by digby

Mark Shields makes the case that we need more manliness:

Yesterday on Inside Washington, during a discussion of Obama’s upcoming decision on Afghanistan, syndicated columnist Mark Shields scoffed at Obama’s demeanor, wishing instead for a “manly man” in the White House:

SHIELDS: We have a president of real intellectual horse power who is cool, detached and analytical and if anything you can watch the emotional side of him emerge in this whole process. … There’s an emotional aspect, the comforter in chief as well as the commander in chief. Both roles. And I think it makes me nostalgic for those days when we had a manly man in the White House who could say, “Let’s kick some tail and ask questions afterwards” you know? That’s what we really need instead of any reflection.

Shields was joking,of course, but there are those who certainly do fantasize about the good old days when America was run by a manly, masculine male who knew what it was to be a manly man. God knows those were good times for shriveled men with dreams of vicarious feats of glory:

It would be funny if it weren't so dangerous. It's this puerile, masculine insecurity that leads to these stupid proxy wars in the first place.

Update: Along these lines comes another edition of "bow-gate" to which we will have to drag out this picture again:

I don't care if Obama bows down to the powerless Japanese Emperor. I'd really like if he stopped bowing down to Wall Street titans however.