You know, it just amazes me that the Instapundit Clan's favorite pet "liberal" Ann Althouse has readers at all. The Clinton Derangement Syndrome has apparently gone so deep that she doesn't even know what she's talking about anymore.
It seems that any interaction whatsoever between members of the Clinton family and the world of progressive blogging is enough to drive the sad old alcoholic right around the bend and into a grand mal self-righteous, pearl-clutching frenzy. Who can forget the completely sound reasoning behind her decision to hysterically attack Jessica Valenti after the Clinton Lunch last summer?
My cruelty took the form of trying to ruin the picture they thought was so nice by merging it with the idea of Monica Lewinsky. The last thing Bill Clinton wants as he offers his prestige to the cause of his wife's quest for power is for us to think about Monica Lewinsky.
So I called attention to the fact that Jessica Valenti, positioned right in front of Clinton, did look a bit like that woman, Miss Lewinsky.
I made it quite nasty, and I did it deliberately. I'm not sorry I did it. I mean to castigate feminists and so-called feminists who cozy up to Clinton. They were surely justified in fighting back at me, and I can understand why they want to ruin me.
But I did achieve my goal and ruin the photograph. You've got to admit that you cannot look at it the way the shiny, happy posers meant you to. The photograph is — as they say — reframed. If I must suffer for that achievement — which I sought — so be it.
Sheeeyit. And they call us 'unhinged'?
Well, as many of you know, Hillary stopped in the other day for a brief chat, and, well, here Annie goes again:
Please tell me no one is stupid enough to be impressed that Firedoglake has got Hillary Clinton to "guestblog" over there.
I'm irked when bloggers surrender their precious independence, but others are tsking that the candidate has besmirched herself with the ugliness associated the blog.
What, I suppose you think there's never, ever been any "ugliness" associated with your blog, Lady "Boobgate"? Of course, Ann, given your violent feelings of hostility toward any and all things Clintonian, one has to wonder about the true motivation of this little Concern Troll festival you've got going. If you want Senator Clinton to lose the nomination, then by your logic, shouldn't you be encouraging her to mix with us Lefty Bomb-Throwers? You don't honestly expect us to believe that you're concerned about Hillary's future and that you're saying all this for her own good, do you? Do you think your blog archives are invisible?
Althouse's argument starts out on decidedly wobbly footing when she attacks FDL for "surrendering our independence" to the former First Lady, but then rather than link to or quote the massive number of reflexively worshipful, drooling puff-posts about Senator Clinton that have (not) appeared since then, she criticizes us for exactly the opposite, i.e., the gloves-off, take-no-prisoners style that has made us the wildly successful venture that we are.
Bloggers — and shock jocks — need to be free to swing wildly. But candidates need to be careful. We know the Clinton campaign is working on taming and coopting the bloggers. I hate that. I mock that. But I wouldn't pin that blackface nonsense on Hillary.
Well, Chris Muir certainly has. Is that where your highly selective outrage will go next? Or are we going to see you chastizing Dick Cheney for appearing on Rush Limbaugh, or Mitt Romney for snuggling up to that old sack of sticks, The Anntichrist?
Still, Firedoglake is a hardcore place, and Clinton doesn't belong there. To illustrate, let's look at a couptle (sic) things published on Firedoglake the day after Clinton "posted."
She quotes heavily from my Malkin essay from last night and declares it over the line, as well as objecting to Jane's "U & Ur Hand" post because Jane had the temerity to call the little beat-offs on the Right "beat-offs", but then she just can't help herself from nose-diving back into the Clintons' underwear drawer.
Does Hillary want to be associated with this? I mean, I think it's funny to picture her rejecting Bill by singing "U & Ur Hand," but it's just not quite right for the campaign.
I think we've established before that your sense of humor is sadly lacking, Ms. Althouse. But what's your point? FDL is selling out to the Clinton campaign or FDL is too rough and tumble for the Clinton campaign? You can't have it both ways. Pick one. We'll wait here.
But while we're just waiting around, I would like to introduce you to The Second Law of Tokenism. Last night, we explored the first, as regards Michelle Malkin. When you are the Right Wing's pet, what you say (or how you say it) isn't as important to them as the fact that you'll say it at all. People like Malkin and Althouse are convinced that the Right has been so much more "warm and welcoming" to them than the Left not because they're wrong, shrill, and stupid, but because Liberals are Bad People and their Rightard friends who have them up on the porch to visit are doing so because they see what a marvellous, unique, and wonderful person their New Best Friend is.
Good old Dave Niewert knows the truth of the matter:
But just to answer her question: There's a reason the right blogosphere is so warm and welcoming to her — she's useful to them.
Look, I've got no hesitation about criticizing Democrats on serious policy grounds (see here for a relatively recent example), and I don't think anyone in the liberal blogosphere has denounced me as a heretic for doing so.
But what Althouse has built a career out of as a blogger is criticizing Democrats (quite frequently, it must be added, on the most frivolous grounds) in a way that transparently buys into, and supports, right-wing talking points (most notably including the claim that left-wing bloggers are inherently more nasty than those on the right, a claim I think I have documented as patently false). In doing so, she's handy for conservatives the same way Michelle Malkin is handy for bigots — they can hold her up as an example of some talking point and say, "See, even the liberal Ann Althouse says it, so it must be so!"
Ergo, a prop. A pet. A talking dog. Therefore, the Second Law of Tokenism is that the token in question will always be vain, shallow, and gullible enough to believe that it's their sparkling personality and wellspring of talent that endear them to their Keepers, rather than their utility as a Useful Idiot.
One of Althouse's dipshit commenters chimes in with regard to my lack of love for Our Lady of the Internment Camps:
In this way, he gets to say this shit hiding behind, in essence, the " I'M not thinking these things, I'M not saying these things, I'm saying THEY'RE thinking and saying these things" excuse.
What complete and utter bullshit. He's exactly the person saying and thinking those things. To describe this as "projection" is to imply a level of subtlety and unconsciousness that we shouldn't let the TRex's of the world hide behind.
Slightly shorter version: He's a pretentious jerk, precisely the sort of sexist, racist lefty that unjustly smears all liberalism and provides ammo to his mirror images on the right.
Let me see if I can make this abundantly clear to you. I'm going to go very, very slowly as if I'm talking to a child, since that appears to be the "I know you are, but what am I?" level of logic that you are accustomed to.
I find Michelle Malkin and everything she stands for utterly disgusting and reprehensible. She is a privileged, unprincipled, intellectual featherweight who spends her every waking moment grasping after a fame that she got precisely because she is a woman of color who is more than willing to peddle vicious, outdated ethnic stereotypes and highly loaded racist ideology to a pathetically eager, slavering audience of lily-white, proto-fascist dickheads. If she was white and looked like Kathryn Jean Lopez, she'd still be writing for ten readers a week at Townhall.com. The fact of the matter is that angry white demagogues like Bill O'Reilly plucked Malkin from obscurity because she would regurgitate the exact white supremacist, anti-immigration, bloodthirsty xenophobia that they love and which forms the backbone of the modern conservative philosophy, such as it is.
So, yes, when writing about Malkin (and you, Ms. Althouse), I don't hold back. You are vile, despicable people. You kowtow to the very worst elements in our society, and whether Hillary Clinton hangs out here or not has absolutely no bearing on how I personally express myself. Is this clear?
Now run along, dear. I think the servants have drawn your bath.