Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
The best case for voting against Hillary that I've seen.
I am an expert on what ails Bill Clinton -and his wife Hillary. Seejewsyonkersislamiii-tc.blogspot.comAND Below are 10 postings from Ann Altman's blog about my postings on women,# sexual intercourse, sexism, homophobia... and I will touch on each shortly# ( and more fully) below...as I literally rape feminism, homosexuality.... But, as a general introduction, allow me to note that I am a connoiseur of sexual intercourse with a woman, having had "it" 30,000 to 60,000 times (I'm an oold man). Every time I went to Honk Kong, Korea, the Phillipines, Chile, Peru, Bolivia.... ANYWHERE in the world I went ( and I've been around the world more times than you could shake a stick at) I stayed in whore houses -for they're cheaper... and they have much more interesting sights than you'd believe.# For one thing, the "mound of Venus" is unique. For it (under and moving under that spot just above a man's prick during sex) creates a spark in a man leading to, amoung other things, cries of pure bliss by that man, sounding like the squeal of a stuck pig, a bull moose or an elephant trumpeting... So it can help women to have a prominent mound as the size affects the spark.# In addition, I've often been puzzled about the differences between homo-# sexuality/faggot-hood and charisma/hero-worship. And I now see it as a matter of degree, influenced quite negatively (towards homosexuality) by feminism. For feminism, being cyclical, quite naturally (and wrongly) introduces degredation,# shame, guilt, incompetence, impotence...into the normally oppositional makeup of a man's (xy; X vs Y) masculinity. For feminism is really no more than a dead femininity, a kind of frozen cyclicity. For it freezes and suppresses real/living femininity which is eternally cyclical (xx; X after X after X...). Cycles are revolutions, just like day and night, life and living... And that's what women are for, not for dead feminism.
Yea, I'm all for putting Bill back in the Oval Office ... so he can clean up the semen stains he left behind.
"I am prepared to pay the price of supporting Hillary just to get Bill Clinton once again padding over the shag pile carpet of the Oval Office...... even if it is only to bring his wife a cup of tea." But I thought since the Lewinsky affair that the above statement was already the motto of the coalition of women's groups that includes Emily's List, NOW and NARAL.Seriously.
As Boris is running for Mayor of London, I imagine that both Bill & Hillary are polling well in the UK.
Hairybuddha wonders if it was thinking about Bill Clinton that brought to mind the word shag when Boris Johnson was contemplating words to describe the White House under a Clinton presidency.
Loved the comments Boris got to that article. I don't think the people reading it think much of the Clintons and they read them for the trailer trash they are.
Curious that a British politician is willing to "pay the price of supporting Hillary" as if anyone but Americans will pay the immediate price of her presidency. What a poseur. In the long run, of course, all the West will pay the price - irrespective of our faithless "allies" not seeming to think there is much of a price to be paid anyhow.
What an odd article. The reason he gives for not wanting Rudy Giuliani to be President is... that Rudy isn't married to Bill Clinton? Schwa?
It must really irk conservatives to realize that Bill Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating, and if anything his popularity has gone up since then.Yeah that's the ticket to beating Hillary all right, keep on bashing Bill.Go ahead. Make my day.
pisseur de copie--Muriel SparkNot to hector, or anything.
Apart from any other issue, apart from any affiliation, apart from any anything else ... as a writer, as opposed to a pisseur de copie, how could anyone U.K. pen (keyboard) what was excerpted as the title of this post and not catch the obvious?I referenced what I referenced, having observed what I observed, for a reason.Puh-leeze. And jeez.
It must really irk conservatives to realize that Bill Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating, and if anything his popularity has gone up since then.And yet, his Vice President Al Gore, who sometimes was described as a "co-President" with Bill Clinton (when people weren't calling Hillary Clinton the "co-President"), ran away from his association with Pres. Clinton during the 2000 campaign.Explain that.Here's a NYT article about the Clinton/Gore "co-Presidency" with references to Al's act at Kyoto, along with speculation about the upcoming (a certainty from the NYT's perspective) Gore Administration from back in 1997.As far as another potential "co-Presidency" in the offing, I think it would be something easily campaigned against, regardless of how popular Pres. Clinton may still be with some people. The idea of a former President fulfilling some undefined, completely outside of the constitution, executive role within the White House will cause many voters pause, even those that are sympathetic to his (and more importantly hers, given she's the real candidate) politics.No question Hillary's eventual GOP candidate will hammer away at that, the question is will Sen. Obama or Sen. Edwards be smart enough to grab that as an issue before the primaries?
Eli Blake,You confuse me. You talk as if those of us on the conservative side give a horse's ass about someone's popularity, more than if he or she is right or wrong.The ticket to beating Hillary is simple: as she tries to be all things to most people, just keep following up with more of what the facts about Hillary really are. Bill is just the icing. And it's obvious by your comment that we can easily make her blind supporters mad just by pointing out Hillary's past non-experience.Tim Russert is no conservative -except for in the dreams of the far left - and even he couldn't believe Hillary's non-answers in the last debate. Hillary "answers not" because she "has not": no deep inner character there, Eli. There's no gravitas. There's no there there.Hello - Seeking Hillary's inner core of convictions. Hmmm. . . just one box in this heart vault. This must be it. And it's marked "It's all about Me!"
Eli, obviously Bill's popular. That's the only reason why a lot of people are actually considering electing his wife. I doubt nostalgia for the 1990s will be enough to get her elected, though.
More from Eli Blake's poll:67% of Americans say Clinton is not honest and trustworthy.77% percent say he lacks high moral and ethical standards.And just 44 percent view him favorably "as a person."All Presidents who leave office in good economic times leave office with high approval ratings.It's the economy, stupid!But nobody are fooled by the Clintons.
More numbers are in for Eli:Headline: Hillary approval rating nosedives"Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton’s approval rating has plummeted, and a majority of Americans now have an unfavorable view of her, a new Gallup poll disclosed."... in the new poll completed April 15, her favorable rating stood at just 45 percent, while 52 percent of respondents said they have an unfavorable view of Clinton."The recent decline in her image appears to be broad-based, as it is evident among most key subgroups,” Gallup noted.http://gallup.com/
If the comments section of the article linked to are any indication, I think the Clinton's aren't doing all that well.
It must really irk conservatives to realize that Bill Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating, and if anything his popularity has gone up since then.Doesn't bother me in the least. Then again I don't equate popularity with a good leader. Actually I think it may actually be a good thing to have Hillary win. I'll like to see how fast she closes down Gitmo, withdraws us from the disastorous civil war in Iraq, suspends NSA wiretapping and imprisons all those who engaged in torture.Cause if she doesn't do any of that in her first year, all of you who have been slamming Bush for the last 8 will need to go sit in a corner and be quiet.
Running against Hillary! means the Republicans have already lost. By that I mean is that if the only thing they can offer the electorate is that they're not Hillary!, well then they've already defined the race in Hillary!'s terms. Do you recall how well that worked for JFKerry, the not-Bush of 2004?Before the internet I was blissfully unaware of the mindless navel-gazing of clueless British Politicians. Those were the days.
You've hit upon an interesting point there, HD:Cause if she doesn't do any of that in her first year, all of you who have been slamming Bush for the last 8 will need to go sit in a corner and be quiet.Now, see this is what Republicans did with Bush--sat in a corner and remained quiet--or, worse, stood steadfast with him when all was obviously going to hell.I can guarantee that no matter which Democrat wins in 2008, I and the rest of the reality-based public will not blindly support him or her the way Bush was by so many of you. That was pathetic.And no, breaking with Bush in 2007 does not absolve voting for him in 2004.
Hillary is an empty pantsuit most known for setting universal health care back twenty years. She has no leadership or persuasive skills. Her management experience is limited to her stint on the board of Wal-Mart -- may be she'll add smiley faces to the uniforms of our folks in Iraq.
danny -- you cannot blame Bush supporters for voting for him in 2004 when you look at the alternative. My vote for Kerry was my least enthusiastic vote for a President ever. Much blame must sit on the people responsible for convincing Kerry he would be a good president and on the Democratic Party for having lost a vision that a candidate could coherently articulate.
this is not about Kerry, who i also voted for in 2004 with small enthusiasm. it's about sitting silent, like so many did on the Republican side, and letting Bush do what he did with little or no opposition. In fact, it was only Harriet Miers and immigration that got these folks up in arms. and yet there was so much else to really get upset about!i will never do that for a Democrat president, and especially not for the one that wins in 2008.HD seems to think the opposite, that we should "be quiet" if the president doesn't do what we elected them to do. which makes perfect sense coming from that side. Explains it all, really.
MadisonMan wrote: "By that I mean is that if the only thing they can offer the electorate is that they're not Hillary!,"I am not sure, given Senator Clinton's negatives, not being Hillary! may be enough. Maybe.Trey
Empty pantsuit! I don't know about Eli, but my day is made.
It must really irk conservatives to realize that Bill Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating, and if anything his popularity has gone up since thenHardly. Bill's poll numbers are more damning than you realize: he made "popular choices", avoided making leadership calls, kicked the can down the road for someone else to handle. Its hardly suprising he left with a high favorablility rating. Fiddling with interns while Al Queda plotted 9-11.We'll see the same from any Democrat POTUS re Iran. Four years of useless UN resolutions, "harsh words" re Iran's nuclear program, swiss cheese sanctions at best. All so they can be "popular" at the expense of national security. Hillary et al will give Iran another 4 years to get nukes, and then blame the next GOP administration when its forced to make hard decisions as a consequence of Democrat incompetence. Hey, how about another 12 years of resolutions, harsh words, and sanctions? Because that worked SO WELL with Saddam...
Eli Blake, You confuse me. You talk as if those of us on the conservative side give a horse's ass about someone's popularity, more than if he or she is right or wrong.Why are you confused? These are the same people who fret that America has lost "popularity" on the world stage, and that we must compromise to regain it. As is "popularity" was ever translated into something of tangible value.Oh no, the Syrians don't like us! Ha.
It is not his price to pay now is it?Trey
Running against Hillary! means the Republicans have already lost. By that I mean is that if the only thing they can offer the electorate is that they're not Hillary!, well then they've already defined the race in Hillary!'s terms.That's a good point, MM, but they're not doing that. Giuliani, Thompson, and even Romney are doing quite a lot more than just bashing Hillary.Do you recall how well that worked for JFKerry, the not-Bush of 2004?Hillary's doing much the same thing Kerry did, though. Her campaign is "vote for me, I'm not a Republican".
/edit...As if "popularity" was ever translated into something of tangible value.
Post a Comment