The National Review piece on Hillary Clinton is here. Something pops out at me as incredibly hypocritical, and kind of stupid.

Ladies and Gentlemen… from the Top… the Creation of Agitprop:

A single memorable photograph from Hillary’s years in the public spotlight illustrates the intimidating determination that marks her political ambitions. It was early January of 1998, and her husband was preparing for his deposition in Paula Jones’s sexual-harassment suit. During their New Year’s vacation in the Virgin Islands, the presidential couple were “caught” dancing together on the beach. In Bill’s arms, Hillary gazed lovingly at her affectionate husband, her 50-year-old body revealed in all its bathing-suited glory. Most middle-aged women dread leaving a dressing room in a bathing suit, yet Hillary readily posed for a photo bound to grace front pages around the world. It was a perfect façade of normal matrimony, and succeeded brilliantly in distracting attention from the Jones suit. I remember thinking, “Wow, it’s true that she will do absolutely anything for the sake of political survival.” In the months ahead, after Monica Lewinsky had been exposed as Bill’s latest paramour, Hillary would endure even greater public indignities. But she stuck with her husband — and, in the end, she had her reward: a seat in the Senate.

Now then. Bill and Hillary in a bathing suit. Dropped to the press like so many celebrities drop these things to the press. I was going to do an extensive google search to drop it here, but now that I think of it, nobody wants to see Bill’s fat pasty thighs.

Now if I may present to you a slightly creepier, more obnoxious piece of staged agit-prop… as presented in the news just last week:

The first photograph comes from footage that accidentally made it to the press, the mic was mistakingly on. It was preparation and a run-through of the script for the footage that the second image comes from: a candid conversation between Bush and the troops about how great things are going in Iraq.

An interesting factoid: what polls there are about Bush’s impeachment show a greater pull for impeachment amongst the American public than the polls for Clinton’s impeachment. (But maybe that comes with an approval rating that for the last month has been below the 40% baseline.) The focus on their agit-prop may help explain this phenomenom.

I see that Cindy Sheehan has posted on why she cannot support Hillary Clinton. Probably a month or so ago now, I was going to do a triumprant of posts on the troubles with Bob Casey, Harold Ford, and Hillary Clinton as representatives of the Democratic Party — but I only got around to Bob Casey. The reality of Hillary Clinton is that I’ll have to at some point or other dig into the archives (probably the usenet archives, where people have posted news stories) from as far back at the Democratic Primary race of 1992 (maybe even further back, but this is where America was introduced to the Clintons) to describe the surreal and repeating cycles of the relationship between Hillary Clinton and the news media.

The weird thing is it may be more an indictment of the media at large than Hillary Clinton, and Hillary Clinton has been forced to play these games, but… it isn’t the total output of the problem with Hillary Clinton, but it looms there as low-hanging fruit.

Hillary Clinton was recently profiled in National Review. If I could navigate National Review’s website to the article in question (I’m not even sure they post articles from their magazine), I’d link to it… right next to the (mostly positive) Nation article that it riffs off of. The Washington Monthly cover articles are useless for my purpose, because they deal almost exclusively with electoral chances.

In lieu of anything focused, I’ll give you some exchanges I had on the message board I frequent:

Poster: [i]Just a question on that subject if you have the time: which of the two would you prefer, given the choice, a President Bush II/III or Super Cunt, as she is described in some circles? Think carefully, now, you have a situation that could spring to life instantly if Elder Bush chooses to spring for the Other Son’s rise to fame and glory and Big Oil Forever. It could very well happen, and easily, since it is only a matter of their spending the money to ensure it will happen.
[…]

At least we have the vote, don’t we? We have the vote and the NutFringe Christians devalue it, we have the education system and the NutFringe Christians strive mightily to water that down, water it down to the same Mantra-like belief system as a truly dumbshit Muslim would have; “Forget Science Ye Unbelievers, for it is written in the Holy Book in Words of Fire that ….” fill in the blank as needed.

Personally, given the choice, I would prefer Hillary to anyone named Bush since I always come down on the side of intelligence if at all possible. [/i]

Me: [i]Some additional thoughts on our quasi-republican democracy. If you consider the nation to be divided 50-50 as per the 2000 and 2004 elections … you will also note that the nation is divided 30 to 20 as per states go (New Mexico flipped from blue to red; New Hampshire flipped from red to blue). Do the math with regards to the US Senate.

I can’t say I approve of the word “Super Cunt”. What is the male equivalent to that insult? The story of why I do not like Hillary Clinton includes this whole “into the memory hole with inconsistent storyline” bittocks and begins with the Clintons Superbowl Sunday appearance on 60 Minutes 1992 to handle the Gennifer Flowers piece. It continues to her place in the 1992 DNC Convention, includes the “Cookie recipie” contest with Barbara Bush… the entire set of circumstances is actually that “Triangulation” word I keep using (Did DIck Morris really invent the term) — only in this case she was playing against her perceived personality as opposed to party policy. Flash forward to the Clintons’ post 1994-ass whupping, and there’s still more creepy politics in action there (panel 4 of this cartoon: here… a situation that improved somewhat when Bill Clinton got his political footing back, but it’s all part of the Grand Futt-Mucking.

Yeah, I know. I should be discussing the real issues of Hillary Clinton, as with any politician you know where they stand by who purchased them…

Well, here’s a Spanish newspaper that has already endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.

http://www.watchingamerica.com/elpaisco000002.html

But like Dick Morris, I suspect that they don’t quite get the idea that you have to go through a primary first. (Then again, at the start of the 2004 cycle, everyone assumed it would be Kerry, and by the end of the 2004 primary cycle — after a whirl with Dean and Clark — it was… Kerry. I suspect the powers that be decide these matters after all.)

28 percent of Americans believe that America is heading in the right direction.

My problem is simple: I don’t see how Hillary Clinton is going to head us into a different direction, the political labels notwithstanding, and the National Review cover declaring she’s “Liberal and not Centrist” not-withstanding… she’s apt to spend her time looking for “Sister Souljah Moments” of various varieties, and has already cashed in her chips with the DLC.

I guess she’s for stem cell research. That’s… good…

Judith Miller has just announced that she has discovered more notebooks with more startling revelations concerning the Vallerie Plame matter.

Not only did someone (though her notes are too sloppy to tell us who) tip her off about Valerie Flame and a Victoria Wilson, but five different White House officials tipped her off about:

Valerie Plume
Valerie Plumb
Valerie Flume
Valerie Boob
and
Cedric the Entertainer

I refuse to go into irresponsible speculation.

OH Looky here! Another example from the “America just can’t lose” department, (which I first began to notice as a trend when I read the back cover of A Patriot’s History of the United States. I hope each and every person in each and every nation America has chosen to bomb is grateful for what we’ve done for them… if they’re not, well… I guess we can just bomb them.:

The history of American involvement in foreign wars has all been positive in the long run. Although many on the left [opposed] the Vietnam War, the situation in that country is much better for the people now than before the war. Look at Japan after World War II; it now is a friendly democracy. Russia is now changing its form of government, also to a democracy, after the Cold War. Germany is a free country with a well-organized government.

Mike P. Brink Gresham

May I just interject that I am not sure what “Russia is now changing its form of government, also to a democracy, after the Cold War.” is supposed to mean some decade and a half after the fall of Communism.

I can’t quite tell whether the New York Times Magazine piece connecting the Whig Party with today’s Conservative Republican Party (“Bush’s Ancestors”, Sean Wilentz) is insightful or not, but what I do know is this: The following is an asinine statement…

The party’s (Whig Party) sorry demise helps explain why today’s Republican conservatives who study history resist any comparison with the Whigs.

You don’t say? (Another reason, at least publically — and perhaps this is elitist in my mind: the public has no conception of what the Whig Party was.)

So, the owner of the sort of yuppy-ish grocery store “New Seasons” dropped the “Rock-Star” brand energy drink (most famous to me because of the billboards around town showing a bikini-clad super-model and the expression “Party Like a Rock Star”.) because the drink company is owned by Michael Savage’s son.

(Please note this article, and the workings of hack reporting. If you’re a fan of Rockstar energy drink, Brian Rohter just rocked your world. And I cringe. And I cringe. And then I weep for the destruction of what is black and white and read all over…)

Hence… the letters to the editor:

I read Brian Rohter’s statement about Michael Savage: “Michael Savage is on the air day after day doing his best to take apart the fabric of our society and to attack American values, and we just refuse to support him in any way at all.”

BOB MAYR Southeast Portland

Go choke on a sausage, Bob Mayr of Southeast Portland. I hope you gets AIDS and die.

Brian Rohter of New Seasons Market might just be on to something. He has pulled a product off the shelves of all of his stores because he disagrees with the views of the father of the product’s founder.

DOUG WARNEKE Scappoose

I don’t know where the line in the sand that a person can cross for a respectable business-person to symbolically disassociate him/herself from (And I’ll assume that it isn’t a disagreement over tax policy). Nor do I know the exact nature of direct-line to said offensive statement. Michael Savage probably does indeed count as someone who crossed the line, and the fact that his son owns the company is good enough reason to throw Rock Star brand dink-stuff off the shelves… if you of a mind to do so. If something is connected with Hal Turner, that would work as well.

My problem with Michael Savage is that of the many obnoxious statements he has made, is making, and will make in the future — the one that will be printed on his gravestone will be the one he spoke on his MSNBC television show (he was hired alongside Joe Scarborough when the cable network canned Phil Donahue):

Oh, so you’re one of those sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig, how’s that? Why don’t you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better to do than to put me down, you piece of garbage, you got nothing better to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it. Get trichinosis. Now do we have another nice caller here who’s busy because he didn’t have a nice night in the bathhouse who’s angry at me today? Put another, put another sodomite on….no more calls? I don’t care about these bums, they mean nothing to me. They’re all sausages.

Which I tend to shorten to “Go choke on a sausage. I hope you get AIDS and die.” Hence my reply to Michael Savage fan BOB MAYR of Southeast Portland.

THE CASE AGAINST THE “LOS ANGELES” ANGELS:

Rooting for or against sports teams is, to me, an arbitrary exercise… beyond the home or regional team I’m somehow groomed to root for, but may or may not get into position to do anything in the playoffs. Given the nature of sports — free agents dumped in and out of everywhere — I have no problem with complete lack of loyalty, and jumping on and off of various bandwagons (although I have a set of vague arbitrary rules on what bandwagons should be jumped upon.) Of course I’m perpetually against the New York Yankess — huge pay-roll be they, and I’m a bit parochial with an anti-big city and anti-East Coast bias. Why was I rooting for the Boston Red Sox last year? Actually, I had a mixed emotion (to the degree that I care) — it’s as George Carlin said, “Nothing would be more boring than if the Cubs, Red Sox, Vikings, and Bills won the Championship.”

So why do I not like the Angels? Ignore the fact that they are on their third moniker — California Angels to Anaheim Angels to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (a slap in the face at their cross-city rivals). That may be annoying, but it’s not deadening.

The reason I do not want the Angels to win the World Series is because of something that was uncovered when they won the World Series a few years back: Anaheim has no downtown to speak of for which to march a victory parade through. Downtown Anaheim is Disneyland! When the Anaheim Angels did their “Downtown Parade” lark, they basically toured Disneyland, fans having to pay their way to see. (Which brings a new twist to the old ad campaign “What are you going to do next?” “I’m going to Disneyland!”… Their home ballpark is at Disneyland, for Pete’s sake!) Their Victory Parade was a complete and utter joke!

So, someone else will just have to win the World Series, be they the Chicago White Sox, Houston Astros, or Saint Louis Cardinals. That’s just how it’s going to have to be.
……………………………

LOSER!!!

NFL News: The New York Jets (who play in New Jersey), lost their two quarterbacks to injury. Vinny Testeverde called in to inquiry about coming back to play quarterback. He came in, fans cheered wildly when he was introduced, and…

Fun fact: Vinny Testeverde holds the NFL record for greatest number of losses of any starting quarterback.

Which, of course, means that he’s a good quarterback. If he were bad, he wouldn’t have been given the opportunity to lose. You will note that he’s playing football again. (Incidentally, he won. And against the team that he piled up the bulk of his losses: the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who spent a godly amount of time at the bottom of the NFL heap… and I will note that there is no such city as “Tampa Bay”.)

Hrm?

“You are the best governor ever – deserving of great respect,” Harriet E. Miers wrote to George W. Bush days after his 51st birthday in July 1997. She also found him “cool,” said he and his wife, Laura, were “the greatest!” and told him: “Keep up the great work. Texas is blessed.”

I’m thinking back to just a few months ago, some of John Roberts’s documents were in hiding, others dribbled out… they generally told us about his politics, which were then debated (essentially whether being a client for the Reagan or Bush administrations meant that these were his opinions — hard to figure that they wouldn’t be.)

With Harriet Miers we get… something entirely different.

In October 1997, Ms. Miers sent Mr. Bush a flowery greeting card in thanks for a letter that he had written on her behalf. In it, she said of his daughters: “Hopefully Jenna and Barbara recognize that their parents are ‘cool’ – as do the rest of us.”

She added, “All I hear is how great you and Laura are doing,” and ended, “Texas is blessed.”

So. Do Jeanna and Barbara realize that they have “cool” parents? (As a rule, no kid should desire “cool parents”, in the case of the Bush twins that would mean doing The Butt Dance with them.)

I note that Sam Sedar, of Air America Radio’s “Majority Report Radio” was followed by Ann Coulter who was followed by more than one political cartoonist in suggesting Bush appoint his dog to Supreme Court Justice instead of Miers.

And now, lifted from Eric Hananoki’s blog, which is the Al Franken Show blog, is perhaps the bottom line in the case against Harriet Miers.:

Harriet used to keep a humidor full of M&M’s in her West Wing office. It wasn’t a huge secret. She’d stash some boxes of the coveted red, white, and blue M&M’s in specially made boxes bearing George W. Bush’s reprinted signature. Her door was always open and the M&M’s were always available. I dared ask one time why they were there. Her answer: “I like M&M’s, and I like sharing.”

Do these things matter at all when it comes to her qualifications for being an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court? Yes. They speak to her character. And in matters of justice, matters of character count.

The case against Harriet Miers is that the case for Harriet Miers is that she is generous with her M & Ms.

It’s difficult to guage how well Nancy Pelosi is doing managing and leading the Democratic House Cuacus. You can’t really defeat anything in the House, given the Republican Leadership’s strong-hand tactics, represented by the fact that for the third time the Republican Leadership extended a five minute voting window and extended it and extended it so as to nab a few reluctant Republicans to vote ‘yea’.

Watch at your own peril.

I don’t know what it means, but the time lag of these five minute voting sessions is getting shorter. This particular five minute voting session took fifty or so minutes. The first time we had a voting session such as this one, it lasted roughly three hours, as the House Leadership tried to find retiring Rep. Nick Smith to offer a carrot or a stick to his political office-seeking son depending on how he voted.

This time around…

It looked as if the bill was headed to defeat, two votes shy of approval. Democrats called in vain for gaveling the vote closed as GOP leaders lobbied their members to switch votes and support the bill.

Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who recently stepped down temporarily as majority leader after being indicted in Texas over a campaign finance issue, was as active as ever, putting pressure on wavering lawmakers in the crowded, noisy House chamber.

Congratulations to Bill Young, I guess. At least Smith held out a little longer.

Okay. Nancy Pelosi. Guage her job performance on three levels: #1: how many Democrats get elected to the House. This is a work in progress, and the first time we can check in with that is in the year 2006. #2: Democratic Unity. Unfortunately, despite her best efforts, a batch of Democrats voted for the Bankruptcy Reform Act… making it difficult to create a coherent Democratic Message. Nonetheless, she looks better than Dick Gephardt. #3: At moments like this 50 minute 5 minute vote, how she communicates the Republican Party’s Acts of Disgrace.

The C-SPAN footage shows she did well with that regard.

Why would anybody be surprised that Joseph Lieberman attended, and dined in fabulous fashion at the table of, William Buckley?

Joseph Lieberman owes his first Senate election to the endorsement of the National Review.

Announcing: Buckleys for Lieberman – transcript of press conference with William F. Buckley Jr – interview

AND

In a public debate with Democratic opponent Attorney General Joe Lieberman last week, Weicker attacked the Pledge of Allegiance. “Ronald Reagan tried to take us down a lot of wrong paths . . . and only one man stood up.” (He meant Lowell Weicker.) Asked about Buckpac (Buckleys for Lieberman), Lieberman said, “Buckley and tens of thousands of others can’t stand you for your political grandstanding.”

It was the classic match-up between a RINO and a DINO, with a great deal of cross-voting. I note that there was recent rumour that Lowell Weicker might run again for the Senate, an improbability which is nonetheless charming.