Captain's Quarters -

So is Bill Clinton's GQ's December MotY? Was he to be before the threat? And if so, why would the staff determine at that point to continue serving Clinton's interests? I find it hard to believe that any publication is that 'dhimmi' in regards to these people. But I've been wrong before.

It may be easy to leave journalism to the MSM, but as this case (and countless others) demonstrate, it probably is not very wise.

So, does this all mean that Bill and Hillary don't get along that well?

:blink blink:

If I owned that magazine, I would tell them that I was going to put the Clintons' pictures on the cove with the title "CLINTONS THREATEN GQ BOYCOT!" and that the story inside would reviel the Clintons' demands and say "The threats came after news of the following artical reached them" and be followed by the origonal story.

They would have no choice but to back off. And if they didn't, any lawsuit would be worth seeing them make fools of themselves in public.

How far will the Clinton's go? I haven't noticed any limits yet, have you?

I believe that these actions are inevitable during the first Hillary Clinton Administration:

o Reimposition of the fairness doctrine, resulting in the end of right-wing talk radio;

o Strict government regulation of the Internet, suppressing blogs like this one and their associated comment threads;

o Passage of "hate speech" legislation that will ban any statements that may offend, humiliate, or insult any protected interest group (e.g., Muslims).

It's a slam dunk. Rant now while you still can.

OR...are they talking about infighting in her campaign ranks?

Or both?

this means no liberal (or bush-haters) can say a word about censorship since their saints hil and bill are no different than w and company.

will everything start to sound like pravda by 2009?

Talk about Ms. Small Stuff.

Who even reads GQ? I'd completely forgotten the magazine even existed.

It only has 1/6th of the circulation rag Newsweek has, for example.

Why even care? The Metrosexuals who read GQ are only there to check out the latest duds, not read some boring article about a Hillary camp cat fight.

If this woman is this obsessed with negative press coverage in a very minor magazine, what's she going to do when if (god forbid) she gets elected?

I'm shocked, just shocked that politicians try to control how the media portrays them. Gosh knows that George Bush is always inviting liberal columnists to come up to the White House for coffee and to share his thoughts with them. Charles Krauthaummer, David Brooks and Kathleen Parker are liberal aren't they?

"Both Hillary Clinton and GQ have a lot of explaining to do if the Politico has this story correct According to Ben Smith, Hillary's campaign pressured GQ to kill a piece critical of her by threatening to withhold Bill Clinton's cooperation in the future."

Explaining to do? They will do no such thing. Furthermore who needs explaining?

With 90% of all journalists and newsrooms voting democrat the Clinton machine can do whatever it likes. They will be aided and abetted by virtually every editorial page in America. At the end of 2008 the Dems will have had the White House 12 of the last 40 years. They mean to change that statistic at any cost.

We all know Bill's dirtbag personal life but I ask you a simple question. If one of the repub candidates was accused of rape, I said accused even though most every rape counselor said Junita Brodrick was raped, would the press simply ignore it or would it be mentioned at every turn? If one of the same candidate's spouse was a serial adulterer would that go unmentioned? I don't think so. Rudy is already getting hammered for three marriages. Romney is a weird Mormon. Hsu is a character unrelated to Hillary. The list is endless back through time.

My prediction from 2004 still stands. Hillary is getting the nomination and has a better than even chance of the White House with her rapist husband prowling the grounds again. Previously I had said Hillary waking up next to a dead young girl could derail her goal. Now, that might not even keep her from the White House. We like to think the blogosphere has the power but it doesn't yet. The MSM still controls the airwaves. The fact that repubs win any elections is the miracle and proves this country probably is 70-30 conservative with the MSM making it look like 50-50 with its constant rumor and innuendo that poses as journalism in regards to conservatives.

Rudy and company have an extremely uphill road ahead of them. Hillary is the easy part--it's her machine that runs you over. The story mentioned above is only one of countless stories that get spiked everyday, most without the Clinton's foreknowledge--it's just taken for granted.

Why don't you file a complaint with the FEC?

This all sounds familiar, didn't Chavez take this route?

To learn how to play cards, you've got to learn how to hold them. You've got to learn the "value" of the cards you hold in your hand. And, you've got to know it's a COMPETITIVE sport.

Got that?

In the worst case scenario, Hillary is NOT nominated to the Bonkey slot in 2008.

Honest.

There's an international movement afoot; or at least one drafted by the daffy europeans ... That by giving Algore a Nobel Prize; he will get another bit of grooming ... to go with his Oscar. And, the millions he's picked up (regardless of global warming) ... as he flies about this globe.

So, there you have it.

Either Hillary IS gonna be the candidate.

OR she isn't.

So? If it gets to be Albore, look at all your wasted efforts. For what? To scare the mules from running their donkey?

Let. Her. Run!

As to GQ magazine, they just got their Internet boost. The way Drudge did the same when Newsweak spiked Isakoff's story.

This one is making the rounds. And, up at Lucianne, where I saw it first, today; a commenter came on and said: "Goody. I just sent this to everyone on my e-mail list."

Which gave me a good laugh.

Trying to bury the news items, in the world where so many of us can gain access to stories through our computers ... means this:

You do not have to put on your coat, to exit the house. To go to the magazine rack. To find this article.

And, yes. Bill CLinton is gonna have the COVER of GQ's December issue. Have fun. Paint his nose as red as Rudolph's ... and, call him a raindeer.

Those "cover" treasures don't amount to a hill of beans.

And, you need "insider gossip" to know that working for a MONSTER like Hillary is torture? What can't you grasp, when the lady asks you "to come into her office." Believe me, working for Hillary, by definition, means that to unwind, when you get home, you need more than one stiff drink.

Kapish?

You mean, you thought she'd be a great boss?

How inexperienced are you, with life?

Oh, if you want to smile, though. Here's another headline: A Syrian MiG-21, all by itself, fell out of the sky. On the way to Israel. On September 22nd. It just fell off the radar.

And, ya know what? There was a report that Israel scrambled its jets. Only to discover a "flock of birds."

The lying done to our faces is now beyond parody.

Patrick writes: "Hillary is getting the nomination and has a better than even chance of the White House with her rapist husband prowling the grounds again. Previously I had said Hillary waking up next to a dead young girl could derail her goal. Now, that might not even keep her from the White House. "

___________________

Please, remind me again why BDS is so much worse than Clinton derangement syndrome? Somebody?

Of course the most fearsome thing is that Norseman is totally correct. And Leftnomore is also right-the Clintons are going to be the beneficiaries of the Dec issue so under normal circumstances they would have been cutting off their noses to spite their faces but in this completely topsy turvy, Wonderland world that we find ourselves in, they threaten to boycott the puff piece (with cover yet)in order to get rid of the (probably only slightly) critical piece. Irrational to the nth degree. IMO KHarn has the right approach. Don't subscribe to liberal leaning, avant-garde pretending, agenda promoting magazines-they cater only to the shallow minded anyway.

Republicans have moved beyond parody to utterly pathetic. The only proactive thing being done by "conservatives" nowadays is proactively deciding who to blame for their next inevitable failure.

"We're going to lose Congress and the White House next year. I know, we'll blame the media!"

"We're going to lose in Iraq. We'll blame the cut-and-run Dems!"

Seriously... why should Republicans be running the country? What, exactly, are they offering the nation, besides "the Dems would be even worse"? You really think that's a confidence-inspiring, winning message?

I'm beginning to think Steve J is absolutely right. Time for the real conservatives to sit out a few elections and wait to see if Republicans ... post-Bush... can re-discover their spine, their party platform and their governing conscience... to say nothing of their optimism, heart and soul.

Actually, I think it is much more interesting to look at Hillary Clinton's connection to a partially constructed Soviet aircraft carrier. And why that never got investigated properly... by anyone, really. Not that the Senate didn't have the chance to...

Okay. I'm gonna say it. There are dickless wonders working at GQ. You know why?

ONE: They could'a published the article.

Who would have noticed that?

TWO: The threat wasn't real!

Imnagine having a scoop on that!

Remember, folks, Monica had one big fat ass. When she made her offer, though, the Prez took it. Which means he eats almost anything! Refined tastes are not exactly his major strength.

Can you imagine the phone call from Hill to Bill, telling him he couldn't appear on the cover of GQ for Christmas?

You think this guy is hard to get?

Oh, my gosh.

Monica got him to drop his drawers.

Doesn't get to see a mark easier than that!

Too bad GQ didn't just go for it!

They could'a made a significant different in their magazine's delivery power.

Ya know what I think? When hillary calls ya, and threatens, excuse yourself for a moment. So you can put the phone down. And, go into a closet, or the hallway. And, laugh your head off!

Wanna know how stupid this broad is?

She had to "threaten?"

You should be able to draw up an entire moving picture ... from these scenarios. And, if you can produce a script? Rosie O'Donnell can play this mishigas on screen.

Why do so many media types run away from good stories? Geez. It must come from some pretty bad training.

"Time for the real conservatives to sit out a few elections and wait to see if Republicans ... post-Bush... can re-discover their spine, their party platform and their governing conscience... to say nothing of their optimism, heart and soul."

Oh please.

I'd crawl over broken glass to vote AGAINST absolutely worthless Democrat traitor scum.

I'm not so much a Republican, as an anti-Democrat. And the Republican Party represents the best organized opposition to the Democrat Party and it's corrupt and incompetent collection of jackass politicians, none of whom are qualified for elective office.

Sit out a few elections and there might not be any thing remaining to "conserve", with Democrat traitor scum in charge.

"What, exactly, are they offering the nation, besides "the Dems would be even worse"?"

That's plenty enough for me. Because the Dems are FAR, FAR worse.

And by the way, what do the Democrats have to offer besides warmed over Marxism, appeasement and corruption?

Time has flown since the Clintoons ruled the airwaves. But as hard as I try to forget, I remember NBC trying hard to spike the Rape story. I remember that PR flack, Stephanopolis, calling up to get the FBI agent off the morning shows. I remember the "Pretty-in-pink" interview. I remember "that woman...".

I don't remember any of the MSM doing a hard hitting piece on the boy president or his partner in corruption. Not a single hard hitting piece...Not one.

With Clinton in charge, I expect things to revert, where news is how great the President dances with women in India (one of the poingant road trips).

Today's CQ Golden Shovel Award goes to...

(drum roll)

Teresa! Let's give her a big round of applause, folks!

(canned applause and cheering)

Coming fresh off a thread where she suggested that a Kos "diarist" infected with a massive case of BDS was actually a sock puppet for Michelle Malkin or Hugh Hewitt, Teresa stuns us again by suggesting that President Bush granting interviews to conservative columnists is equivalent to Bill and Hillary Clinton threatening a magazine when news reached them that it was preparing to run an article critical of Mrs. Clinton!

(canned oohs and ahhhs)

How DOES she do it? Teresa, on behalf of the CQ community, here's your Golden Shovel!

(trumpet fanfare accompanied by canned cheering)

I find something missing here. How did the Clinton campaign know that the piece was going to be unfavorable?

I don't read GQ but is this the kind of piece that would appear in that magazine typically? It sounds more newsworthy than one would expect in a fashion magazine.

If Josh Green is a freelancer I suppose he could sell the story elsewhere. Or some other writer can pick up on it. This is the problem with trying to suppress bad stories. There's always some kind of outlet.

The Clintons are notoriously thin-skinned about any criticism. Witness Bill's outburst on national television when asked whether he could have done more to capture Bin Laden.

And of course, they are darlings of the Hollywood crowd. Why should it surprise anyone that they've threatened GQ with withholding access to Bill Clinton? That's vintage Hollywood.

I don't see any violation of the First Amendment, Ed. Only GQ and its ilk, with its Clintonian readership, would view lack of access to Bill Clinton as a threat.

Because any in-depth, well-researched, journalistic effort regarding the Clintons, will by definition, be negative.

There's nothing positive about these people. The only positive quality either of them possess is a pornographic lust for power.

NoDonkey, I think you are probably an anomaly within the electorate in that you are (by your own admission) motivated almost entirely by political hatred. Most people aren't... they are motivated by self-interest.

And two months from now, what is the public going to remember? That Hillary tried to suppress some silly story in GQ? Or are they going to remember that Hillary offered a comprehensive health care plan and Republicans said virtually nothing about it because they were busy attacking the NYT for not charging MoveOn enough for a political ad?

Where ARE the Republican candidates on health care, anyhow? Or anything else of substance besides petty partisan sniping?

Posted by NoDonkey | September 24, 2007 6:08 PM

Talk about Ms. Small Stuff.

Who even reads GQ? I'd completely forgotten the magazine even existed.

Window into the Clinton Presidency?
Message to the MSM on how it's going to be?

Take your pick -- they're are lots of good reasons for voters to make an issue out of it. You let them get away with the little things and before you know it they'll steal the White House antiques. Oh, wait....

"Or are they going to remember that Hillary offered a comprehensive health care plan and Republicans said virtually nothing about it because they were busy attacking the NYT for not charging MoveOn enough for a political ad?"

Why would the Republican candidates feel the need to respond to one Democratic Presidential candidate's particular proposal on a particular issue during the primary season?

There will be plenty of time for the Republican nominee to counter the Democratic nominee's proposals when we get to the general election. The Republicans are running against each other right now as are the Democrats.

It helps to have at least a superficial understanding of the campaign process before indicting the Republicans like this. A better question is: what is the response of the various Democratic candidates to Hillary's proposal?

On the merits of HillaryCare II, read Dr. David Gratzer and Regina Hertzlinger who say it's all a command-and-control system for rationing of health care. That means long waits, assuming your care isn't denied outright.

Hillary Clinton long has said (HillaryCare I), "To control costs in health care, get rid of, or muzzle, the doctors, who cost the government too much money." That's because doctors prescribe treatments that cost money, Hillary!

We say: Get rid of government, labor union, and third party (HMO) control of health care, and give consumers the right to choose their own health care plans, unfettered by onerous government mandates.

Teresa said:

"Please, remind me again why BDS is so much worse than Clinton derangement syndrome? Somebody?"

None of Clinton's opponents advocated his assassination. Or called one of his Generals a liar and a criminal before the man even opened his mouth. And I don't recall a sitting Senate Majority Leader calling Clinton a "loser".

And none of Clinton's Presidential predecessors as President criticized him while he was in office.

filistro,

I'm curious why you care a jot about the Hilldabeast's proposal for health care. Isn't such a program an example of a (gasp!) neocon policy that you would naturally oppose with every fiber of your being?

doc:

I am always happy to pique your curiosity.

And I will be pleased to answer your question if you would kindly rephrase it without resort to a childish term like "Hildabeast," which I find offensive when employed by either side of the political divide.

More evidence that GQ is waaay behind the curve for Democrat fashion garb. First they missed out on Clinton's line of stain-resistant intern jumpsuits with cute pizza-delivery logos. Then Hillary's discreet White House silverware-borrowing vest story gets Isikoffed. Then someone stole (but they got him on video tape) the planned article on Sandy Berger's designer line of security documents pilferage-modified trousers and socks.

Today it's the Hsustock line of gen-yoo-wine imitation Naugahyde bribery briefcases with kicking donkey emblems and sensible bail-bond wallets being overlooked.

Perhaps it's time for GQ to revert to animal skins and burlap fashions (with coordinated pocket squares, of course) and start all over.

carol
thanks for you postings

filistro,

You wrote:

" I'm beginning to think Steve J is absolutely right. Time for the real conservatives to sit out a few elections and wait to see if Republicans ... post-Bush... can re-discover their spine, "

LOL! Coming from a Socialist, i'm surprised you could muster the word "spine", that being such a foreign entity to one of your clan, it must have almost burned your fingertips to type that, eh?

By the way, haven't seen you here much lately? What's wrong? Did you miss having an audience that actually knows what "pique" is? I can imagine over at DailyKos you've been struggling with having to post explanations, time and time again!

Anyway, for whatever reason, welcome back. I do appreciate the comic relief and of course, I'm still clinging to that hope that you will be here in 2012 as a Republican stalwart! It really might just happen.

F4TR

Thank you for your interest in my welfare. Actually I'm busy arranging for our seasonal migration, as well as dealing with quite an onerous deadline on a new book that I probably should never have gone to contract on, what with one thing and another....

At any rate you're right, I haven't been posting much though I do try to read CQ every day, even when buried under work.

Thanks so much for noticing. I'm really, really touched that you missed me :-)

Hey DocJim -- Thanks for the shovel. Maybe if I hit you over the head a few times with it you'll recall that Bush ONLY grants interviews with conservative columnists, only allows registered Republicans who have been pre-vetted into his "public" townhall meetings, brings only conservative bloggers up to the White House to create a cool echo chamber effect, and has an entire written MANUAL on how to have roving goon squads remove anyone who dares to protest at any speech he gives. Then tell me about people attempting to "control" the media.

As far as Hillary & Bill "threatening" GQ, how exactly does that work if GQ doesn't go along? Clearly it was more important to them to have the Bill cover than the other story. You guys are always advocating Republicans avoiding the MSM because they are "unfair", why should Hillary & Bill cooperate with a magazine that they think is doing hit piece on them? After all, your Republican candidates don't want to debate on CNN because they're scared the questions will be too mean, or to go to Tavis Smiley's debate on African-American issues because he is too mean, or go to the Univision debate because they are too Spanish speaking or something.

What's good for the goose and all that...

If they didn't roll over, they were told to expect a visit from Sandy Burger.

Del writes: "None of Clinton's opponents advocated his assassination. Or called one of his Generals a liar and a criminal before the man even opened his mouth. And I don't recall a sitting Senate Majority Leader calling Clinton a "loser".

And none of Clinton's Presidential predecessors as President criticized him while he was in office."

----------------

Del -- were you actually alive in the 1990's or do you get all your history from Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter?

Clinton was called every manner of thing -- and continues on this very board to be called a "rapist." Now maybe in Republican circles it is better to be called a "rapist" than a "loser," but I think most guys would disagree with you there.

And Clinton may not have had a particular general singled out for abuse, but Republicans sure did accuse him of every manner of "wag the dog" antics for going into Somalia and Bosnia. (Of course now he gets blamed for listening to Republicans and pulling out of Somalia, but, hey, who remembers those kind of details?)

But, please do tell, which Democratic presidential candidate has called for Bush's assasination? I sure missed that in the news.

Nah, the Clintoon strategy is simple. They're perfectly aware that the line of Lefty publications willing to shamelessly brown-nose and pleasure them goes completely around the block and then some. If whatever reporter assigned under Bubba's desk is found unsatisfactory the Grifters demand another one.

Plus, Hillary probably is already banking on the NY Times family discount for political advertising not to mention that already expected for free from Baba Wawa's The View, Cheerleader Katie Couric and various usual stepandfetchits ranging from George Stuffinenvelopes and Timmy Russert to Bob Schieffer, Bill Moyers, Daniel Schorr, Jim Lehrer and Bill Schneider. And that's only the ones under Slick's desk who signed up before last shift change.

"Of course now he gets blamed for listening to Republicans and pulling out of Somalia, but, hey, who remembers those kind of details?"

I remember the details quite well and it wasn't Bill Clinton's job just to "listen to Republicans", he was President and Commander-in-Chief and if he had a policy, a rationale for remaining in Somalia he had the obligation to articulate it and put his case before Congress and the American people. He never did.

I've addressed this before on other threads and for some reason you continue to trot this out as evidence of something, I'm not even sure what.

But it's very much like Hillary now taking the position that she was tricked into voting for the Iraq War. Was Bill also tricked into terminating the Somalia operation by duplicitous Republicans? Are the Clintons ever responsible for anything they do?

On another note, I agree that Clinton Derangement Syndrome was in full bloom during the 1990s. The thing is, though, the stakes were a whole lot smaller.

Some good points there Teresa. Bush NEVER EVER does an interview outside of the neocon echo chamber. Here's some proof of that too.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7056082

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/06/bush.lkl/index.html

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=2594541&page=1

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2003/0425brokaw.htm

http://wcco.com/politics/politicsnational_story_249202920.html

I agree with Carol and Captain Ed. GQ should have had the guts to tell the Clintons that if Bill wouldn't cooperate, the magazine would find someone else to name Man of the Year. Bill Clinton is not the only person who can be put on a magazine cover.

Hillary Clinton: " I did NOT have a threatening conversation with that editor!"

/smirk

Yes, I remember Bill Clinton being called a "rapist"...by the woman who said he raped her.

Filistro, two months from now Hillary will be under indictment for taking 850,000 from a convicted con man.

Why does 50% of the population dislike Hillary so much they wouldn't vote for her no matter what. Because of stuff like the above.

Also Travel Gate, Whitewater, attacking the women her pervert husband attacked, cattle futures, socialized healthcare, FBI files, Chicom campaign contributions, selling missle technology to the Chinese:

She was:
duped by her husbands intell that Iraq had WMD

duped by W. to vote for and strongly support going into Iraq and overthrowing Sadamm

Duped by a con man to accept 850,000 in illegal campaign contributions

Duped by Monicas' boyfriend on ocassions too numerous to mention,

Duped that Monica was a nutjob until Monica produced her husbands DNA all over the front of a blue dress

This great country simply can't be entrusted to one so easily duped or downright crooked.

Posted by Teresa | September 24, 2007 7:03 PM

Patrick writes: "Hillary is getting the nomination and has a better than even chance of the White House with her rapist husband prowling the grounds again. Previously I had said Hillary waking up next to a dead young girl could derail her goal. Now, that might not even keep her from the White House. "

Teresa, what part of my entire post above, including the snippet you chose, was factually incorrect. Did my calling Clinton a rapist cause you some discomfort when you realize that for the sake of partisanship you continue to make a Faustian bargain with your moral code?

Bill Clinton raped Juanita Brodrick. The fact that the statue of limitations expired does not mean he is innocent.

Gregory says, "Yes, I remember Bill Clinton being called a "rapist"...by the woman who said he raped her."
-----------------
And I remember some woman saying some Duke Lacrosse players raped her. Saying something doesn't make it so.

-------------

Bennett -- The reason that I bring up Republican opposition to our actions in Somalia is that Republicans continue to trot this out as evidence of how terrible and stupid Clinton was without admitting that they were standing up on the floor of the senate every day demanding that he do the same thing. And, today, when Democrats make speeches asking for the US to get out of Iraq the exact same Republican politicians call they traitors and such. I can't let it go, because the hypocricy makes me sick.

Agreed. GQ could always put Ahamanutjob on their front cover sporting a designer inverted dog bowl on his head and a pure goat hair suit (in trendy Inquisition Black) with the Columbia logo on the lapel.

Any truth to the rumor that Slick and Slickette offered to introduce GQ editor Jim Nelson to their good friend Vince Foster?

Teresa, Somalia and Iraq are two different things. Somalia was a UN operation. We (the US) were operating within the framework of the UN Resolution that authorized the entire international force (12 countries I think) to be there. And our soldiers were being dragged through the street.

Clinton had to make a choice. If he believed in the mission then he needed to make the case. He didn't do that. So yes, there was this vacuum where the only voices being heard were Republican voices. He never responded.

Don't get me wrong. I didn't think we should have been in Somalia and I didn't think he was wrong to pull our guys out. I think it's generally a mistake to hook up with the UN on any military operation.

Patrick says, " Did my calling Clinton a rapist cause you some discomfort when you realize that for the sake of partisanship you continue to make a Faustian bargain with your moral code?"

---------------------
No it causes me discomfort to call anyone a rapist when there is no coroborating evidence, she never filed a complaint, never told her husband about it at the time, signed an affadavit saying it wasn't true, etc... And, most importantly, he was never charged or convicted of the crime.

All of you were screaming for Mike Nifong to be jailed for wrongly accusing the Duke players, but on even flimsier evidence you are willing to call someone a rapist.

How about if I call you a pedophile just cause I don't like your politics? Would that be OK with you?

Oh I see Lefty Teresa has stopped peddling phony sob stories in the Hilary socialized medicine post and she is now defending the Clinton INC doing what they do best threaten and
manipulate the PRESS. Teresa seems to have severe memory loss issues regarding the Clintonista track record . She forgot about how Rick Kaplan and Clinton Inc used 60 minutes to get elected on a pack of lies and then CNN to implement there scroutched earth strategy against all Republicans and media people that got in there way . Mr Kaplan ran CNN during the week and stayed in the Lincoln bedroon on ther weekend to work up the next weekly attack plan on there so called enemies. Being a good leftist, Teresa understands there no limits for the Clintonistas since they want the power to shut up everyone with a opposing view. But, I find it odd how leftists like Teresa will use this website to peddle her propaganda and lies and knows Hilary will shut down this website ASAP once in power ! Hey,Teresa how are this sick relatives coming along ?

Tersea,

Let me make sure I understand your logic. You are camparing Juanita Brodrick to the woman who accused the Duke players as your basis for saying Bill Clinton did not rape Juanita Brodrick?

You are pathetic.

Bennett -- I realize Somalia and Iraq are different things, but both entail placing our troops in harm's way. And Republicans made passionate arguments at the time about how it was not in America's best interests to be in Somalia. Now, when Dems make arguments about why it is not in America's best interests to be in Iraq, they are called traitors by the same guys. I have NO problem with either side challenging any commander in chief.

I'm not arguing the merits of either action/war, merely that pretending that Republicans have never disagreed with a Commander in Chief is just silly. This country moves forward via rigorous debate over issues. Stifling debate by throwing around words like "treason" when people have perfectly legitimate concerns is ridiculous. After all, we would not have had a surge had the Democrats not won last November. Would we be better off if Rumsfeld was still in charge?

I don't buy that pulling a story can in any way be considered an "in-kind donation." No more than CBS pulling its Reagan miniseries a few years back was a donation to the Republicans.

What IS disturbing about this is that its the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the media's slavish worship of and abject deferral to anything attached to the Clintons. The MSM may be in the tank for Democrats already, but when it comes to Bill and Hillary, they're downright starstruck.

In 08 if Guliani is the Rep nominee, we will see literally thousands of media hit-jobs but hear and see virtually nothing even remotely critical of the Clintons, who can do no wrong as far as their media admirers are concerned.

Patrick -- Explain to me what evidence Juanita Broderick has offered that in any way would prove in a court of law that Clinton was guilty. DNA? Nope. Witnesses? Nope. Went to the police? Nope. Told her husband at the time? Nope.

Signed an affadavit saying she lied? Yep.

All the lefty tools bleating about free expression are too stupid to take a clue and realize which party actually does what they claim to be afraid of.

Tersea stated,

"No it causes me discomfort to call anyone a rapist when there is no coroborating evidence, she never filed a complaint, never told her husband about it at the time, signed an affadavit saying it wasn't true, etc... And, most importantly, he was never charged or convicted of the crime."

Now you are getting delusional. She had witnesses at the time who verified her trauma. As to not telling her husband? Well duh? Most rape counselors will tell you that is normal behavior. Did you even watch the interview? She signed the affidavit hoping she would not get caught up in the Starr investigation so her family would not find out. I'm now getting irritated by your feigned stupidity. Bill Clinton was not charged for the rape of Juanita Brodrick because the statue of limitations had expired.

Bill Clinton raped Juanita Brodrick. What you call me is irrelevant.

"Now, when Dems make arguments about why it is not in America's best interests to be in Iraq, they are called traitors by the same guys. I have NO problem with either side challenging any commander in chief."

Teresa, most of these same Democrats voted for the War in Iraq! I can't find any prior Congressional authorization for the Somalia involvement.

But I'll agree to disagree on Somalia and how it plays into where we all are on Iraq. But to the extent anyone's interested, I think this article is a good discussion on the entire Somalia fiasco.

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_Somalia_0104,00.html

Burtsb -- You are a pathetic little worm who doesn't actually deserve to be offered proof, but here is my uncles' death notice from the Baltimore Sun:

CROOK , Louis H. On Tuesday, Louis Henry Crook, of Stevensville, MD; beloved son of Helen (nee Hunter) Crook-Abel; loving husband of Shirley (nee Lawson) Crook; devoted father of Nicole Von Den Bosch and her husband, Scott and Amanda Post and her husband, Richard; step-father of Samuel Werner, III, Nathan Thorne, Todd Thorne and Marnie Case; dear brother of Helen Kopeck, Marjorie Gross, Trudy Roles, Thomas Crook, III, Joseph Crook and Bill Crook and dear grandfather of Kayla, Lilly, Emma, Ella and Hudson.
Funeral services will be held at the Fellows, Helfenbein and Newnam Funeral Home, P. A., Easton, MD on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 2:00 PM where friends may call from 1-2PM. Burial will be at Spring Hill Cemetery, Easton, MD.
http://www.legacy.com/baltimoresun/DeathNotices.asp?Page=SearchResults

Next time you want to call someone a liar, why not be a man about it and do it person so I can stick my high heel through your skull. You can criticize my position all you want, but lay off my family and never accuse me of being a liar.

George, You're welcome.

And, Viking 01, THANKS for coming back! You ripped some new fashions, there, for GQ. Your stuff just makes me laugh and laugh.

As if Hillary is the kind of boss people would give their eye-teeth to work for!

Meanwhile, it's a sad day when the Bonkeys find a way to toss her off the stage. Don't think they're not trying!

Heck, according to an article posted up at Lucianne, today, the europeans are planning on annointing Algore with a Nobel. As if that's an influential label.

But Hillary can shadow box Osama; I'm waiting for the match where she has to bloody her fingers, boxing the giant piece of dead wood.

The only thing missing, so far, from the Bonkey's 2008 line up; are ads for EDSEL.

Teresa,

You can continue to hide behind the not found guilty in a court of law canard if it eases your moral dilemma but by your thinking then OJ was really innocent.

On lesser counts, with more current deviant behavior, he was found guilty with Monica and he had to settle with Paula Jones for exposing himself.

To be fair to Bill Clinton, he doesn't have, or "get" sex from his wife! He's gotta get it somewhere, ya know? SO, he has "close encounters" that don't last long.

When you get to hear that sex like that takes place; and then you try to insult Juanita Broderick, by saying "it didn't." Then, at best you're very confused about sex. Since most women want more than just having their clothes ripped off.

I'll vote for Juanita Broderick telling the truth, just from what we've learned about Bubba, through circumstantial evidence. Oh. And, that he bragged about putting down "carpeting" in his truck.

Again, he wasn't using his bedroom!

So many years of marriage; and not to have a relationship with his wife; except for phony photo-ops ... sure shows the press to be ignoramouses. Since, they're peddling this garbage for all it's worth.

Surprisingly, lefties come here, even though we have no trouble discussing this stuff. And, I haven't changed my mind about the grifters in years and years.

What I can't understand is anyone with any work experiences at all, thinking Hillary would be a good boss. Sorry. She just doesn't come across as nice enough to work for.

There's more strategic importance to Somalia than many may realize. Bush 41 had his reasons though he couldn't have foreseen Slick and Les Aspin's cut and run (sound familiar?) strategy which resulted in Black Hawk Down.

Somalia and Yemen are the bookends on the Bab el Mendeb which is the narrow strait between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Most of the sea trade between the Atlantic, Mediterranean, and Europe headed to the Indian Ocean and Orient passes through that strait. Yemen was already hostile (USS Cole as a recent reminder and another Clinton blunder) and Somalia was headed that way when Bush 41 decided to take action.

Grenada also was of considerable strategic importance when Reagan chose to invade it. The Old Media tried to pass it off as imperialism and a med school evacuation. Grenada was to become the refueling stop for Soviet aircraft between Cuba and Angola back in the day when Fidel was Moscow's puppet. Grenada was a factor in the Cold War's outcome.

The problem Nifong ultimately encountered was the DNA cesspool of numerous non-Duke student origins found on accuser Crystal Mangum didn't match any accused yet in Bubba the Prevert's case the DNA upon the subordinate employee's dress most certainly did match Bubba's. Then Slick suborned perjury in Monica and lied to the judge (and America) to impede the Paula Jones trial while trying to imply that there was no pattern to his exploitation of employees and campaign workers such as Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broadrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. There's a trend there yet Bill and Hil's true believers still can't seem to see it! It must be Ken Starr's fault!

Patrick -- Found guilty of what with Monica? Consensual, if icky, sex? Wow. Guess every guy who ever cheated on his wife is a potential rapist by your book.

I'm not claiming the guy is a saint, but he seems to have lots of women willing to give it to him for free so it is a little hard to see why he would force himself on a frumpy nursing home administrator.

At any rate, it is 12:20am here and I'm going to bed. I doubt we'll ever change each other's minds on this one.

It still puzzles me that the lefties that come here actually prefer us to their relatives over at KOS.

Which is a real mad house!

No. I don't go there. I've seen samples, though, up at Little Green Footballs. WHen this gets imported "in."

Meanwhile, I'm so happy to see Viking01 back.

Every one of your posts is just a joy to read. Including the history lesson, above.

Talking about the strategic places on the map, reminds me of the FDR radio address to the nation, in early 1942. Where, first, he had the press send out the word the President wanted every American to have a world map. So he could discuss the Pacific.

Even if we think that back then the educational system was thorough; it was not! President Roosevelt had to EDUCATE his audience about what was out there in the Pacific. And, by that time, Japan had captured lots of it!

Our best presidents have an ability to speak. (Alas, it's a Bush Family trait to be bad at public speaking.)

I hope we get Rudy. I want a president who can think on his feet. And, who isn't "canned." Just "off the cuff."

Your writing, Viking01 feels "off the cuff" to me. And, it's a pleasure to get your input. I love coming here. The Captain just provides such a great way for people to get together and "talk."

Sex with the boss is ALWAYS consensual from the boss' standpoint. Just ask Henry VIII's headless wives.

filistro

Can you tell me what the Democrats are offering the country?

The same crap they've been offering for 50 years.

Social Security reform? No
Medicare reform? No
Higher tobacco taxes to fund pet projects? Yes

What happens when the smokers dry up and the money runs out? You know!

The Bush doctrine? The Dem president will quickly find out they can tweek Bush's policies but they can't run from the reality of the world.

The Republicans are offering RINO BS.
The Dems are offering an alternative of nothing.

Thanks for the kind words Carol. Much of the Left's arguments seem mere bumper sticker slogans emanating from moveon.org and their subservient DNC headquarters. Like many others here I enjoy spoofing the Left's robotic mantras and endless conspiracy theories.

One thing I try to remember is that GHW Bush and GW Bush encountered an activist Old Media which edits their statements in an agenda driven consistently negative way while Slick gained the continued benefit of apologetic, sugarcoating mediots such as this weather vane rube from GQ today and from the now gone-pecans Brokaw, Rather and Jennings up until Kerry's loss in 2004.

Reagan realized that fair press coverage for the GOP was a paradox thus he took his message directly to the people. W can do the same. So can Rudy and Fred and Mitt. The more they can make the Old Media irrelevant the more the NY Times will have to openly kowtow to George Soros and moveon.org as legitimate advertisers bail from them and the Katie Couric show.

"The only positive quality either of them possess is a pornographic lust for power."

That,sir, is an insult to pornographers everywhere...

Teresa really, really needs to get her meds adjusted.....!

"In particular, a source familiar with Green’s story said, he had focused on internal criticism of the campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle.

Green had also asked questions about the pay package of the campaign’s communications director, Howard Wolfson, who is technically a consultant and left a lucrative communications practice in New York City to take the job, and whose compensation is the subject of speculation within the campaign. (Speculation about Wolfson’s compensation, sources said, was not in Green’s final GQ draft.)

...Saunders, the Syracuse novelist who is writing the Clinton story for GQ, declined to discuss his story, citing GQ policy.

He told the Syracuse Post-Standard in July that he was planning to travel with the former president to tour Clinton Foundation projects in Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi and South Africa and said he’d voted for Bill Clinton twice."

Now I ask you, what's more likely to sell $400 slacks: Bubba in Africa, or Wolfson's W-2? Who's more likely to be shown wearing the Rolex Oyster, Donna Karan tie, Boateng suit whose glossy full-page ads surround and interrupt what Politico calls "groundbreaking reporting and long-form writing"?

I doubt Hillary would have had to use much pressure at all.

Ed:

An interesting observation:

"That puts an interesting spin on media relations, especially by a federal elected official. While it's certainly not illegal to demand that a story not be run, and even to threaten to cut off access if it does, it makes the quid pro quo of the Clinton story arguably an in-kind donation."

Query: Is it fair to notice that the Adminstration has played hardball the same way, and that the military establishment is well-known for doing the same thing as well?

There are simply way too many cozy relationships and levers that politicians and others in the establishment use to get stories reported the way they want them to be. It certainly doesn't help that corporate ownership of the media is becoming increasingly concentrated.

Teresa,

Sigh... That shovel's getting a good workout.

So, if I understand your (ahem) logic, it's OK for the Clintons to (allegedly) threaten GQ into pulling an article critical of them because that nasty ol' Chimpy McBushitler tries also to manipulate the media?

O' course, this isn't the first time that the Clintons have threatened a media outlet. Anybody remember when ABC had to hastily edit their miniseries about 9-11 a few years ago?

Your ability to find moral equivalances that will excuse anything that liberals do is incredible. Keep it up and you'll win the Golden Backhoe Award.

I found this to be especially rich:

Teresa: As far as Hillary & Bill "threatening" GQ, how exactly does that work if GQ doesn't go along?

Gee, I don't know. How does it "work" when a schoolyard bully demands another kid's milk money and the kid doesn't go along? How does it work when a mugger demands your wallet and you don't go along? The Clinton's calculated that access to Bill was something that GQ found important enough that losing it outweighed their commitment to "journalism". If the story is factual, it would appear that the Clintons calculated correctly.

Teresa: You guys are always advocating Republicans avoiding the MSM because they are "unfair", why should Hillary & Bill cooperate with a magazine that they think is doing hit piece on them?

Beautiful...

First of all, I don't advocate that Republicans "avoid" the MSM, and I'm not aware that anybody else has, either. The fact is that one CAN'T avoid the MSM if one hopes to get his message out. We simply believe that the MSM is biased against conservatives / Republicans and therefore won't give us or our candidates a fair shake. Do you see the difference? No? Surprise, surprise...

Second, this isn't a question of Bill and Hill "refusing to cooperate" with GQ; this is a question of Bill and Hill (allegedly) THREATENING GQ.

Are you really incapable of seeing the difference? Or are you so hyperpartisan that you can just explain it away in your own mind?

filistro: And I will be pleased to answer your question if you would kindly rephrase it without resort to a childish term like "Hildabeast," which I find offensive when employed by either side of the political divide.

Hmmmm... Decisions, decisions... If I don't use the term "Hilldabeast" to refer to The Evil One (aka Slick Willie's wife), a self-proclaimed True Conservative will explain to me why she's interested in the The Evil One's health care proposal... What to do? What to do? I really want to see how somebody who claims that she's so True Conservative that even neo-cons make her sick explains her interest in socialized medicine... but I really like using the term Hilldabeast to describe that loathesome harridan who (choke) may become the next president of the United States... Oh, the agony of choice...

(slaps hand on the desk)

I've made up my mind! As much as I'd love to be enlightened by a True Conservative on why the Hilldabeast's health care plan is so interesting, I just like using the term Hilldabeast to refer to that disgusting witch who's married to Slick Willie. O' course, I have fond hopes that I won't continue to use this term, either because (a) somebody will come up with one that I find more amusing or (b) I can start referring to her by the term that REALLY suits her:

Convicted felon.

Hill pimping Bill?

Isn't this just like the NYT 'special' treatment for
Soros' shill group: MoveOn.Org? Both the dropping of the critical article and the publishing of a Bill cover story are massive contribution to Hillary. So now the MSM not only do the pr for the Democrats but they provide the candidates with the role of editor!
No wonder noone reads MSM magazines except leftists anymore!

DocJim -- So, if I understand your (ahem) logic, it's OK for the Clintons to (allegedly) threaten GQ into pulling an article critical of them because that nasty ol' Chimpy McBushitler tries also to manipulate the media?

-----------------------

Obviously you need to be hit in the head a little harder, DocJim. My point was that all politicians do this, so the breathless remarks on the conservative blogs about how just absolutely beyond the pale and unheard of this kind of behavior is are ridiculous. It is absolutely par for the course for all of them.

Or are you so hyperpartisan, you don't recognize this as well.

GQ is the poor kid on the playground being bullied? Gosh, last time I looked they were staffed with grownups fulling capable of telling Hillary to go to hell. If they chose not to, that is their problem not her's.

Tersea,

Found guilty of what with Monica? Found guilty of lying about it. And in a larger sense he was found guilty by the public at large for a greater offense--at least in the private sector--sex with an intern is never consensual. Do that in the private sector and you are fired the next day! Had there not been a "blue dress" the Clinton's would have destroyed another in a long line of "bimbos". If you recall they were well on their way when Drudge blew the doors off. (another story that was being sat on)

But anyway he's your guy and you want him back in the White House. I say your moral compass needs tweaking.

I think the Juanita Broaddrick debate has pulled this thread way off topic, but I'm with Teresa on this. No one has proven that Clinton raped Broaddrick, and since she didn't press charges, it's rather unfair to simply take her word for it.

In fact, I put it in the same category as Anita Hill, who also never mentioned her supposed sexual harrassment by Clarence Thomas until years later and followed him into another position in the meantime. It was rather unfair for people to take her word for it too, especially since everyone else in Thomas' office said Hill was full of BS.

Accusations years after the fact get very little credibility, especially with no evidence and no contemporaneous revelations.

Let's skip the Broaddrick debate, please.

GQ, Conde Naste, corporate media, candidate negotiates to participate , hmm, isn't that the way it works folks? Just what new hatchet job on the Mrs. do you honestly think is going to be the silver bullet that becomes the catalyst for anyone who is undecided to have an epiphany and vote for the gop's flavour dejour? Who is it now that the GOP is hailing, Newt, comrade, party elder and legislation wizard? Remember the Far Side, "What dogs really hear": Blah, blah blah, Mrs. Clinton, blah, blah blah, Mrs. Clinton. No kryptonite this election folks.

it makes the quid pro quo of the Clinton story arguably an in-kind donation

It also raises the question as to whether all moneys going to Bill Clinton for appearances are really in-kind donations to the Hiliary Clinton campaign.

This linkage was apparently argued by Hiliary's campaign.

Let me respond to myself (!) at September 25, 2007 6:13 AM (strange that I sounded just like Teresa...):

Saying that "all politicians manipulate the media" is a poor excuse for what has apparently happened here. The Clintons (allegedly) THREATENED GQ. They didn't soft-soap them. They didn't refuse to grant an interview. They didn't say, "We'd prefer this interviewer as opposed to that one". They didn't protest the content of the article. They didn't ask for a chance to rebut.

They THREATENED GQ to dissuade them from running the article at all. Now, I will admit that, in the grand scheme of things, threatening to not allow GQ to ever interview or photograph Slick Willie again doesn't rise to the level of threatened murder. And you (I?) am right: GQ had the opportunity to tell the Clintons to go to hell... just like anybody would have the opportunity to tell a mugger to go to hell when he demands your wallet. But there is no getting around the (alleged) fact that the Clintons threatened a media outlet. They've done this before. Does it make you (me?) happy to think that they might do it again?

We nasty ol' rightwing conservative Christian bigot homophobes are criticized that we want to stifle "free speech" because we get upset because the NYT and other MSM outlets publish national security information with nary a peep of protest (much less threat of legal action) from President Bush. The Clintons are apparently willing to threaten a media outlet simply for saying bad things about them. It seems to me that there's quite a startling difference there.

DocJim -- Oooh... the Clinton's "threatened" GQ? Was Hillary going to crack their kneecaps with a baseball bat? Grow up. They told them IF you run an unfavorable story, we won't cooperate with your magazine in the future.

Do you think Robert Draper who just wrote "Dead Certain" about Bush with all the embarrasing anecdotes in it is going to be invited back to the White House for some more one on one interviews with President Bush? My guess would be they'd slam the phone down if he called. Is that limiting a "free press"?

Candidates can ask for whatever they want. If the media gives it them, then the fault lies with the media not the candidate. GQ should grow a pair and print the story if it is that good instead of Josh Green going and whining to his friends at the Politico about how mean ol' Hillary killed his story.

The Clintons didn't want something printed about them and they took steps to prevent it from being published - this is news?

Name me a single politician who wouldn't do the same thing.

And when the magazine caves in, you blame the Clintons and not GQ?

If your underwear is all twisted over a free press issue, perhaps GQ being gutless pussies is the issue you should be upset about.

Next.

Teresa,

This is starting to get ridiculous; you definitely win the Golden Backhoe Award for digging deeper and deeper and deeper.

Let's review: The Clintons allegedly told GQ, "If you print that story, then we will deny you access to Bill to punish you."

This is a threat. It is an "an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage"* (presumably, GQ would suffer some drop in circulation and / or prestige if they couldn't get Slick Willie on their cover any more). It may not be a scary "If you don't do what I want, I'll KILL you!" threat, but it is a threat nevertheless. What about this is so hard for you to understand? Do you not understand the meaning of the word "threat"? Is there some secret definition of the word that only you know that means "an expression of intention to do something REALLY, SERIOUSLY, TOTALLY mean"?

Let me also say that whether or not the White House invites Robert Draper back for more chats is not equivalent: to my knowledge, they did NOT threaten him or his publisher to stop the publication of the "embarrassing" book. Indeed, there have been many "embarrassing" books written about George Bush; I'm not aware that he's threatened ANY of the authors or publishers in any way. The White House press corps often ask Bush embarrassing (not to say insulting) questions and write bad things about him; if any of them have been threatened or sanctioned in any way, I'm not aware of it. Further, you are arguing from a hypothetical: "My guess would be they'd slam the phone down if he called." It doesn't matter whether or not I think that this would happen: IT HASN'T HAPPENED. You could just as easily argue that, "If Draper called the White House, Bush would have him murdered." That hasn't happened, either.

It's like I asked before: are you incapable of understanding this situation, or are you so hyperpartisan that you can simply explain it away?

---------

(*) http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/threat

DocJim -- You are being ridiculous. No body has any obligation to assist any journalist whatsoever with a story about them. GQ is free to write what ever they want about the Clintons. THe Clintons are free to say that they won't sit for any more interviews with GQ. Believe it or not, journalists are fully capable of writing stories containing the words, "The Clintons had no comment for this article."

Did the Clintons "threaten" to sue if GQ published the article? Did they go over and burn all the draft copies? What exactly did they do other than say they would not cooperate with any more articles. Is Bill Clinton now obligated to sit down and grant interviews every time GQ requests one under your theory?

Damn, Republicans are a bunch of wimps if that constitutes a "threat" to you.

And, as a matter of fact, Bush & Cheney have denied all kinds of access to various reporters that they don't like and granted special access to those they do. Which is perfectly within their rights.

ED, Teresa

While I might agree in principal that 20 year old charges shouldn't be taken seriously that is not the way the MSM treats Republican sexual issues. One must play the game the way the rules are interepreted by your opponent and the rule makers(MSM). To me however the more important point is the Clintons have shown a behavior pattern that is very disturbing; (1.) Governor of Arkansas has state troopers bring a young state employee(Paula Jones) to hotel room and exposes himself, a lawsuit is filed and Clinton pays large settlement and convicted of perjury (2.) President of the United States has sex in oval office with a very young intern including getting bl.. job while talking with high level government officials and encouraged his secretary to lie about the affair(any officer of a US company would be fired post haste for doing either of these events) (3.) Kathleen Wiley grappled in White House while asking for help from the President after her husband committed sucicide. Later maintains being threatened while walking her dog. (4.) Juanita Broderick maintains she was raped by Clinton 20 years ago. (5.) Many other women came out to verify a similiar pattern. (6.) A senior White House administration official(Vince Foster) committed suicide, allegations unknown documents were removed from his office (7.) MacDougical to testify on Whitewater by special prosecuter dies of heart attack while in jail,before testimony given (8.) Sandy Berger former Clinton NSA advisor(now advising Hillary) guilty of stealing classified documents with pictures of him stuffing under garbage disposal before he goes and gets more(You think the Clintons didn't know or ask for this to happen) (9.) Susan Mac Dougical(sp?) refuses to testify and spends 2 years in jail or what about Hubbell doing the same thing..... WHY? (10.) 900 FBI files in White House and high Administration officials didn't even know who hired Livingston(at least in their Congressional testimony) who was in charge of the program (11.) Numerous allegations of campaign finance violations with over 100 foreign people who left the country and could not testify. Now we have Hsu some little guy acting totally on his own(HA! HA!) gives millions to Clintons and others just to be a nice guy. If you believe this I've got a bridge to sell you. (12.) Let't not forget all the pardon scandals including Hillary's brother selling them for money but of course she knew nothing about it.

My point in all this documentation is I have never seen anything like it(and there's much more)and the stench surrounding this couple is overwhelming. I believe they are very corrupted and I would never vote for them. In fact I am astounded anyone regardless of party would for them. I don't agree with their politics but the patterns of this couple is scary and common sense tells there's more here than anyone knows.

Teresa said:

"Del -- were you actually alive in the 1990's or do you get all your history from Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter?"

LOL! Have Begala write you some new material.

"Clinton was called every manner of thing"

By who? Did the Senate Majority Leader call him a "loser"? No, that would be Harry Reid talking about Bush.

" -- and continues on this very board to be called a "rapist." Now maybe in Republican circles it is better to be called a "rapist" than a "loser," but I think most guys would disagree with you there."

This board is a miniscule sample of America. Try again.

Leaving aside the rape and sexual abuse allegations against Clinton, for which he and Hillary had a "Bimbo Squad" of high-priced lawyers, tell us again why feminists such as yourself and NOW gave Clinton a pass even after he was found to have engaged in an adulterous sexual relationship with someone young enough to be his daughter, who also could in fact be considered a workplace subordinate.

If a Republican President had done the exact same thing, you and NOW would cut their manhood off, take them out behind the barn and shoot them.

"And Clinton may not have had a particular general singled out for abuse, but Republicans sure did accuse him of every manner of "wag the dog" antics for going into Somalia and Bosnia."

WHile the Dems gave him a pass for starting a war of choice without the approval of the UN. Try again. Oh, and tell us about how he stage-managed the news of his impeachment by cruise-missiling some factory in Sudan.

"(Of course now he gets blamed for listening to Republicans and pulling out of Somalia, but, hey, who remembers those kind of details?)"

He would have pulled out of Somalia anyway. Keep trying.

"But, please do tell, which Democratic presidential candidate has called for Bush's assasination? I sure missed that in the news."

Read my post again. I said "Clinton's opponents". That means anyone who was against him, not necessarily a political opponent.

In addition to a British movie that depicted Bush's assassination, an American novel also advocated it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13374-2004Jun28.html

docjim505:

I'm with Teresa on this one and have no idea why you're trying to bury her for expressing a perfectly reasonable opinion in this instance. The Clintons have no obligation to cooperate with any particular media outlet or to refrain from trying to influence media coverage. As a political candidate, she'd be crazy not to. You can call Hillary's ultimatum a hyperbolic THREAT, but frankly, it looks more like stating the obvious to me.

Nor is GQ obliged to draw any lines in the political sand on the public's behalf. They clearly decided that's not a niche they want to occupy.

In reality, the GQ cave-in plants an exclamation point on the larger story. Imagine the teaser for publication of the original article in another venue, where it will garner far more attention as a result: "What Hillary doesn't want you to know -- Read it here!" As Bennet's earlier question about Hillary's advance work suggests, it's a readymade starting point for further investigation and all sorts of additional commentary on how the Clintons operate. As a bonus, the more hands-on hardball she's caught playing, at levels high and low, the harder it gets to claim that the really damaging stuff like corruption á la Hsu never crossed her radar. All things considered, what's not to like here? If GQ attempts to prevent Green from shopping his rejected story around, then there would be a more obviously legitimate cause for complaint. And an even bigger story.

Alas, for Republicans, Bill's popularity, and the fact that he can get media coverage at will, is just a frustrating feature of the sui generis presidential twofer which the Clintons represent. It would take a mighty powerful shoehorn to turn his photo-ops into in-kind donations, and frankly, I'd be surprised if anybody running for office would really want to start down that road. OTOH, it's a mixed blessing. The idea of Bill wandering around the White House as First Gent with time on his hands could end up hurting Hill more than it helps. Once the primaries wrap up, his prominence could be the ultimate double-edged sword, so to speak.

"Read my post again. I said "Clinton's opponents". That means anyone who was against him, not necessarily a political opponent."

Oops, that should read "Bush's opponents".

JM Hanes: The Clintons have no obligation to cooperate with any particular media outlet or to refrain from trying to influence media coverage. As a political candidate, she'd be crazy not to. You can call Hillary's ultimatum a hyperbolic THREAT, but frankly, it looks more like stating the obvious to me.

Let's review (AGAIN):

According to the story published by Drudge and cited by Cap'n Ed, Hillary found out that GQ was going to publish a negative story about her. She told them that, if they DID publish it, she would retaliate by denying them access to Bill.

Can we agree that she threatened GQ? Please: I don't want to read, "It wasn't much of a threat" or "GQ would have been in their rights to tell her to bugger off" or "I wouldn't have been frightened by it" or "Everybody does it."

Was it a threat? Yes or no? It's a simple question.

I would like to point out that it would seem that GQ apparently thought it was not only a threat but also a credible threat as they are NOT going to run the story.

I don't know why Teresa and (apparently) you have such a problem understanding this. Teresa has variously claimed that it wasn't a threat at all, or that it was such a weak threat that it doesn't count, or that the Clintons are simply doing what Bush does, or that GQ had a right to tell Hillary to get stuffed. All these statements represent a flailing defense intended to deny the simple fact that (allegedly) Hillary Clinton threatened a news outlet into pulling the plug on a story unfavorable to her.

Let me add parenthetically that I find the "Bush does it, too!" defense to be especially absurd. Is this the new standard for morality: find somebody else whose behavior is (according to you) equally bad and this will excuse whatever you do? Are Bush and Cheney allowed to perjure themselves since Slick Willie was disbarred for doing so? Can politicians take bribes or break the law in other ways just because "everybody else does it"?

docjim505:

Did Hillary allegedly threaten to deny GQ access to Bill if they published Greens piece? Yeah. Sure. Yes. Apparently, she has an "I don't want to read" list too.

capt,

"Accusations....especially with no evidence and no contemporaneous revelations." ?

you need to review the files on ms. brodrick at some other time. she never wanted to come forward. putting her in the anita hill category is really adding insult to injury.

After much thought, I have to say I think the doc is right on this one.

Let's consider the case of a well-known writer who is scheduled to be the headliner at a creative-writing conference sponsored by the "arts and living" section of a big-city newspaper. The conference has been booked, advertising done, fees collected. Then the writer is advised that notwithstanding the conference, the "Books" section of the same paper intends to publish a less-than-favorable review of the writer's new novel.

The writer can go ahead with the conference and, with grace and good humor, dismiss the bad review as just one person's opinion.

But if the writer throws a tantrum and refuses to attend the conference unless the bad review is pulled, that constitutes a "threat" because the paper stands to lose both revenue and invested time and money as a result.

Aren't the two situations pretty much analagous?

We're forgetting the classic case of the media bowing to Hillary's wishes, namely when she went onstage at the "Concert for NYC" in New York, and was loudly and roundly booed by the audience. This was less than 6 weeks after the 9/11 attacks.

The strangest thing happened-when the show was re-run, and later when it came out on DVD, the boos were mysteriously EDITED OUT. And on the DVD release, they were replaced by...CHEERS.

Goebbels would be proud of these people.

JM Hanes,

Thank you for providing a simple answer to a simple question. I would also say that the Hilldabeast doesn't have an "I don't want to read list"; she has an "I don't want ANYBODY to read list".

ABC News checks in on this story:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3648738&page=1

excerpt:

"Clinton, D-N.Y., is running perhaps the most media-controlled -- and media-obsessed -- campaign in presidential history. Her aides carefully screen access to the candidate, generally avoid news conferences on the campaign trail and have been known to throw around the Clintons' considerable weight to block negative stories and influence coverage of the candidate they're protecting and promoting."

In other words, the person who wants to be our next President does nothing but extremely controlled events and allows virtually no spontaneous press access at all.

Of course, this is basically what Bush has done, but I would think Hillary using the same tactic as Chimpy McHalliburton would make her supporters somewhat suspicious.

Doesn't this just make her Bush in a pants suit, with a D after her name instead of an R?

Don,

Thank you for all of the detail of the Clintons' past - it is very disturbing to many, of course, but I think it is important to remember that The Clintons are Socialists. Their agenda, their plan for a shift for America from a democratic republic to a Socialist system follows the teachings of Stalinist and Maoists - one of emphasis on control and a deemphasis on moral values and freedoms.

The European model of Socialism that has become thee landscape over there is simply the transition that the Clintons bring to America's future. Now, granted, the Clintons are extremely bright and persuasive folks so their "plan" is quite impressively disguised at times, but the bottom line on this issue is this: Bill Clinton's actions as President and Governor are not out of line for a spiritually bankrupt person. The goal is control over the masses and his personal behavior has nothing to do with detracting from the mission. Ask yourself, what influence did Hillary Clinton's aspirations to become POTUS one day have on her "taking Bill back" after the Lewinsky scandal? I propose that Bill's pattern of infidelity means nothing to Hillary - her moral base is a flatline. Only one mission is important to this couple and hopefully, I outlined that above.

The real issue in the 2008 election is simply...do you wish to continue to see American follow the road of a democratic republic or do you wish a conversion to a socialist state. My guess is that Hillary Clinton will narrowly win that election. Sadly, that would mark the inclusion of the U.S.A. into the European model - although some may say it was only a matter of time to see this happen.

The Green article will be published in Atlantic Monthly, according to the Washington Post (see WP article here)