Bill Clinton Denounces the Media for Rough Treatment of Wife

AZCONSERVATIVE ^ | 10 Nov 2007 | John Semmens

[John Semmens]

Former president Bill Clinton denounced the media for what he labeled “their invasive, intrusive, and impolite harassment of his wife.” He was referring, he said, to the spate of questions raised following Hillary’s difficulty in the Democratic debate last week.

“Candidates shouldn’t have to answer complicated questions and be expected to take definite policy positions prior to taking office,” Clinton asserted. “This could impede their flexibility once they are elected.” Clinton contended that this “loss of the element of surprise will make the nation more vulnerable to its enemies—both foreign and domestic.”

“By taking a multi-faceted perspective on the issues, Hillary is showing that she sympathizes with people of all points of view,” Clinton continued. “I think this is the kind of inclusiveness we want in a president. It worked for me. Hillary is just carrying on what she learned from observing me.”

Clinton recommended that “Voters should vote for the person they trust and leave the decisions on complicated issues to her good judgment.”

In related news, the former president also warned his wife’s rivals for the Democratic nomination to “watch what they say. If they keep piling on they might find themselves ‘swift-boated’ somewhere downstream of here.”

Presidential contender Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill) said he found “the implication that the Clintons may have been the unacknowledged force behind the campaign that derailed Senator Kerry’s 2004 run for the office stunning. The surreptitious undermining of our own Party’s nominee goes beyond the normal bounds of give-and-take among honorable adversaries. I’d call it disreputable, maybe even sinister.”

[Not A Snowbird]

If Hillary wants to climb into the ring with the big boys, she needs to understand she might get punched a few times.

[Travis McGee]

“I’m the only one with a free pass to manhandle, grope and rape women around here!”

[Lucky9teen]

“Candidates shouldn’t have to answer complicated questions and be expected to take definite policy positions prior to taking office,” Clinton asserted. “This could impede their flexibility once they are elected.” Clinton contended that this “loss of the element of surprise will make the nation more vulnerable to its enemies—both foreign and domestic.”

“By taking a multi-faceted perspective on the issues, Hillary is showing that she sympathizes with people of all points of view,” Clinton continued. “I think this is the kind of inclusiveness we want in a president. It worked for me. Hillary is just carrying on what she learned from observing me.”

Translation: Hillary wants to be able to pander to the public, make it seem like she gives a rats patooty about the important issues that America is concerned with, so she can get votes and then she'll have an out when she flip-flops and does what every typical democrat does...say one thing and do another and CAN'T BE TRUSTED.

As Bill stated, it worked for him, and she is carrying on what she learned he got away with...

IMO, for those that want to recycle the 90's...get a book or buy some CD's, but don't waste the future of America!!!

[Califreak]

>“Candidates shouldn’t have to answer complicated questions and be expected to take definite policy positions prior to taking office,”<

So if we can’t vote on issues, we go for the vagina vote?

I don’t think so.

I don’t want to vote for someone without seeing their stance on important issues.

[fuzzthatwuz]

“These oil companies are already making too much money,” Pelosi said. “If we let them drill for more oil they’ll only make more money. This kind of profiteering cannot be tolerated. It should be punished, not rewarded.”

WoW! This little factoid from the article most certainly deserves comment. Does Pelosi have a clue to the true meaning behind her words? I think not, unless she is totally convinced that the average citizen is beyond reasonable thought.

[Califreak]

Pelosi is beyond reasonable thought. Average citizens voted for her. Makes sense to me.

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

Nice hook-set, John.

[llevrok]

So how is she going to stand up to Putin, Chavez Castro and Ammanutjob if she is afraid of Tim Russert and now Wolff Blitzer?

And she wants to be our Commander in Chief???

[Califreak]

They aren’t voting for her, they’re voting for him.

[avacado]

[353FMG]

“..she is totally convinced that the average citizen is beyond reasonable thought.”

Is that not the socialist and communist manifesto? Big government knows best.

[A CA Guy]

She enables his rapes and abuse of female children in the Oval office, and he in return tries to enable her to be the feminist who needs special treatment because she is a girl!

Odd, isn’t it and this the the main Democrat candidate.

[Califreak]

Okay, okay you got me.

I didn’t think to click on the article & see if it was satire.

I thought it was just another poor Hillary story!

[NeoCaveman]

And we all know that Bill Clinton would never treat a woman harshly.

Unless she said “no”

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>Okay, okay you got me.<<

The author takes the truth and tweaks it just a little, so comments about BJ’s preposterous statements in this satire generally apply to the “real” BJ’s statements.

Verisimilitude: Literally, the appearance of truth. In literary criticism, the term refers to aspects of a work of literature that seem true to the reader.
Verisimilitude is achieved in the work of Honore de Balzac, Gustave Flaubert, and Henry James, among other late nineteenth-century realist writers.

[Califreak]

So you can’t really blame me for thinking it was real.

Thanks for the new word professor! LOL!