Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ESTRICH BOOK EXPOSES STOCK HILLARY PLOY: EXPLOIT WOMEN
Sean Hannity, Hannity & Colmes, WABC, FoxNews, Susan Estrich | 10.12.05 | Mia T

Posted on 10/12/2005 1:17:59 PM PDT by Mia T

ESTRICH BOOK EXPOSES STOCK HILLARY PLOY: EXPLOIT WOMEN
(even as ABC's "Commander-in-Chief" exposes ploy's premise as false)

by Mia T, 10.12.05

 

 

It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.

G. K. Chesterton

 

While America appears not to be ready for a female president under any circumstances, the post-9/11 realities pose special problems for a female presidential candidate. Add to these the problems unique to missus clinton. The reviews make the mistake of focusing on the problems of the generic female presidential candidate running during ordinary times.

These are not ordinary times. America is waging the global War on Terror; the uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield; the enemy is brutal, subhuman; the threat of global conflagration is real.

Defeating the enemy isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous, troglodyte mindset. To successfully prosecute the War on Terror, it is essential that the collective patriarchal islamic culture perceives America as politically and militarily strong. Condi Rice excepted, this requirement presents an insurmountable hurdle for any female presidential candidate, and especially missus clinton, historically antimilitary, forever the pitiful victim, and, according to Dick Morris, "the biggest dove in the clinton administration."

It is ironic that had the clintons not failed utterly to fight terrorism... not failed to take bin Laden from Sudan... not failed repeatedly to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda... the generic female president as a construct would still be viable... missus clinton's obstacles would be limited largely to standard-issue clintonisms: corruption, abuse, malpractice, malfeasance, megalomania, rape and treason... and, in spite of Juanita Broaddrick, or perhaps because of her, Rod Lurie would be reduced to perversely hawking the "First Gentleman" instead of the "Commander-in-Chief."

Mia T, 10.02.05
HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM

HILLARY'S "BLUEPRINT"
(addendum to OPEN LETTER TO SEAN HANNITY)
Mia T
10.11.05, 10 PM

The Hannity-and-Colmes (Estrich) Interview

As for defusing the clinton "blueprint" laid out by Estrich, an intellectually honest interview would have done a helluva lot more than all that excessive handwringing you exposed us to tonight.

"America's once-in-a-lifetime chance to break the world's most prominent glass ceiling and elect a female president of the United States." -- Estrich, The Case For Hillary Clinton

This Estrich eyewash exposes clinton's central strategem: tie the fate of all women to the fate of the clinton candidacy in a cynical attempt to get the women's vote, (recognizing that the women's vote is hardly a lock for hillary. A not insignificant number of leftist women can't stomach missus clinton and are actively working to short-circuit her candidacy.)

Estrich argues that missus clinton is qualified, that indeed missus clinton is the only woman who is qualified. If either claim were true, the clinton agitprop would have modeled the protagonist in ABC's latest clinton infomercial, "Commander-in-Chief," after missus clinton.

But it did not.

The clinton agitprop machine modeled its "Commander-in-Chief" exemplar after missus clinton's infinitely more qualified potential opponent, Condi Rice.

(For the reasons, goto HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM)



(viewing requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

STEP 1

 

This clinton-Estrich ploy to get the women's vote, and perhaps even more so, the ploy's utter transparency, are an insult to all women.

The clintons' fundamental error is always the same: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.

Mia T
OPEN LETTER TO SEAN HANNITY ON ESTRICH INTERVIEW, THE CLINTONS' RAPE OF BROADDRICK
(with addendum)

 

OPEN LETTER TO SEAN HANNITY ON ESTRICH INTERVIEW, THE CLINTONS' RAPE OF BROADDRICK (with additions, corrections, addendum)


Dear Mr. Hannity-

It appears that you allowed your "friendship" with Susan Estrich affect your interview this afternoon. (Or was it the favorable mention in Estrich's shameless new polemic, The Case For Hillary Clinton?)

While you correctly went directly to one of the issues that should automatically disqualify clinton for any position of power, the clinton rape of Juanita Broaddrick, you sabotaged your own line of attack.

Your setup question, whether hillary 'believed' bill, was a dodge. And a not very artful one, at that. As you well know, the issue isn't whether hillary 'believed' bill; the issue is whether hillary participated. In that rape as well as in all the other rapes and predations.

You of all people should know this. You interviewed Broaddrick on precisely that point. (A video and analysis of that interview to follow.) Broaddrick described to you in detail the meeting with hillary that occurred two weeks after the rape. hillary clinton went to that meeting for the express purpose of warning Broaddrick to keep her mouth shut. (She and the rapist entered the room, she approached Broaddrick (whom she had never met before) while a slinking rapist stayed behind, she proceeded to warn Broaddrick, she and the rapist immediately left.)

In your original Estrich-Broaddrick interview, you were honest about the real issue. But even then you ultimately failed because you neglected to expose the following clinton casuistry being spun by Estrich:

  1. the 'statute of limitation' on rape should apply to the clintons in Broaddrick rape,

  2. the postmodern construction of 'rape,' i.e., the definition of rape is subjective, i.e., what is considered rape by the victim isn't necessarily considered rape by the rapist,

  3. the definition of rape has morphed over time, i.e., what is rape today wasn't necessarily rape in the '70s.

 

On point 1, the statute of limitation on rape applies in a court of law, not in the voting booth. The question we are deciding isn't whether the clintons should be thrown in the slammer (another matter for another day); the question is less onerous, (from the clintons' perspective, anyway): Do the clintons have the character to be president?

The reductio ad absurdum is Christopher Shays' comment, made after he viewed the Ford building evidence on the rape of Broaddrick: "I believed that he had done it. I believed her that she had been raped 20 years ago. And it was vicious rapes, it was twice at the same event." Asked if the president is a rapist, Shays said, "I would like not to say it that way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick."

And yet Shays voted not to impeach. Purportedly because he asked the wrong question. ("Where was the obstruction of justice?") (Any cognitive dissonance Shays may have experienced rendering that verdict was no doubt assuaged by the political plum clinton gave to Mrs. (Betsi) Shays...)

And so we had two more years of the clinton Nano-Presidency. And with it, inexorably, 9/11.

Regarding points two and three: Juanita's bitten lip, swollen to twice its normal size, the hallmark of a serial rapist, is the obvious counterexample.

I hope you do better tonight. Instead of hawking Susan's book, try, for a change, to REALLY nail the clintons. If women truly understood the clintons' 30-year history of abuse of women, there would be no way these two profoundly dysfunctional scourges would be elected dogcatcher.

Sincerely,
Mia T
October 11, 2005

P.S. How you can respect a rape victim (Estrich), whose view of these two rapists bends with the political wind, is beyond me.



Addendum: HILLARY'S "BLUEPRINT"
(10.11.05, 10 PM)
The Hannity-and-Colmes (Estrich) Interview

As for defusing the clinton "blueprint" laid out by Estrich, an intellectually honest interview would have done a helluva lot more than all that excessive handwringing you exposed us to tonight.

"America's once-in-a-lifetime chance to break the world's most prominent glass ceiling and elect a female president of the United States." -- Estrich, The Case For Hillary Clinton

This Estrich eyewash exposes clinton's central strategem: tie the fate of all women to the fate of the clinton candidacy in a cynical attempt to get the women's vote, (recognizing that the women's vote is hardly a lock for hillary. A not insignificant number of leftist women can't stomach missus clinton and are actively working to short-circuit her candidacy.)

Estrich argues that missus clinton is qualified, that indeed missus clinton is the only woman who is qualified. If either claim were true, the clinton agitprop would have modeled the protagonist in ABC's latest clinton infomercial, "Commander-in-Chief," after missus clinton.

But it did not.

The clinton agitprop machine modeled its "Commander-in-Chief" exemplar after missus clinton's infinitely more qualified potential opponent, Condi Rice.

(For the reasons, goto HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM)



(viewing requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

STEP 1

 

This clinton-Estrich ploy to get the women's vote, and perhaps even more so, the ploy's utter transparency, are an insult to all women.

The clintons' fundamental error is always the same: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.



TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: abuseofwomen; broaddrick; case4hillaryclinton; clintonabuseofwomen; clintonrape; estrich; hillary; hillaryclinton; hillaryknew; hillaryscandals; juanitabroaddrick; rape; sheknew; susanestrich

1 posted on 10/12/2005 1:18:06 PM PDT by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mia T

This is not going to play well at the NY Slimes and the communist DNC.


2 posted on 10/12/2005 1:21:26 PM PDT by RetiredArmy (All democrats are ENEMIES of the Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

So who is Estrich really working for here?


3 posted on 10/12/2005 1:22:00 PM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Please don't use the words Estrich and expose in the same sentence!
4 posted on 10/12/2005 1:22:34 PM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

"Commander in Chief" is nothing but a shabby MSM Hillary Clinton Infomercial.


5 posted on 10/12/2005 1:22:53 PM PDT by henkster (When democrats talk of "the rich," they are referring to anyone with a private sector job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
This thread needs pictures.

What do you think of her new face?

6 posted on 10/12/2005 1:24:05 PM PDT by skip_intro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Here's another one.

Looks like she got here teeth done, too.

7 posted on 10/12/2005 1:26:31 PM PDT by skip_intro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: skip_intro
What do you think of her new face?

I think it is better than the old one. Did she get a new face?

8 posted on 10/12/2005 1:27:58 PM PDT by stayathomemom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: skip_intro

Looks like she got her whole head done.


9 posted on 10/12/2005 1:33:39 PM PDT by Holicheese (Would you like a beer? No thanks, I will have a bud light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stayathomemom
Did she get a new face?

Looks like it to me.

Unfortunately, the voice is still the same.

10 posted on 10/12/2005 1:35:02 PM PDT by skip_intro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: skip_intro

She should go back to harassing the editor of the LA Times!!!

Never has anyone gottten so much mileage out of managing a loser's (Dukakis) losing campaign!

As for her new face..... they must have had to use a jackhammer and a reciprocating saw!


11 posted on 10/12/2005 1:38:16 PM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: skip_intro
What do you think of her new face?

I noticed the hook in her nose was gone!

12 posted on 10/12/2005 1:40:51 PM PDT by moondoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Your efforts are overwhelming!

And I am a fast reader...a very fast reader...


13 posted on 10/12/2005 1:43:38 PM PDT by Prost1 (New AG, Berger is still free, copped a plea! I still get my news from FR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla; WorkingClassFilth; Gail Wynand; Brian Allen; Wolverine; Lonesome in Massachussets; IVote2; ...

ping


14 posted on 10/12/2005 1:52:50 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Extreme Makeover

But as they say..."You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear."

15 posted on 10/12/2005 1:57:06 PM PDT by BigFinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skip_intro

I just can't believe this is S. Estrich.


16 posted on 10/12/2005 2:06:02 PM PDT by go-ken-go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: BigFinn

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


18 posted on 10/12/2005 2:36:46 PM PDT by countrydummy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

bump


19 posted on 10/12/2005 2:58:42 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Mia T, please keep up the great work, the beast must be stopped.


20 posted on 10/12/2005 3:03:28 PM PDT by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigFinn

The weird mannerisms are there. The gravel voice is worse!

Didn't she write a column against the Clintons' involvement in Democrat politics, saying they were ruining the party?

What a conversion!

Could someone run that column?


21 posted on 10/12/2005 3:32:12 PM PDT by sine_nomine (CBS' Mary Mapes: "It dawned on me that I was present at the birth of a political jihad.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

bttt


22 posted on 10/12/2005 3:52:25 PM PDT by bmwcyle (We broke Pink's Code and found a terrorist message)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skip_intro
THIS CAN'T BE SUSAN ESTRICH. THEY MUST HAVE SEWN ON A NEW MOUTH FIVE TIMES SMALLER.
23 posted on 10/12/2005 4:00:17 PM PDT by jetson (throne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BigFinn

Have you seen Mary Tyler Moore lately???? When they did her new face job they pulled her eyes up to her hairline...she looks soooo funny....


24 posted on 10/12/2005 5:11:13 PM PDT by HarleyLady27 (My ? to libs: "Do they ever shut up on your planet?" "Grow your own DOPE: Plant a LIB!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sine_nomine
I think you are referring to Estrich's warning of Democrat death by clinton-induced anoxia...

Get the Clintons Off the Stage
St. Petersburg Times ^ | 5/15/03 | Susan Estrich

The Clintons are back.

Sidney Blumenthal-much hated former Clinton aide, ethically challenged former journalist-$850,000 advance in hand, has a new book out on May 20, attacking everyone who ever attacked him or the Clintons, rehearsing once again the old right wing conspiracy, every attack on them, answered. The right wing conspiracy revived, answered, again.

Hillary's book is next.

Could somebody please tell these people to shut up? The Clintons suck up every bit of the available air. Nothing is left for anyone else. They are big, too big. That's the problem.

The 2004 candidates need a chance to get some attention, to rise to Clinton's level, which they never will do as long as the likes of Sidney Blumenthal are playing into the hands of conservatives in insisting on debating the scandals of the 1990's. The Republicans shouldn't have impeached him for it, but he shouldn't have given them the ammunition. And we shouldn't still be discussing it.

Why are we? Or more accurately, why are they?

Not because it serves the interests of the Democrats of the future.

It doesn't help Howard Dean, or John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt. It gets Sidney on TV shows. If the issue is ethics, no one has less than Sidney Blumenthal. He used to call me during the Dukakis campaign, which I was running and he was supposed to be covering, to offer covert advice, which if I accepted might result in better coverage. Much later, when I criticized him, he tried to get me into trouble with my editors. All the while, I was defending his boss. That's Sidney. He's Hillary's best friend. No wonder the Republicans are delighted to see him return to the spotlight.

It raises money for their causes.

The Bill and Bob (Dole) show has proven to be a collossal bore. The ratings have fallen. Is anyone getting the message? I fear not.

Let's not mince words.

Hillary Clinton is never going to be president of the United States. There is no more divisive figure in the Democratic Party, much less the country, than the former first lady. And I like her. But many women don't. Even Democratic women. Even working women. Not to mention nonworking, independent, non political women. She can be a great senator. She's smart, hard-working and effective. She is much respected among her peers.

But the more people who talk about her as a future president, the less attention the current candidates, who might win, receive.

Revisiting the scandals of the past does no service to the Democrats of the future.

Bill Clinton is a brilliant man. But the more attention he gets, the more the Democrats of the future suffer. He would be the first to say this, if it weren't about him.

Enough with the Clintons. Please. Not for the sake of the Republicans. But for the Democrats.


THE GREAT FISH moved silently through the night water, propelled by short sweeps of its crescent tail. The mouth was open just enough to permit a rush of water over the gills. There was little other motion: an occasional correction of the apparently aimless course by the slight raising or lowering of a pectoral fin--as a bird changes direction by dipping one wing and lifting the other. The eyes were sightless in the black, and the other senses transmitted nothing extraordinary to the small, primitive brain. The fish might have been asleep, save for the movement dictated by countless millions of years of instinctive continuity: lacking the flotation bladder common to other fish and the fluttering flaps to push oxygen-bearing water through its gills, it survived only by moving. Once stopped, it would sink to the bottom and die of anoxia.

Peter Benchley, Jaws



(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
PLAY MOVIE
CINDY SHEEHAN'S JUMP-THE-SHARK MOMENT?

(idea by PJ-Comix, metaphor + logo by Jon Hein)
by Mia T, 9.01.05

The stream of puffery rising from the clintons' perpetual promotion machine seems unbroken and endless. (The discontinuous miasmic belches are imperceptible.)

This clinton-machine effluence defies not only the laws of logic and decency but also the first law of thermodynamics -- conservation of energy.

That is, if one fails to considers entropy.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the quality of energy in a closed system is degraded irreversibly. Physical, chemical, and electrical energy transform into thermal energy --heat. Reversing the process, e.g., heat into physical energy, cannot fully occur within the system without an inevitable loss of energy in the form of irretrievable heat. Energy is not destroyed; it is merely unavailable for producing work. The irreversible increase of this nondisposable energy in the universe is measured by the abstract dimension called entropy.

Clinton corruption is all about the irreversible degradation of the energy in our closed system. A leftist band of heat-producing useful idiots is currently assisting in the clintons' $8-million--make that $20 million--revisionist assault....

There is a lot of talk these days, most notably by voluble nervous Democratic operatives like Susan Estrich, about the clintons sucking up the oxygen, but no one is paying attention to the irreversible transformation of light into irretrievable heat by the clintons.

Once we understand that the latter process is irreversible, we will begin to do what we must.

Mia T, 6.23.05
CLINTON RAPES, REVISIONISM, USEFUL IDIOTS AND ENTROPY (an update)

 

26 posted on 10/12/2005 5:56:04 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: skip_intro; BigFinn; HarleyLady27; jetson; sine_nomine; stayathomemom; Holicheese

Only hillary's hairdresser knows for sure, but it looks to me like Susan had a brow lift, an eye job, a peel, perhaps some nose tweaking and a haircut and color by hillary's people, Isabel and company. In fact, hillary probably ordered her face overhaul to go along with her opinion overhaul

I suspect Susan didn't have the works. If you block out that famously agape orifice, you will see that her lower face is in pretty good shape in the 'before' pic. All those exaggerated mouth movements probably kept the old jawline taut. ;)

As opposed to hillary's jawline...


There is reason to believe that he is a rapist ("You better get some ice on that," Juanita Broaddrick says he told her concerning her bit lip), and that he bombed a country to distract attention from legal difficulties arising from his glandular life, and that. ... Furthermore, the bargain that he and his wife call a marriage refutes the axiom that opposites attract. Rather, she, as much as he, perhaps even more so, incarnates Clintonism

GEORGE WILL, SLEAZE, THE SEQUEL

[FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!]

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)


27 posted on 10/12/2005 6:38:41 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
Excellent idea. Please let me know if you find anything. Thx. 

 

thanx to WorkingClassFilth for the video
special thanx to Jim Robinson


The closest... Clinton has ever come to answering allegations... he raped an Arkansas woman in 1978 is a distance measurable only in light-years.

.In a letter to Mrs. Clinton recalling their meeting shortly after the reported assault occurred, she wondered about the significance of Mrs. Clinton's words to her at that time. Thank you, Mrs. Broaddrick says Mrs. Clinton told her, for "everything you do for Bill."



28 posted on 10/12/2005 6:45:29 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Yes, thanks for reposting it.

A conversion back to the Clinton cause? Or at least to Clintonian plastic surgery?


29 posted on 10/12/2005 10:41:12 PM PDT by sine_nomine (CBS' Mary Mapes: "It dawned on me that I was present at the birth of a political jihad.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Thanks for your work Mia T.

Run Hillary Run!

30 posted on 10/13/2005 5:34:26 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Al Queda plotted 9-11 while Bill was chasing interns around the oval office.

Hillary couldn't control her own husband - why should she be trusted with the Presidency?


31 posted on 10/13/2005 5:57:36 AM PDT by Fenris6 (3 Purple Hearts in 4 months w/o missing a day of work? He's either John Rambo or a Fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: Baynative
excellent! grammar notwithstanding, this book should be a treasure trove. have you located a copy?

HEAR SUSAN ESTRICH: hillary plays 'the victim' for votes

35 posted on 10/13/2005 8:23:25 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sine_nomine
You're welcome.

A conversion back to the Clinton cause? Or at least to Clintonian plastic surgery?

Indeed.
In fact, hillary probably ordered Susan's face overhaul along with her
opinion overhaul

36 posted on 10/13/2005 8:34:39 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: Baynative

Thanx. We will no doubt be able to impeach Estrich with her own words.

The usual clinton rube arrogance rooted in stupidity.

The clintons figured that Estrich in their corner would make clinton serial rape and predation just disappear, not understanding that her presence would only intensify the scrutiny or that her 'expertise' and prior utterances would be used against them... and her.

Indeed, by twisting her own scholarship, Estrich indicts the clintons as surely as the twisting double helix on that blue Gap dress.


 

"Crucial to this protective wall was the secret police, a group of private detectives hired to protect hillary and 'Saturday night bill.' Their tactics included digging up dirt on women who might be linked to bill in order to cow them into silence. There is even some evidence of possible physical intimidation."

HEAR DICK MORRIS


"I got the letters from Pellicano to these women intimidating them. I had tapes of conversations from Pellicano to the women. I got handwritten letters from the women."
[Pellicano played a critical role in Mr. Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign by "suppressing" "inconvenient" accounts from several women, by concocting fraudulent "proof" (later discredited) that Gennifer Flowers doctored the damning tape of clinton, and again inside the clinton operation in January 1998, four days after the Monica Lewinsky story broke, to falsely paint Monica as simply a lying stalker, a claim later discredited by clinton's own DNA.]

MARY MATALIN
1997, CBS


There is reason to believe that he is a rapist ("You better get some ice on that," Juanita Broaddrick says he told her concerning her bit lip), and that he bombed a country to distract attention from legal difficulties arising from his glandular life, and that... [f]urthermore, the bargain that he and his wife call a marriage refutes the axiom that opposites attract. Rather, she, as much as he, perhaps even more so, incarnates Clintonism

GEORGE WILL
SLEAZE, THE SEQUEL




 

Connecticut Rep. Chris Shays said on a talk radio show Wednesday that, based on secret evidence he reviewed during the impeachment controversy, he believes President Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick, not once, but twice.

Talk-show host Tom Scott of Clear Channel Broadcasting, New Haven (WELI 960) asked Shays about the mysterious impeachment "evidence room," prompting the GOP moderate to say that Broaddrick "disclosed that she had been raped, not once, but twice" to Judiciary Committee investigators.

Shays, who is often hailed by the New York Times for his independent judgment and good sense, found the evidence compelling:

"I believed that he had done it. I believed her that she had been raped 20 years ago. And it was vicious rapes, it was twice at the same event." Asked point blank if the president is a rapist, Shays said, "I would like not to say that it way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick."

HEAR CHRISTOPHER SHAYS
'Shays Shocker Clinton Raped Broaddrick Twice'
National Review Online
By NR staff
8/02/2000





The rape took place while Bill was running for governor. Hillary came bursting into the room to talk to two people, one of whom I personally know.

She said "You won't believe what this [expletive] did now. He tried to rape some b*tch."

It was the job of these two to squelch the story.

doug from upland to Sean Hannity,
WABC, 10/16/00




 

"Who is Juanita Broaddrick? I've never heard of her!" cried Betty Friedan, the founder of modern feminism. Friedan's outburst came at last Friday's conference, entitled "The Legacy and Future of Hillary Rodham Clinton." Held at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. D.C., the event offered a chilling microcosm of an angry, divided America.

For nearly an hour, a five-woman panel had been debating whether Hillary qualified as a "feminist heroine." I thought Broaddrick's claim of having been raped by Hillary's husband had some bearing on this point, so I broached the subject during the question-and-answer period. Friedan's dyspeptic denial followed.

Was Friedan telling the truth? Maybe. And maybe all those millions of Germans who professed ignorance of the death camps were telling the truth too. The problem is, having admitted her ignorance, Friedan showed no interest in exploring the matter further. And that was the problem with the Germans too.

Totalitarian impulses flourished at the conference. Taking a page from Soviet psychiatry, some Clintonites suggested that Hillary hating might be a mental illness.

Richard Poe
The Hillary Conspiracy




"If you look at white women, and I think that was the key to this election, Kerry won 45% based on the exit polls--but they're generally in agreement--Kerry won 45%, Bush won 55% of white women. By contrast, Bush won only 45% of white women in 2000, so he upped is percentages by 10 points. In 1996, bill clinton won 48% of white women compared to Bob Dole's 43%. That is a huge, huge difference. I don't think you can lay all that at the doorstep of moral values. I think that this president unabashedly and abjectly took the issue of terror and used it to terrorize... white women."

HEAR HAROLD ICKES
Washington Journal
Nov. 8, 2004
C-SPAN



"It's no longer acceptable to say that the abuse and mistreatment of women is cultural. It should be called what it is: criminal."

Hillary Clinton
addressing the UN, 3.4.99


38 posted on 10/13/2005 9:14:20 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #39 Removed by Moderator

To: go-ken-go

40 posted on 10/14/2005 9:36:42 PM PDT by Registered (They couldn't find the artist, so they hung the picture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson