Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hil for Prez? Poll says no way
New York Daily News ^ | 10/15/02 | JOE MAHONEY

Posted on 10/15/2002 1:36:11 AM PDT by kattracks

Hillary Clinton
Nearly seven of 10 Americans don't want to see Sen. Hillary Clinton run for the White House in 2004 - or anytime else.

A new poll released yesterday showed 69% of voters nationwide never want to see New York's junior senator take a stab at the presidency.

"She is a very polarizing figure," said Marist Institute for Public Opinion pollster Lee Miringoff. "She does okay among Democrats, and that's about it. There is very little crossover appeal."

Even among her fellow Democrats, Clinton has only modest support. About 42% support a run for the presidency, while 53% said she should never seek the job her husband held for two terms.

Clinton has tried to squelch any talk that she'll run for President in 2004, insisting she'll serve out her full six-year Senate term. But she has not completely ruled out the idea of a run for the White House.

If she ever does try, she'll face some tough-minded voters. A slim 37% view the former First Lady favorably, while 53% give her a thumbs down.

In a reversal of fortunes, Clinton's one-time congressional rival, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, still enjoys sky-high approval ratings more than a year after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Some 78% of poll respondents said they have a favorable impression of the ex-mayor - but just 9% picked a run for the presidency as a future Giuliani career choice.

"The problem for Rudy Giuliani is that there is no great consensus yet as to what he should do," Miringoff said. "But there is clearly a reservoir of public support in his corner."

Given a menu of choices, 29% of voters said Giuliani should keep his day job as a business consultant; 17% said he should run for mayor in 2005; 11% said he should replace Vice President Cheney in 2004, and 11% said he should be appointed to a national security post.

Giuliani's appeal cut across party lines. About 74% of Democrats view him favorably, as do 85% of Republicans and 77% of independent voters.

The poll was based on a sample of 1,017 adults and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.



TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 10/15/2002 1:36:11 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Of course she won't believe this poll, the Clintons never see the negative as real when it comes to themselves.
2 posted on 10/15/2002 1:41:02 AM PDT by BonnieJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
While this poll is instructive, it will not stop her. It is very unlikely that Hill will run in '04 (she has publicly ruled it out) as she needs more time to rehabilitate her badly tarnished image (reflected by this poll). However, the political landscape can change in the next 4 to 5 years, before the '08 elections.

The first leg of her strategy seems to be to keep her head down as much as possible, win a strong re-election in '06, and quietly sow her financial seeds through numerous fundraisers (by both her and Bill) for key party members. By early 2007, she will be ready to start cashing in those chips to begin her run.

The second leg of the strategy will be to make sure that Bush is re-elected in '04. Hillary will need a clear field in order to run in '08. Therefore, it is likely that Hill (and hubby) will do everything they can behind the scenes to sabotage the Democrat party chances of emerging victorious over Bush in '04.

If someone like Lieberman were to win in two years, Hill's presidential aspirations (and they are very real) would likely be derailed for 8 more years, making her 65 on election day in 2012.

While her age may not be a major issues at that time (considering the use of hair coloring and the miracles of plastic surgery) only 3 Presidents have taken the oath of office at a greater age. By 2012, she could be off the radar screen, and she knows it.

So, Bush must win in '04, to keep her hopes alive. Watch for Hill and Bill to align with either Gore (most likely to lose to Dubya) or with the most liberal of the upcoming bunch.

John Kerry would seem to be the next most likely sacrificial lamb (after Gore) for the Clintons. Kerry's unabashed liberal tone will sell with the Dim party faithful during the nomination process. But, the same liberal moniker will severely hurt his chances in the general election.

Once the field is clear for '08 and time has helped heal the wounds and the memories of the Clinton presidency, Hill will be poised to attempt a run for POTUS in '08.

And, she will be a formidable candidate. Assuming she gets the nomination (she would be the leading candidate for the Dims), Hill starts the election with the Dim base of states in her pocket. This base includes NY and CA and totals nearly 190 electoral votes. In this situation anything can happen.

So, it is not entirely unthinkable that someday we may all have President Hillary Rhodam Clinton as our commander in chief. Don't bet against her based on one poll!
3 posted on 10/15/2002 2:56:38 AM PDT by HoosierFather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
In the JFK Inaugural, it was "...Ask what You can do for your Country!"

In the modern campaigns, the Democrat Voters ask, "What will the Democrats give to Me?"

There needs to be a discussion about the Preamble's "promote the general Welfare". We need to make a distinction between "promote the general Welfare", and 'create the welfare-state'. And Democrat voters (and others) need to understand this difference.

If the leaders won't change their policies, then Democrat and union voters need to abandon the socialism of the modern Democratic Party and vote to reject the Democrat candidates.

4 posted on 10/15/2002 3:23:11 AM PDT by Golden Gate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
incredible! surrealistic! no way!
5 posted on 10/15/2002 3:32:29 AM PDT by ramdalesh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BonnieJ
It's the "right wing conspiracy" again! Anyone have proof of Newt Gingrich's whereabouts during this poll?

Maybe we can blame it on the religious right (whoever they are). Ich bien Ein New Yorker.....Ich bien Ein New Yorker.....

6 posted on 10/15/2002 3:59:24 AM PDT by tcostell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BonnieJ
there was anoth poll showing 93% AGAINST
7 posted on 10/15/2002 4:02:23 AM PDT by The Wizard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"She is a very polarizing figure,"

She is a socialist....who wants to live in a BIG house and look down at the little people, and make decisions for them! She has an immense mental problem, but a very big Rolodex.

Hillary, you should have gone cross-country skiing back in your college years with David Rupert, but, you were afraid you'd fall down. Think how much better things would have been. You could have been President without that overwhelming baggage of Bill's behavior. Nancy Pietrefesa was right.

"You know, Hillary, to become perfect, athletes have to be imperfect a lot of the time." -David R.

It's not the worst thing to fall.

8 posted on 10/15/2002 4:11:29 AM PDT by ChasingFletch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Only seven out of ten? That's pretty scary!
9 posted on 10/15/2002 4:11:58 AM PDT by The Great Satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HoosierFather
By 2012, she could be off the radar screen

By 2012 I'll be 74 yrs. old. I PRAY I live long enough to see the day when Hildabeast is off the radar screen and out of our lives.

10 posted on 10/15/2002 4:38:00 AM PDT by Elkiejg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Jewish World Review Sept. 6, 2002 / 29 Elul, 5762
David Grimes

Come listen to a story about a man named ... Bill

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | Actual news item: CBS plans to resurrect the '60s sitcom "The Beverly Hillbillies" as a reality show.

Bill Clinton: Hoo doggies! Would you look at this place! I can't believe CBS is going to let us live here a whole year! Now, where do you think they hid the snacks?

Hillary Clinton: Bill, please. Don't embarrass me. I know you're disappointed that you didn't get your own talk show, but this was the best offer that came along. If you ever want to have your own library, you'd better make this work.

Bill: This isn't going to be work, Hillary. This is going to be fun. Look, there's a camera!

(Bill puts his arm around Hillary, bites his lip and speaks solemnly to the camera.)

My fellow Americans, I just want to say that I never had sex with this woman.

Hillary: Bill! What if Chelsea heard you say something like that! Good thing the cameras aren't turned on yet.

Bill: I'm hot. I'm gettin' out of these clothes.

Hillary: William Jefferson Clinton! You leave your clothes on! You've got maids to interview.

Bill: Say what?

Hillary: That's right. Maids, cooks, personal assistants, fitness trainers ... the network wants to follow the adventures of a rural, lower-middle class family that's been suddenly transplanted into a Beverly Hills mansion.

Bill (brightening): Who's going to play Elly May?

Hillary: I understand they're trying to get Janet Reno. They think she's going to have a lot of free time on her hands soon.

Bill: Aw, man!

Hillary: Al Gore has agreed to play Jethro but only under the condition that you two are never seen in the same room together.

Bill: What about Mr. Drysdale?

Hillary: Ken Lay is the obvious choice, but only if he doesn't go to prison.

Bill: And Granny?

Hillary: That's been a tough one. The producers want Alan Greenspan. He's OK with the wig and the dress, but he absolutely refuses to sit in a rocking chair on top of the truck.

Bill: He was always cautious, that Alan. Who will you play, Hillary?

Hillary: They asked me to play Miss Hathaway, but I don't know. She's kind of a frumpy nerd. Do you think it'll be too much of a stretch, Bill?

Bill: I think you'll do fine, Hillary.

Hillary: I'm worried, Bill. You were president of the United States and I'm a U.S. senator. Are you sure this isn't beneath our dignity?

Bill: Oh, I don't know Hillary. What time did you say those maid applicants are scheduled to arrive?

Hillary: On second thought, you'd better let me interview the maids. Why don't you go out in the kitchen and fix us some lunch.

Bill (jumping up and down): Can I get a double cheeseburger meal deal from McDonald's instead? Please! Please!

Hillary (sighing): Oh, I suppose that would be all right. We're supposed to be dumb hillbillies, after all.

Bill: Hillary, when the year's over, can we take some souvenirs back to Little Rock with us?

Hillary (giving Bill a hug): You know we can, Bill. You know we can.
11 posted on 10/15/2002 4:47:39 AM PDT by Tango Whiskey Papa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks

12 posted on 10/15/2002 4:58:35 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
It’s early in the morning, the pup has been out to do his duty, the coffee is at my elbow and I am reading the FR headlines...felt fine until I read this business about Hillary...just the thought of that woman still pushing her considerable weight around in the usual Clinton manner, deviously, has spiked my blood pressure!

Hillary is like the Canker Sore, or fever blister that keeps popping up, causing discomfort and annoyance to millions of Americans. She will continue to plague the nation as long as the NEA, NOW, and all the other fringe socialist/Marxist groups continue support her. She is more than polarizing; she is the consummate infection that won’t go away. The DNC has a lot of therapy ahead of them in order to rid themselves of this ulcerous torment.

13 posted on 10/15/2002 6:14:09 AM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Unelectable?

Hmmm...

She'll need a job when her Senate gig plays out...

Maybe she could get a job at a 'Mustang Ranch' type of establishment servicing their sight-impaired clients.

I can picture her, chewing gum as she stands in the doorway to her room wearing a horribly soiled teddy, giving her last visitor a curt shove down the hallway. (as he struggles to get his pants up)

The hallway floor would be concrete, of course, with a drain conveniently near Hil's door. She would take the end of a garden hose from a rack mounted on the wall, give the faucet that its other end is attached to a jaunty spin and hose herself off 'down there' as she bellows: "NEXT!".

And if, as many have suggested, Hil's personal 'preference' isn't for men, that need not interfere with her work.

I'm sure that the establishment's Madam could take her aside, should the need arise, and say, "Honey, you don't got to like 'em, Ya just got to **** 'em."

That would put things squarely on a level she could understand.

14 posted on 10/15/2002 6:47:51 AM PDT by DWSUWF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HoosierFather
Unfortunately, I think your predictions in #3 are spot on. In fact, if I were a betting woman, I would say this Marist poll is the beginning of her refurbishing. The Marist poll, and certainly the NY Daily News are very Democrat-friendly institutions. Hillary herself may have ordered a poll that had rock bottom numbers today, so that 5 or 6 years from now, when she has slightly higher numbers, she can point to the "tremendous surge" in her popularity and claim that "the people" are demanding that she run - much like her then Governor husband did in Arkansas.

And it scares the bejabbers out of me. fsf

15 posted on 10/15/2002 6:57:21 AM PDT by Free State Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I bet Senator Clinton will paraphrase Admiral Farragut:
Damn the polls! Full speed ahead! Nothing will stop ME now."
16 posted on 10/15/2002 9:23:37 AM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The obvious point of humor here is that they're so blind they had to poll to know that nobody would vote for her.
17 posted on 10/16/2002 8:14:57 AM PDT by Havoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
You need to start investigating WHY the Hildabeast "hasn't produced" her book yet??? She was WELL paid for a BOOK. Where is the DAMN book? I wonder IF the payment she has RECEIVED is now a LEGAL transaction of money? Could it be considered a ILLEGAL cash transaction? WHEN is she supposed to provide a BOOK for the money she received? I want the MEDIA to start digging into this matter...I want somebody to start asking questions...where is the "Mark Levin/Laura Ingraham/Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly" on this matter?

I want some 'spalining from that wicked old bitch...Hitlery.

18 posted on 12/23/2002 6:36:29 AM PST by Caliban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: HoosierFather
Once the field is clear for '08 and time has helped heal the wounds and the memories of the Clinton presidency

Okay, Freepers. We have our work cut out for us. Let us keep the memory of the felonious Hillary alive in the hearts of our countrymen. Let not one Hillary thread go by without posting the truth. If she is slated to be in your area, freep the $#!+ out of her.

Now is the time for all good Freepers to come to the aid of their country.

19 posted on 12/23/2002 6:46:31 AM PST by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ChasingFletch
"She has an immense mental problem, but a very big Rolodex."

and 900 FBI files,
20 posted on 12/23/2002 6:56:33 AM PST by thedilg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Pres. Hillary and first man Bill?

NO FRICKING WAY!!

21 posted on 12/23/2002 7:02:20 AM PST by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HoosierFather

22 posted on 12/23/2002 7:05:36 AM PST by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HoosierFather
My records show she will be 66, not 65, on Election Day in 2012.

/PS/ Saddam Hussein will be 66 this coming March.

23 posted on 12/23/2002 7:10:24 AM PST by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tcostell
You must want to be a Chrysler as much as Kennedy wanted to be a sweet pastry!

In German, one isn't "ein" anything that ends in -er! One just is that thing, no ein.

24 posted on 12/23/2002 7:12:30 AM PST by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Caliban
Oh the delicious irony!
Clinton's self-glorifying book isn't even written and already it's obsolete.
 
Without criticism, without malicious intent, strictly by comparison, President Bush is defining the Clinton presidency.
Clinton's book might well be titled, "My Shriveling Legacy"
 

11 posted on 11/13/2002 10:31 AM EST by YaYa123

Q ERTY8 bump!

Do you think the Simon & Schuster gang will demand that the clintons return the $20-plus million???

Is hillary clinton's $8M "book advance" a Peter-Principle artifact?

For anyone who has wondered why Simon & Schuster would award an $8M "Book Advance" for the memoirs of someone whose lies are exceeded only by her banality, I offer the following analysis:

Proposition: hillary clinton's interregnal $8M "book advance" is a Peter-Principle artifact.
 
 
 
Given:
Knowledge is Power.
 
Time is Money.
 
Work/Time = Power
 

Proof:

Knowledge = Power -->
Knowledge = Work/Time -->
Knowledge = Work/Money -->
lim (Knowledge) as Money approaches infinity = 0 -->
 
The less you know, the more you make. -->
 
Conclusion:
hillary clinton's interregnal $8M "book advance" is a Peter-Principle artifact.
Q.E.D
 
ex libris
by Mia T
 
The teeth-gnashing on Monday when the news was out about Clinton's advance was mostly by people who
a) didn't think Clinton should monetize the kind of thing that made him infamous, and
b) felt it was yet one more affront on the public that the price was probably right.
That last isn't a learned exploration of the economics of publishing, it's just a hunch. Publishing economics -- unlike what it is that brings the public to buy a book -- is not inscrutable. The author's royalty is 15 percent.
 
If Clinton's book sells for $30, he makes $4.50 from every sale. Times
a thousand, that's $4,500. Times 100,000, that's $450,000. Say a
half-million, to round things up a bit. So he'd have to sell 24 x
100,000 to earn the advance. Well, that's not going to happen, but
great chunks can be got from foreign sales, magazines, book clubs,
paperback editions.
 
Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. is stretching it, but they're rich, rich Germans
own it, and a sister publisher already paid $8 million for Hillary -- why
not a little competition at the bookstore?
 
The extra-economic resentment has to do with a wobbly extension of the federal rule that you are not allowed to profit from a crime.

Wrong Way Corrigan Rides Again:

Adding up the Clinton book deal

William F. Buckley

National Review

 

COMMENT:

So why did the Simon & Schuster gang shell out $20-plus million to two self-serving crooks whose lies are exceeded only by their banality?

These "book advances" can be no less than payoffs, retroactive in one case, proactive in the other. (As for the Gingrich precedent: That hillary clinton was 16 days short of taking office when the deal was consummated is quite irrelevant. Simon & Schuster is to CBS as Murdoch is to FOX.)
 
Because the deals give each clinton the largest advance ever for an elected official, because they are very large payments from a corporate favor-seeker--indeed, the SAME corporate favor-seeker, because the clintons demanded the $20-plus million up front, because the deal was negotiated by a First -- uh -- Lady in the White House, because in both cases it is the selling of the corrupting of the presidency, the clinton "book deals" fail the smell test not to mention the "usual and customary" test, a key phrase in Rule 36 of the Senate Ethics Manual that refers to publishing profits. The clinton "book deals" are sui generis; they are not "usual and customary."
 
SUGGESTIONS:
 
1- A less wobbly extension of the federal rule that you are not allowed to profit from a crime: the clintons' profits belong to the clintons' victims -- us. Invoke that extension of the federal rule.
 
2- Boycott anything connected to the clintons or the Simon & Schuster group.
 
3- Remain alert to instances of future conflicts of interest that signal a quid pro quo. hillary clinton, for example, must recuse herself whenever a Simon & Schuster et al. matter comes before the Senate.
 

NYTimes
 
February 17, 2001
 
Senator Clinton's Book Deal
 
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is understandably pleased by the approval
she received on Wednesday from the Senate Ethics Committee for her $8
million deal to sell her memoirs. In finding that the transaction
passes muster under the Senate's rules governing book deals, the
committee essentially supported Mrs. Clinton's contention that both her
auction of the book to the highest bidder and the terms governing her
advance payments conformed to "usual and customary" publishing practice,
the Senate's standard for assessing members' book agreements.
 
According to a statement issued by her lawyer, Robert Barnett, Mrs.
Clinton has already received one-third of the $8 million advance. Under
the terms of the contract, the remaining payments will be spread out
over the next several years, presumably timed to coincide with various
milestones toward the manuscript's completion. Regrettably, Mrs.
Clinton still declines to reveal the full details of her contract or to
release her submission to the committee.
 
The positive finding by the Ethics Committee amounts to an assessment
that Mrs. Clinton's contract deal with Simon & Schuster, a publishing
company owned by the media giant Viacom, conforms to Senate rules. It
does not solve the underlying problem with the deal -- that it is utterly
inappropriate for a senator to enter into a multimillion-dollar business
transaction with a conglomerate that has a slew of issues coming before
Congress. If Mrs. Clinton were a member of the House her deal would be
prohibited. We continue to hope that the Senate will adopt the House
policy of restricting members' payments to royalties on books actually
sold.
 

 

The Times Reaps What It Sowed

 
December 22, 2000
The New York Times
 

Mrs. Clinton's Book Deal

 

Mrs. Clinton's Book Deal

We are sorry to see Hillary Rodham Clinton start her Senate career by selling a memoir of her years as first lady to Simon & Schuster for a near- record advance of about $8 million. The deal may conceivably conform to the lax Senate rules on book sales, though even that is uncertain. But it would unquestionably violate the tougher, and better, House rules, and it is an affront to common sense. No lawmaker should accept a large, unearned sum from a publisher whose parent company, Viacom, is vitally interested in government policy on issues likely to come before Congress ó for example, copyright or broadcasting legislation.

Mrs. Clinton's staggering advance falls just below the $8.5 million received by Pope John Paul II in 1994. We wish as a matter of judgment that she had not sought an advance but had voluntarily limited her payments to royalties on actual book sales, as the House now requires of its members. That way there would be no worry that she had been given special treatment in an effort to curry political favor.

The Senate will judge Mrs. Clinton's deal in the context of outmoded rules that, regrettably, still permit members to accept advance payments for their books provided they fall within "usual and customary" industry patterns. Mrs. Clinton held an open auction for her book, so the $8 million advance emerged from a process that presumably represented the industry's consensus about what the book would be worth. But Mrs. Clinton has a duty to reveal the entire contents of her contract so that the public and members of the Senate Ethics Committee can judge for themselves whether its terms fulfill her pledge to comply with existing Senate rules, inadequate though they are.

As it is, Mrs. Clinton will enter the Senate as a business associate of a major company that has dealings before many regulatory agencies and interests in Congress. It would have been far better if she had avoided this entanglement. As she above all others should know, not every deal that is legally permissible is smart for a politician who wants and needs to inspire public trust.

Only a few years ago Newt Gingrich, at that time the House speaker, accepted an ethically dubious $4.5 million book deal with a publishing house owned by Rupert Murdoch, an aggressively political publisher seeking help with his problems with federal regulators. This was the issue that ultimately forced Mr. Gingrich to abandon his advance, and led the House to ban all advance payments for members' books.

That is the right approach, and it would be nice if Republican critics of Mrs. Clinton's deal now devoted real energy to persuading the Senate to adopt the House rules for the future. Both bodies need maximum protection against entangling alliances between lawmakers and government favor- seekers now that nearly all major publishing houses are owned by large corporations with a lot of business before Congress.


 
 
RE: Newt Gingrich's $4.5 million book deal:
 
JAMES CARVILLE: This is the first guy who tried to cash in before he was
sworn in.
 
BILL CLINTON: [I don't] even know how to think in these terms.
 
REP DAVID BONIER: This is an arrogant act for a man who's about to
assume one of the most powerful positions and offices in our land.
Before he gets to the public business, he's taking care of his own
private profits.
 
REP CARRIE MEEK: Exactly who does this speaker really work for? Is it
the American people or his New York publishing house?
 
REP CHARLES RANGEL: Why doesn't Newt end this by giving the $4.5 million
to Boys Town?
 
HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE: The committee strongly questions the
appropriateness of what some would describe as an attempt by you to
capitalize on your office.)
posted by Alex Mulkern
 
12-18-00
Corporate Favor-Seeker, Simon & Schuster awards $8M "Book Advance" to Failed "Author"/Senator-elect hillary clinton

11-22-99

Book Trouble
Newsweek, November 22, 1999

Hillary Clinton's latest book, on entertaining at the White House, is receiving withering scrutiny before it makes it to press. First the manuscript went into rewrite after aides judged it too airy for a senatorial candidate. "You don't want to look like Martha Stewart," says a publishing source. Now White House lawyers may derail a book tour, since it could be construed as campaigning. (Her tour for a picture book about First Pets Socks and Buddy was scotched by the Monica mess, and the book flopped.) Her next tome: a mini-memoir that'll serve as a campaign bio.

 

8-1-99

by Mia T
 
Hillary Clinton's equal and inapposite reactions seem to be, at first blush, instances of the immutable First Law of The Betrayed and Humiliated Wife: Outdo the errant hubby's doxy...at all cost.
 
Thus, Vanity Fair's glamorous Marilyn-Monroe spread of Monica's digitally reduced spread was answered by Vogue's lushly Elizabethan, gauzy-focus, hindquarter-cropped-pleated-and-flounced, Queen-Hillary-for-President cover.
 
And now we have Hillary Clinton doing a Martha Stewart, who herself, is purported to have been "done" by the aforementioned errant rogue (notwithstanding the plain fact that Martha is more well-known for her tarts than for being one).
 
Seems Hillary Clinton is now writing a book titled "An Invitation to the White House" in which she will follow the format of the Martha Stewart classic, "Entertaining", claim multifarious Martha-Stewart talents and wrap her indecorous and corrupt, backwoods, backroom style of White House "entertaining" in Martha-Stewart elegance and purity.
 
"The Clinton White House has been noted for the...innovation of its events," said Carolyn Reidy, president of Simon & Schuster's Trade Division, the book's publisher.
 
Hillary Clinton's spokeswoman, Marsha Berry, added that the book will focus on how the Clintons have "advanced the availability" of the White House by increasing the number and diversity of people; that it will "highlight the access that the Clintons have given to more people, more types of entertainment..."
 
It should be emphasized that it was without even a trace of irony or the slightest smirk that both women related the above.
 
On closer inspection, Hillary Clinton's bizarre behavior is more than simple Ivana Trump-eting. It is vulgar, compulsive, shameless, smarmy, contemptuous, demagogic, megalomaniacal, in-your-face naked clintonism.
 
It is one thing for the frumpy, chipmunk-cheek, huge-hindquarter fishwife to insinuate her image -- albeit Elizabethan-shrouded and low-res-clouded -- onto the cover of Vogue; but it is quite another for the corrupt harpy to trumpet White House access even as new charges emerge of the clintons' rapes and other predations, the clintons' corrupt quid-pro-quo arrangements with a menacing and motley assortment of drug dealers, gun runners and nuclear weapons makers.
 
For Hillary Clinton to vaunt White House access just as the clintons' China treason is becoming increasingly, patently manifest to all requires a certain level of contempt for the people and for the country that is uniquely clinton.
Thank heaven for small favors...
 
Or as the real Martha Stewart would say,

"That is a good thing."

 

25 posted on 12/23/2002 7:13:54 AM PST by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
She is as good as her word...

There is a big Rat line-up at their favorite KFC.

She'll do anything to get elected...

My thoughts exactly.

With BillyBlob off bonking Demi, HRC will be free of a big dead weight. Scary!

She'll pony up with her kissing cousin...

While the true believers in American Freedom have the last laugh.

Let's hope so, anyway.

26 posted on 12/23/2002 7:17:51 AM PST by jws3sticks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crystalk
That was two month old sarcasm.

It was intended to be Hillary reciting a few of the mantra's of the democratic party in her own defense.

Sorry you didn't get the joke.

(although that might explain your knowledge of german,... this is another joke)

27 posted on 12/23/2002 7:32:06 AM PST by tcostell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
That's about the most positive report I have seen about the witch running for president. I think it is likely accurate, however, we must never underestimate her willingness and capacity for fraud, particularly in densely populated, RAT infested urban cesspools.
28 posted on 12/23/2002 8:34:59 AM PST by sweetliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
11-22-99 SNIP...You don't want to look like Martha Stewart...OHHH I guess they DID know wayyyy too much about the theif Martha Stewart...

What did Hillary know about Martha Stewart and WHEN????

BTW have you noticed WHO let that witch OFF an investigation? WELL it was Lott and Nickles...JUST proof...that those guys were/are worthless!

29 posted on 12/23/2002 10:29:33 AM PST by Caliban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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