Jimmy Carter writing for DailyKos

By

Is there no depth low enough for the ex—Submariner? The Weekly Standard reports ($link)

On March 23, the leftist blog/nuthouse known as the Daily Kos upped its prestige factor to unprecedented levels, when former President Jimmy Carter wrote a "diary" for the site. That's right——one of the 43 men to serve as president of this country decided to strut his blogging stuff in an arena where the current president is frequently referred to as a chimp, a stooge, and a Nazi.

Obviously thrilled at being in the presence of, well, not greatness but renown of a sort, over 600 Kos community members commented on Carter's diary. So great was the response, Carter felt called to post a follow—up diary dealing with the many "questions" his original diary provoked.

Carter's follow—up reprinted eight questions. As luck would have it, fully seven of the eight also just happened to include a seemingly irrelevant but obsequious tribute to the former president, which Carter carefully reproduced.

Strikingly insecure, no?

Ed Lasky  4 4 06

Is there no depth low enough for the ex—Submariner? The Weekly Standard reports ($link)

On March 23, the leftist blog/nuthouse known as the Daily Kos upped its prestige factor to unprecedented levels, when former President Jimmy Carter wrote a "diary" for the site. That's right——one of the 43 men to serve as president of this country decided to strut his blogging stuff in an arena where the current president is frequently referred to as a chimp, a stooge, and a Nazi.

Obviously thrilled at being in the presence of, well, not greatness but renown of a sort, over 600 Kos community members commented on Carter's diary. So great was the response, Carter felt called to post a follow—up diary dealing with the many "questions" his original diary provoked.

Carter's follow—up reprinted eight questions. As luck would have it, fully seven of the eight also just happened to include a seemingly irrelevant but obsequious tribute to the former president, which Carter carefully reproduced.

Strikingly insecure, no?

Ed Lasky  4 4 06