Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Stop the Presses: Conservatives Still Hate Billary!
If
you, like me, occasionally miss the 1990s--that dismal and
disfigured Decade of
the Penis--then point your browser over to the website of
Insight, where Wendy the Snapple Lady, Oasis, and the Clinton
scandals are still topping the charts.
"Washington Watch" bravely prognosticates that "Bill Clinton will be Hillary's albatross":
As Hillary campaigns in her bid to win the Democratic nomination, she must address an obvious question: If she becomes president of the United States will she uphold the democratic voice of the people and the laws of the land? Evidently, she will argue, she will be vigilant in these matters. Yet, where does she stand on the two judgments [his impeachment and his being disbarred as a lawyer] against her husband: Does she believe they were both unjust? If so, why have there been no subsequent attempts to set the record straight and restore his reputation (as anyone who was wrongfully censured would do)? If not, then does it mean she agrees with the verdicts?...
Thus, we must ask Hillary Clinton what families all across America will have to tell their children about her husband's past behavior? The best she can do is to insist he was terribly wrong and is now reborn in some way. Yet, if that is the case, the clearest evidence of rebirth is to take responsibility for one's past and to stop perpetuating more harm. If Bill was truly repentant, he would have the good sense to know when there has been enough damage done to the nation; he and his wife would not once again run for the highest office in the land....
Read the whole thing, especially the Oscar Wilde flourish at the end, which is the op-ed equivalent of the cheap 3-D effect on the old SCTV skits about Dr. Tongue:
Essentially, Hillary's plight is now very much like that of the character Dorian Grey in Oscar Wilde's classic novel, The Picture of Dorian Grey. The handsome Dorian makes a pact with a stunning portrait of himself: he wants eternal youth and to lead a life of revelry; in exchange only the picture will age and bear the mark of his sins. After decades of debauchery, when gazing upon the grotesque figure in the painting, the anguished Dorian stabs the portrait with a knife-and thereby destroys the painting and kills himself. In a similar manner, Hillary is locked in a pact with Bill: she has hitched her star to his. As his reputation plummets, she needs to disentangle herself from him, to take a stab at his record and set herself free. Yet, if she does so, her own fortunes will come tumbling down. This is one man she should never have climbed into bed with in the first place.
Thus. Essentially. Indeed!
|5.30.07 @ 12:51PM|#
You can't really regret your infidelity and reconcile with your
spouse, unless you - no, wait, unless you make HER - renounce
running for public office? WTF?
BTW, if conservative panty-sniffing stories about Bill and
Hillary's sex lives ever induce my daughter to ask questions, I
will tell her, "He promised that he would only love her, like your
mother and I did when we got married, but then he broke his
promise. That was mean to her, and got him in an lot of trouble."
Wow, that took five whole seconds.
steveintheknow|5.30.07 @ 12:58PM|#
joe
Yes, but will you be smoking opium laced cigarettes while you do
so? :)
|5.30.07 @ 1:00PM|#
Yet, where does she stand on the two judgments [his
impeachment and his being disbarred as a lawyer] against her
husband: Does she believe they were both unjust? If so, why have
there been no subsequent attempts to set the record straight and
restore his reputation (as anyone who was wrongfully censured would
do)?
Uh, didn't she stand by him during both those fights as he fought
against both judgments? What would it prove to fight those battles
again?
As his reputation plummets . . .
Yes, I've noticed how his approval ratings have fallen ... oh, no,
wait, that's somebody else.
Chucklehead|5.30.07 @ 1:02PM|#
joe,
What if she asks you if blowing her boyfriend on the family sofa
counts as sex?
|5.30.07 @ 1:03PM|#
Why do conservatives focus so much on making us hate people? I can certainly disagree with a lot of Hillary's policies, but this whole hatred of people is disgusting, irrational and a threat to our democracy. We have John advocating an anti-expert rhetoric and many conservatives urging people to vote based on personal disdain. Is there any doubt why we haven't had a competent president or congress in the 2000's? We hate those competent people. We hate them personally, we hate them for their perceived uppityness, and we hate them because they have a shrill voice or made mistakes in the past. If you advocate that kind of crap-politics, you can't be surprised when a teabag like George W. Bush gets elected. You can't dumb down the politics in order to get your chump elected, then expect intelligent, honest politicians to take office. You want competence? Get off this personal smear kick.
D.A. Ridgely|5.30.07 @ 1:04PM|#
Wow, that took five whole seconds.
Sure, because you left out the variously dangerous uses of
cigars.
|5.30.07 @ 1:06PM|#
joe,
If it helps you can tell your kid that oral sex is when you just
talk about it.
John in Nashville|5.30.07 @ 1:11PM|#
Where does Hillary stand on the judgments of impeachment and
Arkansas disbarment?
The judgment of the impeachment trial was a double acquittal. Why
wouldn't she agree?
Also, how disappointed could Mrs. Clinton be that her husband is
not back practicing law in Arkansas, where neither of them now
lives? It's not as if that is high on her (or his) priority
list.
|5.30.07 @ 1:12PM|#
I must be way off....here I am thinking that Bill helps her chances of winning. Silly me.
|5.30.07 @ 1:16PM|#
steveintheknow.
That was even too obscure for me. Opium-laced cigarettes?
Chucklehead,
"Yes, it does, so you'd better not." Is there supposed to be
something difficult going on here?
NoStar,
Are you under the impression that there aren't oral sex references
in the media beyond those written by the people sniffing Hiillary's
panties?
steveintheknow|5.30.07 @ 1:17PM|#
Actually it seems pretty easy to explain to a child why the most
powerful man in the world might cheat on his wife. Thats
boring.
The fun part is explaining why the only people who care are the
ones who voted for the other guy.
Dave W.|5.30.07 @ 1:19PM|#
You can't really regret your infidelity and reconcile with
your spouse, unless you - no, wait, unless you make HER - renounce
running for public office? WTF?
Hilary wasn't the only victim of workplace sexual harassment here.
Bill never really did apologize or make whole the other victims of
his workplace sexual harassment. For various reasons, yeah, Hilary
is complicit in that particular problem and it still stinks.
Sex may be a private matter, but workplace sex by the d00d making
the hiring decision is not a private matter. There was a time when
Democrats knew this. Hell, there was a time they were downright
preachy about it.
But you knew all that.
steveintheknow|5.30.07 @ 1:19PM|#
joe
Sorry, it was a cheesy Dorian Grey reference. It had nothing to do
with BJ's I assure.
Tim Cavanaugh|5.30.07 @ 1:19PM|#
Yet, if she does so, her own fortunes will come tumbling
down. This is one man she should never have climbed into bed with
in the first place.
Because with her vast charisma, incredible extempore speaking
skills, flawless common touch and ability to appear comfortable in
every imaginable setting, she would definitely have gotten into the
U.S. Senate and have a respectable shot at the presidency no matter
who she married.
|5.30.07 @ 1:21PM|#
The whole Clinton sex scandal really bothers me... of all the
reasons to dislike Hillary and Bill Clinton, Conservatives had to
pick the stupidest possible reason that had absolutly no effect
whatsoever on the lives of Americans.
Especially now, in retrospect, seeing as Bill Clinton was actually
the most small-government old-school style conservative president
of the last 50 years.
Narrator|5.30.07 @ 1:28PM|#
"Why do conservatives focus so much on making us hate people? ... Get off this personal smear kick," he said, and tossed in references to the President as a "chump" and a "teabag" without even a hint of irony.
|5.30.07 @ 1:31PM|#
I do agree with Hillary on something now that I see that picture again. They were right to ban trans-fat in New York.
|5.30.07 @ 1:34PM|#
Because with her vast charisma, incredible extempore
speaking skills, flawless common touch and ability to appear
comfortable in every imaginable setting, she would definitely have
gotten into the U.S. Senate and have a respectable shot at the
presidency no matter who she married.
Ha, Tucker Carlson said she'd be teaching intro to Toni Morrison
classes at community college.
I think she's proved to be hard working and competent but still
without Bill's charm we would've never heard of her.
David|5.30.07 @ 1:40PM|#
Thus, we must ask Hillary Clinton what families all across
America will have to tell their children about her husband's past
behavior?
Of all the reasons a person could choose not to vote for Hillary,
this is the dumbest by far.
This whole "How will I explain (uncomfortable topic) to my kids?"
stuff has got to stop. I'll tell you how. Nut up, and tell your
kids the truth, you fucking pussies!
GILMORE|5.30.07 @ 1:41PM|#
Narrator | May 30, 2007, 1:28pm | #
"Why do conservatives focus so much on making us hate people? ...
Get off this personal smear kick,"
...he said, and tossed in references to the President as a "chump"
and a "teabag" without even a hint of irony.
Actually, Lamar raised a decent point. Which was if you're going to
hate on someone, let it be for actual reasons of competence, not
where they put their pecker.
Are you making the point that Bush is somehow wrongly characterized
as a total fuckwit who's thrown a trillion dollars into a pit and
left us less secure since 9/11?
Thats reason enough for me to consider him teabaggish
FYI, I had/have no great love for Bill C. I have far less for
George W
|5.30.07 @ 1:55PM|#
"Why do conservatives focus so much on making us hate
people? ... Get off this personal smear kick," he said, and tossed
in references to the President as a "chump" and a "teabag" without
even a hint of irony.
Dammit, you beat me to it. I was just going to quote the relevant
sections and add "WTF?"
Actually, Lamar raised a decent point. Which was if you're
going to hate on someone, let it be for actual reasons of
competence, not where they put their pecker.
Er..I believe he was speaking of HilLary, who may or may not have a
pecker, but it would be one hell of a news story if it could be
proven.
Narrator|5.30.07 @ 1:57PM|#
GILMORE,
"Why do conservatives focus so much on making us hate people?
...this whole hatred of people is disgusting, irrational and a
threat to our democracy. ...Get off this personal smear
kick..."
These statements lead you to the conclusion that Lamar is
advocating hating *other* people?
"Are you making the point that Bush is somehow wrongly
characterized...?"
Nope. Feel free to smear him all you want, just don't do it while
saying people should stop smearing.
|5.30.07 @ 2:03PM|#
Well, the "Distance Yourself From The Most Popular President In The Last Twenty Years Who Would Win In A Landslide If He Were Constitutionally Allowed To Run" strategy worked so well for Al Gore in 2000, Hillary should totally adopt it.
|5.30.07 @ 2:05PM|#
Narrator: Perhaps there is a distinction between "sticks and stones" expressions of my opinion of the president, and a concerted smear effort? Or have you already been dumbed down?
Lupito41|5.30.07 @ 2:08PM|#
Re: Distance Yourself From The Most Popular President In The
Last Twenty Years Who Would Win In A Landslide If He Were
Constitutionally Allowed To Run Strategy.
Seriously. He would have won in 2000. In 2008 he would be preceeded
by palm leaves and trumpets everywhere he goes.
Narrator|5.30.07 @ 2:11PM|#
"Perhaps there is a distinction between 'sticks and stones'
expressions of my opinion of the president, and a concerted smear
effort?"
And the Hair-Splitting Double Standard Award goes to...
Where is your overwhelming evidence of a "smear effort" against
Hilary that is somehow egregiously worse than anything from the
left?
|5.30.07 @ 2:11PM|#
Narrator: I'm assuming you realize how stupid it is to equate
name-calling with a smear campaign. Calling Bill Clinton an asshole
is one thing, accusing him of every sinful act since the
Inquisition is quite another.
So no, nobody with a brain accepts your assertion that name calling
is the same as a smear.
|5.30.07 @ 2:14PM|#
Yeah, it's "hair splitting" to distinguish between a campaign to circulate untrue or tangentially irrelevant stories which are intended to smear the subject with name-calling which signals nothing more than the opinion of the person speaking.
Narrator|5.30.07 @ 2:14PM|#
I'll quote myself this time:
"Where is your overwhelming evidence of a 'smear effort' against
Hilary that is somehow egregiously worse than anything from the
left?"
Yes, Clinton was smeared. Yes, Bush is smeared. Yes, Hilary will be
smeared. You've got to be kidding if you think the Right has a
monopoly on this BS.
|5.30.07 @ 2:15PM|#
Narrator: I didn't say that the right's attempts to make people hate Hillary are better or worse than anything on the left. Now that you've made idiotic assertions you want to change the subject or deflect criticism. Why not just go back under your bridge?
|5.30.07 @ 2:16PM|#
"Where is your overwhelming evidence of a "smear effort" against
Hilary that is somehow egregiously worse than anything from the
left?"
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!
C'mon, Lamar, give it up! Where do you get this stuff?
Organized smear effort against Hillary Clinton? That's crazy, man.
Who ever heard of such a thing?
|5.30.07 @ 2:20PM|#
"Yes, Hilary will be smeared."
Will be smeared? Will be, as in future tense?
Do you think we all just fell off the turnip truck?
Narrator|5.30.07 @ 2:21PM|#
Lamar,
"Why do conservatives focus so much on making us hate
people?"
This was the crux of your original comment, so asking about it is
not deflection. Also, my argument has been non-combative while
yours has continued the name-calling. Trolls abound, but
disagreeing with you does not make me one.
Joe,
You're right. My tense was off. Hilary IS being smeared.
|5.30.07 @ 2:25PM|#
Still not there.
"Has been smeared" would be right. "Continues to be smeared" would
be better.
|5.30.07 @ 2:27PM|#
I'm not really sure how effective these smears really are
though.
I mean, really, was any one who had not, since 1972, known for a
fact certain that John Kerry was a dirty lying commie scumbag
traitor really influenced by the Swift Boat ads?
And I'm fairly sure Bill's poll numbers rose every time the GOP
"smeared" him.
Narrator|5.30.07 @ 2:28PM|#
Joe,
"Still not there."
I'll still agree you're right. Your buddy's too quick on the
trigger if he thinks everybody who advocates even-tempered debate
rather than smearing *across the board* is an evil conservative
troll.
|5.30.07 @ 2:30PM|#
Narrator: I apologize for assuming that you knew the difference
between name calling and a smear campaign. I realize now that you
just had no idea what you were talking about. I thought you were
being disingenuous, but it turns out you just didn't know that
there was a difference between calling somebody a tea bag and
organizing a group to make television ads disputing somebody's
personal history.
And for the record: Now that I think about it, I do
believe that the conservatives do it more than the liberals. What
is the left-wing Swiftboat organization? I just can't think of
it.
Narrator|5.30.07 @ 2:32PM|#
Lamar,
Got to go for awhile. Hopefully I'll get a chnce to check back
tonight.
|5.30.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Moveon.org has made up alternate personal histories for candidates it dislikes? OK, I'm surprised at that. I couldn't find one on the website though, perhaps you could point it out?
D.A. Ridgely|5.30.07 @ 2:55PM|#
Because with her vast charisma, incredible extempore
speaking skills, flawless common touch and ability to appear
comfortable in every imaginable setting, she would definitely have
gotten into the U.S. Senate and have a respectable shot at the
presidency no matter who she married.
On the other hand, ruthless ambition, a megalomaniacal sense of
rectitude, the ready willingness to use and discard people like
used facial tissue and, let's face it, no other real career options
can take you quite a way in politics.
|5.30.07 @ 2:56PM|#
Are you under the impression that there aren't oral sex
references in the media beyond those written by the people sniffing
Hillary's panties?
No joe,
I'm under the impression you are looking for ways whitewash the
answers to your daughter's questions.
|5.30.07 @ 2:58PM|#
Oh, I see - you're deluded.
Please, tell me which of my hypothetical answers do you think count
as whitewashing?
And how old are your kids, anyway?
|5.30.07 @ 3:09PM|#
Moveon.org has made up alternate personal histories for
candidates it dislikes? OK, I'm surprised at that. I couldn't find
one on the website though, perhaps you could point it
out?
Well, no, but they tend to fill in the gaps with alternate
presentations, as did Swiftboats, as did Dan Rather, as
did...and...and....
It has nothing to do with conservative vs insurrectionist (please
insert whatever P.C. label the left wants of late). It's about
american politics. They suck, people approach it like it's the WWF
and they want "politics entertainment". Obama says "Let's all get
along", nobody can be against getting along, so let's vote for him.
HilLary screams in a shrill way, but she's a woman, so in fits of
self flagellation, we assume that it MUST be some vast conspiracy,
and can't just be that her audacity offends people.
What's funny in the post to me is that I know of "liberal" types
that if you sneak up behind them and say "Reagan", then run away,
they're reduced to a foaming mass of gibberish for at least half an
hour. It's getting to be "Bush" has the same effect, though perhaps
only for 22 min or so. The insinuation that "the right" or "the
conservatives" have some kind of monopoly on blind unseeing,
unhearing hate is just silly. The conservative people I know will
say something about Bill getting his winkie in a bind again. The
unconservative (?) people I know will go off on a 40 min diatribe
about Bush, not really saying anything but their opinion, and
smugly talk about "facts".
On the other hand, ruthless ambition, a megalomaniacal sense of
rectitude, the ready willingness to use and discard people like
used facial tissue and, let's face it, no other real career options
can take you quite a way in politics.
Well said. Rudy G is on that track too.
...people sniffing Hillary's panties?
Sorry, I think I have to go puke now.
|5.30.07 @ 3:09PM|#
The Most Popular President In The Last Twenty Years Who
Would Win In A Landslide If He Were Constitutionally Allowed To
Run
Before everyone gets all carried away over the Fabulousness of
Bill, lets not forget that he never won a majority.
And I'm fairly sure Bill's poll numbers rose every time the GOP
"smeared" him.
Although there is that.
And anyone who thinks the Swift Boat campaign was a "smear job" has
obviously forgotten what a truly expert smear looks like. For that,
you really have to go back to the Clinton White House. That crew
know how to smear.
deron|5.30.07 @ 3:12PM|#
Bill Clinton still owns these people.
That's the part that makes it so much fun to watch.
GILMORE|5.30.07 @ 3:17PM|#
Not to jump into a perfectly useless semantic debate... :)
But, really - I thought the point was that vituperation and
smearing iS PERFECTLY FINE.... particularly when it's about an
issue of *competence* and quality of governance
I thought the point of going after hilary because... uhh...her
husband likes cow-ish looking sluts... was stupid, and thats what
lamar was bemoaning. The RIghts smearing based on "Character" as
opposed to competence. I never was anti smear meself. I am,
however, anti 'schmear', which I do not believe is the appropriate
word to describe the spreading of cream cheese on bagels.
I think the Left's slagging off of BusHitler and
Cheney=Mephistopheles is equally gay. But it's limited to the more
fringe hippy losers, while the Right's shit-slangers have like,
Syndicated radio shows and shit.
C'mon, I cant believe there's much disagreement here about this.
Wasnt it just yesterday I asked why Reasonoids spend any time
'defending' one of the 2 parties? They are different, and equally
deplorable. Shitting on one doesnt necessarily praise the
other.
GILMORE|5.30.07 @ 3:18PM|#
For that, you really have to go back to the Clinton White
House. That crew know how to smear.
Out of boredom and curiosity, what was their piece de la resistance
of smeardom? Post link or something.
I want to see if it was as good as the Plame/Wilson thing
|5.30.07 @ 3:23PM|#
joe,
My oldest daughter will soon be 17. Thanks to Clinton, I got asked
about oral sex and blowjobs when she was 9. But, I tell me kids
that I will answer any questions they have (including questions
about sex) as truthfully as I can. If I think they will be
embarrassed or grossed out by the answer, I tell them so, but if
they still want to know I will tell them.
I started with the joke about oral sex is just talking about it.
When that went over her head, I explained that oral means mouth and
oral sex is giving sexual pleasure with the mouth.
I then told her the scientific name for a blow job is fellatio and
it is when a woman puts a mans penis in her mouth to give him
sexual pleasure.
A while later she came back and asked can men do oral sex on a
woman. I told her, "Yes, that is called cunnilingus and it is Latin
for tongue in groove."
My wife looked amused and happy that I was the one in the hot seat.
When she laughed at that last joke, my daughter didn't ask for
further information. My wife laughed again at my sigh of
relief.
Disclaimer: All the above answers were accompanied with the
official Christian boiler plate: sexual activity is only
appropriate within marriage.
|5.30.07 @ 3:27PM|#
Hee hee hee.
Sounds like you handled that pretty well. Age-appropriate, answer
only the question asked, and be as boring as possible.
Mine's only 4, so she's only gotten as far as, "How does a baby get
in Mommy's belly?"
|5.30.07 @ 3:39PM|#
joe, the humor helps to diffuse the tension.
My younger daughter is soon to be 11, but since Bush-lite hasn't
been caught getting a BJ while ordering out troops to die in a
fruitless mission of nation building, I haven't had to answer as
many specific questions.
When the older daughter was 12, I think she purposefully asked
questions to make me squirm or to see if I would keep my promise of
answering questions. Still, I think this policy has been a wise
one.
|5.30.07 @ 4:07PM|#
On the other hand, ruthless ambition, a megalomaniacal sense
of rectitude, the ready willingness to use and discard people like
used facial tissue and, let's face it, no other real career options
can take you quite a way in politics.
Oh, come on; had she not gone into politics, she could have taken
that Yale law degree and made a great living as a cattle futures
trader.
Paul|5.30.07 @ 4:21PM|#
"He promised that he would only love her, like your mother
and I did when we got married, but then he broke his promise. That
was mean to her, and got him in an lot of trouble." Wow, that took
five whole seconds.
So what you're saying, joe, is that you're going to try parenting?
|5.30.07 @ 4:37PM|#
What's a rim job? - de stilj
`Bout twenny bucks - same as in town. :)
The Hillary smearing does go back a bit. The whole Vince Foster
nonsense, frex. What was never a smear, and made me dislike her
even before her hubby announced for the Dem nomination, was her
refusal to act as if the law applied to her. HRC was one of the
Carter Administration members of the Legal Services Corporation's
board who refused to vacate their positions when Ronald Reagan got
around to appointing replacements. The idea that the president
hires and fires executive branch political appointees perhaps
wasn't well covered at Yale, though I would think that the A.
Johnson impeachment would be instructive on that point. After a
court battle, she and her other office squatters got the boot, but
a compromise between the Administration and the Congressional
leadership resulted in keeping the organization, which Reagan
wanted to defund, on the Federal teat. Hillary decamped to the
Children's Defense Fund, where dreaming up new statist tools of
social engineering continued.
I don't care who she did or didn't sleep with. I just hate her
little tyrant's heart.
Kevin
|5.30.07 @ 5:04PM|#
Paul,
Yup, parenting. Controlling what the kid is exposed to in the home,
and answering her questions about the world. Both ends of
parenting.
lunchstealer|5.30.07 @ 5:23PM|#
OK, now I shook Reagan's hand before he was President, have
since voted for GHW Bush, Dole, Strom Fucking Thurmond, and even in
a fit of pique that Gore was going to win, GWB, but after the past
six years of misadministration to beat the band, how is it Bill
Clinton's reputation that's supposed to be plummeting?
Clinton was a cool groove by comparison.
|5.30.07 @ 7:02PM|#
>Hillary is locked in a pact with Bill: she has hitched her
star to his. As his reputation plummets
Thats hilarious. Bill Clinton's approval ratings are higher than
any living president or ex-president, or current presidential
candidate.
http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton1.htm
|5.30.07 @ 7:35PM|#
What's a rim job?
You'll find that out after President Rodham-Clinton has Ira
Magaziner help her into a strap on dildo. But don't worry about the
pain, you'll have womb to the tomb universal health care.
S.A. Miller|5.30.07 @ 11:30PM|#
Well, the "Distance Yourself From The Most Popular President
In The Last Twenty Years Who Would Win In A Landslide If He Were
Constitutionally Allowed To Run" strategy worked so well for Al
Gore in 2000, Hillary should totally adopt it.
The same guy who didn't get a majority in the popular vote either
time he ran?
Clinton was never as popular and beloved as the media makes him out
to have been.
Don|5.31.07 @ 12:01AM|#
"Clinton was never as popular and beloved as the media makes him
out to have been."
I think George Bush is doing more to make Clinton seem popular and
beloved than anything the media has ever done. Even Bush's father
seems more comfortable with Clinton then with his own son.
Let's face it, you just know Clinton would be the most fun guy at a
party, and GWB would be the mean drunk who got into a fight and got
his ass kicked while everyone cheered.
Wild Pegasus|5.31.07 @ 1:02AM|#
The Last Twenty Years includes the following presidents: Bush
II, Clinton, Bush I, and post-Iran-Contra, visibly-senile Reagan.
Being the most popular of those four isn't a major feat or
anything: senile and corrupt, the people skills of Gollum, presided
over good times, and a war criminal less well-spoken than
Chewbacca.
- Josh
|5.31.07 @ 9:38AM|#
Clinton's poll numbers when he left office, and his average
during his presidency, were higher than Reagan's.
The media consistently pretended he was an unpopular president,
even as his approval ratings climbed into the 60s.
|5.31.07 @ 8:19PM|#
I just had to comment on the fact that there were 69 comments on this thread. Until I posted this.
|6.1.07 @ 7:45PM|#
This is one man she should never have climbed into bed with
in the first place.
IDK...Chelsey seems to be an alright person...ugly as hell, but you
know cool with it
|6.1.07 @ 7:55PM|#
The fun part is explaining why the only people who care are
the ones who voted for the other guy.
Actually I voted for him the first time...and i wanted him out of
office because of the FBI files his administration kept on
republican congressmen.
But yeah what the fuck ever lets just talk about blow jobs in the
oval office.
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