Beastiality vs Reality

image

Bill and Hillary Clinton both hate Barack Obama, and when they’re in close proximity, neither Clinton can help displaying that hatred with a hot, angry intensity that dwarfs the radiation emitted by 20 million exploding supernovas. And why wouldn’t they? Obama personally neutered every member of the Clinton household. He killed poor old Socks the Cat to mark the first month of his administration, and Socks wasn’t even a threat, having been placed in a witness protection program years earlier. But that’s Chicago politics for you.

As everyone knows, wingnuts are the most astute observers of Democratic politics, so it’s no surprise that Colonel Mustard was the first to notice Obama’s vicious abuse of Secretary Clinton, as noted here last week. Then the choir director at Our Lady of Perpetual Grievance, Amy Siskind, pounced on The Colonel’s observation like a house cat on an unattended tuna salad sandwich, posting a “Where’s Waldo” image on her blog with the following plaintive question: “On the world stage: Where’s Hillary?”

Scuttling around under a drop-cloth—that’s where. Or so says Dead Princess Di stalker and Daily Beast cash cow milker Tina Brown. In a screed entitled “Obama’s Other Wife,” Brown says:

It’s time for Barack Obama to let Hillary Clinton take off her burqa.

The title and first line combine to portray the president as an evil Muslim wimmyn oppressor who has made a second-rate concubine out of poor Hillary, which is an impressively economical smear in just 16 words. But aside from that, the piece is mostly a tiresome rehash of Mustard’s and Siskind’s bogus talking points, which Clinton herself refuted here.

There are a few extra inaccuracies thrown in, like the implication that somehow Obama orchestrated shunting Bill Clinton off to Haiti when in fact the UN asked The Big Dawg to go, and he was eager to do so. Possibly to burnish his “I’m Mister Black People!” cred or likely because he genuinely cares about the sorry plight of the Haitians. Either way, there’s no evidence of a Chicago shiv in the appointment, nor is it at all unusual for presidents rather than secretaries of state to dole out plum ambassadorships to supporters, which Brown surely knows.

The motives of those who are spreading the “Our Girl Is Being Dissed!” meme are mostly clear: The wingnut shit-stirrers like Colonel Mustard want to undermine the Obama administration. Duh.

The sob-sisterhood shares that goal while also laboring under the delusion that infantilizing women—including one of the most powerful females on the planet—promotes feminism. (And it’s all good for the wingnuts since they see the infantilization of women as a feature, not a bug.)

But what’s Brown’s angle? Is she framing another plot twist in her upcoming tome on the Clintons? Could be. Last year, she told The View ladies the disappointing (for the Clintons) outcome of the primaries was actually a boon to her (Brown’s) budding narrative because it dramatically book-ended the Clinton years.

Maybe the spectacle of Hillary Clinton working cooperatively with her former rival is just too drab a story line for the woman whose last literary success entailed digging up salacious details about the long-dead Princess Di. It seems Ms. Brown will have her beastly clash of the titans, even if she has to manufacture it herself.

[H/T: Jason]

Posted by Betty Cracker on 07/14/09 at 09:15 AM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsBarack ObamaHillary ClintonOur Stupid MediaSkull Hampers

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via del.icio.us   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

Any bets on how long before these bottom feeders label Clinton a tr8tor and vow 100% allegiance to RealAmericanWoman Sarah Palin?

I can’t imagine what kind of dirt Obama must have in his wall safe that he is able to force the Dem party’s two most feared, capable and conniving fixers into not only doing his bidding, but earnestly miming the motions of agreeing with his heinous malfeasances and enjoying their role as enforcers.

It’s like watching Frankie Pantangeli order Don Corleone to dance the Funky Chicken. Poor Hill and Bill! They can’t be doing this of their own free will! Did Obama threaten Chelsea?

Strange, it’s the ongoing paradox for the Obama-haters. On the one hand, they sneer that he’s in over his head, he’s “Pampers” and “Obambi”—yet at the SAME time, they believe he’s crafty and vicious enough to pull off a total fascist coup and set up FEMA camps with the help of ACORN.

To be fair, I think there was also dissonance from the left on Bush—was he a complete naifish idiot or a Machiavellian evil genius? Myself, I thought he was a useful idiot for the most part whose pronounced class prejudices (despite his “folksy” affectations), as much as his bible-beating, accounted for his unshakeable belief in the rightness of whatever the fuck he thought he was doing.

Actually, Brown should have written “Hillary’s Other Husband.”

Hillary is openly enjoying interacting with another diciplined wonky grown-up who bears some resemblance to herself, as opposed to the somewhant unfocussed and intemperate Big Dawg.

Tina Brown is infamous for making editorial subordinate to commercial considerations. Under her, Vanity Fair and the New Yorker turned that line into a thoroughly permeable membrane. No surprise that she would try to bend Hillary’s history into yet another fawningly crooked narrative arc.

Wow,

Amy Suskind got housed…I went back to read the link and how quickly people stopeed posting on that ridiculous “Where’s Waldo” post.

I loved it even more that she hated on PatJ, which if she actually spent a second trying to build bridges and make coalitions, she would have realized she is a PUMA member from Confluence and other places!

In a bar they would be friends, but in the PUMASPHERE, they are enemies…how deliciously ironic.

Wow.  It’s like a giant bucket of stupid at T ‘n’ A*, isn’t it?  Like someone went deeeeeep into the well of stupid, right to the very bottom.


_____________________________
*Deliberately chosen as a deliberate neologism for TNA, if only because it will annoy them.

Mike, T ‘n’ A is good, but I like to call ‘em the NAG.

I have to do it from here, though, as does Betty, because they are so sure of the validity of their arguments that they banned us from commenting.

Pawprintless, but still PUMAs.

I think we should rename them PUMice, if only because they’re abarasive lightweights.

Damn.  Apparently posting right before bed makes my speling suk.

I went over to TNA and read the comments, they don’t like you over there do they Betty, LOL it always amuses me that so called feminists can be such bitches when it comes to other women who don’t share their views.

I went over to TNA and read the comments, they don’t like you over there do they Betty.

The funny thing is, they’re all outraged over a case of mistaken identity. One of the dolts in that thread claimed I was commenting there under another name, and I wasn’t, which would be clear if she read the comments at the RR thread she provided as “evidence.” (I agreed with every word the other person wrote, but it wasn’t me.)

Since I got banned there months ago by the administrators, I can’t even rebut the bogus accusations. The offense for which I was banned was providing evidence that Siskind’s charges against someone at NOW were false. They’re a bunch of phony cowards over there, alternately crowing about how they represent every female on the planet and clucking like a flock of psychotic geese when “outsiders” invade their precious sanctuary. Useless PUMA retreads, the whole bunch.

See? PUMice.

Betty,

After reading your earlier post, I had to write on it as well over at my spot.  It’s like Clinton called and said, “Damn that dumbass woman doesn’t speak for me or other women…”

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main