• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On March - 19 - 2012

What’s worse, someone who stabs you in the back with a smile or someone who gives you warning and says, “Don’t look now but I’m about to stab you in the back!”?

That bastion of consistency and unswerving principle, Arianna  (“I’m a Right Wing Republican-I’m a Progressive Democrat-I’m Neither!”) Huffington, wrote a column at Huffington Post last week which proudly proclaimed that since the GOP has been falling down in it’s role of attacking Obama’s character and campaign, she and HP are taking up that noble cause.

I could summarize her pretzel logic of trying to justify her upcoming campaign against Obama as good being for him but will instead allow the intellectually flexible Ms. Huffington to do so with sections of her own words from that article with some translations from me in parentheses (as I happen to speak Huffingtonese):

As the seemingly endless GOP nomination fight grinds on, it’s becoming clearer who President Obama’s most formidable opponent is likely to be: himself.

(TRANSLATION: “Trust me, this election is not about the economy, jobs, social issues, the War on Women, the Tea Party extremists in the GOP, the 99% or Kochs/Roves/Wall Streets hundreds of millions of SuperPac money that will be spent to destroy Obama’s campaign as has succeeded so well when on behalf of Romney.

Obama’s biggest threat to his re-election, purely coincidentally, is the purist resentment that I and Huffington Post are trying to get the public to focus on. Thank goodness that’s the case, otherwise we might come off as narrow-minded egotists…what a relief!”)

 So for me this election now has two tracks: 1) Obama vs. the GOP nominee; and 2) Obama vs. Obama.

(TRANSLATION: “So for me this election now has one track: 1) It’s all about me not being invited to Obama’s 2008 Inauguration.”)

Of course, many things can happen between now and November, and I want to be clear that I think it’s crucial for the country — and the world — that the president defeat any of his likely opponents.

(TRANSLATION: “Okay, before I attack Obama in the following paragraphs as being dishonest, spineless and a traitor to the people who voted for him in 2008, let me just say that I fully support him. Students, this is how you cover your ass first with a thin veneer of “Hey, I’m on your side!” so you feel free to unload your actual intent of fully attacking someone you pretend to like when you don’t want to be called a hypocrite.)

 …Obama who in a speech will dream of things that never were and ask, “Why not?” and then back at the White House, will look at things the way they are and ask, “Why ruffle too many feathers?”

As David Bromwich wrote after the 2010 midterms, “His eloquence finds its natural key not in explanations but in statements of purpose. Obama wants credit for the highest intentions even when conceding that he lacks the will to fulfill them.”

(TRANSLATION: “As I mentioned above, I support Obama but he is too much of a wimp for me to support. Not only that, I go to all the trouble of building a stable on my estate because he’s supposed to give me a pony and where the hell is it? As for the quote, I like the smell of quotes in the morning that insult Obama. It smells like…victory…for the GOP.”)

 So I guess we weren’t actually the ones we were waiting for. Indeed, the one we’re waiting for apparently won’t even be running until 2016.

(TRANSLATION: “Ain’t I snarky? See, I can have it both ways just because I want to. I can say that I support Obama and also say that he’s not the one who should be representing us as President…in the same article! I’d give myself a kiss me on the lips for that one if I could but until the cloning experiment is complete, the mirror will have to do for now. SMACK!”)

 But then there’s the Obama who gave this explanation about his failure to keep his promise to close Guantanamo: “It’s not for lack of trying. It’s because the politics of it are difficult.”

(TRANSLATION: “If Obama really respected our democracy, he would ignore the separation of powers as laid out in the Constitution and usurp Congress’ powers to make laws. I mean, if he wanted to close Guantanamo, after the Congress passed a law preventing him from doing so, he should have just done it anyway. That’s what George Bush would’ve done.”)

At HuffPost, our plan for 2012 is to vigorously cover both tracks of the election. Which is to say that while we are exhaustively covering the race between President Obama and the Republican nominee, we’re also going to be covering that second track: Obama vs. Obama. And we’ll be covering it in a variety of ways: by comparing the reality of President Obama with the rhetoric of Candidate Obama; by focusing on real underlying problems in the country that are being temporarily masked by a slight improvement in the unemployment numbers; and by using satire.

(TRANSLATION: “At HuffPost, our plan for 2012 is to convince Democratic voters that no matter how bad the GOP candidate is, Obama also sucks. Which is to say, we will cover the actual race between President Obama and the Republican nominee AND we’ll create our own manufactured race between the team of Obama and Hitler vs. Obama and Stalin. Either way, Obama loses, if you get my drift. By attacking President Obama under the excuse that by not delivering everything that he promised in a campaign…as every other President has always done throughout our history…President Obama is unworthy of support, we will address the real underlying problems in the country that are unfortunately getting better in a recovery I’d rather not admit is taking place because it spoils my whole premise.

Oh, and like Rush Limbaugh, we are calling our attacks “satire” so we can escape responsibility for them…you have to admit, it’s funny when you attack the President in a way that could damage his re-election and bring a Right Wing obedient Republican into the White House. If you don’t have a sense of humor or a portion of a $300 million buyout of your company that you don’t want to pay taxes on, that’s your problem.”)

To that effect, today we’re launching a series of videos that will try to call attention to the contradictions of that second track of the election. This first one takes on the idea, often put forth by various members of the Obama camp, that every compromise, capitulation, and seeming surrender to the “worn-out dogmas” of Washington are, in fact, just a brilliant strategy that we don’t yet understand.

(TRANSLATION: “So, in the pursuit of even handed, fair minded journalism, we will create videos that only focus on trying to portray President Obama and his camp always surrendering and never accomplishing anything worthwhile. And don’t forget, it’s just satire!  But we really do want him to be re-elected, you know it’s the truth because I said it somewhere above, don’t remember where but it’s up there somewhere.”)

I don’t know what is worse, Arianna Huffington having the hubris to so blatantly BS the members and readers at Huffington Post about her campaign to attack Obama and injure his re-election or those who actually believe in her ludicrous justifications and anti-Obama campaign?

Just to recap, Arianna Huffington prefaces and justifies Huffington Post’s launching a campaign to attack President Obama for not achieving all of his campaign promises in 2008 and/or not governing as she wanted him to, with the untrue proposition that Obama pretty much has a lock on winning. The plainly suspect facade being presented is that since there is little doubt that Obama’s going to win re-election, attacking him between now and November will have no affect on him…but will simultaneously have a meaningful impact on him.

As the saying goes, if it doesn’t make sense, it’s not true. This self-invalidating logic collapses in on itself because it isn’t genuine.

Anyone who knows anything about politics knows that this year’s election will be close with possibly razor thin majorities turning states to or from Obama. So, we have to consider, are Arianna (I use her first name not out of familiarity but to differentiate between the website and her) and HP so poorly informed about politics that they are unaware how likely it is for this to be a close election and that portraying Obama as a wimp and a failure could impact it?

Or do they know full well what the score is and are intending their attacks to have a negative impact on Obama’s chances for re-election?

The cheap painting over of their announced campaign to attack Obama has the same poisonous lead content as Fox News, which claims, “We report, you decide.” In her article, Arianna claims that the purpose of this campaign is:

…it’s also crucial that we start to focus on the possible outcomes of the second track — that is, which Obama will be reelected.

Now, aside from a number of provably false propositions in this article, can someone out there explain to me how many Americans have expressed in polls that this is a crucial issue and how such a crusade is in itself wholly unrelated to opposing Obama’s re-election? What if we buy into her BS and decide, “I don’t want THAT Obama as President!” What conclusion does she expect to inspire?

And Arianna’s presenting as a given that Obama is duplicitous and that Americans need to be concerned that we may elect Dr. Jekyll but when he takes office again, he could become Mr. Hide-In-Fear, that’s advancing her alleged position that she’s fully supporting his re-election?

I don’t think Arianna Huffington is a fool or an idiot. She conceived of this campaign of attacks on Obama because she knows full well that it could be detrimental to the enthusiasm and support for President Obama’s re-election. She knows that the election is considered to end up being very close and that Obama could win or lose states and electoral votes by very narrow margins. She is far too smart not to know that in the end, this year’s election will not have “Obama vs. Obama” on the ballot, it will likely be “Obama vs. Romney” and a Republican could indeed take over the White House if Democratic votership is depressed from lack of enthusiasm.

People do things for reasons. When they lie and deceive as to the motivation and purpose of their actions, they are often undertaking such actions for self-serving reasons that would reflect poorly on them if the truth was known.

Arianna Huffington throws stones at President Obama from the spectacular glass house she lives in. Perhaps the question should be turned around, which Arianna Huffington is using HP to advance her agenda? Is it:

a. A plagiarist who was sued and paid a six figure settlement to avoid trial?

b. An avowed hard right conservative hired by Newt Gingrich to work for his affiliated think tank, The Center for Effective Compassion and who championed the Gingrich take over of the House of Representatives.

c. The unrelenting, campaigning wife of a Republican House member who sought to defeat Democrat Dianne Feinstein in a CA Senate race.

d. An avowed liberal Democrat who endorsed John Kerry’s campaign for President.

e. A collaborator with Andrew Breitbart to start up a political website.

f. A supporter of candidate Barack Obama for the Presidency in 2008.

g. A constant and continuous critic of Barack Obama and his cabinet since 2009.

h. A business owner who created and protects a system to use unpaid labor to profit off of.

i. A multimillionaire and internet media mogul and one of the top 1% who received a share of a $315 buyout of HP.

j. An avowed independent who is neither a Republican or Democrat and claims she never was.

Isn’t it crucial that we know which Arianna is behind this anti-Obama campaign? Actually, for my money, it’s all of the above which is fully encapsulated in the term, “mercenary opportunist”.

Perhaps it’s her newer multimillionaire status, perhaps it’s the profits HP reaps from stirring Obama resentment at HP, perhaps it’s her gadfly aspect and she needs to turn on whoever she supported once they are the ones in power but in any case, her history has never veered off the path of opportunism. If she has seen a path for greater attention, celebrity, power and money, she has been willing to turn a full 180 politically to follow that path.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If Arianna Huffington and Huffington Post intend to attack President Obama and his Administration for not being consistent in their campaign and presidency, then the one self-righteously claiming a higher cause for making such attacks should be held to the same standard of consistency.

And I see no case to be made by Ms. Huffington that would support any claim of consistency. In fact, she has exhibited far more extreme reversals on issues and policies than any claim she has made against Obama, even switching to diametrically opposed parties and positions over a brief period of time.

The emoprogs/purists/opportunists who received a lot of attention in the past two years are being left behind and good riddance to them. Progressives and Democrats know what are really the issues in the elections this year and the stakes are very high. It is no longer of interest to debate the small minded, “Why hasn’t Obama been everything we wanted?”. The real and pressing issue at hand is, “Do we reverse all of the progress we’ve made since the dark days of deceit and destruction under George W. Bush and cement the nation’s path on one of plutocracy or do we keep moving forward with a focus on returning jobs, economic fairness and security and hope for the future?”.

There is absolutely nothing anti-Progressive or anti-Democrat about criticizing President Obama, I’ve done so on many occasions over his approach to health care reform, his support of the Patriot Act and a number of other issues. Dissent can be very constructive as can lobbying your President or representatives to do the things you want them to do…especially during election years.

If Arianna was pure in her pursuits, instead of just trying to tear President Obama down, she would be rallying people to lobby President Obama for the things they want accomplished that they feel haven’t been. Instead, my conclusion is that Arianna and HP are in the wrecking ball business, both on Repubs and Dems including Obama…and business is booming. They seek conflict and destruction because the more upset people are, the more time they spend at HP blogging…and the more money HP can charge for advertising exposure.

IMO, this is all about money, one way or another.

There is no cause to suspect any concrete political convictions residing in Arianna Huffington when she has constantly swapped one set of “principles” for another as easily as other people change their socks. What has been the one consistent thread in this inconsistent string of events in Arianna Huffington’s life is personal gain and this latest of contradictions would seem likely have the same motivation behind it.

And Arianna, if you’re reading this, don’t be upset, it’s just satire.

Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

116 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. Kalima says:

    In June of 2006, a group of researchers discovered a venous species of snake that can change its skin colour, in the jungles of Borneo. It’s known as the poisonous chameleon snake, and suits AH down to the core. She was never a progressive, and she pulled the wool over the eyes of many Progressives, Liberals and Dems, until she began to unravel during the 08′ primaries, praising Sen. Obama because she hated Hillary, and then letting the faux headlines about “Guns and Bibles”, the Rev. Wright fiasco, and the RW hate groupies do their best to install racial tensions on the site. I believe her motto is, “I’ll be whatever you want me to be, as long as I can see the colour of your money.” These people who live without core principles, decency or a shred of integrity while telling the masses how to think or vote, are the worst offenders. At least with some of the others who hurl insults and venom, you know that they are certifiably nuts or actual hard core racists. With AH, you know it’s all about money, power and more money, and her 15 minutes of fame fizzled out long ago, too bad that she doesn’t know it yet.

    • reubenoff says:

      bingo.
      couldn’t agree with you more…’chameleon’ is the key word.

    • AdLib says:

      Kalima, you really summarized her so perfectly:

      I believe her motto is, “I’ll be whatever you want me to be, as long as I can see the colour of your money.”

      It’s like the Emperor’s New Clothes only she’s the one selling the fraudulent clothes to the trusting King.

      All frauds are eventually exposed to the majority, her greed will undo her…with a little help of course.

      • Dbos says:

        I think many of us knew her thru and thru and this not a surprise;the question is what does one do to fight it; if one walks away from all the unsuspecting progressive, liberal and just plain good people on HP.

      • BourneID says:

        Good morning aL

        i read the entire thread, the majority of comments between you and Murph. Trying to define AH (interesting initials, right -- appropriate I would say), is not as difficult as you might think. She is exactly where she intended to be from the moment she stepped into this country. Opportunist, as you describe her, is exactly what I see.

        Her marriage to husband Huffington, a congressman, placed her almost immediately in the chambers of power. She’s clever and, I believe, immediately recognized the flaws and weaknesses within the holders of power themselves. When a woman recognizes a man’s weakness, he might as well surrender. She’s good at the game. The one word I haven’t seen to describe her is “ruthless.”

        I am going to go out on a limb here, probably generate some hostile responses, but I speak with some deeper “interior” knowledge of her. My heritage is Greek; Greeks are not very nice to each other, vis a vis the mess you see in the country now. AH could not care less about that. There is an emotional dead zone that somehow moves through the culture. This is my observation, based on experience. The Greeks cannot move past their golden age. I would think that in 25 years, they could claim some contribution more important thatn Greek yogurt. What have they done? Nothing.

        Back to Arianna. Her marriage was one of conveninence and ambtion. She met and knows the big guns. It was also a conveninence for Mr. H who came out just before the divorce. I would ot be at all surprised if there isn’t some sort of prenup that has nothing to do with who gets what at the end of the union.

        Somethng evident that I view is body language. Women, because we all share a certain “bitch gene” so we cnn spot sighs right away. AH is as comfortable talking to Joe Scarborough about the launch of HuffPost Women as she is talking to anyone on Fox. I agree with you AL, she talks out of both sides of her mouth. She’s ambitious, ruthless, cunning, and unfortunately influential.

        I’ve been on this site for just about a week, thatnks to the good advice and insight of Murph, whose judgement i trust.I’ve seen more constructive analytical and critical thinking on these pages than i’ve seen in all broadcast journalism for the past 4 years. Don’t kid yourselves. Part of her problem could very well be a tiny little smidge of racism. Greeks have alwa;ys seen themselves as the blond-haired, blue=eyed, fabulous bodies seen only in statues. I haven’t known one in my life who look that way. They cannot stand that their now dark hair and darker skin is the result of a few well-placed gneetic contributions from the Moors.

        Loved participating in VP last night; it moved so rapidly but I think I’ll learn. BTW, as you were reporting sign-ins, a very narrow band wss scrolling that someone was apparently searching or surfing the POV sight via Google. How can you tell that?

        Have a great weekend, AL. And you too Murph. Check email sometime this evening or tomorrow. There’s a message/discussion there. And, yes, I know you use it only rarely, but I don’t do anything only rarely.

        Bourne

        • MurphTheSurf3 says:

          Bourne….outstanding contribution. Just the kind of thinking and discourse this site values.

          I have to say that you, Ad Lib and a bunch of other folks here really level a lot of criticism at Arianna H. I truly do not know if she deserves it. I think you and others here have made a good case in support of your critique. I can’t really argue it. Still I value HP as an important place for conversation and some limited debate for a whole lot of people. The critiques you and others have leveled at the HP limitations are very real and I have made the same observations.

          Your comments on the Greek ethos, the modern Greek ethos, is EXTREMELY important. It is cutting edge and certainly provocative. I know it is not PC to characterize people by ethnic groups, but my knowledge of history as common experience that shapes people tends to support your thinking that there is a Greek way of thinking.

          I also find your discussion of the “feminine” as it relates to the Greek identity completely intriguing. I do not know if I accept it, but it raise my curiosity and I will consider it carefully.

          I now understand the point you were reaching for at HP. And it is a very good one.

          That discussion by you is exactly the kind of writing which HP does not permit and the length of that discussion is certainly outside the standards.

          I hope to read a LOT more of this kind of thinking from you. The structure here seems to me to be right up your alley.

          When will you be penning your first article? I think you have something significant to say.

          • Murph, I just can’t abide all the censorship and manipulation of debate that goes on at HP.
            I got so fed up with taking the time to write a well thought out comment, only to see it disappear into the ether, and have no idea why it got scrubbed. This happened to me time and time again. I eventually realized that I was grossly wasting my time and energy.
            Thank goodness someone turned me on to the Planet.

            • MurphTheSurf3 says:

              I have the same experience but I find the interaction with so many…some of whom I think I influence to make my time use valuable. At the same time I have made some headway on some of the issues which have been discussed here.

            • BourneID says:

              Hi KT

              Just saw your reply to Murph re HP. I share your frustration but I also have made some interesting worth-keeping friends that I learn a lot from. One is an amazing man that has also written to me with the same complaint you just talked about. I actually met him while reading a long exchange between and Murph. His screen name is Outlandish. Do you know him? We talked now and then and in October he sent me a post asking about my last name. He was on Cyprus and sid he had some friends whose last name is the same as mine. I gave him some info about my dad and he wrote back saying we apparently weren’t related but one of the men told him a cousin from Cyprus was a billionaire living in London who had been one of the people killed in the hotel massacre in India. We started talking occasionally; he told me he was studying languages becuse he needed them in his work. I asked what he did and he sent a really interesting reply: He is an ophthalmologist, retired at age 40 because he designed and patented some small unit that changed laser surgery, so his name is on every surgical unit used. He opened eye clinics all over the US, Australia, Europe; he owns a farm in Australia, another in some other country (can’t remember); Cyprus where he spends 4 months in winter, and lives in Denmark where he bought a 400 year old home. He was leaving Cyprus in April for Kenya whre his Doctors Without Borders team will work. He works 3 to 5 months a year with DWB. I got a post from him 10 or 12 days ago; his team was called to the Sudan (southern) to replace another team that contracted some kind virus, that they haven’t been able to diagnose yet. He might have contracted the same virus and was confined to his bed and was posting a few things. What an incredible man.

              He told me that he had sent HP a “beautiful description of the horrible conditions in the Sudan” written by another doctor. He said the post was reviewed and all the information scrubbed so that it simply said that he met George Clooney. He asked how a post that describes the fear and horrific lives of these people could be reduced to nothing more than blather. He told earlier that some of his things were removed; I sent a link of that to Murph and he got in touch with Outlandish.

              This is long, KT, but his story is worth telling. Murph suggested we invite him to join the planet. I think that’s a great idea.

              Bourne (Pat)

          • BourneID says:

            Your last comment had no reply point so I used another to tell you I’d read the ink you sent re AH charities.

            Ihave completed reading AH post re charitable contributions and noted that it was posted in July 2009, months after President Obama was inaugurated and perhaps a year or two prior to AOL/HP union. Things change.

            Within the article she refers to a person named Traubman” -- who appparently gave several separate gifts to several charities with only one requirement: each had to bare his name. AH pointed out that it might have been more charitable had he given 1000 families %10K each than to want to see his name on so many things. Again, times change.

            You said AH paid for buses to send 10,000 to Jon Stewart’s rally in DC. Jon is a pretty power influence in his own right; the rally was well-intended a somewhat entertaining. You stated that the only requirement for the bus ride was that each person wear a Huffington Post bracelet. And that is the rub. Charity, as she defined it in 2009 and as I was taught and still do define it, is not broadcast and comes with no attachments. if one is unimpressed with AH, as I am, one sees that as an opportunity for 10,000 potential new HP members and/or advertisers and/or exhibitions of the Huffington name. Maybe this wasn’t the case at all, but she called out a multimillionaire 2.8 years ago for what it seems she herself did.

            MTS, I do not think you should change your views or stop supporting what you believe about her. You’re a careful thinker and on a conversational level you are much less persistent in presenitng your views as you are when you write one of the articles specific to a political issue of the tiem. There is no conflict here, we simply don’t agree on her.

            Do you know Michael Wood (British historian who periodically produces excellent presentations on various ancient locations). One of my favorites is his program on Greece. They are wonderful to watch because he is wonderful to watch. He’s excite to show things, such as the agora, and to comment that it’s still open after 2000 years. He loves taking the viewer with him to the Acroolis to sugggest where Socrates might have been sitting when he taught his students. He climbed over a short fence on one journey and showed a rock with an inscription in Classical Greek; translation: “Never lend a Greek money; tomorrow, he will remember it as a gift.” Now that is something that has not changed.

            I prefer that any communication we might have in the future be done here, not on HP. I’m selective with whom I share my thoughts and you have 4300 people I haven’t met yet.

            • MurphTheSurf3 says:

              Bourne PS..you replied as we do here when the thread runs out…

            • MurphTheSurf3 says:

              Yeah…we need to agree to disagree regarding what I regard as the open question of AH motivation and behavior. I am not convinced in either direction now. As to HP, the interaction with so many others, some of whom I influence and some of whom influence me is a value. HP and Planet are two very different experiences. Room for both in my world.

          • BourneID says:

            Responding to your latest comment. Changing minds is not easy, so I understand the conflict. Any discussion deserves time to study all vantage points. I’m on my way out so won’t get back to this until early evening.

            I will read the links you offer.

            Bourne

          • BourneID says:

            Thank you; your generous approval is appreciated. I haven’t read much about your views on AH. I’m sure you give it the same careful consideration you apply to all of your views. From what I have read, I note that you place high value on the opportunity HuffPost offers thousands of us to communicate with one another every day. It is an imp0rtant value for those of us who use it, but I give it secondary importance in view of what I still perceive as one whose power and money give her voice that may not serve the interests of this country. I compare her unfavorably with Murdock. Who owns the press in America owns America -- naive? Perhaps. She has joined the ranks of the purchasers.

            You and I have had a number of conversations about Citizens United. As a consequence, we have also associated CU with the Koch brothers, whose unlimited resources we’ve seen as the power to purchase America. Yet, there is the counter argument that, while we hate one component of the brothers’ power, we cannot dismiss their generous contributions to art, science, and education. They are generous sponsors of PBS and others. We remain in a constant state of weighing good against evil, aren’t we?

            I have read nothing abour charities she supports or if she contributes to the humanities. I would have expected by now, in view of the pathetic state the country of her birth finds itself in, she might offer something, some sympathy, some regret for the people. It speaks to that same cold detachment I refer to in my piece. HP is a high end publication for high end people with high end Sections. Maybe I’d change my mind if she’d add one on Appalachia

            Give me something to balance my view against.

            • MurphTheSurf3 says:

              My opinion of AH is all up in the air in no small part thanks to the very critical perspective people who I very much respect- you among them.

              On the other hand I look at HP and at Arianna’s shift from a public association with the GOP to a public association with liberal/progressive issues/causes as the counter-argument.

              For example Huffington offered to provide as many buses as necessary to transport those who want to go to Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear on October 30, 2010, from the Huffington Post Headquarters in New York City. Ultimately, she paid for 150 buses to ferry almost 10,000 people from Citi Field in Queens to RFK Stadium in DC. The only self-promotion on her part was ‘Huffington Post’ written on the bracelets needed to get on the bus.

              She is very active in Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness which has attracted a number of those from the left.

              Here is something she wrote re. charities and giving to them: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/charity-may-begin-at-home_b_115082.html

              I have seen her name associated with a number of causes and fundraising efforts.

              But, your insights re. the Koch brothers is worthy of notice. Motives can be very mixed.

              So, my personal jury is still out.

        • AdLib says:

          Hi Bourne, great to see you at Vox Populi last night!

          I agree, it seems clear that she latched onto Michael Huffington as a ride to take her to where she wanted to be. She knew his vulnerabilities, especially his hiding his sexuality. What power that had to give her over him.

          Not only is she just as at home with Fox News as she is with MSNBC, HP is now aggregating Fox News stories.

          She is mercenary, anything and everything she can do and anything or anyone she can use or betray to profit herself, she has done and doubtlessly will do.

          With her very public track record, I remain bewildered how Progressives can be supportive of her. I don’t mean participating at HP, that’s not an issue IMO, I mean those who show her respect and admiration despite all she’s done to prove herself unworthy.

          Very kind of you to say such kind things about the community here. I am just as impressed with the folks here and the level of discussion that takes place here.

          There are many thoughtful and informed people at HP but aside from other things, the format at HP makes it nearly impossible to have more extended and substantial discussions because conversations are so swiftly pushed to back pages. There’s no way to deeply explore issues and it can be a bit discouraging to invest a lot of time in a comment that can be gone from the first page in a minute. So, due to the format, at HP it’s more practical and the norm to write a sentence or two instead of a more extensive comment. Here, it’s less common to see a one sentence comment and more common to see a more detailed reply…which of course leads to more substantial conversations.

          Very interesting insights on how Arianna’s Greek upbringing could influence her views on Obama and race, hadn’t really thought about that before.

          Our site is always crawled by search engines like Google, Bing, etc. and in Vox, it shows up on the crawl at the top which shows who’s participating in Vox. It’s a good thing, we want our articles and pages coming up in results when people type in searches at search engine sites.

          Most people’s first visit to Vox Populi is a real experience but ask any of the folks who participate, it becomes easier pretty quickly.

          Look forward to seeing you there next Friday night!

  2. SallyT says:

    AdLib, I don’t go on there anymore, but, I’ll be damn if I don’t click on something and it takes me there! I guess I need to read the fine print better. I rely on you to tell me what I should be missing over there. Adrienne lost me when she made her millions on other people’s writings.

    • AdLib says:

      It is pretty much over the line when you take the volunteered labor of others who have been loyal and make a huge fortune off of them, refusing to share a penny…then you betray all of them through purges and attacking the President they supported.

      She is a nasty piece of work.

  3. foodchain says:

    Ariana/AOL only has to plan on where the clicks will be and then develop a headline. I’d bet that there’s a clicks/inch of headline and that this is designed to promote clicks that serve important advertisers. It’s all business. News is $$ and is desperately looking for it’s future. The way of good journalism boar it’s cost by producing news that informed. Now it’s “news” to provoke and create ratings/clicks.

    • AdLib says:

      The old HP, pre-2008, was very mindful about their headlines being journalistic and not tabloidesque or even humorous. They rejected many headlines that didn’t rise to a journalistic level.

      Those who’ve been at HP since may find it hard to believe that back then they didn’t use huge red fonts on the front page and never used two or three word moronic and/or pun headlines as they do now like, “UH OH!”, “LITTLE RICKY!”, etc.

      That’s journalism? Can’t recall seeing those kinds of headlines in a decent newspaper, just Murdoch rags and the National Enquirer.

      Of course, the reason for their vague headlines is to force people to click on the story to find out what it’s about, this means more clicks and money to HPAOL.

      So it is intentional NOT to properly inform people with their headlines…which is the opposite of what any legit news editor would practice.

      • bito says:

        AdLib, if you remember in one of our many posts on HP and/or Ariana, there was a Brietbart “leaked memo” on making a story “your story” when those two were together in the beginning. They even gave that “style” of “reporting a name. From the very beginning HP was looking for the ‘New Squirrel’ attepting to make it their story to generate more clicks. Did it get worse over time and make it more noticeable? Yep, they have perfected it but they have been always doing it IMHO.

        • AdLib says:

          Right, that explains how the snowball got rolling. And like all snowballs, they grow exponentially worse as they go downhill.

          There were some legit journalists at HP who have since left who seemed to be trying to hold the line on some kind of journalistic integrity.

          Like trying to blow out a forest fire.

      • And the sheer volume of advertising has increased to an absurd level. I signed up with HP back in 2007 and the advertising was far less. Got to pitch those products and services, that’s where the gold is!

        • AdLib says:

          And all of the delving into people’s privacy through Facebook and Twitter connections which they are no doubt selling to others.

          When those full screen pop up ads began, I cut my visits way down…and I just visit to keep tabs on what they’re up to.

          • They were using google ad sense, I don’t know if they still do, but it was pretty ridiculous at times. On an article about the Virginia Tech shootings, they displayed a prominent ad for guns. I nearly spit my coffee all over my screen and keyboard!

  4. Caru says:

    Huffington is a fair-weather fiend. If the US once again gets swept up in Obama fever and the President is re-elected, expect her tone to change to match. Then, watch her slowly revert to her usual diet of bile.

    • AdLib says:

      Caru, I think that’s right on target. I wouldn’t put it past her to try and jump on the Obama bandwagon if he wins convincingly so that she can find a way to weasel into the inauguration and Obama circles…but I think his team is too sharp to fall for that.

  5. Nirek says:

    All I know is that HP has steered hard right sense AOL bought her out.
    I see more trolls every day on HP.

    • AdLib says:

      Nirek, yes, it did take a turn further right with the AOL buyout and the floodgates for trolls opened wide.

      However, since Obama’s election, Arianna had been steering HP to the right under the guise of purism, that Obama should be disliked because he wasn’t Progressive enough. She went as far as to say that she was disappointed in Obama and could even see herself voting Republican in the next presidential election.

      She is only out for herself, she admits it, it’s so apparent.

  6. foodchain says:

    Ad, Merciless mercenary. She does everything a far right conservative would do: manipulation of (her) base through any means in order to gain recognized power, control and financial reward. I think her support of Obama was due to his inevitability but the Obama camp probably snubbed her. She would have loved to float along historic legislation with an historic president. (I do believe she is a long time conservative looking for glory but will follow glory anywhere)

    Since that didn’t happen, this trumped up “helpful hints” concept is her special brand of GOP obfuscation. This dual track is designed, IMHO, to rile up the far left again so that they lose their incentive to vote for Obama. This is a strategic win win for her. Excite the GOP base, disenchant the left, get more clicks, act the innocent facilitator.

    She is clever and has leveraged herself very well. I have, however, a ten foot pole that I keep handy.

    • AdLib says:

      Foodchain, a very elegant and insightful summing up of Arianna’s game!

      And that’s what our democracy is to the greedy, a game to profit off of.

      It’s disgusting but because people are, IMO, generally of good intentions, they project that onto other people as a given. So Arianna, like Rush, plays her game of righteous outrage and manipulation and many buy into it, not recognizing she doesn’t care about them, their political beliefs or the future of the country, all she cares about is her own future and the wealth and power it can bring her.

  7. Khirad says:

    I only wonder if they have “aggregated” this yet.

    Obama’s Gay Past Being Hidden By Killing Ex-Lovers
    http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1635/646/Obamas_Gay_Past_Being_Hidden_By_Killing_Ex-Lovers.html

  8. funksands says:

    As a level 3 moderator and close confidant of her majesty, you couldn’t be more wrong about her!

    The glistening drops of poison that drip from her delicate fangs nourish and sustain us all in these dark times!

    “If it bleeds, it leads” has been a respected keystone of fine journalism for at least 1000 years!

    Shame on you!!

    • AdLib says:

      As a Level 3 Dwarf in D&D, I am incapable of admitting mistakes unless I receive a Conscience power up. I’ve searched through all of Arianna’s articles and couldn’t find one.

      I am aware of the nutritious aspects of venom and glad that she is so generous with distributing it.

      She must really feel at home being on the web.

  9. choicelady says:

    Snark -- why to GOP men get to be tubby and GOP women look like scarecrows? Cannot figure that out.

    • AdLib says:

      Maybe because the Republican men are creatures of greed, grabbing and consuming everything they can get their hands on…including the food on their wives’ dinner plates?

    • escribacat says:

      Because they often have that most cynical of relationships — the woman wants the man for his money and power and the man wants the woman for arm candy. When arm candy ages, it turns into scarecrow woman!

  10. MurphTheSurf3 says:

    And here is what I just left at HP in response to an article on Obama and Liberalism…..http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/how-obama-tried-to-sell-o_n_1365750.html#comments
    ===================================================

    Let’s get this straight….

    The Idealistic Obama Won Election

    The Realistic Obama is Governing

    Had Ideal Obama insisted on governing…insisted on getting the terms the way he wanted them, the language the way he wanted them, the sign on the way he wanted it…….we would be facing Progressive Armageddon.

    There would have be NO Auto Manufacturing Loans, Recovery Act, Wall Street Oversight of any Kind. Repeal of DADT, Equal Pay for Women Act, Affordable Care Act, Expanded Mileage Requirements, Extended Unemployment Benefits.

    THE PARTY OF NO, NOT, NEVER, NUH-UH…..would have won every battle…..

    The overarching point here is that Obama’s idealism, presented so eloquently by him as a candidate in speeches before huge crowds where his soaring rhetoric actually made his centrism loftier has not been matched by Obama the realist who decided that he would rather be a governing president than a martyred president.

    Who is Barack Obama….?

    He is more Bill Clinton than Jimmy Carter.

    Clinton got reelected and survived an effort to impeach him.

    Carter did not get reelected and he left virtually nothing in his wake as President.

    Obama will get reelected.He will go into his 2nd term with the kind of strength that will enable him to survive the storms of that term and to leave behind a solid legacy…..like Clinton.

    I believe that his second term, will be more progressive, if he also gets a Dem House and a more Dem Senate. If he doesn’t…. the second term will be about holding onto ground already taken and whittling away at the GOP fortress of selfishness. He will adapt to either condition.

    You see, it’s not that Obama was engaging in the kind of fraudulent fakeout that typifies the Romney candidacy. He is the centrist liberal progressive he said he was. Many, l read more into his books and his speeches than he said. Many projected their own political philosophy onto him.A quick review of the Blueprint for America tells you this.

    But, from the moment he took office he has faced a wall of pollicy, operational and personal opposition the likes of which no one has experienced since FDR. He was forced to adapt. And he did. And as a result he has a solid record of accomplishment.

    I may be foolish but I will take that over brokenhearted idealism.

    • AdLib says:

      I saw too that a troll responded to you:

      Ideal Obama was just a mask. I understand practicality and compromise in politics but I also know when we been sold a total sham.

      There’s no reasoning with trolls.

      Meanwhile, I did find it affirming that the following comments were also posted:

      HP needs another b@sh Obama thread to get clicks from Republicans who are on the losing side.

      ========================

      The weekly hit piece

      =========================

      They need clicks from Republicans. After November, they won’t get them.

      Good to know that a number of folks over there are onto Arianna’s and HP’s scam.

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        Ad Lib…if you have a moment pop over to my thread at HP and see how the trolls came calling and how I responded. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/murphthesurf3/how-obama-tried-to-sell-o_n_1365750_142284662.html

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        Do you put on a full body hazmat outfit when you surf huffingland?

        I have not looked at the post since I submitted it. Going there now.

        • AdLib says:

          Fortunately, there is a contingency of Planeteers and other insightful Progressives over there who post thoughtful comments but I must say, I don’t miss mucking around in the troll manure.

          So, when visiting HP, I always wear hip boots, just in case, and have my daughter hose me off when I return.

          • foodchain says:

            I hear you AdLIb. It’s tempting to upset the HP troll population, get them all in an uproar, but outside of throwing a punch, there is no satisfaction as there is no one there to inform or influence. It’s somewhere between childish taunting and mud wrestling. HP does have some good people who have built a support base for themselves.

            But HP has made a new haven for the righties that makes it clear to me: it’s all about commenters being the fodder to keep their machine running. But don’t get me started on how we are fodder for our major industries.

            • AdLib says:

              So true Foodchain, the wealthy and corps see the 99% as simple minded sheep who are easy to herd.

              They use greed, fear and hatred in different ways and combinations for different demographics to sheer the time, energy and money out of them.

              HPAOL is no different from any other megacorp on this, just like McDonalds hooks people with salt, fat, sugar and chemicals, HPAOL hooks people with the adrenaline addiction that results from prolonged exposure to hateful conflict.

              Americans like to win, they like to compete. And to HPAOL, politics is merely a game to lure people into playing and get them hooked. Then the money flows in bigger waves to them and they could care less that they are fostering greater anger, partisanship and dysfunction into our society and politics.

              HPAOL reminds me of the movie, The Matrix, where many people are participating in a scenario they believe to be real and engaging but in reality, they are simply being used to be drained of their energy to benefit the powerful entity that is running the whole system.

          • MurphTheSurf3 says:

            Make sure your shots are up to date.

          • choicelady says:

            Child abuse!

            • AdLib says:

              Any excuse to get Dad soaking wet is a good excuse for her, mud or no mud!

            • choicelady says:

              LOL!!! Well, then, OK -- so long as she thinks mud is just mud and doesn’t know the deep secret of politics as mud. She deserves to keep her happy outlook on life a few more years! And if turning the hose on you makes her laugh, then good for you. Goooood Dad!

            • AdLib says:

              Hey, she loves playing with water, half the reason I go to HP is so she has a reason to turn the hose on Daddy!

  11. MurphTheSurf3 says:

    HERE IS WHAT I WROTE AT HP THE FIRST DAY THE ARTICLE APPEARED (AND REPRINTED TWICE SINCE THE ORIGINAL POST) IN REGARD TO THE POST IN QUESTION. IT HAS POSTED EACH TIME
    ____________________________________________

    I posted the following on March 15….

    I am posting it again (for the third time) to be sure that it gets read by enough people to spread the word.

    Idealistic Obama Won Election

    Realistic Obama Governs

    Had Ideal Obama insisted on governing….we would be facing Progressive Armageddon. No Auto Bailout. No Recovery Act. No Wall Street Oversight of any Kind. No Repeal of DADT. No Equal Pay for Women Act. No Affordable Care Act. No Expanded Mileage Requirements. No……

    Arianna’s overarching point here is that Obama’s idealism, presented so eloquently by him as a candidate has not been matched by Obama the realist a governing president.

    I agree.

    But, thankfully, Obama does not have Ms. Huffington for a principal adviser.

    He is more Bill Clinton than Jimmy Carter.

    Clinton got reelected.

    Carter did not.

    Obama will get reelected.

    I believe that his second term, will be more progressive, if he also gets a Dem House and a more Dem Senate. If he doesn’t the second term will be about holding onto ground already taken and whittling away at the GOP fortress of selfishness.

    You see, Arianna, it’s not that Obama was engaging in the kind of fraudulent fakeout that typifies the Romney candidacy. He is the centrist liberal progressive he said he was. Many, like you read more into his books and his speeches than he said. A quick review of the Blueprint for America tells you this.

    But, from the moment he took office he has faced a wall of opposition the likes of which no one has experienced since FDR. He was forced to adapt. And he did. And as a result he has a solid record of accomplishment. I will take that over brokenhearted idealism.

    • kalie says:

      I first saw Obama when local organizations were trying to get him elected to the Senate. We gave away free hot dogs to folks at an outdoor venue, to get people to come hear him speak. He was very impressive, and I have been a fan ever since. Even seeing him speak at a Chamber of Commerce meeting, everyone was impressed with him, but many would never vote for him. Not from that group.

      I read his first book and knew that when he got in office, he would be a progressive but he was not a far left liberal, which appealed to me, because I am not either.

      I agree that Obama didn’t know the opposition and racism and hate he would face when he got in office. Who would have?

      Regardless, now that we know who wants to play and who doesn’t, I think Obama is ripe for a second term. He has the training years behind him and i think the best is yet to come.

      • foodchain says:

        Kalie, sorry to have missed this conversation. You sound like a Chicago person? I’ve been in the area for years (and years). Welcome!! What a great experience to have been involved at the early stages of Obama’s political rise.

        The 2008 campaign revealed just how alive racism is: McCain’s loss in SC due to “illegitimate black daughter”; the huge black vote turnout in the primaries; Hillary’s dark man creeping into a little blond girl’s bedroom in the middle of the night; the endurance they showed standing hours in line to vote for Obama.

        I understood the division that racism has created when I saw how very deeply and profoundly affected the black community was by his election. They truly had a well of experience/pain that the rest of us couldn’t touch in all. We had exhilaration; what they felt was that and much more.

      • AdLib says:

        Kalie, how cool to have seen and supported him back then!

        I remember seeing Obama doing the keynote speech for John Kerry at the 2004 convention and being blown away. The next day I ran into a Republican neighbor and told him, “Now that’s someone I’d wish would run for President.” My neighbor chuckled and said, “He’d never stand a chance,” and I conceded that he probably couldn’t win but I would be a strong supporter if he did.

        Since then, whenever people would ask, “Who can the Dems run for President in 2008?”, I’d always bring up Obama.

        It still is a bit amazing that in this racially divided nation, a black man named Barack Hussein Obama was elected President and stands a strong chance of being re-elected.

        And I agree with you, I think in a second term and with a Dem Congress, Obama would be remarkable.

        • kalie says:

          Ad Lib:

          You know, i had no idea how racist we are, as a country, until Obama became POTUS. I am still disappointed. We live in our own little communities, and day in and day out, we don’t have to encounter what black people do. It makes me sick when people say they want “anyone but Obama” to be president. He is not the devil. He wants more for the people of the US than any of the other candidates. But yes, he is not the color of their choice. But what have the other candidates promised? Umm hell if you ask me. Taking away rights, regulations, austerity that doesnt work in Europe…. Yes wont that be grand? Anyone but Obama. Right?

          • AdLib says:

            Kalie, I had no idea the extent to which racism was alive either until I spent extended time in the South beginning several years ago.

            I knew a woman who was white and involved in a long term relationship with a man who was black, both were involved in state politics, who had to hide their relationship or, I was told, their careers would be destroyed.

            I witnessed an amount of antisemitism and racism that I thought was long gone.

            This is not to say it was reflected in a majority of people, I found many great people there too but I wasn’t aware of how many of the haters are still around.

            All the excuses you mention that racists use to hide their prejudices don’t work anymore. Many now know what the racial dog whistles are, all the ways they try to make prejudice against Obama acceptable via birth certificates or his religion or his being a “socialist”.

            The racists in our country are typically older and are dying off proportionately but young ones are still being manufactured, slowing the demise of racism.

            The ignorant are happy to vote against their own interests when they think they’re addressing their fears and the majority of Republicans seem to be motivated nowadays by fear and the anger it inspires.

            Then there’s also the “us and them” victim mentality factor, the white Fundamentalist Christians are under siege by the evil multicultural menace. As long as that’s the game, these kinds of Republicans would vote for a white Republican who would blow them up over a Dem of color who would save their farm.

            Fear, ignorance and racism is mindless…which pretty much describes the qualifications for being a Republican nowadays.

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        Hey kalie…..have we met before? I think not. Been on the Planet for long? I am still relatively new here.

        Well….we are on the same page. I came to Obama’s cause slowly…I was told by friends that he was the real deal. I watched, read and discussed. I then went to two events; one with him and one with Michelle.

        I moved into his camp and have not looked back.

        Thanks for sharing your experience.

        • kalie says:

          Murph:
          Dont know if we have met, but I have been on Huffpo for about 4 years and at Planet Pov occasionally since it started. Yes I think we have spoken before. Probably the last time i logged in was during a debate. I was looking for some intellectual conversation/comments and wasn’t disappointed!! It was fun.

    • AdLib says:

      Murph, your solid response to her article brings a couple of thoughts to mind.

      First, so what? What President in American history was able to make all of his campaign promises come true? Why is Arianna holding our first black President to a standard that no white President has ever met?

      Second, anyone who has ever sought to achieve anything begins with reaching for the stars and settling for the moon. Are all entrepreneurs who create a thriving business but not the multimillion dollar megacorp failures for aiming high?

      Third, why would anyone who honestly supported Obama’s re-election (which I don’t believe is descriptive of Arianna, despite her half-hearted statements that she is) begin a media campaign attacking Obama as two-faced and someone who betrays his promises?

      Fourth, what constructive purpose is there for Progressives in having them re-frame their view of the 2012 Presidential elections as “Obama vs. Obama”? Isn’t this what only Republicans are otherwise trying to do? Trying to shift judgments away from their candidates and convince the public that the 2012 election should only be a referendum on Obama?

      It is simply not empirically provable that Arianna supports Obama’s re-election and can be successfully argued on the facts that she wants to make his re-election more difficult.

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        I do not read Arianna the way you do. I do not know if she is the person you believe her to be, but I have learned to value your point of view. What I do know is that I believe she is often wrong about Obama and that her website reflects this skew too often for my liking. So I critique every time. So far nothing has been censored.

        To respond to your points:

        Who has been held to a high standard- the expectation that their promises would be embodied in their presidencies? I can name a few: Hoover (failed), FDR (succeeded), Ike (succeeded), JFK-LBJ (failed), Reagain (succeeded for his followers, failed for the rest of us), Clinton (succeeded), Bush (failed), and Obama. NOW, WHO HAS BEEN HELD TO SOOOOOO HIGH A STANDARD….Obama and he gets it from both sides.

        Your second point is one I wholeheartedly agree with.

        Your third point is a powerful one and I admit that your and Kalima’s exposition on this subject has left me wondering. Is she a born again progressive who turned her back on conservative principles but who has become a progressive zealot in the process and sees herself holding him accountable or is she a trojan horse? I do not know. Depending on the day, I could offer evidence either way. There is a sort of fugue personality at work in all of this.

        Your fourth point is at the heart of my objection to posts like the one she wrote and the one to which I just responded at HP written by New York Magazine (which seems to whine a lot about Obama just not being good enough).

        Of course, she would likely saying she is no longer taking sides, being neither left or right, but I don’t buy that for a second.

        • AdLib says:

          Murph, I have to respectfully disagree with you on your rating Presidents for fulfilling all their campaign promises.

          No President has fulfilled all of their campaign promises.

          Your listing of succeeded and failed is subjective, as you explain yourself in the Reagan determination.

          Naturally, the supporters of a candidate will be more likely to say the President fulfilled promises than those of the opposing party.

          I could provide instances of each of the Presidents you listed not fulfilling a campaign promise. The degree to which promises were not fulfilled differs between them but expecting a President to have dictatorial powers and be able to accomplish all legislative promises is just plain dishonest yet Arianna attacks Obama for it.

          As to our differing views on Arianna, I respect your opinion as well.

          I would ask you though, as a friendly challenge, if you could link to one article from Arianna within the last two years that was supportive and positive about Obama because I’m not aware of one.

          • choicelady says:

            I have to disagree. Millard Fillmore fulfilled them all. He just didn’t have many, and they were totally without substance. THAT is how you fulfill your campaign promises -- make ’em out of cotton candy and voila -- you can get them done just fine.

          • MurphTheSurf3 says:

            AdLib…in response to your last comment. I think you are pretty much on target in all of this. As I said before my perspective on Arianna has been informed by you, Kalima, KilgoreTrout, SueinCa et. al. and I am much less certain in my thinking regarding her.

            Again, is she a trojan GOPer? much of the content on the Post certainly does not built that case

            is she a new born Progressive Zealot demanding unremitting fervor from one and all?

            is she really trying to walk the balance beam?

            is she all about generating hits on the site which generate dollars?

            is she an unrequited “fan” who sees herself as being slighted by the man she supported and he has not responded in kind?

            I really do not know, but I found her blog damned irritating and I went after it. I will continue to do this every time.

            • AdLib says:

              Hey Murph, my rule of thumb is to assess people solely by their choices and actions, not how they describe themselves.

              With Arianna, I put aside everything except what she chooses to write and say about politics and politicians.

              My conclusion based on a preponderance of evidence, is that she has no core, unflippable political principles and is in actuality just an opportunist whose beliefs are as changeable as the weather.

              As Kalie mentioned below, if one was to take her at face value, by the way she describes herself and her views in her many conflicting positions, one might conclude she was bipolar.

              I would find it unlikely that someone who has been very deliberate in ascending the ladders of power, wealth and influence would be such as that so if that is not the case, there is only one logical conclusion…that is, there is a motivation that is not openly presented.

              What reason would someone have for supporting and attacking the same people and party? It’s not for their benefit so it could only be for self-benefit.

              All corporate executives have one duty, to make money for their shareholders. Political principles don’t outweigh that and in fact, can get in the way.

              Is what Arianna is doing bad for AOL shareholders? If it was, they could sue her.

              So, even if we were to be very generous and say that if she could, Arianna would be championing the President who is the best hope for 99% of America and their futures, if attacking him is proven to bring in more money to shareholders, she has to do so.

              Corporations aren’t people and don’t have consciences. Instead, they have shareholders and corporate executives exist in their position solely to provide the greatest amount of revenue to shareholders.

              I don’t think Arianna had much of a conscience to begin with, her flipping back and forth constantly from one extreme to another in order to benefit herself speaks for itself.

              And when it comes to being a corporate exec, having no guiding principles isn’t a deficit, it’s a requirement.

          • MurphTheSurf3 says:

            I was not clear. I was referring to a general expectation that the president would work to honor their promises and for which there was an expectation that this was a reasonable expectation. More complex than your question. Should have spelled it out more.

            Let me reframe this. Nixon was widely regarded as a snake, Carter as a flake, Ford as a fool, Bush as a duplicitous cynic….thus low expectations in regard to credibility. The ones I list were those whose campaigns had the feel of crusades and whose platforms were raised up by a nobility that comes with that. People expected greatness from Ike, from JFK-LBJ, from Reagan etc. and depending on their political philosophy, their study of the period and their personal experience with the government they made their judgements.

            I will go looking. But a fast check gets me more of the same kind of endorsements we see in her post….Many “yes, buts” nothing full throated.

            • AdLib says:

              Hey Murph, I’m just addressing Arianna’s shaky ground on attacking Obama for not bringing every campaign promise to fruition exactly as he had hoped.

              As you mention, a President has to be pragmatic as to what can actually be accomplished with the Congress he’s stuck with. In America, a President doesn’t pass legislation, he can only sign the bills Congress sends to him.

              Obama’s key campaign promises have been fulfilled. Health care, DADT, Consumer Watchdog, Financial regs, Ledbetter, out of Iraq, etc.

              Should the President be attacked for signing legislation based on his campaign promise that was altered by Congress? That’s what Arianna thinks and I think she’s dead wrong and dishonest in the way she portrays it, as if Obama was the one who voluntarily changed a Congressional bill that could have otherwise been passed exactly in accordance with his campaign promise.

              You and I would agree that Clinton had a pretty successful presidency but using Arianna’s yardstick of delivering exactly what was promised in a campaign, without any compromise, Clinton’s presidency was a betrayal because he promised universal healthcare and never delivered it.

              In any case, I find this kind of unrealistic and simplistic judging of Obama by Arianna to have a motivation that is self-serving and has no positive value to the indie, Progressive and/or Dem constituency out there.

              If I’m missing something, please let me know what you think it is but Arianna’s adopting the Republican desire of making 2012 a referendum on Obama seems unmistakeably anti-Obama.

      • escribacat says:

        Adlib, Has she actually said she is supporting Obama’s re-election? I’m very surprised about that.

        • AdLib says:

          Well, it all depends on how you view this quote of hers:

          Of course, many things can happen between now and November, and I want to be clear that I think it’s crucial for the country — and the world — that the president defeat any of his likely opponents.

          So, it’s not a statement of support for Obama being re-elected as much as it’s about how the other candidates are worse and shouldn’t be President.

          • escribacat says:

            Amazing. It’s a Sarah Palin-like lack of concern for making sense. But she’s not stupid like Palin, so I really don’t get why she would say that when it’s so obviously not true.

            • AdLib says:

              Escrib, she does sound like a Republican, doesn’t she? Trying to have it all ways and contorting a negative thing to try and make it look positive.

              My theory is that, to patronize Dems who are players so she doesn’t get taken off the invite list for parties, she tosses out a claim of opposition to Repubs but then pivots to her real agenda, attacking Obama, and unsuccessfully tries to position it as doing a service for Dems and Progressives.

              Her point is, “You need to know which Obama you’re putting in the White House.”

              As if we’re all mindless fools and haven’t witnessed him act as president for the last 3 years?

              And what are we to do with the valuable “satirical” information our elite leader Arianna fills our heads with? How does that help elect Obama to hammer into the minds of Dems and Progs, “Obama will betray you when if you put him back in the White House!”?

              It seems so painfully obvious that Arianna is campaigning to damage Obama’s re-election.

              I challenge anyone to post a link to any article of hers that disputes this conclusion.

    • Well said Murph. If the emo-progs had actually paid attention to what Obama the candidate was saying, they would have no reason to feel “disappointed or betrayed.” Instead, they took all the hope rhetoric way beyond the meaning Obama gave it.

      I thought then, that hope is a hollow emotion, and still do to some extent, but the thing about hope is that it gives a lovely light. Something sorely needed beyond the dark days of bush/cheney.

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        I believe they projected their political philosophies on to him….common when a figure like Obama is hailed as a messianic figure who can do it all. This captures my thoughts on hope:

        “More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.”
        ― Saint Paul

        Paul’s words are powerful political philosophy and theology.

        • Big time projection going on then. I guess that’s easier for some, than to admit a mistake.

          Saint Paul’s words are eloquent and do contain some truth in them, but I must disagree. I am inclined toward the Buddhist tenets regarding “suffering,” and how we should work to end it, at least in our own lives. The Buddhists also say and I paraphrase here, that “one should take joyful participation in the suffering of the world.” So I guess in a way, St. Paul is not too far away from the Buddhists.

          • MurphTheSurf3 says:

            In Buddhist philosophy/theology…suffering arises from want….want arises from desire…therefore to end suffering end desire….thus the Buddhist value self-emptying….a very Eastern approach….Paul arises out of Greco-Roman thinking and is, as a result, Western.

            Still, I agree, when it comes down to it, Paul and Buddha are not so far apart as is often the case with the wise.

            • Good point about the difference between Western thought and Eastern thought. It really is the subject/object split in thought. Eastern thought is more subjective, where Western thought is more objective. Our science is nearly all objective. Westerners, for the most part see a difference between the object and the observer. Eastern thought basically sees the object and observer as being one and the same.

  12. Isn’t that Barbra Walters standing next to Callista? Trying to look all incognito?

    • Kalima says:

      KT you are correct. I’ve just enlarged the photo on my iPad, then compared her ears and the way she stands with another photo, it’s BW alright. Nice catch.

    • choicelady says:

      I don’t think so -- the mouth is too wide. And what’s up with the large white paw on her left hand? Is that a cast? Anyway, these are pretty emaciated and hard lookin’ women. I once sat next to Jane Fonda and did not recognize her because she had on a long wig and was scrawny as hell. I figured her for a Beverly Hills divorcee looking to score and pretending at 60 to look 20. Pitiful. My dining companion recognized her voice, and then I realized how AWFUL Jane looked even if she’d NOT had on the wig.

      It has never been my goal in life to look as if all the juice dried up.

      • Well, Jane is one of the 60s crowd that lived in the fast lane for a number of years, so I’m sure that’s had an adverse affect. I like Jamie Lee Curtiss’ philosophy on aging. She does it naturally, with no cosmetic surgery and very little make up and no hair dye and I think she looks great. Healthy.

    • AdLib says:

      Hey! You could be onto something, Killgore!

  13. GirlOutWest says:

    I rarely read her articles because I don’t trust her even a teeny tiny bit. There has been the rare occasion when the title will interest me but they are few and far between.

    I can not imagine why ANY woman would want to dissuade voters from voting for the only one that has OUR interests at heart, President Obama. Arriana Huffington is in it for the money and the glory. I don’t think the nation’s well being is of much concern for her or AOL.

    • escribacat says:

      Agreed. They’ve learned that outrage-generating articles result in the most clicks and that’s the bottom line.

      • GirlOutWest says:

        I hate being used but I do like HP and a lot of the good guys that post there. I’ve been shocked by the animosity some of the posters there feel for the President and all of us “commies”.

        Huffington Post got big time by pushing the buttons on both sides but I really hate it when they do a hit piece on the President. I feel as though he’s done a pretty good job considering the situation.

        When I first saw that photo of AH with the vacationing Gingrichs’ it was my first clue to her. Her loyalty lies in a bank vault.

    • AdLib says:

      Hi GirlOutWest, that’s a very important point. You have the Republican Party waging a war on women and yet Arianna is saying that the most important issue is to prove that Obama has been and will be a poor president…with the intended result that Romney is voted in as President instead?

      Huh? Women should elect a Republican who wants to take away contraception and the right to abortion, force women to undergo unnecessary medical procedures that they have to pay for and be attacked for having a career…all because Obama didn’t give them everything Arianna claims she wanted from him?

      And Americans should vote for Romney to help destroy all of “Obamacare” because Obama didn’t make it go far enough?

      Even she can’t believe most of the BS she writes. As you say, neither she nor AOL care one whit about 99% of America, we’re all just fat wallets to them waiting to be plucked.

      • GirlOutWest says:

        Yep, AH wants to have it both ways and as much as I wish I didn’t I’m like a Carp biting at her tidbits on the water.

        Sometimes I find it fun to be snarky and argumentative with the righties that comment. I know it’s bad but I’m nice to everyone in my real life so I find it theraputic occasionally. Kind of addictive.

  14. kalie says:

    Huffpo has become increasingly tiresome with all the trolls commenting. They seem very young and red and angry. I feel like AH is bipolar and the reporting, at times is high schoolish. Why she has to beat up on Obama when all the righties do it 24/7 is insanity. I have yet to see an article, anywhere, that says why ANY of the GOP would be good for our country. They wouldn’t, and most everyone knows it except the fundies, who continually confuse religion and government.

    • AdLib says:

      Hey Kalie! Hate to say it but once the GE has started, I think it’s inevitable that HP will post at least one article presenting why Romney winning will be better for America than Obama being re-elected (“Then in 2016 we can get a ‘real’ Progressive!”)

      Of course you’re right, there is no logical or practical case to make that electing Romney or Santorum, who would bring back Bush economics on steroids and slash social programs for 99% of Americans, would be good for anyone but the 1% (which includes Arianna).

      If one were to look at Arianna as if she was earnest about what she writes, I think you’re right, she would look manic and bipolar.

      However, if one looks at her writings as reflective as an unprincipled person who intentionally throws bombs to rile up her readers (and thus increase their visits and participation and her advertising revenues), her track record makes perfect sense.

      Arianna discovered during the 2008 election and just after, that conflict at HP means bigger profits and more money in her sizable pockets. So she and HP stoke conflict, welcome trolls dumping hatred because it’s good for business.

      She is not about politics, she is about profits and her quick and easy shifts from one political position to another make that abundantly clear.


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories
Features