Hillary’s new book unleashes fresh attacks from Democrats.

Hillary's new book about the campaign sets the record straight.Many of the Clintons’ most rabid enemies are not Republicans. They are fellow travelers, Democrats, who have long resented Bill and Hillary’s success, their intelligence, the network of supporters they grew from scratch, and — most galling to the left — the Clintons’ talent at turning practical Democratic principles into votes on election day. Hillary’s new book gives the saboteurs a new reason to whack her on the knees.

Yeah, I’ll get to the most recent “election day” in a moment, but what’s on my mind today is the pattern of resentment that began from the moment she entered the White House as First Lady, to her concession speech last November.

Back then I wrote an article for the Quarterly, “Women Who Hate Hillary.” I wrote that she was too smart, too accomplished, too attractive for many other women — especially professional women — to accept, much less admire. Most of what I wrote back then was tongue in cheek, but 20 years later I think it was closer to the truth than I realized at the time. The only difference today is that the resentment is not gender-based. There are certainly enough men among the Hillary-haters crowd to say we have reach gender equality.

Let’s be honest and admit that there are numerous theories about why she lost to Donald Trump. Trump thinks Hillary lost because he was a great candidate. Many think she lost because she was a terrible candidate. Within that spectrum, we can point fingers at the FBI director, the Russians, Bernie and his band of lefties, the media that ran scared at the sight of Trump, an Obama backlash, bad advice from her campaign team, and Democratic party regulars who were intent on doing as little as they could to help the woman they resented for so long.

My take is that all those reasons — excuses, really — have some merit (except the first, sorry Mr. President). My personal animus is directed more towards Sanders than anyone else, but that’s just me and I don’t pretend to be very objective about it.

So now Hillary wants to discuss the campaign from her perspective. The losing candidate, a woman who broke more glass ceilings for women than anyone else in our political history, wants to write about her campaign. Heaven help us!

The smug egotists on the far left don’t want to hear from her anymore. Though she won the popular election by several million votes, they want her to just fade away like an old soldier and not talk about losing an election she could have or should have won. They say her continued appearance in the limelight will ruin any chances they have in 2020.

To them I say, “Too bad!”

Their endless bad-mouthing of Hillary speaks volumes about their real priority. We have a demented, erratic president who is an embarrassment to our democracy and a threat to the civil liberties of all Americans, not to mention a danger to the world. Instead of saying “Hillary was right” and giving her credit for that, they blame her. Of course, that would mean that their own political ideology comes first; Hillary, the country, and ultimately the fate of the Democratic party are all at the end of the line.

The Hillary-haters don’t understand how much they need her. The reason is simple: left to their own twisted view of reality, in 2020 they will give us the Democratic version of Donald Trump: an extremist ideologue who doesn’t know how to bring two sides of an argument into the same room and hammer out a compromise when one is needed. To them compromise is a dirty word, forgetting that our electorate is so diverse demographically and politically, that compromise is the only way to accomplish anything in Washington. Just ask Bill Clinton.

If their chances in 2020 are ruined, it will have nothing to do with Hillary or her new book, although I am certain they would find a reason to blame her if they fail. My fear is that the 2016 campaign will be an excuse to move even farther to the left. Assuming they are really concerned about the next set of elections, I suggest that they focus on the current occupant of the White House and the fascists who support him.

Hillary’s not the enemy. Nor is Bill Clinton. If they want to find the real enemy of their success, they just have to look in the mirror.

Trump’s severed head: Art for art’s sake?

They say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No doubt some people will look at Kathy Griffin holding President Trump’s severed head and feel that it represents a form of justice. The killer of immigrant dreams, equal rights for women, people of color, and gay rights, is getting what he deserves, if only in their dreams.

We know about the others: they are disgusted, appalled, angry, etc. Griffin unintentionally gave her enemies a reason to tell the world how awful the lefties really are. Of course, they conveniently forget their own savage images of satire, as we can see here”

Michelle ObamaFrom my perspective, there’s nothing especially shocking or appalling about Griffin’s post on Twitter. I mean, are we really shocked or just tired of the juvenile games both sides are playing in social media. I’ve watched Griffin many times on CNN annoying the hell out of Anderson Cooper (who also proclaims his shock at Griffin’s attempt at humor. Something tells me, he’s tired of his sidekick and is happy to have an excuse for dumping her).

I’ve also watched some of her specials on cable. Truly, Kathy Griffin is neither shocking nor especially “wicked” in her comic presentations. Mostly, to reuse the word, she’s juvenile. As a whole, her work is bland, safe, and intellectually unchallenging. I watch her the way I would watch a hamster playing in his cage — somewhat bemused, a little bored, and hoping he might, for once, do something really interesting.

As for Trump’s severed head, the prospect of taking his head is not at all something I would pay to see or find ghastly. What I would pay to see is the terror on his face when the U.S. Congress impeaches his dumb, narcissistic ass, and sends him to Guantanamo for rehabilitation. No that would be a show worth watching!

For Joe Lieberman, it’s always been about the money.

For Joe Lieberman, it’s always been about the money.

Back in the mid-1970s I was working as a part-time PR writer for a non-profit day program for the elderly in Norwalk, CT, called Elderhouse. The director called me to say they were getting a visit from an influential state senator and would I drop by to cover the visit.

The state senator, of course, was Joe Lieberman, and he was a very impressive young man. What I remember most, however, was an incident that took place with one of the senior citizens who lived in the building on the Post Road in Norwalk. Lieberman and an old man were standing next to a vending machine. The resident — I believe his name was Harry Wenger — asked Lieberman to buy him a Coke. The senator smiled and said, “Sure!” He reached into his suit pants pocket and pulled out a handful of coins. He dropped a quarter into the machine and presented the resident with a cold can of Coke. We were all very pleased.

Later I spoke briefly with Lieberman as he was leaving to get a quote for my news release. When we were finished, he asked me for a quarter. I wanted to know why he wanted it. He explained that he had paid for the old man’s Coke and expected to be reimbursed. I was too startled to say anything and pulled a coin from my own pocket and gave it to him. I never thought about the incident again until October, 2003.

Let me confess that I do have certain politically suicidal tendencies. A glaring example of this was my support for Joe Lieberman during the 2003-2004 New Hampshire presidential primary season. On his behalf I made some phone calls, went to his events in Manchester and elsewhere. I tried recruiting others to the Lieberman cause, but that — it turned out — was a lost cause.

One dead giveaway was the attendance at Lieberman’s rallies. There wasn’t any. I was there and perhaps a dozen other non-paid New Hampshire supporters were there. That was it. To give the impression of a full house, busloads of state workers and other Democrats from New Haven were shuttled in while the cameras rolled. It was a great show, especially the night that his mother was there. She must have been proud of her son!

By the fall of 2003 Lieberman’s poll numbers in New Hampshire were in the low single digits. Instead of becoming more favorable as people got to know him, his favorability ratings went down. Those of us who were supporting him were working our tails off trying to keep our collective heads above water. One day in October, I called Lieberman’s headquarters to ask about an upcoming event with the candidate. I was told he had left the state for an important Senate vote and it wasn’t clear when he was returning.

What was this “important” vote? Lieberman dumped his campaign to vote himself a Senate pay raise. Technically, it was a vote to table a Russ Feingold amendment that would have made such a pay raise impossible. Lieberman understood that if the amendment failed, he could kiss his $15K raise goodbye.  (Hillary Clinton, by the way, voted against tabling the amendment.)

For me it was the last straw. Aside from the miserable symbolism of a presidential candidate voting for a pay raise when many Americans were still hurting from the Bush recession, it gave me a clear view of Lieberman’s priorities. It also contributed to the awful stereotype of Joe the Jewish Tightwad. Then, all in a flash, I remembered that moment in Norwalk, CT, 25 years earlier when he hit me up for a quarter because he had “splurged” and bought some old man a Coke.

I still have the press release somewhere. It was one my first and for a short time, one of my proudest. Then I got to see Lieberman for who he really was. In the past few days, it has become clearer to others in the media that for Joe Lieberman it was, and still is, all about the money.

Here’s John Farrell and US News about Lieberman caving to special interests on health care reform. Here’s MSNBC on Lieberman getting caught “red-handed” bowing to those interests and changing his position on the Medicare option.

You can watch Lieberman supporting the Medicare option here:

You can also read this story about Lieberman’s campaign contributions from the health care industry.

I think John Farrell got it right: “Who qualifies for the lower circles of hell? How about a politician who abandons interests, party, and constituents, and screws things up for the rest of us just to stroke his ego? How about Joe Lieberman?”

This story originally appeared as a “guest article” by Frank Marafiote in A Rake’s Progress. It was published in 2011 on the occasion of Lieberman’s retirement from politics. Given Trump’s consideration of Lieberman as FBI Director, it has been republished here.