More O'Hanlon

Brian Katulis' rejoinder to Michael O'Hanlon -- "O’Hanlon Mourns That Obama Was Right On Iraq" -- is pretty amusing reading. The charge that O'Hanlon is "angling for influence," though probably accurate, seems a bit unfair since I think Katulis is angling for influence, too. The difference is that Katulis having influence over an Obama administration would be a good thing, while O'Hanlon having influence over a Clinton administration would be a bad thing.

Comments

O'Hanlon having influence over any more administrations would be bad. He thinks wars are cool. Let him get a real job, flipping hamburgers or something.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 7, 2008 6:14 PM

The difference is that Katulis having influence over an Obama administration would be a good thing, while O'Hanlon having influence over a Clinton administration would be a bad thing.

.........

Wanna make a small-but-perhaps-noteworthy grammatical request.

When referring to potential presidential advisers, rather than remarking how said advisers might have "influence over" an administration, how'z'bout folks go back to citing advisers' "influence upon" an administration?

Once the White House isn't inhabited by an easily manipulated transparently imbecilic man-child, I think the operative preposition should return the role of adviser back to its original degree of "influence".

Unless, of course, Giuliani somehow pulls this thing out.

In which case the NPod "over" rules still apply.

Posted by dr | January 7, 2008 6:50 PM

I spose it'd help if I actually knowed my parts a speech better.

Thinks I mistakenly callt a coupla adverbs ("over" 'n "upon", modifyin' "influence") a preposition, but am prepared to be further frisked 'n read my rights by any grammar cops as likes to correct me.

Posted by dr | January 7, 2008 7:04 PM

Well I bet obama has a longer penis.

Posted by They took | January 7, 2008 7:40 PM

I think those are prepositions -- they take nouns as objects, whereas adverbs don't have objects at all. The prepositional phrases are being used adjectivally (modifying the noun "influence").

So, right the first time. Collect your $200, if you passed "Go." (And the spirit of the linguistic request is also good, though Huck seems like another one who'd be influenced over.)

Posted by Matt Weiner | January 7, 2008 7:40 PM

if Clinton is in fact a doer, not a talker, why does she have such absolute scum like O'Hanlon, a warhawk retread if there ever was one, amongst her senior security advisers? O'Hanlon has supported every war move of the Bush administration...how can Clinton talk of change with her retread staff and advisers?

Posted by della Rovere | January 7, 2008 7:49 PM

" The charge that O'Hanlon is "angling for influence," though probably accurate, seems a bit unfair since I think Katulis is angling for influence, too."

Not much fair in modern politics. O'Hanlon was once someone I respected and listened to. He turned out to be a political panderer, whose mission seems to be maintaining relevance for himself. He's the worst kind of Beltway turd.

Posted by nightjar | January 7, 2008 8:15 PM

O hanlan is an ass. Why do people even acknowledge him or listen to him.

Posted by vwcat | January 7, 2008 10:26 PM

O'Hanlon's value as a source of information aside, Brian Katulis simply misses the point. Neither of O'Hanlon's assertions about Obama are true.

1. Obama is in a fight, but I've seen no evidence that he has been "contemptuous of the motivations of those who supported the war. (sic)" This often misguided and always counterproductive tendency is much in evidence elsewhere from lesser sources than Barak, though.

2. Obama's statement about withdrawing significant numbers of "combat troops" over 16 months has not been couched by him, at least to my knowledge, in "no matter what happens" terms.

Posted by Robert Powell | January 8, 2008 8:35 AM