we are too PC to make the obvious connection between Islamofascism and people of Arab/South Asian descent. Because we are afraid of offending the sensitivities of a few, we are trampling on the civil liberties of everyone else--all so that we can claim to be "sensitive", and "diverse".
Posted by: John Bono at August 21, 2004 01:23 AMOkay, I stand corrected on Michelle being Phillipino-American. I read in some comments thread over at Atrios, I think, that she was Japanese. Last time I believe nything a moonbat says...
We're largely in agreement otherwise; if you're looking for a big Irishman with a scar across his face, you're not gonna go strip-searching li'l ol' Sister Mary Molecule.
But it's just that Michelle was defending the internemnt of Japanese-Americans during World War II, which I found surprising. Opposing the search no more than two arabs per flight rule by defending the internments during WW2 might not be the most effective way to gain support.
