She used to hide her affiliation. In the mid-1990s, she was married to millionaire Michael Huffington, and was widely acknowledged as the mastermind behind his political ambitions. Born in Greece (as Arianna Stassinopoulos), she could never hope to attain the White House on her own, so she prodded her husband, scion of a conservative family, to enter politics. She was then a Republican ueber-networker devoted to a Libertarian screw-the-poor philosophy. If Paris Hilton asked a Marvel comics writer to help her formulate a world domination scheme, she'd be trodding in Arianna's Manohlo-prints.
In 1994, all politically savvy people in Santa Barbara (the Huffington home base) understood her public image to be a lie. Michael Huffington hid his homosexuality to please conservative voters. Arianna insisted to the press that she belonged to the Orthodox Church, even though "her" bishop stated that no-one could be considered a communicant who had been baptized or inducted into another faith. Life 102 contains a picture of Arianna being re-baptized by John-Roger.
Normally, someone well-known to have lied about matters of sex and spirituality would have forfeited all credibility. But Arianna transcends the rules.
After "Mike" Huffington lost his $30 million senate run to Dianne Feinstein, and after the dissolution of their "marriage," many thought that Arianna had fibbed her last fib, at least in public. Even the right-wing radio hosts in California, who never speak out against their own, mocked her ambition and her accent. The standard comparisons went to Lady MacBeth and Zsa-Zsa.
Then her columns began running in the Los Angeles Times.
I was not the only person asking: How does she do it? At a time when both the right and left laughed at her, at a time when few people cared to hear her opinions on any subject, she somehow scored a gig beyond the reach of most others.
As one writer in Hollywood explained it to me (with a sigh that still resounds in memory), there is an oligarchy, a heirarchy, a clique, a club.
Arianna knew the right people, she had money, and she carried an aura of glamor. The average Californian considered her a joke -- but in her world, average people do not count. She knew the people who counted.
She charms and she woos. Her schedule is insane. At her "salons" you'll find Diane Keaton, Nora Ephron and Jane Fonda. Bloggers on her site, which draws three million readers a month, include Norman Mailer and David Mamet. She's been called ruthless, "the most upwardly mobile Greek since Icarus"...After doing everything she could to derail Bill Cleeeen-ton and Al Gore, she switched ideologies the way some women change hairstyles, gliding into the Democratic Party as though she owned the place. Which, arguably, she now does.
Maintaining the last name of an ex who had every right to feel embittered (even though she held onto her birth name throughout much of the marriage), she now runs the Huffington Post. She may have entered the blogging game late -- 2004 -- yet the site prospered, thanks to her celebrity contributors. Even though many Democrats will never forgive her calumnies against the Cleeeen-tons, even though she remains a priestess of her creepy gay pseudoChrist, even though she forced another gay man to conceal his sexuality in order to further her Blofeld-esque ambitions, even though she first came to public attention as an opponent of feminism, and even though many suspect her political shift to be either feigned or superficial, her internet home is now considered "the most potent force in American politics."
There is an oligarchy, a heirarchy, a clique, a club...
And if you are in that club -- if you're made -- nothing can touch you. Consider, for example, the convincing allegations of plagiarism which followed the pubication of two of her books.
...she made her living prior to her ill-fated marriage to Michael Huffington and the founding the Huffington Post by being nothing more nor less than a rank, intentional plagiarist — politely speaking, an intellectual thief — whose publisher(s) have had to pay very, very big bucks, not “nuisance-value” payments, to settle significant plagiarism lawsuits filed against her. Moreover, with a little investigation one can find on the internet the fact that this great liberal, populist Ms. Huffington showed that she stood lockstep and heart-and-soul with the little people she so avidly supports by one year making more than $900,000 in income but paying way, way way less than 10% of that in taxes.A plagiarism scandal of that sort would destroy most other writers. But not Arianna.
It is this high-octane power networking that has allowed the Post to gather the greatest roster of celebrity names in the blogosphere, from media stars such as Tina Brown and Norman Mailer to Hollywood figures like John Cusack, Tim Robbins, Steve Martin, Alec Baldwin and Larry David. There are also politicians such as John Kerry and Gary Hart and, amazingly, not one of these contributors gets paid.There is an oligarchy, a heirarchy, a clique, a club...
Three weeks ago, Arianna (who lives in a mansion in Brentwood) declared that Barack Obama -- the man who seems to function as her Jesus No. 2, after John-Roger -- "is no elitist."
I must concede her expertise on the topic of elitism.
8 comments:
As we wait for someone to put down Hillary "Eight Belles" Clinton's campaign, and look forward to Obama vs. McCain (prediction: Obama wins) I am left wondering if you are going to continue your anti-Obama campaign after the election.
Yes. And you will eventually join me. That is MY prediction.
"even though she forced another gay man to conceal his sexuality"
How does a woman do that? I'm not fan of Arianna, to say the least, but I think here, you may have shown you are as off your rocker as the Obama-bots are off theirs.
j., in the 1990s, I was going to write a piece on Arianna -- and then McWilliams' book came out, rendering anything I might say superfluous. In the course of my research, I talked to a number of people in Santa Barbara, including Republicans who worked on the Huffington campaign.
They seemed genuinely puzzled by what they saw. Michael was weirdly passive. Everyone I spoke to said that he probably would not be involved in politics at all if not for her all-too-obvious intentions of ruling from behind the throne.
Subsequent events have buttressed that theory. He hasn't run for office, has he? He does not even write on political subjects.
Of course, there were other psychological forces at work in that situation. For one thing, Michael Huffington had a strange relationship with his highly conservative father.
Still, I believe that he would never have entered the House if not for Arianna. And I am not the only one who thinks that way.
I do not mean to imply that she forced him at gunpoint, or anything of that nature. The forces involved were psychological.
For a fictional equivalent, I suppose I would direct your attention to the relationship between Barbara Stanwyck and Kirk Douglas in "The Strange Love of Martha Ivers."
(Which is a good movie, despite the corny title. Go here:
http://www.classiccinemaonline.com/a/index.php?option=com_fireboard&func=view&catid=38&id=95&Itemid=79)
As my father used to say to me, "People don't make you do anything except what you want to do."
Arianna Huffington has been on my shitlist since she wrote some dumb little piece of anti-feminist dreck called THE FEMALE WOMAN (yes, look it up). And Michael Huffington is a creepazoid.
But no one forced him into anything. He was a willing accomplice in a con. You could as easily say he "used" Arianna to get her womb and genes to do what he wasn't honest enough to pay a surrogate to do. And I would not, because I don't think that's what happened.
They are just a couple of slippery eels - made for each other, in a way.
I don't have much opinion about Arianna, but making fun of her accent is puerile. Second, there may be a club, clique, etc., but Arianna isn't part of it so much as she's co-opting it. As long as she stays on the side of the angels, I'm alright with that. As for John-Roger, that's creepy. And as for her ambition: again, if she stays on the side of the angels...
as always joseph, great reporting. thanks for keeping us informed.
J: Oddly, I don't think Michael Huffington is a creepazoid. I think that he was at one time too easily influenced -- by his wfie, by his Dad, by his social circle -- but that he achieved independence.
I know that the Republicans I talked to suggested that they would more easily vote for him if SHE weren't involved.
I should correct myself. Michael has kept a hand in political matters. He writes occasionally for -- believe it or not -- the Huffington Post. And he started something called the Republican Leadershp Council, which tries to wed fiscal conservatism to social flexibility, within the Republican party.
As for your "willing accomplice in a con" charge -- well, I would say: yes and no.
I mean, yeah, he's responsible for his actions, as are we all.
But we've all seen how psychological dominance can lead people into strange places. I've seen it happen all the damn time. Most marriages fall into a Dom/sub pattern, and men are NOT necessarily the "D" partner.
The relationship need not be sexual. The same dynamic can be at work any time one person acquires a psychological "one up" position over another.
I mean, think of the period when Malcolm X fell under the mental sway of Elijah Muhammed.
In fact, if you turn to the area of religion, you can see that the phenomenon manifests itself all the time. Most cult leaders have a "number 2" person -- think Elron and Miscaivage, Liz and Mark Prophet, Jim Jones and Larry Layton, Crowley and Victor Neuberg. I write these words not far away from the old stomping grounds of Charlie and Tex.
Sometimes the Number 2 declares independence; sometimes he waits until he can inherit the group.
Arianna is unusual in that she was Number 2 in her relationship with J-R, and -- according to the reports I've heard -- Number 1 in her relationship with Mike.
As for me: I am neither a 1 nor a 2. I am not a number. I am a FREE MAN!!!
Post a Comment