Jacob Sullum | October 26, 2004
"He looks fantastic," a Kerry supporter told The New York Times at yesterday's rally in Philadelphia, referring to Bill Clinton. "I didn't think he was that handsome--he's a good-looking guy, and I'm a man. It'll definitely get people off the fence."
Personally, I find it hard to get past the bulbous, W.C Fields-esque nose. Does Clinton look better in person than he does on TV? And are the folks on the fence waiting for something to tip the physical attractiveness factor in the Democrats' favor? You'd think John Edwards would have taken care of that already. Otherwise, it's hard to see what he's doing on the ticket.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Kerry's new strategy: "Hey, don't you remember how nice it was
when this other guy was in office?
It'll be like old times again!"
No wonder The Boss is campaigning for him:
"Glory days well they'll pass you by
Glory days in the wink of a young girl's eye
Glory days, glory days"
Note: not a Bush supporter here, either, before any of you people
decide to hammer on me.
Otherwise, it's hard to see what he's doing on the
ticket.
He's on the ticket because he's a winner, as opposed to
Kerry/Edwards.
For some unknown reason over the last two elections the Democratic
party and its members have decided to nominate absolutely horrible
candidates: both are/were about as exciting as attending a really,
really boring college lecture. How many Dems are actually excited
about Kerry? All of the enthusiasm has been for "not Bush," not
"for Kerry."
Any halfway decent candidate in 2000 would have wiped the floor
with W simply on momentum alone. The same could be said for this
election just on the perceived mess in Iraq alone. Yet W hangs in
there. Dems will cry and say its due to the Evil Machinations (tm)
of Karl Rove, but lets give credit where credit's due: Gore and
Kerry are monumental douchbags. The Dems have no one to blame but
themselves.
It must fairly be said that this administration is so loathsome on so many grounds that it would be positively odd if the Democrats had a candidate that they felt more strongly about than Bush.
I dunno, I thought in promos for a TV interview that Clinton looked a bit gaunt. Definitely had that 'heart patient' look to him. Now, some may think that's better than the bit of pudginess he had as President, but he has looked lots better since getting out of office. I guess I just don't go for the thin, stretched look.
Otherwise, it's hard to see what he's doing on the
ticket.
From...south...of...Mason...Dixon...line
(Note to Nathan: I believe Sullum was talking about Edwards, not
Clinton.)
I don't see the big deal about organ donation. I've donated old
guitars and keyboards that I no longer use, why not organs?
Oops, this was supposed to be in the previous thread. Technical
difficulties. It was only an accident that this recorded message
was put in the wrong thread.
Now I know ashlee's post looks bad, but it was just her fingus reflux disorder that made us have to use the pre-recorded post that got typed at the wrong time! She'll do it right next week on Instapundit!!
Clinton may not be classically handsome, but he's got a ridiculous amount of charisma and magnetism in person.
I miss Bill Clinton. I disagreed with him on a hell of a lot,
but he was fun to have around. He got the Republicans to work
themselves up into steaming fits of rage and investigate every
allegation ever made. And then, just as they thought they had
finally caught him red-handed, he'd work a little of his Bubba
magic and next thing you know Newt Gingrich was unemployed while
Bill Clinton was out there living it up, basking in
popularity.
Face it, Bill was fun.
"Face it, Bill was fun."
And if Al Gore had simply run on Bill's "record" with a few
disclaimers about blowjobs in the Oval Office he wouldn't have had
to try to steal the election.
How a candidate looks is important to me. I'd have voted for Lincoln. He looked real.
I've heard Clinton trying to promote Kerry as tough on terrorism. I think that's a big mistake. The heart of the Republican claim that Democrats are soft on terror is that Clinton didn't do much about it during his administration. It's smart for Kerry to associate himself with Clinton as far as personality and domestic issues, but not with national security.
When I saw pictures of Clinton at the Philadelphia rally, my first thought was, "His doctors can't be happy about this." The guy looks like he's aged 10 years. I haven't seen any TV footage, so I can't tell how frail he sounds when talking. Whether you love him or hate him, it sucks to see somebody hit that hard that fast by an illness.
Clinton is there to bring out the base, especially minority
voters, but his anti-terror record isn't bad.
Clinton was more serious about terrorism than Bush was pre-9/11. He
was in meetings every day about the millenium plot. Terrorist
attacks that fail apparently don't count as being serious about
terror. Similar top down pressure pre-9/11 about "Bin Laden
Determined to Strike in US" warnings could have made a
difference.
Republicans make fun of him shooting cruise missles into the
desert, but if the intel would have been better, Bin Laden would be
dead (not that that would have stopped 9/11).
Cute
amateurs pictures of young cute amateurs
Russian
amateur valerya fatty amateur teen shows hairy pussy
Amber your
teen neighbor 40 hot amateur pics
Amateur
network meet, exchange ideas, erotic photos
Sexy amateurs
amateurs from mars planet !!
Big tits
busting out a busty business woman
Amateur
sluts naked amateur sluts stripping
Amateur sex
pics grace strips out of her school uniform
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245