July 29th, 2013

The Clintons are reported to be livid at comparisons to Weiner/Abedin (and who knows what “livid” means, anyway?)

Here’s the story:

“The Clintons are upset with the comparisons that the Weiners seem to be encouraging — that Huma is ‘standing by her man’ the way Hillary did with Bill, which is not what she in fact did,’’ said a top state Democrat…

A longtime Hillary aide and Clinton friend, Abedin’s surprisingly unequivocal support of her husband after his bombshell admission Tuesday that he engaged in salacious online sexting well after he resigned in disgrace from Congress in 2011 left the Clintons stunned, continued the source.

What an odd notion, if true. Why would the Clintons of all people, be stunned? Surely they are aware that politicians can get into political trouble for infidelities of various sorts and make promises to spouse and/or the general public that it won’t happen again, and then fail to live up to those promises, get caught, and have to face some sort of consequences? And surely they know that even the most capable of political wives can wind up performing ye olde “Stand By Your Man” routine? Although in the immortal words of Hillary herself (and by the way, for those who forget what a pretty woman Clinton was twenty years ago, this might serve as a reminder):

So, what’s the big difference? Is it that Bill’s peccadillos were more conventional in that they involved actual sex with real live people in the non-virtual world (despite his use of the legalistic definition of “sexual relations” in his Paula Jones deposition, which enabled him to later claim that what he did with Lewinsky didn’t actually fall under that heading)? Compared to Weiner, the former president was positively old-fashioned in his procilivites. Is it Weiner’s relative kinkiness that’s the problem here? Or the fact that the Weiner/Abedins are reminding people of what was hardly Bill and Hillary’s finest hour, a memory the Clintons would rather have people forget if Hillary is to run successfully in 2016?

Or is it that, for the Clintons, the lying and the standing-by were justified because the stakes were so very much higher?:

“The Clintons are pissed off that Weiner’s campaign is saying that Huma is just like Hillary,’’ said the source. “How dare they compare Huma with Hillary? Hillary was the first lady. Hillary was a senator. She was secretary of state.”

This is a curious remark, because actually Hillary was only the first of these things when the Lewinsky story broke, and she’d only been a first lady of Arkansas when the original “standing by” occurred in 1992, back when Bill was running for his first term as president.

So maybe that’s the difference. Maybe Hillary wouldn’t have stood by for a measly mayoral first-ladyhood.

And the moral of the story? Perhaps it’s bad luck to have Bill Clinton perform your wedding, as happened just three short years ago when Weiner and Abedin tied the knot.

As for the use of the word “livid” (the headline of the Post story I’ve been discussing is “Bill and Hillary Clinton are ‘livid’ at comparisons to Weiner’s sexcapades and Huma’s forgiveness”), it has long puzzled me. When I first learned its meaning in high school—because it appears in quite a few old literary works—I was told it meant “pale” even though people often used it to signify “red.” At any rate, it was a color, not a feeling. But then I kept seeing it used to mean any of those things, and the NY Post headline about the Clintons and the Weiner/Abedins seems to be using it to mean “angry,” as far as I can tell.

Here’s the complete lowdown on the word “livid,” everything you ever wanted to know about it for those who are curious about that sort of thing. Livid is apparently a word of many colors—specifically red, white, and/or blue. How apropos! It can also be used to mean “angry,” although that’s a much more recent practice.

[NOTE: Cross-posted at Legal Insurrection.]

37 Responses to “The Clintons are reported to be livid at comparisons to Weiner/Abedin (and who knows what “livid” means, anyway?)”

  1. M J R Says:

    “WHAT DIFFERENCE, AT THIS POINT, DOES IT MAKE???”

  2. CV Says:

    I choose door number 3:

    “..the Weiner/Abedins are reminding people of what was hardly Bill and Hillary’s finest hour, a memory the Clintons would rather have people forget if Hillary is to run successfully in 2016″

    I think Huma is finding out the hard way that even “surrogate daughters” get thrown under the bus if they stand in the way of naked ambition, so to speak. I wonder if she will be able to hang on to her lucrative professional gigs after all of this? What about the fancy NYC apartment owned by the big donor?

    Speaking of naked ambition, as we watch the latest episode in this tawdry saga unfold, it’s obvious that Huma more than matches her former boss and her husband in that regard. They must be pretty confident about his chances in this election to persist.

    They are an interesting couple (meaning the Weiner/Abedins). But I have wondered why none of the soft-focus profiles that have appeared since they started paving the way for his mayoral bid have touched on the disparity in their faith backgrounds. Can’t go there, I guess.

  3. Paul in Boston Says:

    “I have wondered why none of the soft-focus profiles that have appeared since they started paving the way for his mayoral bid have touched on the disparity in their faith backgrounds” or on her connections to the Muslim Brotherhood?

  4. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    First, regarding the word livid, I’m 64 and have always thought (since at least my teens) that livid referred to extreme anger. In fact, up until now, I had never heard it used in regard to a color. Perhaps its a regional thing?

    I don’t think the Clinton’s are ‘stunned’ at all. That’s rhetorical cover as excuse for their fear that this could tangentially harm Hillary’s 2016 prospects for the nomination.

    That fear is at least somewhat realistic because the parallels between the Clinton’s and Weiner’s are far too exact and obvious… there is no difference in principle between the Clinton’s and Weiner’s and that’s why the Clinton’s are upset. Nothing is more harmful to a candidate than scornful disdain.

    Given Hillary and Huma’s former very close association, this is too sweet for words. Hillary is asking Huma to place Hillary’s political ambitions ahead of her husbands. Talk about hypocrisy, why should Huma abandon her man, Hillary didn’t…

    Ah the irony, it couldn’t happen to nicer people.

  5. neo-neocon Says:

    Geoffrey Britain:

    “Livid”=”color” is most definitely NOT a regional thing. Read the link and you’ll see the lengthy and involved history.

    And yes, as I wrote in the post, I agree that they are angry because of the political fallout for them, and would have liked the connection not to have been made. Although of course the connection is obvious anyway.

  6. vanderleun Says:

    American Thinker has these thoughts:

    “The Huma Comedy now bewitching the media is an utter crock. The commentariat’s burning questions about the state of poor lil’ Huma’s marriage mask the cold truth: There is no Abedin/Weiner marriage.
    There’s only a political deal brokered by the Clintons: Weiner would marry Huma, Hillary’s top aide, to stop increasingly uncomfortable attention to Hillary’s intimate relationship with her. In turn, the Clintons would back Weiner’s bid to be New York mayor.
    When the pathetic Weiner committed a complete Twitter-ectomy of his Congressional career, The Plan temporarily derailed. But scandals that would force the rest of us to quiver in lifelong shame are mere temporary annoyances for this lot.”

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/empress_hillary_2016.html#ixzz2aSh9BtvR
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

  7. southpaw Says:

    Geoffrey Britain-
    Of course you have nailed the source of the livid Clintons. It might harm Hillary’s political future. God forbid her ugly tenure at State Dept be a negative. I would think she’d hide from the public and pray to God for forgiveness after Benghazi, but that would require humility and a soul.
    If there’s some small chance it’s true that she is genuinely shocked by the comparison, she must honestly believe she would have been a political force regardless of Bill’s success, which would make her delusional as well a soul-less corpse.

  8. Mizpants Says:

    Vanderleun, I believe it. When Huma appeared at the press conference at Anthony’s side (my God, can you even LOOK at him? Everything about him is penile, especially his neck, which is so veiny and shaft-like that — ugh) she shot somebody — doubtless an acquaintance in the press who knew the score — a big smile. The whole time, she looked like she was struggling to contain her laughter.

  9. Ira Says:

    1. I “sanction” the use of “livid.”
    2. I think the difference between Hillary and Huma is this: Hillary wasn’t sticking by her man despite his infidelities because Hillary lived by the story that the infidelities never occurred – they were merely the fictional creations of women who sought money or some connection to her husband; while on the other hand Huma is sticking by her man despite her man’s actually having committed the sexting.

  10. Ray Says:

    The young Hillary was good looking. She hasn’t aged well.

    I remember the humorous comparison of Hillary to Lady Macbeth. Hillary is wandering the halls of the white house at night carrying a blue dress and saying “out damned spot”.

  11. Charles Says:

    MizPants: “my God, can you even LOOK at him? Everything about him is penile, especially his neck, which is so veiny and shaft-like that — ugh”

    Thank you. I thought I was the only one who thought that it was more than just his name that was appropriate – he does look like that!

    As for the “men” mentioned in this post – help me out here ladies – I for the life of me can’t see either Bill or Anthony as being that good-looking in that I would want to get “involved” with either one. Is there something that some women see in either guy that is a turn on?

  12. Ymarsakar Says:

    How dare they speak truth to our power. They’ll have the IRS on them if they don’t shut up soon.

  13. Ymarsakar Says:

    Is there something that some women see in either guy that is a turn on?

    Power. Wealth. A future. Higher class identification. Marrying a man with a masters, Ph.D., or bachelor’s is different than marrying down to a high school graduate only.

    Or maybe they are Stepfords and the males have dominated them using Leftist psychological control, much like Stockholm syndrome.

  14. Steve Says:

    Hillary and Huma wriggling around together? That is an awful mental image. It does explain a lot though.

  15. neo-neocon Says:

    Ray:

    Actually, Hillary has aged in a perfectly fine, basically normal fashion. Would I call it “well”? Not especially. But it certainly isn’t “poorly.”

    Hillary was about 44 in that clip. That’s pretty young for a woman, still pre-menopausal, and most women look quite good at that age unless they’ve led a really dissipated life or are very heavy or ill or something, and even then they sometimes still look good.

    Hillary is now 65. That is a very different stage of life. We are used to seeing actresses of that age or others in public life who have tried to shore up their looks with a LOT of plastic/cosmetic surgery, and even they don’t always look so great (i.e. Nancy Pelosi, who doesn’t look her age but who looks plastic). Hillary has had a little cosmetic stuff done, but not much if any. She has the very typical sags of a woman her age, and she’s gained weight in a fashion not untypical of a woman her age. In some photos she looks old and tired, but she leads a fast-paced life that would tire most people her age. In other photos she still looks pretty good. I think people criticize her because they’re not used to 65-year-old women in the public eye, and because they don’t like her. If their own mother looked like that at 65, they’d think she looked good.

  16. Sgt. Mom Says:

    Charles, it’s all a very individual thing, sexual attraction. I don’t feel the least bit attracted to Wiener, or what I see of him in pictures, including the selfies that he was sending all over the place. He’s a scrawny, skinny Noo Yawk bundle of bad temper and worse perversions to me.
    Bill, now – I’ve read here and there that he is personally a very charming and charismatic person. Physically, (at least when younger) he would have been my type – a burly, energetic, charming and not-overly-handsome country-type guy. He strikes me as being fun to be with on a date. Maybe a little grabby at the door after the first date … but fun. I’d have given him at least a couple of dates. Wiener … no, I’d have excused myself quickly and run, shuddering.

  17. Ymarsakar Says:

    The Left likes to tell their slave and protectorate clients that men are oppressing them so they should do the divorce and single mother gig. That it is noble.

    However, glance at the Powers that Be and how they actually function, then ask yourself if such divorces are really of economic and spiritual benefit to the serfs.

  18. Lizzy Says:

    Huma owes her career to Hillary, as she started working for her as an intern while she was still attending GW and still works for her today. In addition, her recent consulting gigs were through Bill’s organization and one of his friends.
    It’s hard not to see Huma’s marriage to Weiner as some sort of business arrangement, and I find that scary considering her MB ties.

    If the Clintons really are mad (and this isn’t just some kabuki theater to separate Hillary from this scandal) I’d think it’s probably that they’re angry about how the scandal raises questions about the marriage the Clintons set up for Huma and what Huma is getting out of standing by her man.
    Bill & Hill had been dealing with this sort of thing for decades when the Monica scandal happened (just the latest bimbo eruption that Hilliary had long ago decided she could tolerate). Hillary had invested to many years in fostering Bill’s career to walk away. Huma, on the other hand, has a career separate from her relationship w/Weiner and not too many years invested in him. So again, what is worth the price of sticking by this sleaze after he’s twice been caught engaging in compulsive, deviant behavior?

  19. neo-neocon Says:

    Sgt. Mom:

    Agreed: Bill yes, Anthony no.

    Although attraction is a very variable thing, for me a man can be incredibly handsome but if he doesn’t have a great sense of humor it’s absolutely no go. And a great sense of humor and that certain something can cover a multitude of physical sins (in terms of imperfections and flaws, that is—I’m not into infidelity in men).

  20. Sgt. Mom Says:

    Hah! I tended to fall for amusing guys, really, no matter what they looked like. (Although, on going back, I think a lot of them reminded me of my father: tallish, fairish, intelligent, excellent with tools and auto mechanics – I had the maddest crush on the auto mech who took care of my Elderly Volvo at once particular assignment. Alas, he was married and happily!)

    It’s almost an axiom, isn’t it – that one tends to fall on a subconscious level for someone who reminds you of your opposite-sex parent? Your mother or father have set the pattern for what you like, or feel comfortable with, since they have been your first experience of an opposite-sex relation. A woman will always go for the guy who reminds her of her father, a guy for the woman who patterns his mother. If the relationship is an unhealthy or dysfunctional one … it isn’t a case of hilarity ensuing, is it?

    No, I have the greatest respect for vows of marriage … especially other peoples’. Now and again I would get hit on with the line, “My wife doesn’t understand me,” and I’d give them the bright smile and say something like, “I am so sorry – have you considered couples counseling? Ohhh – is that her over there? Introduce be to her, maybe I can talk to her about it!”

    Yeah, I had my b**chy moments.

  21. parker Says:

    “if he doesn’t have a great sense of humor it’s absolutely no go.”

    What is it with humor? Women often make a reference to humor as an appealing masculine attribute, but I don’t get it. Given a long list of comedians from Groucho to Lenny Bruce to Chris Rock which one would you choose to love and cherish you?

    I have a sense of humor, but I’m not humorous; although I can crack a joke or two. First and foremost I’m a dedicated rock that my wife of 44 years and my children and grandchildren know they can cling to come rain or shine. That is what I was schooled to be by parents and grandparents.

    An Iowa farmer got his first cutting of hay in the barn, all the beans and corn cultivated, and told his wife that it was 10 days until the county fair so he was going to take the time to visit Texas and see all the big farms and ranches.

    After driving for 2 days the Iowa farmer crossed the Texas line. He drove for many miles before he saw a Cadillac pulled over to the side of the road and a fellow with a ten gallon hat and alligator skin boots looking out over a vast pasture.

    The Iowan farmer pulled over and walked up to the man in the ten gallon hat and asked him what he was looking at. The Texan lifted the brow of his hat and looked at the Iowan farmer. He smiled and said I can start in my truck on the east side of my ranch at dawn and drive until the sunsets and I’m still on my property.

    The Iowa farmer paused for a while and then said I used to have a truck like that myself.

  22. Mike Says:

    The devils always turn on their own eventually.

    The Clintons, we can hope, will be eaten by the little demons they spawned.

  23. neo-neocon Says:

    parker:

    What is it with humor?

    I feel a post coming on—it’s a topic I’ve thought a lot about, because, as you say, it doesn’t necessarily make sense, at least at first blush, why it should be so very important.

    Here’s what it is for me: almost everyone I’ve ever been close to has had a good sense of humor, and I come from a family that joked a lot. I do NOT mean set pieces, like telling jokes (although a few family members, and friends of mine, are excellent at that, too). Plus—although you might not know it from this blog :-)—in real life I make quite a few witticisms myself.

    There are several reasons it’s very important to me, but the biggest one is that it’s one of the ways I can tell if people have minds and outlooks on life that are simpatico with me. For other people, it might be something else, but for me, humor is a real “tell” that let’s me know whether a person is on my wavelength. So it’s not just humor per se, it’s humor of a certain type that shows the person “gets” it. It’s not just ANY humor. The men I like have all been funny guys, but I most definitely don’t fall for guys JUST because they’re funny (not Woody Allen, not Groucho Marx). In other words, humor is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition.

    Humor of the type I’m talking about shows a lot more than humor: wit, intelligence, creativity (because it’s ad lib humor), the ability to think outside the box. That person is not boring; that person is playful, fun. What’s more, humor can help get you through the inevitable dark times.

    Plus, it’s not really a choice. I have never been attracted to a man who doesn’t have a very good sense of humor, although some have had a better sense of humor than others. And the ones I’ve had the longest and strongest relationships with have been the funniest.

  24. Cornhead Says:

    Hillary was in Omaha last Friday at a private party for Susie Buffett.

    If I would have seen her my words would be, “You are a disgrace Secr. Clinton. You always have been.”

  25. southpaw Says:

    Lizzy – Hillary could have walked away at anytime. She came from money, had a law degree and a practice, but chose to be the victimized wife as if it were an act of heroism. If it was as you say, an investment, it doesn’t say much for her own confidence or competence.
    In my opinion, her record speaks for itself – irresponsible, dependent, incompetent, with a sense that shes entitled to be senator or president because she put up with her husband’s open infidelity. Yet she is held up by other women in the media as the opposite – strong, independent, and a “wonk”.
    Hillary’s arrangement with Bill is either a business arrangment, or she’s got abysmally low self esteem. Let’s be honest, it’s not the latter. – she traded all self respect for power. A lot of people do similar things, but she will never admit that Bill was her ticket to the inner circle. And thats why she’s pissed off now- because the media are implying her success wasn’t because of her brilliance.

  26. J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:

    “Weiner’s campaign manager quits – his staff is shrinking.” Greg Gutfeld.

    For some views about the Bill/Hil and Anthony/Huma comparisons go here:
    http://video.foxnews.com/v/2572968103001/report-clintons-livid-at-weiner-scandal-comparisons/?playlist_id=2114913880001

    15 minutes, but a few insights.

    Hannity had a series of video clips tonight (I can’t find them on the Fox site) showing the Clintons and the Weiners saying almost identical phrases. If I was the Clinton’s I would be mortified (LIVID?) as well. Both couples are examples of the low standards among democrats.

    The question is, does philandering matter? Apparently not, especially if you are a democrat. IMO, it’s one thing for a man (or woman) to cheat in a marriage and then either get divorced or repair the marriage. That shows some commitment. To be exposed as a cheater and then continue on (often with the enabling of a spouse like Hillary/Huma) as if you’ve changed or resolved things, shows a person with low personal moral standards. I don’t want a person like that in my employ. (Remember, the politicians work for us – a fact we seem to have forgotten.) I guess I’m just old and out of step.

  27. J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:

    Now this is funny. And short.
    http://thehud.com/2013/07/its-just-about-sex/

  28. Rich Says:

    for the Clintons, the lying and the standing-by were justified by the fact that they were Clintons. The Weiners are not Clintons. Therefore, they have no right to be compared to the Clintons.

  29. raf Says:

    If my memory is functioning correctly, always an iffy proposition, I first heard “livid” relating to anger as part of the phrase “livid with anger,” meaning red-faced as a result of strong emotion. In that context it made obvious sense as an intensifier — extremely angry. I suppose that over time, the “with anger” part came to be assumed, no longer needing to be expressed.

  30. Lizzy Says:

    Southpaw – I completely agree, it’s just that Hillary was finally forced to publicly acknowledge her husband’s behavior so late in the game that it makes sense for her to hang in for the payoff – her Senate election, presidential run & SoS. Huma has no such investment in Weiner for there to be much of a payoff for hanging on; her investment is in Hillary, her primary employer since graduating college.

    JJ – The fact that Hillary & Huma used the same language seems to me to support the idea that maybe the Clinton outrage is staged (with Hillary assisting behind the scenes).

    Maybe amidst all this scandal and Clinton comparisons the MSM will finally acknowledge that the Clintons have been separated since Hillary left the White House. There may have been some overlap in the NY house, but shortly after she was elected to the Senate, Hillary purchased a mansion in DC and has lived there with her mother (until she passed) ever since. Meanwhile, Bill has continued to be based in NY with his NYC office and busy travel schedule. I’m amazed that the MSM is still selling them as some sort of dream political marriage.

  31. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Bill and Hillary has always been a marriage of shared political ambitions.

    The Weiners are in an illegal marriage, (Bill Clinton is not a minister) a marriage of convenience and its quite possible that it’s never been consummated. Which would explain Weinstein’s internal ‘pressure’ and the apparent obsessiveness of his behavior.

    Huma is a Muslim Brotherhood Operative who is practicing, “Murana” an advanced Sunni Muslim form of Taqiyya.

    The Sunni Muslim Brotherhood has revived “the doctrine of ‘Muruna’, which literally means “stealth” or “flexibility.” It is far worse than taqiyya (permitted lying), since it sanctions all prohibitions that block Muslim interests, even blasphemous ones.

    Muruna allows Muslims to sow division and confusion in the Western world. In a recent sermon, this doctrine was exercised by General Guide of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Muhammad Badei, who laid out his vision for the post-revolutionary era while revealing aspects of a strategy followers should use to deal with secularism in the meantime:

    “Do not fight the ways of the world because they are overpowering but try to overcome and use them, change their course, and pit some of them against others.”

    That Huma is standing by Weiner and angering Hillary is puzzling. Huma staying loyal to Hillary gives her an absolute lock on just about any position of influence she might desire in a 2016 Clinton administration.

  32. Ymarsakar Says:

    When women speak of humour, I interpret that to mean security and fun. Or to put it another way, to show a woman sublime beauty in the world so that she can may pursue her own emotions and vision of beauty, with a partner though as a companion on the journey.

    Chi gong inhalation of oxygen allows for euphoric effects, stress relief, and longevity. One reason, perhaps, why married couples have extended life expectancy if their accumulated joy is greater than their accumulated stress. Since joy is greater than the sum total of each person’s happiness.

    Laughter produces an exhalation, which utilizes inhaled oxygen as an activation source to provide energy to the body and thus to the spirit/soul as well. The exhalation process can be so hard, people feel pain in their abdomen or sides. That is one kind of joy and one kind of “life”.

    As for security, obviously we cannot laugh if we are in a life and death situation. Except for the rare adrenaline junkies that like facing death for excitement. Most people start keeping their mouths shut at the time when they are in a snake pit. True fear disables a person’s ability to hear and scream. CPU cycles needed for more important things (like running and motor controls and vision).

    Laughter, as a way to fight sadness, tragedy, and stress, is a valuable commodity. And if it is offered in a marriage alliance, it may overcome other personality flaws, lack of money, or lack of social status for some women.

  33. DNW Says:

    neo-neocon Says:
    July 29th, 2013 at 2:36 pm

    Geoffrey Britain:

    “Livid”=”color” is most definitely NOT a regional thing. Read the link and you’ll see the lengthy and involved history.

    And yes, as I wrote in the post, I agree that they are angry because of the political fallout for them, and would have liked the connection not to have been made. Although of course the connection is obvious anyway.”

    Reading old pulp fiction from the early decades of the 20th century, or even earlier, one saw references to faces, “dark with anger”.

    If someone analogized livid as in bruise, with dark and glowering, the use might make some sense.

    Livid as pale? Maybe it referred to a shade of lifelessness, blood-drained or congealed. Or maybe, probably, not.

  34. Sam L. Says:

    It’s their own damned fault that the acolytes learned the “gurus”‘ lessons do well–they were shown “the way”.

  35. IGotBupkis, "Faeces Evenio", Mr. Holder? Says:

    }}} (and who knows what “livid” means, anyway?)

    Ummm. It’s used to refer to the color of the head….

    Right?

    :o9

  36. Beverly Says:

    Maybe the use of the word “livid” is a regional habit. I’ve heard it used to mean “furious” all my life.

    /Carolina Girl

    Also, watching that clip in the light of what we learned later, that Billy Jeff was lying and smiling and lying his ass off through the whole thing, it just burns me up. They really are brazen and utterly unscrupulous.

  37. Ymarsakar Says:

    Livid just meant angry to me, based upon the inference that the person’s facial colors had changed. Changed as to what, who knows.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge