Harriet Grant, Scooter's spouse, is highly-placed in the Democratic party hierarchy. She was one of the Democrats who vetted Anita Hill. And apparently she still commands power and influence in the Party.
She is in every way, probably, the very epitomy of probity, a woman of thoroughly modest and moderate, matronly behaviour and demeanor; an admirable and honorable spouse.
Yet there would only be ONE thing that might inhibit me from entrusting to her important, sensitive information about the Democratic party, its workings, plans, and strategies: she is the wife of I.I.("Scooter") Libby.
It's a trifle, really; of no necessary weight or relevance, given Ms. Grant's stirling pedigree and her outstandiong qualities. I dishonor her, I'm sure, by the merest act of harboring a suspicion about any improperieties; and should any have occurred, surely they would n ever have been intentional betrayals of political trust.
Never happen. Never. Really. Of COURSE Not!!!
Why, even intimating that Ms. Grant could have been a "mole" in the Democratic Party--albeit unwittingly, perhaps--diminishes me, doesn't it? It certainly makes me appear paranoid, one of the tin-foil-clad madmen clamoring foolishly about conspiracy and collusion everywhere, as if there were some kind of malign design at work, aimed at ... who knows what, exactly...if i knew, they'd probably have to kill me.
I guess that's a risk one takes. The same way that the corpoRat boardrooms of the Stock Exchange and the biggest, richest, most powerful economic institutions are populated by people drawn from the same economic and social pool and are all incestuously linked through the (daisy) chain of interlocking directorships, so the (only) two political parties are also in an incestuous relation, though this one seems to be consumated in the bedrooms of DC and environs.
The Libbys are but one symptom of this interlocking sexual "congress." The Carville/Matalin thing is another and, if one added together all the cross-party, or even apolitical, unions there among those relatively small number in the 'leadership' culture of the country, analogies with the teevee pot-boiler "Rome" were difficult to miss...or dismiss--the more so the more familiar one is with, say, Graves' "Claudius" books.
It may be, at bottom, this incestuousness--which is seemingly either more common, or less concealed, than hitherto--that gives rise to the not-implausible allegations by Chomsky, Nader, Vidal, and other critics of the more-than-occasional difficulties they report in discerning any actual differences between the two Parties.