Put a Cork in It, Arianna
Okay, it was not she, herself, who sent me the e-mail message; it was most likely a "cron job" the server does on a 24-hour cycle, but I still feel close to the big dogs when I get those early-morning reminders that she and her crew have once again written the definitive word for progressives on the events of the day.
Most of the time, I enjoy reading the latest articles at The Huffington Post. This morning, however, Arianna irritated me. In fact, she did so to the extent that I actually posted a comment to the article. Unlike John Dean, who a few months ago chose not to publish a comment I made to one of his articles at FindLaw, Ms. Huffington's people got mine up on the board after a few hours. That Ms. Huffington will never read what I had to say to her is pretty obvious; but that she is in dire need of having her journalistic pedestal brought down just a few notches is equally obvious, at least to me.
You see, her article was about Bill Clinton: she used the occasion of the former President's ass-mauling of Fox's Chris Wallace to let everyone know that she most decidedly is not sufferingO God forbid!the awful disease of being all Soft On Bubba. The particular beef in her stew is that, although Mr. Clinton has now endorsed Ned Lamont for the Senate race in Connecticut, he still might have... uh, you know... certain... how should I put this... ummm... tendencies.
Yeah, that's the ticket: "tendencies." Even after the primary, even after the Democrats of Connecticut had spoken, the Big Dog might still have... gawd, but this is embarrassing... Feelings For Joe.
Now, let's get something straight, here. No one who is a regular reader of mine should have any doubt that I am delighted that Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut. The man had become the poster boy for appeasement of bad, bad men and women who have for nearly six miserable years held a death grip of incompetence and mendacity on the reins of power in Washington.
At the same time, though, I'll take this opportunity for a quick side tripa little detour for a scenic visit with that nice young Ned Lamont fellow who can get Arianna to show off her best sneer to boring old Bubba:
Sir, you'd damn well better be as good as your supporters think you are because, once a political base gets a taste for the blood of its own kind, it just might want another taste of the good stuff pretty quickly; so you'd better hope the next hunting trip we go on aims to bag a few more cowards in our midstguys like Inouye, Rockefeller, Salazar, and Baucus, to name a fewand not you because you turned out to be a rich-boy campaigner and not a hard-working, brass-knuckles, long-haul representative of the people. In other words, Mr. Lamont, don't look all surprised when the revolution comes back to your door if you don't deliver in spades.Back to Arianna and me. She and some of her commenters annoyed me to no end. Proving how worthy she is of the Authentic Progressive brand label has worn thin on me; but Lord knows, I maintain decorum, even during the adversity of a Washington pundit who pumps her "blog" content promos out like the Weiner Mobile pumps out hot dogs at the ball park.
Having said that, godspeed to you, Ned.
Herewith reprinted is my comment posted on the thread for that article at The Huffington Post.
It seems that the latest fashion in objectivism among some Democrats is to claim they never really liked Bill Clinton or that they somehow are enlightened enough to understand how deeply flawed he now is or was as President.
Such hubris. Such utter hubris.
Perhaps someday, someone will find a candle he or she can hold up to Bill Clinton; but that won't be today or even tomorrow. Neither the small and hateful legion of incompetence on the Right nor the faddish, "I'm so intelligent that I'm objective" on the Left could muster a jury of Mr. Clinton's peers.
I would humbly suggest we set as our single, invariant goal the destruction of the Republicans as the ruling party.
When that glad task is completed, we might want then to purge the ranks of elected Democrats, specifically addressing those who groveled cravenly to the venal agenda of this extremist Administration for the past nearly six years.
Once that noble, if brutish, work is completed, we might want to turn our attention to shouting down the secular and religious extremists who have promoted with their mouths and their money the policies of this awful Administration.
Should we be successful in those worthy endeavors, perhaps from our ranks will then have emerged someone of such stature that he or she might sit in harsh and final judgment of Mr. Clinton.
But, again, that won't happen today, nor will it happen tomorrow.
And it certainly won't happen here.
By: DarkWraith on September 26, 2006 at 09:46am
In conclusion, then, Ms. Huffington, this is the bottom line: the next time you feel the urge to start braying about the failings of former President Clintonthose during his time in office or those of his current rank as elder statesmantry your best to think long and hard about how the period from 1993 to the end of 2000 compares to the past six years. Try your best to imagine that midget we now have for a President being anything other than a lying, venal failure for the rest of his life.
And if the stunning juxtaposition of Bill Clinton against George W. Bush can't get you to shut your cake hole, then please, Ms. Huffington, just do the right thing and put a cork in it.
The Dark Wraith has spoken.