Maureen, my friend!

Yeah, I know, what other reversals might I have in store? I suddenly loooove cleaning and making my bed? My new pasttime is XFL football reruns?

But seriously, folks, MoDo: TOTALLY on target in her column about Ahmadinejad:

"New York’s hot blast of nastiness, jingoism and xenophobia toward its guest, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, only served to pump him up for his domestic audience."

Exacto-fucking-mundo.

My take on Ahmadinejad (see Monday's post for more): A hateful, cruel autocrat, but one who ultimately cares more about looking like a powerful opposition leader to the U.S. and a hero in his own country than about pretty much anything else.

Much as I liked Bollinger's take-no-prisoners (unlike Iran, ha...cry) speech - I mean, damn, he laid it DOWN, and no one likes a cathartic verbal ass-whooping more than I - that too completely served Ahmadinejad's favorite pasttime: playing gotcha with inconsistencies in American values and rhetoric about freedom and democracy.

Mo, buddy, care to weigh in?

"[The] schoolyard name-calling of Lee Bollinger...only managed to elevate the creep sitting on stage with his thugs. Once you’ve made the decision to invite a tyrannical leader, you can’t undo it by belittling him in public."

Bollinger had to cover his ass in a major way (hello Jewish students, alumni, and donors!) so I get why he did it, but again, Ahmadinejad has constructed the scenario such that if you stoop to play his game, you automatically lose.

Meanwhile, I'm going to buy Maureen a kiss-and-make-up drink, and she can tell me about the relative merites of Bill Keller vs. Aaron Sorkin.

ahmadinejad? whatevs.

If you live in New York, you certainly know about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit today, which most notably includes speaking at Columbia University. Lots of protesters are gathering throughout the next few days at the U.N. and Morningside Heights, with positions ranging from "How dare an American university invite this Holocaust denier and autocratic ruler to speak" to "Iran should abandon its nuclear ambitions" to "ISRAEL FOREVER, SUCKA!!!"

Believe me, the sight of Ahmadinejad's slightly simian visage fills me with revulsion. This man is power-hungry, greedy, and manipulates his citizen's basest prejudices to compensate for his economic weaknesses, to say nothing of the Holocaust denial and the threatening of Israel.

But I wouldn't protest him today. Why? First of all, he's in the U.S. looking for attention. Any kind of attention. Anything that will demonstrate that he is a powerful man who intimidates the government of the powerful Great Satan, making him a fearsome leader in the Middle East.

Second of all, what exactly might we protest now? His right to speak at an American university? Well, that's a bit counterproductive for demonstrating the values of an open democracy (Indeed, Iran can counter that it too is nominally a democracy, but when the candidates are vetted and the votes tallied by cleric-ocrats, that claim becomes null and void). Iran's nuclear ambitions? According to them, there are no nuclear weapons, only energy sources. His desire to destroy Israel? He only waves that flag to, again, get attention and consolidate his influence in the region, and to distract his own supporters, generally the urban poor, to, uh, forget that they're still poor.

People are still gonna go after this guy because of our visceral distaste for the guy. He's like the Voldemort of world leaders (hint: could a uranium enrichment faciity itself be a Horcrux?)

Fire consultants, hire New Hampshire residents

Even after my years of political activism and study, I haven't find a better messenger of Robert Reich's message than the man from Berlin, NH whom I heard this morning on NPR. He was reacting to the demolition of the smokestacks at the Burgess Pulp Mill, formerly the nexus of Berlin's economy.

"A lot of people may be happy that these smokestacks are coming down, but it used to be that those were the good jobs in town. You worked there, you made good money. Nowadays, we all work at Wal Mart or some other job that just doesn't pay as well."

I'm not looking to bring back the good old days of manufacturing, Cleveland origins aside. But that guy, in New Hampshire , articulated so succinctly the challenge that middle class now faces, since industry has been replaced by service jobs, which are devalued, underpaid, and underinsured. Nothing new under the sun, but way more impactful to hear it first-hand rather than theorized in a classroom or conference panel. Edwards (or whichever Democrat is smart enough to move fast) should tote him around to every house party north of Manchester.