Friday, May 27, 2005



In the interests of full disclosure-- something GOP propagandist Bob Novak never does under any circumstances-- let me start off by saying I am indeed, among other things, what the Right wing hacks call "a Hollywood liberal" (although I live somewhat northeast of Hollywood).

Today on her CNN blabfest Judy Woodruff interviewed Bob Novak. Although the main point of the incestuous and asinine "interview" was to plug Novak's own CNN blabfest (in other words, were Novak not a CNN talking head the chances of this so-called interview having taken place were exactly zero), Woodruff started off by mentioning that Novak had been "out in Hollywood talking with Liberals." I looked up from the bills I was paying; Woodruff had actually gotten my attention. I mean, why would any Liberal, Hollywood or otherwise, talk with what all Liberals see as a lowlife bottom feeder like Bob Novak? Hopefully a court of law will determine whether or not Novak committed treason in the case of Valerie Plame, but meanwhile Liberals have good reason-- in fact, many, many, many good reasons executed systematically and publicly over many decades-- to be suspicious of him, and, by the way, reason enough to NOT talk to him, especially not candidly. So what exactly did Woodruff think was so newsworthy about Novak's exclusive discussions with Hollywood Liberals that she would take up valuable time that could have been used to ask people like Scott McClellan if he was considering resigning after his credibility, or what was left of it, was destroyed when the Pentagon admitted Korans have been desecrated in order to manipulate Moslem prisoners in U.S. custody or to ask Bill Frist to explain how Pricilla Owens' long and clear record of always ruling in favor of corporate interests over the rights of individuals was going to help his constituents in Tennessee? Well it turns out, Bob Novak was getting the inside scoop on how Hollywood Liberals weren't in favor of Hillary Clinton running for President. Odd that CNN should decide to "do" this piece on the very day that USA TODAY should run a piece by Susan Page entitled
"Majority Say They'd Be Likely to Vote for Clinton." What a coincidence! The article starts with a clear statement that must have given Novak chest pains. "WASHINGTON (May 27) -- For the first time, a majority of Americans say they are likely to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.
The survey shows that the New York senator and former first lady has broadened her support nationwide over the past two years, though she still provokes powerful feelings from those who oppose her." And so on.

But Novak had even more insider scoop he got from The Hollywood Liberals. I swear I'm not making this up. He laid it on Woodruff's viewers who the Hollywood elite is getting behind. Evan Bayh. Did they like Evan Bayh because he's even more conservative than the thoroughly despised Joseph Lieberman? Well, Woodruff's show doesn't go into matters like that to begin with but Novak had one word to describe Bayh's appeal over Clinton (on the day USA TODAY was reporting she would likely beat anyone the Republicans would put up in '08). Actually it was two words-- "good looking." Yes, indeed, Bob Novak went to Hollywood and found out that Hollywood Liberals are not backing semi-liberal Hillary Clinton because they like very conservative Evan Bayh because he's "good looking."

So I called some of my Hollywood Liberals friends. Not one would admit to having ever talked to Bob Novak. Several said they would consider punching him in the nose if he tried to talk to them. Not one said they preferred Evan Bayh over Hillary Clinton. I did find one, however, who thought Evan Bayh is better looking than Hillary and that person is gay.


Post a Comment

<< Home