Duly noted. I have not been laid up with the flu as life in the blogosphere moves on.
As proof, we're in the spotlight today over at PoliticsOnline.
And just in case you're busy with more pressing matters, here's the current link and full article after the jump.
This morning on Baltimore news station WBAL, noted political commentator Ned Barnett went on the record, identifying the "real loser" of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s "sex-tryst-melt-down" as "Hillary Clinton and her presidential aspirations." To be technically accurate, Mr. Barnett went on the record yesterday in an article posted to his two blogs, but the fanfare remains the same.
After glossing over the obvious loss of Spitzer as a sorely needed super-delegate (he’ll either resign or face impeachment charges) and anticipated tit-for-tat request for repudiation (not rejection) from the Obama campaign, Barnett claims "you heard it here first" as he describes why Senator Clinton trumps Spitzer’s family and political career as the scandal’s biggest loser.
…the real memory-jog will be more along the lines of then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s misguided belief in a ‘Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy’ as the architect of her downfall, rather than a philandering husband who couldn’t keep it zipped. That one blame-comment, made on the Today Show on January 27, 1998 showed her political blindness in the face of a fact she’d known for decades – that Bill Clinton was a serial philanderer. She knew about Gennifer Flowers. She knew about Paula Jones. No matter how much she would have liked to believe otherwise, her attempt to blame the Lewinsky story on political opponents instead of her husband of more than 20 years shows a serious gap in judgment – the kind of judgment she is offering as her justification for being named the Democratic Party’s candidate.I, for one, admire a blogger who knows how to self-promote. Lord knows, I could take a lesson or two from Mr. Barnett who, according to his article, will be discussing his position tonight on Fox Business. But at the same time, I’m lamenting my own lack of self-promotion savvy.
You see, Ned Barnett may indeed be the first one to tie the bad judgment of Senator Clinton to a hot topic hooker scandal. But he isn’t the first to posit her zeal to vilify philandering victims as hardcore evidence of her unsuitability for the presidency. No, that person would be me.
When my November 26, 2007 article first appeared on BlogCritics, and later my own blog, the reaction of the blogosphere was scathing, unrelentingly nasty actually, although, somewhat to my relief, the fire-storm faded almost as quickly as it began. I probably should have issued some sort of press release before it did, but then I’m new at this political commentary game. Just learning the ropes of self-promotion.
I have since learned how quickly original thought morphs and takes on other attributes once it launches into cyberspace. Still, should a gutsy forward-thinking blogger such as myself be left behind in the dust?
Just last week, I read about Democrats threatening to vote for John McCain if the party nominates Barack Obama. Democrats threatening to vote for the Republican? Suddenly, the Democratic Party should be concerned about crossover voters? When I was the first to make the same promise with respect to Hillary Clinton, I was taunted with comments such as,
Writing provocative articles is a great idea...if you can write, and if your argument makes sense. But if you just want to stir the pot, you deserve to have your motives questioned. And I don't think anyone who really cares about Democrats winning the White House would have written this article. So I repeat my charge: Romneyite spy.And that was one of the nicer rebukes!
I’ve written a few other articles noting Hillary Clinton’s inability to lead and judgment blunders, but none so poignant as the first. People rarely comment at my blog, but then I later hear similar thought being bandied about in the news and political media. I have to believe my message is finding an audience, and while that’s a positive development, it would be nice to see accompanying acknowledgment of its origin.
Of course, great minds do think alike and no one is accusing anyone else of plagiarism. But when a blogger is willing to go on the record with a highly criticized, well-publicized, against-the-conventional-wisdom article so early in the campaign, what’s wrong with giving a little credit where credit is due?
Remember, you may not have heard it here first!
But if you did, all I ask for is a link or trackback.
