Clinton style uber-mediocrity

L

LoafingOaf

Guest
Since there was a bit of discussion of Hillary's book before, here's a funny review.

Thank you, P.J., for suffering through it for us!

Hillary's History
From the July 7 / July 14, 2003 issue: Senator Clinton's opus.
by P.J. O'Rourke
07/07/2003, Volume 008, Issue 42

Living History
by Hillary Clinton
Simon & Schuster, 562 pp., $28

IF YOU PLAN not to read this summer, "Living History" is just the book. Hillary Clinton's new memoir is more than 100,000 pages long. At least I think it is. There are only 562 page numbers, but you know how those Clintons lie. A mere ream of paper could not contain the padding that has gone into this tome. Hillary--with the help of at least six ghostwriters--nails the goose of a manuscript to the barn floor and force-feeds it with lint.

We are informed, for instance, that Jackie Onassis was once, herself, a first lady and later married a Greek shipping magnate. We learn how a chief executive walks to the podium to deliver a State of the Union speech: "The president greets members of both parties who, by tradition, sit on opposite sides of the aisle." Even Hillary's grief over the death of her dad is padded: "My father would not be at the table vying with Hugh and Tony for one of the drumsticks or asking for more cranberries and water-melon pickle, two of his favorites from childhood." And then there are the fulsome tales of official junkets--unimportant, uninteresting, uneventful, and unending. "I had given a lot of thought to how Chelsea and I should dress on the trip. We wanted to be comfortable, and, under the sun's heat, I was glad for the hats and cotton clothes I had packed." And I was glad for the scopolamine transdermal patch.

Nausea, however, is interesting compared with the actual symptoms of going-through-the-motions sickness induced by "Living History." The book does not contain even a dog-worthy return to the vomit of the Lewinsky scandal. And the stingy-mama-bird regurgitations of Whitewater excuses and evasions will leave the most adoring Hillary chick wanting more worm. Hillary has spent forty years with the pros on the fairways of prevarication, yet her gimmes lack audacity, her mulligans do not astonish, and her foot-played "improvements of lie" are no more subtle than "Whitewater never seemed real because it wasn't."

Vituperation is supposed to be another of Hillary's salient features. But she spritzes, rather than splashes, acid and then only on the dead, the powerless, and Ken Starr. Hillary calls Bill's mother "Virginia Cassidy Blythe Clinton Dwire Kelley" and eulogizes her as "an American original--bighearted, good humored, fun-loving"--by which she means a drunk. "I didn't use makeup," declares Hillary, "and wore jeans and work shirts most of the time. I was no Miss Arkansas," but "no matter what else was going on in her life, Virginia got up early, glued on her false eyelashes and put on bright red lipstick, and sashayed out the door."

Damning stuff. But the junior senator's insults are preferable to her compliments. Hillary's friend Jean Houston "wraps herself up in brightly colored capes and caftans and dominates the room with her larger-than-life presence and crackling wit, . . . reciting poems, passages from great works of literature, historical facts and scientific data all in the same breath."

Let's take a deep one. Boring others is a form of aggression, and Hillary attacks her public with the weapon of brutal dullness. Ms. Clinton has led a busy, meddlesome life from an early age. "I was elected co-captain of the safety patrol. . . . This was a big deal at our school." But until page 440 of her memoir, nothing happens. You know the nothing I mean. Any number of Clinton friends and supporters told us it was nothing. And, as a result of nothing happening, nothing--as you may remember--happened. So, starting on page 440, that nothing happens, and by page 472 (that is to say immediately, given the high-speed laser-printing prolixity of "Living History"), Hillary is announcing, "Life moved on, and I moved with it."

UNLIKE ORDINARY HUMANS, Hillary had a choice about that move. After all, life revolves around Hillary. "In my own life I have been a wife, mother, daughter, sister, in-law, student, lawyer, children's rights activist, law professor, Methodist, political advisor, citizen and so much else." So very much else. "I was raised to love my God and my country, to help others, to protect and defend the democratic ideals that have inspired and guided free people for more than 200 years," a slap in the face to those of us who were raised to say please and thank you and not track mud into the house. Little wonder that when Hillary meets Queen Elizabeth, "She reminded me of my own mother."

Compared with Hillary Clinton, Bill is a big pile of humility. "While Bill talked about social change," says Hillary, "I embodied it," to loud hosannas and wild exaltations. In China, at the 1995 United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, "The serious and stony-faced delegates suddenly leaped from their seats to give me a standing ovation. Delegates rushed to touch me, shout words of appreciation and thank me for coming." In Chicago, at the 1996 Democratic Convention, "The crowd erupted into a frenzy of clapping, chanting, and foot-stomping. . . . My motions to urge the crowd to sit down were futile, so I just waved and let the cheers wash over me."

"Living History" traps us in the heated daydream of an earnest and lofty-minded high school student--the kind who belonged to the Methodist youth group, sat on the student council, was elected junior-class vice president, got appointed to the principal's Cultural Values Committee "to promote tolerance," and would go on to become president of student government at some college for girls. As Hillary did. With a wonderful young person like that, well, some people are bound to be jealous and just act mean. Hillary points out that, during the Whitewater investigations, "public discourse was increasingly dominated by reactionary pundits and TV and radio personalities." You remember how the popular kids at summer camp got together and made sure we had acne.

But it's beyond me how those reactionary pundits concluded that Hillary is representative of the 1960s generation. Hillary's countercultural experience seems to have consisted of one visit, with another suburban girl, to Grant Park during the 1968 Democratic convention. "In the crowd behind us, someone screamed profanities and threw a rock, which just missed us." Heavy.

IN FACT, Hillary and her husband aren't representative of much of anything American. Neither can drive a car. Hillary hasn't been behind the wheel since 1996. ("I cajoled my lead [Secret Service] agent, Don Flynn, into sitting beside me. . . . Don's knuckles were white as dice by the time we arrived.") And Bill should never try. ("He has so much information running through his head at any given moment that he doesn't always notice where he's going.") In nearly twenty years of family life, the Clintons did not own a home or go to the mall without armed guards. And when they had a cat and dog, "I had to set up a separate correspondence unit . . . to answer their mail."

One senses profound superficialities here. Plumbing the shallows of Hillary is no easy matter, even for Hillary. She tries to give us the genesis of her worldview, but the anecdote runs out of control:

One snowy night during my freshman year, Margaret Clapp, then President of the college, arrived unexpectedly at my dorm. . . . She came into the dining room and asked for volunteers to help her gently shake the snow off the branches of the surrounding trees so that they wouldn't break under the weight. We walked from tree to tree through knee-high snow under a clear sky filled with stars, led by a strong, intelligent woman alert to the surprises and vulnerabilities of nature. . . . I decided that night that I had found the place where I belonged.

No fair consulting Freud. We need to work from primary sources. We must listen to Hillary's insights. About Princess Di and Mother Teresa, for example: "Aside from the obvious differences, each of these women had a talent for spotlighting the most vulnerable and neglected people and using her celebrity in calculated ways to help others." Aside from the obvious differences.

We must watch Hillary learn: "I always knew that America matters to the rest of the world; my travels taught me how the rest of the world matters to America."

We must recognize Hillary's principled outspoken feminism as elucidated in her U.N. Conference on Women speech: "It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small."

We must understand her ability to commune with the strong, intelligent women of past generations: "So, what would Mrs. Roosevelt have to say about my present predicament? Not much, I thought."

We must understand her sense of humor: "No one can make me laugh the way Bill does."

And understand her hair: "Thus began my lifelong hair struggles." "That was when my hair got me in more trouble." "It was another hair crisis."

And understand her stupidity. Now, Hillary's stupidity is of a Monday's-homework-done-on-Friday-night, 1,400 on her SATs kind, but nonetheless stupid for all that. She has lunch with Jackie Onassis, who "cautioned me that Bill, like President Kennedy, had a personal magnetism that inspired strong feelings in people. She never came out and said it, but she meant that he might be a target." Was Jackie talking about the grassy knoll or about a different kind of mons?

Hillary serves roasted eggplant soup and sweet potato puree to Jacques Chirac and doesn't get the joke when Chirac says, "Of course, I love many things American, including the food. You know, I used to work in a Howard Johnson's restaurant." After listening to Jiang Zemin explain that the Tibetans had been liberated by the Chinese, Hillary concludes, "I don't think Jiang . . . was being quite straight with me on Tibet."

Hillary failed the District of Columbia bar examination, but she passed in Arkansas--and "in the first jury trial I handled on my own, I defended a canning company against a plaintiff who found the rear end of a rat in the can of pork and beans he opened for dinner one night."

HAS "LIVING HISTORY" been dumbed down for its intended reader? Yes, assuming its author read it. I don't doubt that she wrote part of it, but no one seems to have read the final text. Otherwise, how to explain such sentences as, "The dominant architecture was Soviet-style socialist realism," or "Tom and I spent late nights wrestling over the fine points of legal interpretation" (a euphemism sure to be taken up by the British tabloid press), or this description of a 1992 bus trip campaigning: "Bill, Al, Tipper and I spent hours talking, eating, waving out the window." Which must have been a sight, though nothing compared with the trip to Russia when Hillary and Mrs. Boris Yeltsin "laughed our way through a day of public appearances and private meals with local dignitaries." I hesitate to think there was a logical explanation, but Hillary does say, "Ireland invigorated and inspired me, and I wished we could bottle up the good feelings and take them back home." It's been done before.

"Living History" arrived from the publisher with a seven-page executive summary (itself ferociously tedious) that indicates no one is intended to read this book. Of course, a couple of people had to. There is the junior associate--doubtless a strong, intelligent woman--at the law firm of Bland and Blander who slogged through every word to make sure nothing was actionable. And then there's me. Poor me. But, except for us, "Living History" suffers the fate of modern poetry, with an authorship of many and an audience of none.

Not that the book isn't supposed to sell. And I understand it's selling nicely. I do not begrudge Hillary and her publisher their profits. The money will allow them, per Dante, to visit the fifth cornice of purgatory, where avarice is atoned, whenever they can get family leave from the ninth circle of hell where they'll be eternally tortured for spreading false doctrine. The free market is a good thing.

The purchasers of "Living History" can count themselves benefited, also. They could have had Hillary as their legal aid defender instead of merely their senator. Her argument to the jury that "rodent parts which had been sterilized might be considered edible in certain parts of the world" would not be of much use in a felony narcotics trial, despite the admirable multiculturalism of the sentiment.

However, it says something unflattering about our era that prominent political figures--who used to write declarations of independence, preambles to constitutions, Gettysburg addresses, and such--now use the alphabet only to make primitive artifacts, like the letter-inscribed tablet that Charlemagne is said to have put under his pillow each night, in the hope he'd wake up literate. Conservatives, including most of the Founding Fathers, have always worried that the price of a democratic system would be a mediocre nation. But George Washington and William F. Buckley Jr. put together could not have foreseen, in their gloomiest moments, the rise of Clinton-style über-mediocrity--with its soaring commonplaces, its pumped trifling, its platinum-grade triviality. The Alpha-dork husband, the super-twerp wife, and the hyper-wonk vice president--together with all their mega-weenie water carriers, such as vicious pit gerbil George Stephanopoulos and Eastern diamondback rattleworm Sidney Blumenthal--spent eight years trying to make America nothing to brag about.

They failed. And that is, ultimately, what makes "Living History" such a good nonread. If they're going to throw the book at us, and the book is by Hillary, the republic will endure (and the Republicans will prevail). Plus, there's a bonus. "Living History" contains a surprise unmentioned, I believe, by other reviewers. On page 402 we are presented with a rare, possibly unique, portrait of the likeable side of Robert Mugabe: "President Mugabe said little during my courtesy visit with him in the presidential residence in the capital, Harare. He paid close attention to his young wife, Grace, while I made conversation with her, and he periodically broke into giggles for no apparent reason."
 
As much as everyone points out that Hillary's book is-- what a shock!-- a fluff piece, that will not change the fact that Bush and his warmongers lied, lied, lied, lied all the way to a big fat payday and a smug visit to church.

So Hillary's in the fifth circle of hell? Or is it the ninth? And in which circle will we find Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, and Ashcroft? Maybe a new circle where greedy liars, religious zealots, and destroyers of democracy will be forced to guzzle oil for all eternity. Even Dante would have been taxed to find a poetic punishment for those boors.

Bill 'n' Hillary are no saints, but as far as sin goes they've got nothing on the Bush junta.

I love the line about how prominent political figures used to write such grand things as declarations, preambles, and addresses. You have got to be kidding me-- are we not routinely treated to the mumblings of a President who can barely string two words together without tripping over his own tongue? Whose diploma will evermore be a source of severe embarrassment to Yale University? Who's probably too dumb even to understand any of P.J. O'Rourke's books (and that's saying a lot, believe me)?

Gee, I wonder what "grand" artifact King George will leave the world? What has he given us so far, except that which qualifies as pure fiction-- and written by just the sort of ghosts who "helped" Hillary? I think I know-- he'll no doubt leave his legacy in the characters written on the tombstones of thousands of innocent people, which seems to be the only language Republicans like to speak these days.

All these attacks on Hillary do is prove one of her main points, that the Republicans have gone way out of their way to slander, defame, and bring down both she and her husband from Day One. When a tool like O'Rourke writes this one-sided, doctrinaire conservative garbage, it only makes her case stronger.

On the other hand, surely you, "Loafing Oaf", might be offered as proof that the last decade or so has done nothing but produce uber-mediocrity in American society. Come to think of it, old P.J. might be on to something.
 
>We wanted to be comfortable, and, under the sun's heat, I was glad for the hats and cotton clothes I had packed>
Oh, thanks for the tip Hillary.
I was at Borders and someone cut me in line and I was wondering what was more important than the June Issue of Word magazine that they would have to cut in line and guess what, she was buying Living History.
 
> As much as everyone points out that Hillary's book is-- what a shock!-- a
> fluff piece, that will not change the fact that Bush and his warmongers
> lied, lied, lied, lied all the way to a big fat payday and a smug visit to
> church.

I didn't say Hillary's book has anything to do with the war in Iraq, which Hillary Clinton supported after viewing the intelligence reports herself.

A few weeks ago people were talking about her book. I thought this review was *hilarious*. Put your partisanship aside and laugh along with PJ O'Rourke! He's a political *humorist*, so chill out.

> So Hillary's in the fifth circle of hell? Or is it the ninth? And in which
> circle will we find Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, and
> Ashcroft? Maybe a new circle where greedy liars, religious zealots, and
> destroyers of democracy will be forced to guzzle oil for all eternity.
> Even Dante would have been taxed to find a poetic punishment for those
> boors.

> Bill 'n' Hillary are no saints, but as far as sin goes they've got nothing
> on the Bush junta.

The "junta"? LOL!

BTW, I've pretty much decided to support John Edwards' run for the White House.
I think he's the best of the possibilities right now on most issues. But that's subject to change as I find out more, of course. It might turn out like last time and I might not support *anyone*. I think somebody's gotta stand up against the PATRIOT Act of 2001 and the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, which I consider un-American.

> I love the line about how prominent political figures used to write such
> grand things as declarations, preambles, and addresses. You have got to be
> kidding me-- are we not routinely treated to the mumblings of a President
> who can barely string two words together without tripping over his own
> tongue?

Yes, Bush is a horrible speaker and I wouldn't wanna read any book he'd write.
P.J. is talking about the great writings in our nation's history. Again, you're unabvle to detach your party loayalty and enjoy this extremely funny book review. P.J. O'Rourke makes fun of everybody; that's what he does for a living.

>Whose diploma will evermore be a source of severe embarrassment to
> Yale University? Who's probably too dumb even to understand any of P.J.
> O'Rourke's books (and that's saying a lot, believe me)?

Well, Hillary failed a bar exam and Al Gore got some D's in law school.

> Gee, I wonder what "grand" artifact King George will leave the
> world? What has he given us so far, except that which qualifies as pure
> fiction-- and written by just the sort of ghosts who "helped"
> Hillary? I think I know-- he'll no doubt leave his legacy in the
> characters written on the tombstones of thousands of innocent people,
> which seems to be the only language Republicans like to speak these days.

Clearly you were unable to laugh along at this very silly woman and her stupid book because you're too touchy about anyone attacking the Democrats or your king, Bill Clinton, and his dingbat wife.

> All these attacks on Hillary do is prove one of her main points, that the
> Republicans have gone way out of their way to slander, defame, and bring
> down both she and her husband from Day One. When a tool like O'Rourke
> writes this one-sided, doctrinaire conservative garbage, it only makes her
> case stronger.

> On the other hand, surely you, "Loafing Oaf", might be offered
> as proof that the last decade or so has done nothing but produce
> uber-mediocrity in American society. Come to think of it, old P.J. might
> be on to something.
 
Oh boo hoo...people love Hillary

Oaf...one note before I begin. This is aside from our disagreements. I have heard of websites getting in trouble because posters CnP'd entire articles that are copyrighted. Better to leave a link and an excerpt and not print the entire article. Now onto the bs...

Some Brilliant insights PJ

1) "and her foot-played "improvements of lie" are no more subtle than "Whitewater never seemed real because it wasn't"

HAHA PJ still thnks the Clintons committed a crime in Whitewater.

2) "But she spritzes, rather than splashes, acid and then only on the dead...Hillary calls Bill's mother an American original--bighearted, good humored, fun-loving"--(THEN HE ADDS) by which she means a drunk

NO that is PJ spritzing acid on the dead. What a piece of shit thing to accuse then do. The right wing zombies just love this stuff. I guess since the dead person is a Clinton...it's ok.

3) He complains that she doesn't discuss Monica enough.

This was a book written that Hillary wanted to write...not for drooling fascists to masterbate to Monicagate. I suppose if she had written more then he would have complained that America's youth was already too saturated with this x-rated Lewinsky blah blah blah.

4) "And understand her stupidity."

What writer starts a sentence with "And"? In two consecutive sentences no less!

5) He complains that Bill and Hillary don't represent America. Hillary hasn't driven a car since 1996., etc.

Umm...Look at George Bush and tell me who represents America better? Love that ranch Georgie!

I could go on...but what's the point. I've got better things to do. Rightwing gasbag hatemongers like PJ are a dime a dozen. So are the people that reprint them. THe right wing will complain about partisanship but applaud anytime some spiteful attack comes out against the Clintons or any of their other favorite targets. Meanwhile Iraq is a mess, Afghanistan is a mess, the economy is a mess, Unemployment is a mess, Medicare is being privatized, veterans benefits and personal freedoms are being stripped....and our Senate Majority leader-R is upset that sodomy will NOT be outlawed in Texas and a couple of other states.

That's ok because we still have the Clintons to blame and hate. Bush promised us a new direction from Clintons economy of 8 years of unmatched prosperity. One of his few campaign promises he kept.
 
Besides weren't you complaining that...

...all people do is talk about things in her past and you wanted to concentrate on her accomplishments as a Senator. Make up your closed mind already.
 
> I didn't say Hillary's book has anything to do with the war in Iraq, which
> Hillary Clinton supported after viewing the intelligence reports herself.

> A few weeks ago people were talking about her book. I thought this review
> was *hilarious*. Put your partisanship aside and laugh along with PJ
> O'Rourke! He's a political *humorist*, so chill out.

No, you didn't say this book review had anything to do with Iraq, but you posted this article, and P.J. O'Rourke wrote it-- maybe *you* aren't conscious of this, but a trend in the media is obviously coming to the fore: the Republicans/neocons are looking for any opportunity to push attention away from the withering away of Bush's credibility over Iraq/Afghanistan/domesitic policy. The junior senator from New York represents a nice little distraction, doesn't she.

> The "junta"? LOL!

> BTW, I've pretty much decided to support John Edwards' run for the White
> House.
> I think he's the best of the possibilities right now on most issues. But
> that's subject to change as I find out more, of course. It might turn out
> like last time and I might not support *anyone*. I think somebody's gotta
> stand up against the PATRIOT Act of 2001 and the Anti-Terrorism Act of
> 1996, which I consider un-American.

How is it you wish to stand up against the PATRIOT Act but don't condemn the war in Iraq? It's all related.

> Yes, Bush is a horrible speaker and I wouldn't wanna read any book he'd
> write.
> P.J. is talking about the great writings in our nation's history. Again,
> you're unabvle to detach your party loayalty and enjoy this extremely
> funny book review. P.J. O'Rourke makes fun of everybody; that's what he
> does for a living.

I've read many pieces by P.J. O'Rourke over the years and yes, he can be funny, and yes, he makes fun of a lot of people. He is also a known conservative and this piece is as partisan as you can get. You're kidding yourself if you think this review doesn't have any ideological thrust.

In citing those "great texts", furthermore, P.J. destroys his own credibility as a commentator *and* a humorist because if you're going to single out the Clintons for their "uber-mediocrity" you are implying that the current regime is somehow different, that those 8 years of Clinton were a dark period from which we've emerged. Not true. In fact, it might be interesting to note that "Clinton's America" was more directly created by 12 years of Republican rule by "The Great Communicator", Ronald Reagan, and his henchman Bush. No, this wasn't humor-- it was a partisan slam on Hillary, Bill, and the Democrats and nothing more.

Bush has killed thousands of innocent people in the last year and has subverted American democracy in doing so-- and has suffered no *meaningful* flak from the press at all. Yet Hillary publishes a bit of fluff-- which apparently a hell of a lot of people were interested in reading-- and it's time for all the right-wing scumbags to get out their knives and pounce. What a joke.

> Well, Hillary failed a bar exam and Al Gore got some D's in law school.

Chump change. You know damn well that both Hillary and Al are often attacked for being chilly intellectuals who can't relate to 'regular' people. Bush is in another class altogether-- like remedial shop class.

> Clearly you were unable to laugh along at this very silly woman and her
> stupid book because you're too touchy about anyone attacking the Democrats
> or your king, Bill Clinton, and his dingbat wife.

The Democrats are spineless and they get what they deserve. None of them stood up to those fascists in the White House and Pentagon when they should have, including Hillary, and they can all burn for that as I far as I'm concerned.

Clinton himself was a liar and he made a lot of mistakes, but there's a very simple fact-- America plummeted right into the toilet as soon as Lil' Bush came to power-- Bush, a man who would like to teach creationism in schools and wants to spread American democracy with tanks and bombs. Whatever his crimes, Clinton did not strike a death blow to the American republic as Bush seems to have done. And if that's not enough to make you humorless about tunnel-visioned shit-slinging masquerading as a "funny" book review then I don't know what is.
 
What's the left coming to when they can't even laugh at Hillary!

> No, you didn't say this book review had anything to do with Iraq, but you
> posted this article, and P.J. O'Rourke wrote it-- maybe *you* aren't
> conscious of this, but a trend in the media is obviously coming to the
> fore: the Republicans/neocons are looking for any opportunity to push
> attention away from the withering away of Bush's credibility over
> Iraq/Afghanistan/domesitic policy. The junior senator from New York
> represents a nice little distraction, doesn't she.

Um...she published a book.....

> How is it you wish to stand up against the PATRIOT Act but don't condemn
> the war in Iraq? It's all related.

I supported regime change in Iraq since 1991. What you guys never seem to understand is I support the war for my own reasons after doing my own thinking about it. And I still think the world, America, and Iraq will all be better off for it having been done after long delay.

I suppose one can argue that a nation which passed the PATRIOT Act and targets Arab-Americans and immigrants is less likely to be sincere in foreign policy. The PATRIOT Act is scary in a whole variety of ways (I was just reading a law review article the other day which explained how in the future groups such as PETA can *potentially* be targeted as "terrorist" ogranizations), but that's not something I wanna get into in this thread. The PATRIOT Act is un-American, and I've always maintained that Ashcroft is a dangerous man.

> I've read many pieces by P.J. O'Rourke over the years and yes, he can be
> funny, and yes, he makes fun of a lot of people. He is also a known
> conservative and this piece is as partisan as you can get. You're kidding
> yourself if you think this review doesn't have any ideological thrust.

Yes, I understand, to you anyone who is a conservative is evil. I guess the only reviews you want written about Hillary's book are from Clintonoid shills?

P.J. O'Rourke is the man who famously wrote, in this book Parliament of Whores: "The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." See, he's a funny guy. And that rings true, right? And, see, he laughs at Republicans.

> In citing those "great texts", furthermore, P.J. destroys his
> own credibility as a commentator *and* a humorist because if you're going
> to single out the Clintons for their "uber-mediocrity" you are
> implying that the current regime is somehow different,

"regime" LOL!

> that those 8 years
> of Clinton were a dark period from which we've emerged. Not true. In fact,
> it might be interesting to note that "Clinton's America" was
> more directly created by 12 years of Republican rule by "The Great
> Communicator", Ronald Reagan, and his henchman Bush. No, this wasn't
> humor-- it was a partisan slam on Hillary, Bill, and the Democrats and
> nothing more.

I'm sorry, but that review is VERY humorous. I laughed out loud through the whole thing. Even the very first sentence is f***ing hilarious. I would think so no matter what political ideology I subscribed to (I've laughed along with Al Franken and even *gasp* Michael Moore, for example). And, anyway, he really only gets partisan at the end. Who cares if you agree with everything he says.

> Bush has killed thousands of innocent people in the last year and has
> subverted American democracy in doing so-- and has suffered no
> *meaningful* flak from the press at all. Yet Hillary publishes a bit of
> fluff-- which apparently a hell of a lot of people were interested in
> reading-- and it's time for all the right-wing scumbags to get out their
> knives and pounce. What a joke.

P.J. O'Rourke is a "scumbag"? That's ridiculous. He's charming! I went to a book signing of his some years ago and I'd be happy to hang out with him any time. I feel sorry for people who have to hate someone just because you don't share his politics. What has P.J. ever done to anybody except point out how ridiculous the world and politics can be? Is that how you want the world to be, where you have to hate people who disagree with you? Don't you think that will limit you in terms of what points of view you're open to listening to?

I find it especially important for someone like P.J. to come along and stick a pin into Hillary's bubble. Hillary is a celebrity the mainstream media has decided to just anoint as the 2008 president. Hillary is a celebrity with many shills and cult-like worshipers. It became customary in the 1990s for anyone who dares say a bad word about Queen Hilary to be attacked as someone who is "threatened by a powerful woman." LOL! And HIllary is a woman who, when the heat is on, will pretend to be "just a wife" who bakes cookies when she doesn't want to be subjected to scrutiny, but in other situations insists she's a leader who deserves to be taken seriously. These are the ways they to shut people up from saying a single bad word about her, but I thought that we're supposed to be allowed to criticize leaders.

The fact is, when you cut through all the bullshit, Hillary is a very silly woman who I don't believe has ever uttered a single thought of any value. She needs to be made fun of. All of our leaders need to be made fun of, so nobody starts thinking they're royalty or something. But Hillary especially. Sorry, but it's for the good of the country.

> Chump change. You know damn well that both Hillary and Al are often
> attacked for being chilly intellectuals who can't relate to 'regular'
> people. Bush is in another class altogether-- like remedial shop class.

> The Democrats are spineless and they get what they deserve. None of them
> stood up to those fascists in the White House and Pentagon when they
> should have, including Hillary, and they can all burn for that as I far as
> I'm concerned.

> Clinton himself was a liar and he made a lot of mistakes,

I love this one by the Clintonoids: "Mistakes were made." LOL! Always the very vague "mistakes" when it comes to Bill Clinton, so ensure that there are never any real consequences for his crookery.

>but there's a
> very simple fact-- America plummeted right into the toilet as soon as Lil'
> Bush came to power-- Bush, a man who would like to teach creationism in
> schools and wants to spread American democracy with tanks and bombs.
> Whatever his crimes, Clinton did not strike a death blow to the American
> republic as Bush seems to have done. And if that's not enough to make you
> humorless about tunnel-visioned shit-slinging masquerading as a
> "funny" book review then I don't know what is.

Yes, you are humorless.
 
Re: Besides weren't you complaining that...

> ...all people do is talk about things in her past and you wanted to
> concentrate on her accomplishments as a Senator. Make up your closed mind
> already.

I think I was trying to say, people are caught up in her celebrity and don't notice she is not a very accomplished person.
 
Re: Oh boo hoo...people love Hillary

> Oaf...one note before I begin. This is aside from our disagreements. I
> have heard of websites getting in trouble because posters CnP'd entire
> articles that are copyrighted. Better to leave a link and an excerpt and
> not print the entire article. Now onto the bs...

Yeah, I know, you're really supposed to just post excerpts and a link. But I figure things scroll away so fast here it's no harm done, and I've seen others doing it. Maybe I should change that practice though.

> I could go on...but what's the point. I've got better things to do.

Heh. Looks like he bugged ya though. = )

> Rightwing gasbag hatemongers like PJ are a dime a dozen. So are the people
> that reprint them. THe right wing will complain about partisanship but
> applaud anytime some spiteful attack comes out against the Clintons or any
> of their other favorite targets.

I love when people attack the Clintons! You're right about that! Couldn't happen to nicer people.....
 
Re: Besides weren't you complaining that...

> I think I was trying to say, people are caught up in her celebrity and
> don't notice she is not a very accomplished person.

Well, I believe she is a very accomplished person. I myself didn't know how much so until seeing her biography. Also, isn't this book part of her celebrity?
 
Re: Oh boo hoo...people love Hillary

> Yeah, I know, you're really supposed to just post excerpts and a link. But
> I figure things scroll away so fast here it's no harm done, and I've seen
> others doing it. Maybe I should change that practice though.

Well, we are pretty much small potatoes here in our little niche...but if we do it to the wrong publisher/writer...I've just seen other sites have to go through legal circles because they got in trouble.

> Heh. Looks like he bugged ya though. = )

PJ in particular doesn't bug me. The whole "we despise Clinton gang" is what bothers me. I just think the Clintons have their faults...like everyone...and had problems in the White House...like all previous...but they really did accomplish a lot for this country while the whole time being attacked by an aggressive media and political enemies that would give them no credit. Hillary was just the first lady and there are many people who hate her for that. Similar circumstances for Chelsea. I strongly dislike W. Bush, but that doesn't translate into a blind hatred for Laura or Barbara or Jenna. I will cite things in their lives for comparison to defend the Clintons against the spiteful attacks...but this hatred that the right wing has for them is like a dementia. Then people like Dennis Miller and PJ who should be above this sort of thing but are as fanatical about it as the most ignorant of your average Rush Limbaugh listener.

> I love when people attack the Clintons! You're right about that! Couldn't
> happen to nicer people.....

Well, if that is one of the things that defines your happiness, then you are probably one of the most happiest people on the planet. You are ruining the stereotype of a Smith's fan for the rest of us though with this happiness...knock it off and go back to being a self loathing suicidal depressed introvert already. sheesh.
 
PJ O'Rourke

> A few weeks ago people were talking about her book. I thought this review
> was *hilarious*. Put your partisanship aside and laugh along with PJ
> O'Rourke! He's a political *humorist*, so chill out.

Have you read "Holidays in Hell" by PJ Rourke? One of the funniest things I've read, ever. He comes across as a right wing arsehole, but still, he's good at what he does and makes me laugh.

John Edwards-Democrat or Republican?
liberal or conservative?
Has he got a good head of hair? If he's bald he hasn't got a hope.
 
Re: What's the left coming to when they can't even laugh at Hillary!

> I supported regime change in Iraq since 1991. What you guys never seem to
> understand is I support the war for my own reasons after doing my own
> thinking about it. And I still think the world, America, and Iraq will all
> be better off for it having been done after long delay.

I, too, would be thrilled with the change in regime, except that, let's see, this "regime change" was realized by an unelected president fighting an undeclared war on an already-destroyed country that was no threat to the United States, pushing an agenda that is equal parts ivory tower theorizing and fundamentalist Christian crusading, doing irreparable harm to American democracy, alienating America's allies, and destabilizing a world that opposed his will both legally and morally. Gosh, what's not to like about this "regime change"?

Might we excuse all this by saying that the future, as you see it, will be better for everyone? Perhaps. But that's just saying the ends justify the means. The future is uncertain, but the present is easier to get a fix on, and to this point the means of this regime change have been illegal, reckless, and belligerent. Given that, why should we believe that the end will be without taint? Why will *this* new Iraqi regime be different than the regimes we've installed before?

A new cycle of violence has begun, and in the end it will culminate in some greater disaster, whether it's another 9/11 on American soil or a genocide on Arab soil. In any event the result will not be pure because American motives are not pure. We will not spread democracy in the Middle East because we are not interested in spreading democracy, we are interested in national security and money, neither of which is necessarily allied with justice.

> Yes, I understand, to you anyone who is a conservative is evil. I guess
> the only reviews you want written about Hillary's book are from Clintonoid
> shills?

No, you don't understand. I have nothing against conservatives who stand for their beliefs in good faith. In many ways I myself am a conservative. P.J. O'Rourke did not write that review of Hillary's book in good faith. As I said, it was a redeployment of all the usual right-wing shibboleths to draw attention away from the fact that Bush and his deputies are destroying the world.

> P.J. O'Rourke is the man who famously wrote, in this book Parliament of
> Whores: "The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't
> work and then they get elected and prove it." See, he's a funny guy.
> And that rings true, right? And, see, he laughs at Republicans.

Believe me, I'm familiar with O'Rourke, having read his pieces in Rolling Stone over the years, and the guy is quite simply a Republican tool. Yes, he pours scorn on Republicans from time to time, but I don't think you understand just how doctrinaire O'Rourke is. Half of his review of Hillary's book was straight from the GOP handbook.

> I'm sorry, but that review is VERY humorous. I laughed out loud through
> the whole thing. Even the very first sentence is f***ing hilarious. I
> would think so no matter what political ideology I subscribed to (I've
> laughed along with Al Franken and even *gasp* Michael Moore, for example).
> And, anyway, he really only gets partisan at the end. Who cares if you
> agree with everything he says.

He was partisan in the beginning, middle, and end-- and his entire review was generated out of partisan loyalty. I object to this type of attack because party politics have seeped into all manner of media, including book reviews, apparently. Every piece written about something as nugatory as a First Lady's memoir is *not* a piece written about Bush's lies, and that is a critical failure on the part of journalists.

> P.J. O'Rourke is a "scumbag"? That's ridiculous. He's charming!
> I went to a book signing of his some years ago and I'd be happy to hang
> out with him any time. I feel sorry for people who have to hate someone
> just because you don't share his politics. What has P.J. ever done to
> anybody except point out how ridiculous the world and politics can be? Is
> that how you want the world to be, where you have to hate people who
> disagree with you? Don't you think that will limit you in terms of what
> points of view you're open to listening to?

O'Rourke is "charming"? So was Clinton, and where does that leave us? If I were you I'd seriously reconsider just how thoughtful a person you really are if "charm" means as much or more to you than being truthful. P.J. O'Rourke is a scumbag for precisely the reasons I mentioned in my previous messages-- going on about "circles of hell" for Hillary while saying *nothing* about Bush. There is an implied comparison in his review-- Clinton's America versus Bush's America-- yet he is completely silent about the latter. Sure, the review is about Hillary, not W, but if he's as funny and objective as you think he is he'd have found a sentence or two to poke a little fun at the current regime, especially considering that the piece DEMANDED it. He didn't-- and that makes him a scumbag.

> I find it especially important for someone like P.J. to come along and
> stick a pin into Hillary's bubble. Hillary is a celebrity the mainstream
> media has decided to just anoint as the 2008 president. Hillary is a
> celebrity with many shills and cult-like worshipers. It became customary
> in the 1990s for anyone who dares say a bad word about Queen Hilary to be
> attacked as someone who is "threatened by a powerful woman."
> LOL! And HIllary is a woman who, when the heat is on, will pretend to be
> "just a wife" who bakes cookies when she doesn't want to be
> subjected to scrutiny, but in other situations insists she's a leader who
> deserves to be taken seriously. These are the ways they to shut people up
> from saying a single bad word about her, but I thought that we're supposed
> to be allowed to criticize leaders.

Hillary Clinton is also a Senator. She is not Rosie f***ing O'Donnell.

I have the same criticism of Hillary, that she comes off as "Susie Homemaker" when it's expedient; I would prefer that she not. Having said that, all politicians do the same thing. It's called kissing babies. And it's a double standard to bash Hillary for parading herself as a loving mother figure when nobody says a thing about Bush (or Clinton or Reagan or Carter) acting like the concerned patriarch at whatever rally he's attending (GOP, NRA, KKK). Do you think Bush's memoirs-- which will also be written by ghosts-- will be any less fluffy than hers? Should hers-- which are also the memoirs of a First Lady and not a politician per se-- be held to the same standard?

You're also missing something-- I am not defending Hillary. I am simply appalled by yet another one-sided attack on the already-decimated left from a party that is resolutely *not* interested in truth, justice, and democracy, but only in advancing its own interests. You say it's OK to criticize leaders-- so why is it that 99% of major media news and commentary (including O'Rourke's piece) are *not* criticizing Bush?

> The fact is, when you cut through all the bullshit, Hillary is a very
> silly woman who I don't believe has ever uttered a single thought of any
> value. She needs to be made fun of. All of our leaders need to be made fun
> of, so nobody starts thinking they're royalty or something. But Hillary
> especially. Sorry, but it's for the good of the country.

"Royalty"? Funny word you used. Would royalty mean something like being born into a wealthy family, coming to power more or less on the strength of being the son and heir of a previous ruler, and having everything handed to you to squander as you see fit? Because that sounds an awful lot like Bush Jr., and not very much like Hillary.

Again, Hillary is *not* a silly figure. Disagree with her if you want, but she is by all accounts a brilliant woman who is a SENATOR for the state of New York.

And no, it's not for the "good of the country" when public discourse is swayed decisively in favor of one ruling party and alternative viewpoints are excluded. I wouldn't like O'Rourke's review under any circumstances, but certainly I would be less furious about it if equally vicious attacks were also published about Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. There are men in power right now who are absolutely destroying our country and they are given a free pass, but heaven forbid a former First Lady should publish her memoirs and not be dogged relentlessly for daring to appear on the Bestseller list.

It's not just fairness in quantity of representation, but substance too-- O'Rourke crammed that "humor" piece to the gills with Republican blather but you can't see it, and neither will most people. The invisiblity of bias is the worst thing that can happen to a democracy that so heavily relies on the Fourth Estate to keep things fair and balanced. I mean, there are people who watch FOX News and don't even cock an eyebrow-- that's cause for concern when the fate of a nation hangs in the balance.

> I love this one by the Clintonoids: "Mistakes were made." LOL!
> Always the very vague "mistakes" when it comes to Bill Clinton,
> so ensure that there are never any real consequences for his crookery.

I can't believe what you wrote here. In one sentence you ridicule "Clintonoid" reliance on an abstract epithet like "Mistakes were made" and then, in the next sentence, commit the same crime in referring to his "crookery"! What are you smoking, kid?

Let's not get into Clinton's "mistakes"-- I think I know what they are, and they were real, and they disturbed me then and they disturb me now. But for me it's a question of fairness. Understand that Bill and Hillary were not just the subject of cutting jokes on Jay Leno and "funny" book reviews by P.J. O'Rourke. They were investigated heavily, for years, chiefly about Whitewater and Lewinksy-- Clinton was even impeached, which as you know is more or less a trial by jury. The Clintons were skewered, pinned on the wall for all to see, and yet nothing substantial was proved other than the fact that Clinton was probably slicker (read: shamelessly deceitful) than even Rush Limbaugh imagined.

But, again, fairness: why has Bush not been impeached? Where are the P.I.s mucking about in Rumsfeld and Cheney's trash? Where are the Ken Starrs? Where is the outrage over Iraq's WMD? Cheney's Halliburton connection? Where are the op-ed writers seriously exploring the neocon agenda?

I'll tell you where they *aren't*-- on FOX, on NBC-ABC-CBS, on CNN, on MSNBC, on any of those outlets. NY Times? USA Today? Forget it. There are dissenting voices but they are small and they are not heard. Meanwhile O'Rourke keeps pushing the GOP's disastrous program and people eventually stop noticing. "Thinkers" like you dismiss it as "entertainment" and laugh at it. How sad.

> Yes, you are humorless.

Like I said-- if you took this as seriously as you should, and were as skilled in recognizing a shill for the Right as you are in calling out shills for the Left, you would not be so flippant about pieces like O'Rourke's.

Nero knew how to laugh, too.
 
It's not laughing..it's extreme prejudice and malice
 
Re: PJ O'Rourke/John Edwards

> Have you read "Holidays in Hell" by PJ Rourke? One of the
> funniest things I've read, ever. He comes across as a right wing arsehole,
> but still, he's good at what he does and makes me laugh.

I like him best when he's traveling abroad, and yeah I have Holidays in Hell.
Love the Euro-weenies piece. = ) He wrote a piece about Egypt not too long ago in the Atlentic Monthly, if you can find it.

> John Edwards-Democrat or Republican?

Democrat.

> liberal or conservative?

Although his right wing critics call him a liberal who has voted with Ted Kennedy 80-some-percent of the time and is beholden to trial lawyers (he was a trial lawyer), he's really a centrist.

> Has he got a good head of hair? If he's bald he hasn't got a hope.

One of his strongest points is that he's young and handsome.

Understand I'm saying he appears to me to be the best only out of the field we've been given.
 
Re: What's the left coming to when they can't even laugh at Hillary!

> I, too, would be thrilled with the change in regime, except that, let's
> see, this "regime change" was realized by an unelected president
> fighting an undeclared war on an already-destroyed country that was no
> threat to the United States, pushing an agenda that is equal parts ivory
> tower theorizing and fundamentalist Christian crusading, doing irreparable
> harm to American democracy, alienating America's allies, and destabilizing
> a world that opposed his will both legally and morally. Gosh, what's not
> to like about this "regime change"?

You can't have it both ways. You're either for regime change or not. This was the only shot Iraq had for regime change in the foreseeable future. So to translate your bullshit: You were okay leaving Saddam in power.

> Might we excuse all this by saying that the future, as you see it, will be
> better for everyone? Perhaps. But that's just saying the ends justify the
> means.

Well, look at the ends and look at the means. Seems justified to me.

>The future is uncertain, but the present is easier to get a fix on,
> and to this point the means of this regime change have been illegal,
> reckless, and belligerent. Given that, why should we believe that the end
> will be without taint? Why will *this* new Iraqi regime be different than
> the regimes we've installed before?

"Illegal"? Says who? Says YOU? LOL! What official body has declared it illegal? Since when is some crackpot on Morrissey-Solo the one who decides what violates international law? LAst I checked, the one who was offically declared in violation of international law was Saddam Hussein, you know because he invaded another country and had all that genocide and child turoturing going on and shit. And you were gonna let him get away with it. Funny trick, there. Claiming to uphold international law even as you argue to render it meaningless. I suppose such rubbish flies in your circles but not mine.

> A new cycle of violence has begun, and in the end it will culminate in
> some greater disaster, whether it's another 9/11 on American soil or a
> genocide on Arab soil. In any event the result will not be pure because
> American motives are not pure. We will not spread democracy in the Middle
> East because we are not interested in spreading democracy, we are
> interested in national security and money, neither of which is necessarily
> allied with justice.

Um, 9/11 already occured. And genocide *was* occurring in Iraq.

I'm not so concerned about whether a war is 100% "pure." What the f*** war ever has been? Is that the standard? It has to be a 100% pure, perfect war or no go? That's another way of saying you'll oppose any military action ever.

And I don't particularly trust Bush about the democracy thing either. But what I do know is, incremental improvement IS improvement.

> No, you don't understand. I have nothing against conservatives who stand
> for their beliefs in good faith. In many ways I myself am a conservative.
> P.J. O'Rourke did not write that review of Hillary's book in good faith.
> As I said, it was a redeployment of all the usual right-wing shibboleths
> to draw attention away from the fact that Bush and his deputies are
> destroying the world.

Ohhh, it wasn't in good faith. Why not? Oh, because in a review of HILLARY'S book he didn't attack BUSH. I see. LOL!

> Believe me, I'm familiar with O'Rourke, having read his pieces in Rolling
> Stone over the years, and the guy is quite simply a Republican tool. Yes,
> he pours scorn on Republicans from time to time, but I don't think you
> understand just how doctrinaire O'Rourke is. Half of his review of
> Hillary's book was straight from the GOP handbook.

Whatever it was it was funny as hell and exposed Hillary as a f***ing jack-ass.

> He was partisan in the beginning, middle, and end-- and his entire review
> was generated out of partisan loyalty. I object to this type of attack
> because party politics have seeped into all manner of media, including
> book reviews, apparently. Every piece written about something as nugatory
> as a First Lady's memoir is *not* a piece written about Bush's lies, and
> that is a critical failure on the part of journalists.

Ah, I see, so you're frustrated that any ink at all is given to something other than some crackpot "impeach Bush" crusade. You know what, dude. If you want Bush out, you have an election coming up. Perhaps you forgot about that, what with Hillary stealing the spotlight away from all the Democrats running. I happen to like John Edwards, but I guess nobody cares. Anyway, I defy you to find any newspapers that aren't discussing whether Bush lied or hyped or whatever. It's every day. Even on FOX news.

> O'Rourke is "charming"? So was Clinton, and where does that
> leave us? If I were you I'd seriously reconsider just how thoughtful a
> person you really are if "charm" means as much or more to you
> than being truthful.

There was a helluva lot of truth in that book review. That's why it's so funny!

>P.J. O'Rourke is a scumbag for precisely the reasons
> I mentioned in my previous messages-- going on about "circles of
> hell" for Hillary while saying *nothing* about Bush. There is an
> implied comparison in his review-- Clinton's America versus Bush's
> America-- yet he is completely silent about the latter. Sure, the review
> is about Hillary, not W, but if he's as funny and objective as you think
> he is he'd have found a sentence or two to poke a little fun at the
> current regime, especially considering that the piece DEMANDED it. He
> didn't-- and that makes him a scumbag.

Who cares what he thinks about Bush. He scores points against Hillary. You can take what you want from that. You can come away saying, "You know, P.J. is a Bush tool, but he does have a point about Hillary...."

> Hillary Clinton is also a Senator. She is not Rosie f***ing O'Donnell.

> I have the same criticism of Hillary, that she comes off as "Susie
> Homemaker" when it's expedient; I would prefer that she not. Having
> said that, all politicians do the same thing. It's called kissing babies.
> And it's a double standard to bash Hillary for parading herself as a
> loving mother figure when nobody says a thing about Bush (or Clinton or
> Reagan or Carter) acting like the concerned patriarch at whatever rally
> he's attending (GOP, NRA, KKK). Do you think Bush's memoirs-- which will
> also be written by ghosts-- will be any less fluffy than hers? Should
> hers-- which are also the memoirs of a First Lady and not a politician per
> se-- be held to the same standard?

> You're also missing something-- I am not defending Hillary. I am simply
> appalled by yet another one-sided attack on the already-decimated left
> from a party that is resolutely *not* interested in truth, justice, and
> democracy, but only in advancing its own interests. You say it's OK to
> criticize leaders-- so why is it that 99% of major media news and
> commentary (including O'Rourke's piece) are *not* criticizing Bush?

People criticize Bush every f***ing day. Do you know that there are columnists in the two largest American newspapers who attack Bush EVERY column? Krugman (NY Times) and Scheer (LA Times).

> "Royalty"? Funny word you used. Would royalty mean something
> like being born into a wealthy family, coming to power more or less on the
> strength of being the son and heir of a previous ruler, and having
> everything handed to you to squander as you see fit? Because that sounds
> an awful lot like Bush Jr., and not very much like Hillary.

Yeah, that's a fair attack to make about our system, that we have these family dynasties. Al Gore was a senator's son, but I noticed you didn't mention that in this message you're typing about being non-partisan. I think Bush was probably the least qualified person to ever run for the White House, and he was able to because of his name. There's no doubt about that. But he does have a good foreign policy team.

> Again, Hillary is *not* a silly figure. Disagree with her if you want, but
> she is by all accounts a brilliant woman who is a SENATOR for the state of
> New York.

On what basis do you think she's "brilliant"? That's hogwash. I've seen many of her speeches on C-SPAN. I'm a f***ing C-SPAN watchin fool. So I know.
I see her all the f***ing time. I get the popcorn microwaved and chug a beer and have a good laugh when Hillary's on. She's never said anything intelligent ever. Worst speaker at her level that I've seen. You call her "brilliant" because her shills kept saying that over and over again, based on nothing except for Slick saying, "Heh, you get two presidents for the price of one!". Eventually people don't question a reputation, they just repeat it. And if you think she's a senator in order to represent the people of New York, you're a bigger fool than I thought.

> And no, it's not for the "good of the country" when public
> discourse is swayed decisively in favor of one ruling party and
> alternative viewpoints are excluded. I wouldn't like O'Rourke's review
> under any circumstances, but certainly I would be less furious about it if
> equally vicious attacks were also published about Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney,
> Rumsfeld, et al. There are men in power right now who are absolutely
> destroying our country and they are given a free pass, but heaven forbid a
> former First Lady should publish her memoirs and not be dogged
> relentlessly for daring to appear on the Bestseller list.

OMG! You don't think vicious attacks are being made on Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld? Are you insane? Wolfowitz espeically is incredibly demonized, primarily because he has a name that begins with a wild animal and ends Jewishly.

> It's not just fairness in quantity of representation, but substance too--
> O'Rourke crammed that "humor" piece to the gills with Republican
> blather but you can't see it, and neither will most people. The
> invisiblity of bias is the worst thing that can happen to a democracy that
> so heavily relies on the Fourth Estate to keep things fair and balanced. I
> mean, there are people who watch FOX News and don't even cock an eyebrow--
> that's cause for concern when the fate of a nation hangs in the balance.

It's his f***ing opinion in his f***ing style. Jesus f***ing Christ. Everybody knows he's a Repubnlican humorist. He f***ing wrote a book titled REPUBLICAN PARTY REPTILE.
Sheesh.

OK, I'm done reading.

> I can't believe what you wrote here. In one sentence you ridicule
> "Clintonoid" reliance on an abstract epithet like "Mistakes
> were made" and then, in the next sentence, commit the same crime in
> referring to his "crookery"! What are you smoking, kid?

> Let's not get into Clinton's "mistakes"-- I think I know what
> they are, and they were real, and they disturbed me then and they disturb
> me now. But for me it's a question of fairness. Understand that Bill and
> Hillary were not just the subject of cutting jokes on Jay Leno and
> "funny" book reviews by P.J. O'Rourke. They were investigated
> heavily, for years, chiefly about Whitewater and Lewinksy-- Clinton was
> even impeached, which as you know is more or less a trial by jury. The
> Clintons were skewered, pinned on the wall for all to see, and yet nothing
> substantial was proved other than the fact that Clinton was probably
> slicker (read: shamelessly deceitful) than even Rush Limbaugh imagined.

> But, again, fairness: why has Bush not been impeached? Where are the P.I.s
> mucking about in Rumsfeld and Cheney's trash? Where are the Ken Starrs?
> Where is the outrage over Iraq's WMD? Cheney's Halliburton connection?
> Where are the op-ed writers seriously exploring the neocon agenda?

> I'll tell you where they *aren't*-- on FOX, on NBC-ABC-CBS, on CNN, on
> MSNBC, on any of those outlets. NY Times? USA Today? Forget it. There are
> dissenting voices but they are small and they are not heard. Meanwhile
> O'Rourke keeps pushing the GOP's disastrous program and people eventually
> stop noticing. "Thinkers" like you dismiss it as
> "entertainment" and laugh at it. How sad.

> Like I said-- if you took this as seriously as you should, and were as
> skilled in recognizing a shill for the Right as you are in calling out
> shills for the Left, you would not be so flippant about pieces like
> O'Rourke's.

> Nero knew how to laugh, too.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom