Been checking out some great stuff over at the Huffington Post tonight. You have to see this illustration from David Mamet’s blog. Just classic. If Bush is a man of his word, he should rise to the challenge set forth by Mr. Mamet. Just brilliant.

Also, Huffington herself covers the story of Bill Clinton’s endorsement of Joe Lieberman in the mid-term Senate elections over real Democratic challenger, Ned Lamont. This will, I believe, be the first time that I have ever hoped that Bill Clinton’s influence on an election backfires, and it really pains me to say this. Of course, it’s not surprising that President Clinton would endorse Lieberman and his position on the Iraq occupation, given Hillary’s very well known stance on the issue. I’ve been thinking lately that Hillary and Joe are of the same mold, but I don’t really think that’s true. You see, Hillary does, in fact, have a Democratic challenger, but she is ahead by such a wide margin in the polls that she doesn’t need to worry about running as an independent. However, I believe that even if the race for that Senate seat was tighter, Mrs. Clinton still wouldn’t stoop to the levels that Lieberman has. Lieberman does not like to play on an even playing field. He was the favored candidate until recently (when Lamont’s recent poll numbers have him ahead by ten points in the primary, and still he has so little confidence in his ability to be re-elected that he has to go and form an independent party (the Connecticut for Lieberman party, no less) so that he can run against Lamont should the good Democratic voters of Connecticut decide that they would rather put Mr. Lamont in that seat. Doesn’t that sound a whole lot like dirty pool? But I’ve talked about Joe’s lack of respect for the rules of the game before, so it’s to be expected. I guess it’s all to be expected. I was just surprised is all.

But one thing is certain. Lieberman has to be desperate to call in a favor of this magnitude. We’re talking more desperate than creating a new political party to CYA. After all, it was Lieberman who couldn’t get out of his seat fast enough to lash out at Clinton from the Senate floor during the whole Kenneth Starr bru-ha-ha (yes, I stole that link from the Huffington article). So much for party unity, eh? Party unity! Isn’t that what Lieberman is crying about now? Democrats should rise up and support him and be “all inclusive” of candidates who decide they don’t really need to carry the voice of the people they represent to the Senate? Ugh. This piece at Daily Kos spells out exactly how Clinton got called up to Connecticut, but it seems as if the truth and Lieberman’s version of the truth are two very different things.

Huffington also points out an obvious error the usually eloquent Clinton made when talking about Lieberman’s stance on the issues, noting that Clinton called the Iraq war the “pink elephant in the room.” Um, Mr. Clinton? I guess you haven’t been reading the papers or the internet, or anything else about this campaign because Iraq is the central issue here!!!

She also ends the piece with a must-read “exclusive preview” of what President Clinton was to say on the stump. All I can say is that someone must’ve fed her a very early version of the speech.

The shakedown happens two weeks from today.

Meanwhile, definitely check out Lieberman’s Music Video over on YouTube. Great stuff.

Oh yeah, and Hannity STILL claims that we found WMDs in Iraq.