Skip to comments.She’s Not Buttering Him Up (MoDo Takes on B Obama Without Referring to His Ears)
Posted on 04/26/2007 4:44:21 AM PDT by shrinkermd
.. I wince a bit when Michelle Obama chides her husband as a mere mortal a comic routine that rests on the presumption that we see him as a god.
The tweaking takes place at fundraisers, where Michelle wants to lift the veil on their home life a bit and give the folks their moneys worth...
Michelle, Wife's View of BO: ...And then theres the Barack Obama that lives with me in my house, and that guys a little less impressive. For some reason this guy still cant manage to put the butter up when he makes toast, secure the bread so that it doesnt get stale, and his 5-year-old is still better at making the bed than he is...
...The Chicago Tribune profile of Baracks Rock on Sunday noted that her career had caused her husband discomfort: Critics have pointed out that her income has risen along with her husbands political ascent. She sits on the board of a food company that supplies Wal-Mart, which Sen. Obama has denounced for its labor practices.
...In order to get a bigger yard for their new house on Chicagos South Side in 2005, the Obamas got into what the senator now confesses was a boneheaded real estate arrangement with a sleazy political dealmaker named Tony Rezko, who has been indicted on influence-peddling charges.
...On Monday, The Chicago Sun-Times reported more shady Rezko news: Obama, who has worked as a lawyer and a legislator to improve living conditions for the poor, took campaign donations from Rezko even as Rezkos low-income housing empire was collapsing, leaving many African-American families in buildings riddled with problems, from a lack of heat to no lack of drug dealers and squatters.
Mr. Obama riposted that it wasnt brought to my attention.
(Excerpt) Read more at select.nytimes.com ...
Notwithstanding this, she has a sly, wicked but intelligent way of pointing out the foibles of the high and mighty. Besides that she has mastered the English language which many of her detractors have not.
“For some reason this guy still cant manage to put the butter up when he makes toast, secure the bread so that it doesnt get stale, and his 5-year-old is still better at making the bed than he is...”
Well, that does it for me. I’m going to have to vote GOP.
Sounds like the Clintonistas are getting nervous about Obama, huh? I don’t know if the limosine liberals can vote for a black candidate. He’s supposed to be working on the plantation, not running it.
I agree - Thank you you for pointing that out.
Rules, people, rules. We must follow the rules or we are no better than Democrats.
And the only reason for any MoDo posting is CZJ photos!
I sure do like that second picture. And why is it posted here, she is not in the article, not that I mind.
Although I’ve always enoyed viewing the threads - I never understood the connection. Thanks for the info.
As long as they're not named Clinton.
Has she mastered "the elements of style"? Perhaps.
However, back in the days when I got the New York Times and actually read her on a semi-regular basis, I found her columns to be rather juvenile. More often than not, she was straining to include some type of "hip" reference or analogy.
She's as tiresome as she is biased.
Actually she got a Pulitzer for taking on Clinton.
Michael Douglas dumped MoDo for Ms. Zeta-Jones.
LMAO... yeah, for damage-control during his impeachment.
You may have noticed that Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution won this year's Pulitzer Prize for Distinguished Commentary. I might not have noticed it myself, except that a waggish friend sent me an email on the day of the announcement, reminding me of the last time Cynthia Tucker, the Pulitzer Prize, and I had crossed paths.
But first, as we say, two caveats. The first is to declare that I'm pleased Cynthia Tucker won the Pulitzer Prize for Distinguished Commentary. The second caveat is more complicated, but may be boiled down to one simple proposition that most casual observers would consider obvious: The Pulitzer Prizes are a singularly corrupt institution, administered by Columbia University and the management of the New York Times largely for the benefit of the New York Times and a limited number of favored publications and personalities. Any citizen who thinks that the annual distribution of awards has something to do with quality probably believes that the Oscar for Best Picture goes to the most distinguished film of the year. If you're a connoisseur of unrestrained self-praise, may I recommend the citations when the Times awards itself the Pulitzer Gold Medal for Public Service.
Does anyone detect a note of cynicism, perhaps even biliousness, in my tone? Well, maybe. For the sad fact is that once upon a time I was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in Distinguished Commentary, and (so I was informed) considered the jury's favorite for the honor. But because the Washington Post ...
From the current Weekly Standard, by Philip Terzian. Link here:
Cynthia Tucker won it for gosh' sake!!!!!!
"The 25-year-old says she is eager to get on with her life. But does she still dream that her life will include an ex-President named Bill?
I just hope she is not over at the Watergate,
flipping through designer swatches for the Clinton Presidential Library.
After the President's prime-time confession, the news media were abuzz about whether Mr. Clinton could repair his damaged relationships with his wife and daughter.
Suddenly, That Woman stamped her feet. Like the Glenn Close character in "Fatal Attraction," Monica Lewinsky issued a chilling ultimatum to the man who jilted her: I will not be ignored.
She let it be known that she was wounded that the President had failed to apologize to her and had dismissed their grand, 18-month romance, their shared passion for books and laughs, as trivial -- a mere mechanism for relieving Oval Office tension.
Mr. Clinton rejected a more contrite version of the speech written by Bob Shrum -- nicknamed the "Shoot Me" draft at the White House -- that contained an apology to "Monica Lewinsky and her family." Instead, with some brass-knuckle guidance from Hillary, he embraced his wife and daughter as "the two people I love most," while swatting Monica away as "inappropriate."
He portrayed himself, insultingly, as a passive participant in their trysts. What she called true love, he called "legally accurate."
Monica got cranky and complained about all the positive press and public sympathy heaped on her rival, Saint Hillary, while she was being portrayed as a vixen.
She had lied to protect her beloved. And she had believed, from hints he had dropped, that there might not be a Hillary in their future.
More in anger than hope, Monica returned to the grand jury and made it clear she was not simply servicing the President. The pleasuring, she insisted, contradicting his account, was mutual. Their relationship was not cheap. It was way unique. The...
Will someone please resurrect one of those old Lifeboy Radio commercials, the ones featuring "B.O." -- meaning Body Odor -- sounding like a two-note fog horn as in Bee Oooooooooooooo.
They made Americans into daily bath-ers ... and sold tons of soap.
Did MoDo remember B.O.?
IMMUTABLE LAWS OF DOWD
1. Ashcroft never deserves credit.
2. Offering constructive solutions to problems, instead of whining endlessly about them, is a sign of weakness.
3. The People Magazine principle: all political phenomena can be explained with reference solely to caricatures of the personalities involved ("Dubya" is stupid; "Poppy" is an aristocrat; Cheney is macho-man; etc.). Any reference to the common good or even to old-fashioned politicking is, like, so passe.
4. It is much better to be cute than coherent.
5. Maureen knows best. Her long years as a columnist (doing basically what your great-aunt Tillie does in the nursing home bull sessions, but getting paid for it) have given her deep insight into foreign relations, politics, welfare, the Constitution, and all other topics. To disagree with Maureen in any way is not only a sign of being wrong, it's a hallmark of pure evil...or at least membership in the NRA, which is pretty much the same thing.
6. It is usually possible and always desirable to name-drop and name-call in the same sentence.
7. The particulars of Maureen's consumer-driven, shamefully self-involved life reveal universal truths.
Explanation of the Dowd/Douglas connection: by Miss Marple- 2/11/03
Ms. Dowd was escorted around New York and DC for many months by one Michael Douglas of Hollywood fame and fortune. She got to go to all the best parties, was photographed for the tabloids, and was picking out a gown to wear at the Oscars. Of course, Michael had become interested in her during Clinton's impeachment, when she had written some very anti-Clinton columns. After a few weeks of the Michael treatment, she began to write anti-Starr, anti-Newt columns, ignoring Clinton.
Then Clinton was acquitted by the Senate. In an amazing coincidence, Michael Douglas dropped Ms. Dowd like a hot potato, and instead picked up a hot tomato, Catherine Zeta-Jones, who subsequently bore him a son and they were married.
Ms. Dowd cannot get over her tragic loss. Her columns are increasingly anti-Bush, in the hope of impressing her lost love, Michael.
In addition, we think she has a secret crush on the President and is trying to get him to pay attention to her. Ha!
Ping me when Mo Dowd comes up with a cutsey sorority name for Barack the Magic Negro.
"These are not grounds for impeachment; these are grounds for divorce."
Not Suitable for Children January 25, 1998
by Maureen Dowd
WASHINGTON — There have been so many people rushing to TV studios in this giddy and cataclysmic week to talk about sex that networks are bringing makeup artists out of retirement.
The palaver about whether a 21-year-old White House intern had a particular kind of sex with the President has gotten so graphic that CNN’s “Inside Politics” Friday featured a warning that the segment might not be suitable for young viewers.
Let’s review what we’ve learned so far.
The President a liar? Knew that.
The President a philanderer? Knew that.
The President reckless in the satisfaction of his appetites? Knew that.
The President would say anything and hurt anybody to get out of a mess? Knew that.
Married men cheat? Knew that.
Married men cheat with young women? Knew that.
Married men who cheat with young women lie about it? Knew that.
Hillary isn’t throwing Bill’s stuff out on the White House lawn because she is as committed to their repugnant arrangement as he is? Knew that.
The Clinton team — those great feminists — devising ways to discredit women who come forward with reports of Clinton peccadilloes? Knew that.
The President and his minions dissembling and splitting hairs and playing semantic games and taking forever to find the documents until our attention wanders? Knew that.
The President has the moxie to pick out a dress for a woman? Didn’t know that.
In the delirium of the scandal, something remarkable occurred. The President reportedly admitted, in a deposition to Paula Jones’s lawyers, that, oh, yeah, by the way, he did have that affair with Gennifer Flowers, which he so adamantly denied during the ‘92 campaign.
I still remember James Carville ranting at reporters for being low enough to pay any mind to her, calling it cash for trash.
How can he go back on TV and defend Mr. Clinton in another sex scandal by once more trying to throw doubt on another damning tape?
At least Mr. Carville looked sheepish. Mr. Clinton’s famous rapid-response team seems to have bimbo-battle fatigue.
The tapes of Monica Lewinsky, now 24, seem believable, not least because we heard it all before with Gennifer Flowers. Helping to get her a new job, telling her to say nothing went on if anyone asked. “Deny it,” Mr. Clinton told Ms. Flowers on tape. “That’s all. I mean, I expect them to come look into it and interview you and everything. But I just think if everybody’s on record denying it, you’ve got no problem.” The whole modus operandi is right there.
Also, why did Vernon Jordan become a patron to a lowly Pentagon assistant if she was nothing special to the President?
The reality that looms before the American people is not the impeachment of this President. It is the annulment of this President. He has finally determined his own place in history. He will be remembered as the priapic President. The Oval Office appears to be the bachelor pad of a married man who is the Commander in Chief. Like all addicts, this one is surrounded by enablers.
Many Americans had accepted Mr. Clinton as a charming rogue. But the portrait that may be pieced together from the confessions of his willing and unwilling women now looks utterly uncharming. Ms. Lewinsky’s nickname for him — “the big creep” — could stick.
The Clinton doctrine may turn out to be nothing more than a view of the relationship of oral sex — or Oval sex — to adultery. CNN’s Judy Woodruff reported that religious scholars could find no biblical basis for Mr. Clinton’s purported claim to an Arkansas trooper that the Bible says oral sex is not cheating.
Ted Koppel actually began “Nightline” Thursday with the following sentence: “It may . . . ultimately come down to the question of whether oral sex does or does not constitute adultery.”
Well, it sure isn’t fidelity.
When Mr. Clinton says now that he can’t answer questions about sex, lies and tapes because he must hurry back to governance, people will want him to hurry back to self-governance instead.
MAUREEN DOWD: Liberties
September 13, 1998
by Maureen Dowd
WASHINGTON — The President must not lose his job.
Not over this.
Certainly, Bill Clinton should be deeply ashamed of himself. He has given a bad name to adultery and lying. He has made wickedness seem pathetic, and that’s truly a sin.
Kenneth Starr, all these years and all these millions later, has not delivered impeachable offenses. He has delivered a 445-page Harold Robbins novel.
If we are going to dump our President, it should be for something big and bold and black and original. Not for the most tired story ever told.
Middle-aged married man has affair with frisky and adoring young office girl. Man hints to girl he might be single again in three or four years. Man gets bored with girl and dumps her. Girl cries and rants and threatens, and tells 11 people what a creep he is.
The dialogue in this potboiler, compiled with sanctimonious, even voyeuristic relish by Reverend Starr, is so trite and bodice-ripping that it makes “Titanic” look profound.
In fact, Monica identified with Rose, the feisty, zaftig young heroine of “Titanic.” Last January, the former intern wrote the President what she called “an embarrassing mushy note” inspired by the movie, asking her former boyfriend if they could have sex (the lying-down kind).
Despite the fact that it takes place in the most powerful spot on the planet, the romance does not sizzle.
Bill Clinton fancies himself another Jack Kennedy and invoked his idol’s name last week to defend himself.
But Kennedy was cool. His women were glamorous. The Rat Pack was good copy. He may have been just as immoral, but his carousing at least had style.
Mr. Clinton’s escapades are just cheesy and depressing. The sex scenes are flat, repetitive, juvenile and cloying, taking place in the windowless hallway outside the Oval Office study or in the President’s bathroom.
The props are uninspiring. Monica always pretends she’s carrying papers to get into the Oval Office, and she gives the President a frog figurine, a letter opener decorated with a frog and “Oy Vey! The Things They Say: A Guide to Jewish Wit.”
Their meetings, often when the First Lady is traveling, are more needy than erotic.
Monica recalled, “I asked him why he doesn’t ask me any questions about myself, and...
is this just about sex... or do you have some interest in trying to get to know me as a person?”
By way of riposte, she said, the President laughed, said he cherished their time together and then “unzipped his pants and sort of exposed himself.”
When she complained to the President that she had not had any hugs for months, he quipped, “Every day can’t be sunshine.”
Thankfully, Mr. Clinton grew tired of his little pizza girl. She sensed he was “putting up walls.”
“This was another one of those occasions when I was babbling on about something,” she said of their last rendezvous, “and he just kissed me, kind of to shut me up, I think.”
He didn’t call. He didn’t write. She began to suspect she was being “strung along.” Trapped in a stereotype, Monica became the raging, vengeful Glenn Close character in “Fatal Attraction.”
“PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS TO ME,” she wrote in a draft of a note to the President. “I feel disposable, used and insignificant.”
She demanded a big job at the United Nations or in the business world in New York, as compensation for his ruining her life.
“I don’t want to have to work for this position,” she said. “I just want it to be given to me.” She sent the President a “wish list” of jobs (”I am NOT someone’s administrative/executive assistant”) and enclosed an erotic postcard and her thoughts on education reform.
Now if the President was taking Monica’s advice on education reform, that might be an impeachable offense.
She sent him a note that read: “I am not a moron. I know that what is going on in the world takes precedence... I need you right now not as president, but as a man. PLEASE be my friend.”
Getting nervous over her fits, Mr. Clinton reminded her, “It’s illegal to threaten the President.” This is the document on which the fate of the Republic has been hanging? These are not grounds for impeachment. These are grounds for divorce.
You doing her? ;)
Oh, c’mon: O’Dumbo would make a _great_ new symbol for America!
Those are some amazing (almost) non-pornographic photos!
I’m going to have to stop passing on MoDo articles if this is the quality of the post... In fact, if anyone has a ping list for MoDo threads, put me on it right now!
I’ve avoided Clinton ‘Toon lore for so long that I’ve forgotten this article about the ‘Toon and Monica...
Thanks for posting this for us.
My daughter might just be getting old enough for me to show her just why the ‘Toon was impeached.
I never check those threads myself and but when I do I have seen the required pics posted and mentioned so this time I asked why.
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.