Let us interpolate here some reflections upon the matter of what constitutes "proof" in cases such as the one before us. Now, Mr. Leibniz pretty much coined the the concept of "sufficient reason." (If one can be said to have "coined" a concept, that is.) The exemplar of the most elegant usage of this methodology takes us far afield from the topic that I broached above. (However, not too far, given the identity and namesake of this blog.) Recall, if you will, the so-called "Longfellow Wars" that Mr. Poe engaged in. Ah, but this does give some little piquancy to that oft quoted bit of doggerel: "He's a poet and didn't know it because his nose is a Longfellow." (With apologies to Messers Sterne and Gogol. They of Tristram Shandy and The Nose eclat, you see.) But, I digress. Back to the issue at hand. In that series of verbal rencounters, if you will, betwixt Edgar and Longfellow's pseudonymous defender Outis, ((((("nobody" in school boy Greek (probably plagiarized from Homer.(!))) ((I hope that's quite enough parentheses. (My Kingdom for an editor.)))))) the issue was not so much a plagiarism in the sense of a "word for word type" plagiarism, but rather, the more hard to prove and thereby more devious one of plagiarizing content.
Now, what has this to do with the by now dimly remembered issue referenced above?, the restive reader will be seeming to urge. To wit: Ms. Douglas was unconsciously practicing the principle that the great Schiller illumined in The Cranes of Ibykus. Which is to say, she is covering for an hysterical reaction (a freakout, in common parlance) by Obama's inner circle (read especially Rahm Emanuel,) to the exposure of the content of the healthcare legislation. You see earlier that year as Mr. Emanuel's brother Ezekiel was testifying on behalf of the principle of "cost containment" in healthcare, he was unceremoniously taken to task in no uncertain terms, i.e. as a fascist, by Tony Chaitkin, a LaRouche partisan. Ms. Douglas would not want to bring any attention to this, because it is de rigueur, in such circles, never refer to LaRouche by name,thereby giving him too much credit, rather to either pronounce the words "extremist" or in this case the rather watered down term of "fishy." Not to alienate the "Reagan Democrats" more than necessary. Remember, Sarah Palin was calling the IMAB provisions, death panels by now. Republicans in general were openly criticizing the bill as leading to rationing on the floor of the Congress. So, frankly speaking, there was no need for Ms. Douglas to be so obtuse in her warning of fishy emails, in the tradition of erstwhile usage of the term "dark forces" by Politburo types. Did she somehow want to track Mr.or Mrs. Jones surrepticious visits to certain "dark forces" websites?
Well now you see the results of this type of behavior among the Obamaites and their media hangers-on. Even the pollsters, a notoriously obfuscating bunch, are showing overwhelming popular resistance, and I use that term advisedly, to the healthcare legislation. So how does Barack react to the disastrous election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts? Fishily. One: change the subject. Talk about jobs, jobs, jobs. Throw Geithner under the bus. Bring Volker in as a placebo to the "populists." Two: connive in mysterious ways behind the scenes to get the budget cutting IMAB provision in no matter what. Very fishy, indeed. QED.