Update: Something from the Wolffe book we can all agree on – Barack Obama’s assessment of Michelle Obama and Michelle Obama’s assessment of Barack Obama:
For all the smiling photos of Barack and Michelle Obama, the couple went through a tough time in their marriage in earlier years, according to a new book. [snip]
“There was little conversation and even less romance,” Wolffe writes. “She was angry at his selfishness and careerism; he thought she was cold and ungrateful.”
We’ll get into the Middle East mess, Israel, Obama and Muslims, all those touchy topics starting tomorrow, but we cannot allow the latest Richard Wolffe book attacking Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton to go by unremarked by us. We also cannot allow Arriana Huffington to go by undiscussed.
Since 2007 we have been working on a post regarding Arriana Huffington. It was never the right time to publish the article because there was always some new Barack Obama outrage to discuss. But the time to discuss Arriana Huffington and what we call Huff n’ Puff, her self-promotion website, has arrived.
There have been many reasons to discuss Arriana Huffington. We once referred to her as the missing Gabor sister and had this to say about her:
Enter the least talented of the Gabor sisters, Arriana Huffington: “Hillary Clinton’s problem with the blogosphere is that she has been so calculating that you can smell it. Every thought has been processed through multiple channels in her and her consultants’ brains. It’s so fabricated.” Arriana Huffington criticizing anyone for anything is funny in and of itself. But Arriana calling anyone “calculating” or “fabricated” is actually self-evaluation.
Republican Ed Rollins (campaign manager for Arriana’s husband at the time, Michael Huffington, in his 1994 campaign for Senate from California) called Arriana “a domineering Greek Rasputin” who was “the most ruthless, unscrupulous, and ambitious person I’d met in thirty years in national politics.” Of course this was when Arriana was right hand to Republican Newt Gingrich. At some later date we will detail Arriana’s membership in that weird religious cult, her “marriage” to her husband whom she effectively forced to spend millions in his Senate campaign so that Arriana could be a Senator’s “wife” in D.C., and her ceaseless attacks on the Clintons when they were in the White House. Nothing changes with Arriana except her political bed partners.
The New Republic has a review of Arriana Huffington’s latest waste called The Puffington Host. In the review, we get a review as well of the former Arianna Strassinopoulos, now Huffington. Don’t expect blue PINO Big Blogs to discuss this review of Huffington because the alliance with the vile Arriana shows how degenerate and low the Democratic left has fallen.
The New Republic takes us back to 1978 and Arriana unwittingly denouncing people exactly like her:
“For the first time in history,” Stassinopoulos portentously began, “an opinion on everything has become an indispensible accessory of modern living, and everybody goes about in the cast off clothing of the latest media gurus.” After approvingly quoting Kierkegaard, she continued:
“The world is reduced into flat, surveyable, two-dimensional world events; and we can all enjoy the illusion that we know exactly what has happened in the last twenty-four hours and what precisely to think about what has happened. Except that the meaning and significance that even the most averse to thought among us need, remain lost. The news and opinions, the perishable, ephemeral and valueless facts with which alone we are bombarded is as much of a substitute for the truths we long for, as a telephone number is for its subscriber. So it is not so much that we know more and more about less and less, but that we know more and more about the less and less important; and the more the precision of our knowledge increases, the more trivial the questions we seek to answer.”
Arianna Stassinopoulos is now Arianna Huffington, and she is best known as the proprietor of The Huffington Post, and as a personification of the hyperactive up-to-the-nanosecond news-and-opinion universe of the web. Her fame now approaches her immodest ambitions. And more than Huffington’s name has changed since she wrote those early premonitory words. She is now a steely–“bleeding heart” somehow does not fit–liberal, rather than a politically incorrect conservative. She has been, as Americans like to say, on a journey. Her historical timing has always been exquisite. If she is herself some sort of institution, she is an exceedingly adaptable one.”
The political bed hopping of Arriana is traced:
In the early 1970s, she made herself a star by rubbing outrageously against the liberal grain. A well-turned-out young woman in articulate recoil from feminism, a woman disputing the reigning ideologies and dogmas of her day–or at least the reigning ideologies and dogmas of college and university students–was ideally suited for the role of right-wing contrarian. But that may have been the last time she moved against the wind. Now “progressivism” reigns supreme in cyberspace and in the Beltway, and noisily progressive she is. No courageous heterodoxy this time around. Now she is a “player.” A look at Huffington’s career reveals someone uncannily–no, cannily–adept at recognizing and navigating the social and political currents, a zeitgeist artist, even though she has written nothing that requires her to be taken seriously as a thinker.
Huffington’s “work” is described as “not intellectually consistent. Her “limp” spirituality “never moves beyond fatuities and banalities”. With the internet Arriana has “thrown in her lot with precisely the sort of shallow discourse that she once railed against.”
On feminism, now PINO-beloved Arriana wrote a book to condemn feminists:
In retort, Stassinopoulos’s The Female Woman called the women’s movement “repulsive,” and went on to claim that “it is not a movement calling for equal opportunities, equal pay, equal status for woman’s role in life, in fact as well as in law; instead it attacks the very nature of woman, and in the guise of liberation, seeks to enslave her.” Stassinopoulos espoused women’s “emancipation” because it would allow women to play distinctly female roles, as opposed to women’s liberation, which demanded “identical patterns of behavior.”
The Female Woman is a strange and unappetizing book. Stassinopoulos launches a confused attack on Mill, and writes that feminists and Nazis are ideologically simpatico because both groups wish to abolish the family (a bizarre claim for many reasons), and permits herself even a few homophobic digressions. Of lesbians, she writes that “their inner confusion is often expressed in arrogance, a conspicuous exhibitionism, in an attempt to compensate for the femininity they have denied and the masculinity they have failed to attain.” This passage is probably the book’s best example of Stassinopoulos’s hypocrisy in condemning the women’s movement for limiting women’s roles: she, too, had a rather circumscribed idea of what constitutes femininity. Other passages appear designed simply to infuriate, in the manner of a certain sort of attention-grabbing British journalism: “Women’s Lib claims that the achievement of total liberation would transform the lives of all women for the better, the truth is that it would transform only the lives of women with strong lesbian tendencies.”
Little wonder then that Arriana, who married a barely closeted homosexual man in order to advance herself, would attack women like Hillary as calculating and waged a war against Sarah Palin. Arriana has a lot of problems.
In 1986, she married the wealthy up-and-coming Republican politician Michael Huffington, who was elected to the House of Representatives from California in 1992 and then defeated in a Senate run two years later. Huffington’s notable effort in this period was a spiritual guide called The Fourth Instinct: The Call of the Soul. [snip]
This book, like so many of her books, is, well, dumb. [snip]
Huffington began writing a right-wing syndicated column. She fervently supported the Contract with America and the rise of Newt Gingrich, while at the same time preaching compassion for the poor. She became a figure in mid-’90s Washington, using her new megaphone, and her dining table, to speak out more loudly on the same issues that had occupied her for years. Reading Huffington’s columns from this period is disagreeable, because her mixture of spiritualism, libertarianism, New Right dogmatism, and concern for the downtrodden does not amount to anything coherent. In 1995, she wrote a piece for The Weekly Standard declaring that Gingrich should challenge Bill Clinton for the presidency because the Speaker was the only national figure who truly cared about poverty and inner-city turmoil. “Precisely because Gingrich is right about the moral crisis the country is facing–millions of lives and entire communities destroyed by drugs, alcohol, gangs, and violence–there is a moral imperative for him to fill the leadership vacuum and address the growing devastation.” Another column made the claim that the White House feared Gingrich because he could “paint vivid pictures both of the crisis and of what life will look like after the revolution,” while other Republicans could not.
This Gingrich lover, this creature of low intellect, this bamboozler deluxe is now the PINO Goddess. This confused Clinton hater is what drives Big Media narratives for the Dimocratic Left.
As the right’s revolution began to cool, Huffington’s revolutionary fervor started to wane, too. The Huffingtons divorced in 1997, and the following year Michael Huffington announced that he was bisexual. In 1998, Huffington published a book called Greetings from the Lincoln Bedroom, a lame anti-Clinton satire–Huffington is painfully unfunny–that nicely coincided with a general disgust with Washington. [snip]
And so she made herself over as an enemy of power, a tribune of the people, an A-list populist.
Her criticism of the Clinton years evolved from concerns about the president’s personal failings to a critique of his policies from the left. And she continued to demonstrate a rare gift for articulating the prevailing mood without ever saying anything especially probing or memorable. [snip]
That same year Huffington ran as a populist in a gubernatorial recall election in California, and succeeded only in seeming ridiculous. The election was ultimately won by a celebrity much more famous than she was.
Fanatic and fool, Arriana is the PINO Goddess and they will not discuss her hate for the Clintons from the left, or her hate of the Clintons from the right. It’s Clinton hate. But PINOs love Clinton hate – even when it comes from a Gingrich lover. Instead of questioning the newly minted “progressive” PINOs embraced Arriana even though it made no sense to do so:
There was something almost comical about the insistence of this sudden liberal that she be regarded as some kind of leader of American liberalism–that her latest incarnation be treated as her whole story.
* * * * *
Richard Wolffe has a book out which distributes the Obama view of the world. We’ll cover the book in greater detail in coming days/weeks. In the Wolffe book Obama states that “We had to figure out how to deal with a former president who was just lying, engaging in bald-faced lies.”
Obama attacking anyone for engaging in “bald-faced lies” is like Arriana Huffington attacking anyone for being “calculating”.
Want an example of a topical Obama “bald-faced lie”? How about Obama saying he did not bow to the Saudi King?
Obama insists he did not bow. Anyone believe that bald-faced lie?
Bill Clinton himself refuted the Obama charge of racism which the “bald-faced” Obama charge refers to in the most recent Sunday New York Times. We wrote about the Obama bald-faced race-baiting lies repeatedly as have well-respected Democratic historians.
We will discuss the Wolffe book in more detail as necessary, but we noticed a section which has been ignored by just about every commentor thus far. Here is Obama’s view of a meeting with Hillary Clinton:
He was traveling to Des Moines for yet another debate and was getting ready to board his plane at the same time as Clinton was boarding hers, at Reagan National Airport. Clinton asked to talk to Obama and she apologized to him for comments by her New Hampshire co-chairman. Billy Shaheen had suggested that Republicans would exploit Obama’s self-confessed drug use if he won the nomination. Such comments had no place in her campaign, Clinton assured Obama, and Shaheen would resign. But Obama was not satisfied: he felt it was part of a pattern, which included an email forwarded by a Clinton volunteer in Iowa, suggesting that he was Muslim. Clinton grew agitated, waving her arms and poking her finger at him, as she hurled his own negativity back at him. Wasn’t he the one who just called her disingenuous for saying she couldn’t release her own White House papers? Wasn’t it his donor, David Geffen, who accused her and her husband of lying with ease? Instead of responding with anger, Obama tried to chill his rival, placing a hand on her arm. Clinton recoiled from the gesture, which seemed either patronizing or restraining, or both. Obama boarded his plane with a new sense of wonder. “I never saw that look of concern in her eyes before,” he told his senior aides. “I think we can we can win this one.”
That is Wolffe regurgitating Barack Obama’s view of himself as calm and logically while hysterical woman Hillary went nuts and out of control.
But to us the paragraph shows Hillary’s decency to an indecent Obama. Obama who had circulated anonymous memoranda attacking Bill Clinton in ugly ways and done nothing to shut down an ugly video equating Hillary with Big Brother in 2007 engaged in Dirty Mud Politics (our article from June 2007 HERE) and pretending to be a victim.
To us, Obama grabbing at Hillary wasn’t trying to “chill” her. Obama was trying to intimidate her. The look of “concern” in Hillary’s eyes was realization that Obama was a thug trying to mug her.
“Take your stinking paws off me you damned dirty ape” is the attitude Hillary had towards (yup, he’s white so keep your “racist!” charges to yourself Hopium eaters) Rick Lazio and Lazio merely approached her on a (Tim Russert moderated debate) stage, not grabbed at her at an airport hangar.
Arriana and Wolffe will spin for Obama. Wolffe will peddle Obama’s bald-faced lies. But Obama knew what he was doing when he grabbed at Hillary. Decent men know not to grab people.