Her column yesterday is a remarkable study in saying ridiculous, unserious things in a very serious (hackish, poseur) way. For example:
I think it’s Romney. I think he’s stealing in “like a thief with good tools,” in Walker Percy’s old words.
Oooh! Noonan can access Bartleby.com. By the way, what the hell kind of compliment is that about Romney? He’s a thief with good tools? We’re supposed to vote for the thief?
And then she literally urged us to ignore all of the data — because there are large crowds at Romney rallies and lots of Romney/Ryan yard signs. Which, in reality, is totally meaningless. This is the kind of intuition-based gut punditry horseshit that’s poisoned our political discourse. Ignore the data? Really?
Oh, and Romney is going to win because Obama seems bitchy and distracted. How dare the president have other things on his mind!
And there is Obama, out there seeming tired and wan, showing up through sheer self discipline. A few weeks ago I saw the president and the governor at the Al Smith dinner, and both were beautiful specimens in their white ties and tails, and both worked the dais. But sitting there listening to the jokes and speeches, the archbishop of New York sitting between them, Obama looked like a young challenger — flinty, not so comfortable. He was distracted, and his smiles seemed forced.
Bear in mind: Peggy Noonan is one of the most respected insiders among the rest of the insiders. She’s considered the embodiment of seriousness. The female George Will. And yet she makes election predictions based on the amateurish metric of yard signs and rally sizes and “flinty”-looking presidents.