Full interview from The Daily Show including the parts that were cut out. Happy I saw the shorter one.

Update: that last line didn’t come out right, just meant I was happy to see both versions. Another random thought, can you imagine President Bush speaking that comfortably and articulately on, well, any topic?

What is up with conservatives and their obsession with Bill Clinton’s sex life. Almost 9 years later, we get to read hard hitting analysis like this from conservative-in-liberal-garb law prof, columnist, and blogger Ann Althouse. Can you say anything aside from, “Are you f’ing high???!” Hilzoy lays out how stupid Althouse is.

I have, for the most part, resisted the temptation to make fun of Ann Althouse, mostly because it requires more attention to her site than I am willing to give. But I just can’t let this pass unnoticed. It’s Althouse’s take on Hillary Clinton’s new video (which I found a bit baffling, not having watched The Sopranos), and specifically the bit in which Hillary orders carrots instead of onion rings for Bill:

“Bill says “No onion rings?” and Hillary responds “I’m looking out for ya.” Now, the script says onion rings, because that’s what the Sopranos were eating in that final scene, but I doubt if any blogger will disagree with my assertion that, coming from Bill Clinton, the “O” of an onion ring is a vagina symbol.”

This is a woman who also was also fascinated by the pose of a blogger and author who was standing in front of Clinton in a photograph. Enough so that she implied the woman was a slut, and that Clinton was trying to bed her.

What is WRONG with this woman and the bloggers that link to her approvingly? Are they just crazy or all on the same drugs?

Update: So, Althouse defends herself by claiming it was comedy and that we all fell for her cunning trap of talking about it. I admit to “falling into the vortex” or whatever, but what this means is that she’s either desperate for attention and links, which is sad, or that she’s quite frankly quite unfunny. The point being, Ms. Althouse, you can stop going back to that well. It’s dry. We all got over the Clinton sex jokes a few years ago when it was clear how good a President he was compared to the moron in the White House today.

From David Broder’s column today:

Now, many conservatives are up in arms about Walton “throwing the book” at Libby.

…

Their bigger complaint is that the White House official’s conviction on felony counts of lying and obstruction of justice was a byproduct of a “leak” investigation that itself was unnecessary.

…

Despite the absence of any underlying crime, Fitzgerald filed charges against Libby for denying to the FBI and the grand jury that he had discussed the Wilson case with reporters. Libby was convicted on the testimony of reporters from NBC, the New York Times and Time magazine — a further provocation to conservatives.

I think they have a point. This whole controversy is a sideshow — engineered partly by the publicity-seeking former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife and heightened by the hunger in parts of Washington to “get” Rove for something or other.

I have two words for Broder and conservatives who are complaining about the unfairness of what happened to poor Scooter Libby:

Bill Clinton

I have two more words, F*** Y** to these people who would pardon their friend only because he’s their friend but wouldn’t go to bat for anyone else. As for David Broder, this is the same guy who, when Bill Clinton was getting excoriated for perjury about a blow job in an investigation stemming from a supposed crooked land deal (for which no evidence was found), called Clinton’s selfishness “staggering.” All because he felt that a personal affair wasn’t something Congress has any business prosecuting.

Take a look at this 1998 editorial from Virginia Postrel in Reason Magazine:

The public is right about this much: Bill Clinton the man has indeed become embroiled in a scary and fundamentally unjust process. It is wrong to let prosecutors loose to pursue individuals, rather than crimes, until they find something that sticks. It is also wrong, except in extreme cases, to force people to testify about the intimate details of their private lives. Both practices severely erode the protections citizens expect to enjoy in a free society.

But Washington is also right. Clinton is not just a man. He is president of the United States. As I’ve noted in an earlier editorial, Clinton the president actively supported the very laws and procedures from which he now demands exemption. (See “License to Grill,” April.) In all his appeals for sympathy, the man who cruised into office hailing “the year of the woman” and condemning Clarence Thomas has never suggested that what has happened to him should never happen to another American. He has not even suggested that we dump the independent counsel law. His defense has been completely self-centered; his selfishness is, as Broder notes, “staggering.”

It’s amazing people can write these things then turn around a mere few years later and say, well, Scooter Libby is a good man, he was prosecuted wrongly, and should be let go. With Bill Clinton, Washington was “right” to go after him, but with Scooter Libby, also a public official with an oath and a duty to do what’s right for the public, hey, he made a mistake but he’s a good guy.

So, let’s set this straight. Scooter Libby originally committed acts he was asked to testify about that were part of an effort to discredit Joseph Wilson, former Ambassador who was sent to Niger to determine whether Saddam Hussein was buying uranium from the African nation. Because the White House didn’t like the conclusion Wilson came to, they attempted to discredit Wilson by claiming his wife, a covert CIA agent, chose Wilson through nepotism and not because he was qualified, implying that perhaps CIA had an agenda they were pushing.

Libby lied about that. He lied about attempting to discredit someone who would’ve slowed down our march into war. I consider that serious, in fact, and almost by definition a political act. He abused his power, including the knowledge he had of Plame’s covert status and employment, to use that as a political tool. Not only did he do this, but he was dumb enough then to lie about it. Unlike Bill Clinton’s error, there is no understandable reason why he would lie about it. As Kevin Drum wrote:

Take Bill Clinton. He lied too when he denied having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, but in his case everyone knew exactly why he had lied: because he didn’t want anyone to know he was getting blowjobs in the Oval Office. And most of us took that into account. First, because it plainly had nothing to do with the official exercise of executive power, and second, because pretty much everyone figured they might very well have done exactly the same thing in his position. It was understandable human weakness. So while we might not have approved, most of the public decided it wasn’t a hanging offense.

But Libby is a different case entirely. The conservative community wants us to believe that Valerie Plame wasn’t really undercover at all. They also want us to believe that outing her was, in fact, part of an entirely legitimate effort to explain that Dick Cheney hadn’t been responsible for sending Joe Wilson to Niger. And finally, they want us to believe that none of this was part of a coordinated plan. Plame’s name was merely mentioned in an offhand way here and there when reporters brought up questions about Wilson’s trip.

But if that’s the case, then why did Libby lie? Deliberately and repeatedly? Richard Armitage fessed up almost immediately. Ari Fleischer fessed up. Karl Rove had to be pushed, but eventually he fessed up too. Only Libby lied.

Why? If nobody actually did anything wrong, what was he hiding?

I don’t understand either, and I wish his defenders would take a moment to explain the difference between the two cases. Ultimately, there isn’t any and by my measure, what Libby did is worse and, quite frankly, inexplicable. We will probably never know the extent to which there was a coordinated effort to smear Wilson, and we will never know what actually transpired, since most of it is sealed with the grand jury.

Or, as Virginia Postrel wrote, they could argue to change the law. They’re not doing that, though, so clearly Libby must be guilty. That’s a clever argument to impugn anyone you disagree with. She’s smart, that Postrel lady.

Odd thought: every criticism about waffling, making stuff up, and shifting with the winds when it’s politically convenient that one has ever heard about Clinton, Gore, or Kerry is absolutely true about McCain, Romney, and Rudy. Seriously, do these guys actually believe anything aside from their own infallibility? McCain has flipped on so many issues it’s hard to keep track. Romney has made up some incredible silliness in the last few months (this latest thing is just the most obvious). Giuliani is probably the straightest shooter of them all, but talk about shady business dealings… anyone want to ask him about Bernard Kerik on the campaign trail? Or speculate how that reflects on his judgment?

Anyway, I doubt you’ll hear anyone aside from Jon Stewart ask any of these candidates the hard questions. The media seems uninterested unless a haircut is involved.

CNN just ran a graphic (I’m at work, no screenshot) that showed that Clinton had an approval rating of 42% in Feb 2001 compared to 60% now. What poll were they looking at? First, he was out of office in January of 2001, so it can’t be job approval ratings. Second, his job approval ratings were in the mid 50s to mid-60s in January. Heck, they were that high at the height of the Lewinsky scandal.

CNN must’ve been comparing his personal approval ratings, as in “Do you like Bill Clinton?” sort of thing so they could compare it to his current rating.

Haven’t we learned anything from the Bush presidency? Don’t elect the person you’d want to have a beer with, elect the person who’ll do a good job. If they’re the same person, great. If they’re not, like George Bush, pass on them.

I’m not really sure what the CNN point was? Voters sure didn’t forgive him for the scandal. They looked back at the job he was doing. And, quite frankly, that’s all that matters.

Update: I found the transcript:

SCHNEIDER: We call it voter’s remorse. It happens a lot. When Bill Clinton left office in 2001, only 42 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of him. That number has climbed to 60 percent.

The more people turn against President Bush, the better they remember his predecessor. The economy was booming; the rest of the world liked us. So what if he got impeached?

…

SCHNEIDER: Voter’s remorse also benefited George W. Bush in 2000. Forty-nine percent of voters held a favorable opinion of the first President Bush just before they fired him in 1992. By 2000, that number had climbed to 73 percent. So what if the economy was a disaster when he left office? People remembered the first President Bush as a man of good character, who didn’t carry on like his successor.

I think this goes straight back to my point above. Approval ratings for the President are interesting, I guess, in the sense of “Will he hurt Hillary’s chances” or not, so I’m not crying foul exactly. It just seems as important to mention the job approval ratings for both as well. Bush will likely never get above the mid-40s without something dramatic happening.

The fact of the matter is that Clinton was a good President. While his personal approval ratings were low, his job approvals were in the 60’s. He has the highest approval ratings at the end of his time in office of all the recent presidents (yes, higher than Reagan). The fact that his personal approval ratings were low go to the fact that many Americans could look past his personal problems to understand that he was doing a decent job as a President. Maybe (wow!) they realized his problems were personal and not affecting or part of his job. Shocking, that…