I’ve always been a big Dahlia Lithwick fan—still am, actually—but dear God, what was this woman smoking yesterday (link)?
[A]s it turns out, Goodling is nobody's parody. She is smart and assertive and articulate. And freakishly candid to boot. She comes across as nondefensive—or as nondefensive as anyone can be with a wall of scowling lawyers seated behind her and an array of voracious paparazzi in front of her. Goodling is Elle Woods without the puppy in drag.
Was she watching the same channel I was? No, guess not (link). In fairness, Dahlia regains her sanity quickly, making it clear that it’s not so much Monica II who won, but the committee Democrats who lost. There were, indeed, some good questions here and there. But Dahlia is quite right to wonder
why Democrats allow themselves to be rope-a-doped. They let Goodling give up all the good stuff in the first 30 minutes of her testimony and don't seem to notice or push her on it.
And she nails the core point:
[A]lmost nobody sees fit to ask follow-up questions about how the list was made, what criteria were used, and what exactly the White House did to play along. Nobody asks why she cried when she quit, what she made of those e-mails, or much of anything at all about Alberto Gonzales.
All fair comment; but Dahlia seems not to notice that nothing in this later presentation comes close to supporting that opener, which sounds like nothing so much as Ron Kessler gushing over Ann Romney (link). As the Commendatore says in Shaw’s Don Juan in Hell, even a stupid general can win a battle if the enemy general is a little stupider.