Susan is getting more and more desperate every passing day. Soon I expect her to write about her trips to the gas station. But the people who are really at fault, as always, are whoever is publishing her.

I hear a large number of (largely conservative) pundits trashing Arianna Huffington. I have not heard one pundit yet question himself - why did I get suckered in by this woman years ago? Why am I so shallow in my perceptions that I'll go to bat for any smooth talker who seems to share my views?

I heard Dennnis Prager saying Arianna was a very sad woman because of her shift from right to left. No introspection, however, on Prager's part, for his vigorous support for her when her husband ran for US Senate.

It's similar to when I left Christianity and converted to Judaism. Many of my Christian friends wanted nothing to do with me. People become uncomfortable around those who change. We're only comfortable around those who are like us.

I read both the columns you cited and found that Estrich gave emotional depth to her column on Bryant's accuser by recounting her own experiences. I was moved by what she wrote and came away with greater insight into what rape victims experience.

Both Estrich and Huffington write well and have something to say, but there's a sincerity and emotional depth to Estrich I don't sense with Huffington. My own views are moderately left of center and I suppose I fundamentally agree with a number of the positions Huffington has staked out in her most recent incarnation, but she makes me very uneasy.

Yes, she's terribly articulate in a glib "Oxbridge" sort of way. And, yes, people can change. But the biggest constants for Arianna seem to be self-aggrandizement and overweening ambition. She is, after all, someone who attempted to buy a Senate seat with her husband's wealth just a few years ago.

I think Estrich is right on the mark (her jibe at Hollywood included).

If she doesn't poll well enough to get invited to the debate(s), will it be worth it for her?

I think Estrich is jealous. She'd like to be as courted by the Hollywood "intelligensia", but she looks funny on camera, doesn't have nearly as much money, and she's not as "classy".

Arianna did write some pretty well-reviewed books, and Susan wrote about her cabbage diet.

Arianna is a wonderful writer, (Picasso and Callas to name a few)and a critic who is right on the mark. That said and aside from her complete shift from right to left,I don't think a elective office is the best place for her. We need more critics with a brain.
By the way, whats wrong with being ambition? Have you looked at Arnold lately?

It sounds to me like Estrich has jealousy issues. It's no wonder her story hasn't been picked up by any major outlets, although I'm sure Rush Limbaugh would like it.

Points Estrich makes are as follows:

1. "Huffington has no chance of winning. Never did." - Huffington has a very GOOD chance of winning, especially with the nature of this election.

2. "She is running on a platform she didn't even believe in a few years ago. Nor is it one she lives by." - Being able to change one's mind is the sign of an enlightened person. Also, Estrich doesn't give any important examples of this hypocrisy she speaks about.

3. "This is, after all, the woman who runs against oil interests and lives in a mansion financed by oil money." - So what? Arianna truly believes in what she speaks about, and it's great poetic justice that oil money is helping fuel Arianna's campaign against it.

4. ".. rails against pigs at the trough and pays no taxes .." - An assertion Arianna has proven baseless.

5. ".. runs as an independent and supports a guru .." - What does "supporting a guru" have to do with someone's political affiliation? Dumb assertion.