Amen, bruddah.

A truly succint analysis, Jeff.

Still, given a choice, I would much rather be the fool with principles, tarnished though they may be, than the whining hypocrite. At least this President did not subject us to the tedious kabuki of cabinet secretaries splayed across the White House lawn in garish support of their boss's "integrity."

Well, sure. Hypocrisy is hardly a fatal flaw: how many of us are truly consistent, and not sociopaths? Frankly, the progressives who these days control the Democrat party machinery on the national level seem to have adopted a Muslim fundamentalist attitude to lying: we can lie with impunity to non-progressives in the service of progressive ideals, but anything non-progressives say is a lie, and thus irredeemably wrong and unforgivable. They wallow in their hypocrisy, and engage in it seemingly as a sport, even when there is no political gain to be had by it.

Yet the hard core Republican partisans, particularly but not exclusively those of a social conservative slant, are perfectly willing to throw aside their principles for the most minor political gains (notice the failure of the Coburn amendment).

But I specifically targeted the post at the partisans, rather than the everyday members of the parties, because it tends to be the case that everyday people are far less dogmatic than the partisans. I don't have anything against Democrats or Republicans per se, but I am frequently annoyed by Republican partisans, and frequently disgusted by Democrat partisans.

While the punditry displayed here is stylish, it seems to not have the gripping power necessary to adequately comprehend the difference in gravity between what Clinton and Cheney/Libby have engaged in. Train the thenar muscles, stop the cuticle gazing.

Perhaps you could explain further, Boxengo, the difference in gravity and how it makes one group of partisans better than the other? (For that is what you seem to be implying; otherwise, the "difference in gravity" would be irrelevant.)

Bat One left a comment, and it didn't show up in the database. Nor did my attempts to post it later. I just realized that this might be because of some internal character not getting quoted correctly, so here is my attempt at fixing that. The contents of the message have not been changed, just a few non-ASCII characters.

My comment was intended as a comparison between the manner in which the two administrations handled the fact of an outside investigation, not an examination of respective subject matters. It would take a weapons grade level of willful ignorance to buy into the tiresome notion that the Clinton case was "all about sex". A federal district court judge, an appeals court judge, and the Arkansas Bar Association all found to the contrary.

The subject of the Fitzgerald investigation, as noted by Mr. Fitzgerald himself at his press conference, was the purported "outing" of Valerie Plame, not the Iraq war. To imply otherwise is to allow one's rhetorical reach to exceed one's obviously tentative grip on the reality of the situation.

Your metaphor, while anatomically correct, and clever, is of little pertinence and thus unlikely to hold one's attention for very long. But hang on. Joe Wilson has been threatening a civil lawsuit lately. A circumstance which will surely demonstrate the gravity of Wilson's situation vis-a-vis the truth. The full exposure of his dishonesty would be difficult for even a partisan Democrat not to grasp.

Jeff,

My apologies for any misplaced quarks or other such that may have caused the difficulties.

You have quoted my comment correctly, minus the quarks, and for that I'm grateful. Thank you.

Bat One