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.

116
Leave a Comment

Please Login to comment
19 Comment threads
97 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
19 Comment authors
reubenoffDbosBourneIDSallyTCaru Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Kalima
Admin

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
Member
reubenoff

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

SallyT
Member

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.

foodchain
Member
foodchain

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.

Caru
Member

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.

Nirek
Member

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

foodchain
Member
foodchain

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.

Khirad
Member

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

escribacat
Member

😆 Some Klown out there will believe it.

bito
Member

My problem is that when completely bogus stories like this one one the new CBO report are reported on “serious” tv and Santorum declares it in a speech the same day that the cost of ACA has been doubled–it’s the same fiction as ““Obama is the Father of My Extraterrestrial Baby!”, yet it will be believed by millions of GOPers even though it’s a complete lie and Fox/Santouium aren’t challenged on such a complete lie.

Obamacare Haters Angered by Facts
By Jonathan Chait

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03/obamacare-haters-angered-by-facts.html

funksands
Member

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!!

choicelady
Member

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

escribacat
Member

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!

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

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.

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

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
Member
kalie

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
Member
foodchain

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.

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

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
Member
kalie

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.

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

Kalie…please come by more often…..

kalie
Member
kalie

You betcha!

KillgoreTrout
Member

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
Editor

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.

KillgoreTrout
Member

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
Editor

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.

KillgoreTrout
Member

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.

KillgoreTrout
Member

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

Kalima
Admin

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.

KillgoreTrout
Member

Yeah, that’s her. I’m usually pretty good when it comes to face recognition.

choicelady
Member

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.

KillgoreTrout
Member

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.

GirlOutWest
Member
GirlOutWest

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
Member

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

GirlOutWest
Member
GirlOutWest

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.

kalie
Member
kalie

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.

SueInCa
Member

Maybe I am missing it but I barely ever see her on the talk shows anymore……..

escribacat
Member

That’s a good point, Sue. It used to drive me crazy when Keith kept having her on his show.

KillgoreTrout
Member

I think she “lost face,” to some degree when she sold out to AOL. At least I would hope so.