See John Kerry in bunny suit
Bob Tiernan
Carlyle Halliburton
of ridicule (example below) that worked against Gore because of the
pathetic state of journalism in this country.
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDIR...@shell1.pacifier.net...
>
>
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/07/28/20040728_134402_dnc7.htm
>
Scratch
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDIR...@shell1.pacifier.net...
>
>
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/07/28/20040728_134402_dnc7.htm
A bunny? I thought it was a sperm swimming up a uterus
Har, har, har
Bob Tiernan
> ...explains the current GOP strategy
> of ridicule (example below) that worked
> against Gore....
Had Bush worn that bunny suit and had his staff
prevented photos from being taken in the first
place, we'd hear howls of how Bush was censoring
items that he knew would make him look silly
on page one of the newspapers etc etc. Sorry,
but the photos were taken and we get to see them.
If it hurts Kerry to be seen in the bunny suit,
then he shouldn't have put it on!
Go whine somewhere else.
Bob T
gatt
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
> Sorry, but the photos were taken and we get to see them. If it hurts Kerry
to be seen in >the bunny suit, then he shouldn't have put it on!
I can see their concern if they didn't want photos taken and that was
violated, but I'm completely confused as to what the hell the bunny suit
fuss is all about. It's frickin' stupid. If he wanted to tour the
facility, he needed to wear a bunny suit. So he did. If he was SCUBA
diving, I'd fully expect him to wear a SCUBA suit even if he looked silly in
it.
I'd be MORE concerned if he refused to wear the bunny suit for PR purposes
but toured the facility anyway.
Usenet is fine, but how many millions of dollars of air time, radio time,
newspaper time and newsprint are going to be expended on this ridiculous
non-issue?
=c
GKDD
> I can see their concern if they didn't want photos taken and that was
> violated,
it looked to me like they were posing (especially the group picture). if
not for a photo, then what? an artist rendering?
http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/
Carlyle Halliburton
"whining".
As Uncle Dick says, "Go fuck yourself".
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDI...@shell1.pacifier.net...
Dave Thompson
"gatt" <ga...@livefromtheclocktower.com> wrote in message
news:10h24r2...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
>
> > Sorry, but the photos were taken and we get to see them. If it hurts
Kerry
> to be seen in >the bunny suit, then he shouldn't have put it on!
>
> I can see their concern if they didn't want photos taken and that was
> violated, but I'm completely confused as to what the hell the bunny suit
> fuss is all about. It's frickin' stupid. If he wanted to tour the
> facility, he needed to wear a bunny suit. So he did. If he was SCUBA
> diving, I'd fully expect him to wear a SCUBA suit even if he looked silly
in
> it.
You know, I doubt anyone other than those wanting to make political hay give
a rat's ass about the photo. And I doubt anyone that has ever had to wear
one thinks it was stupid. It would have been dumb and arrogant to not wear
one while touring a facility that requires it. Why don't republicans ask the
people at Intel if they think it was ridiculous to wear one.
> I'd be MORE concerned if he refused to wear the bunny suit for PR purposes
> but toured the facility anyway.
As Bush did on the deck of an aircraft carrier.
>
> Usenet is fine, but how many millions of dollars of air time, radio time,
> newspaper time and newsprint are going to be expended on this ridiculous
> non-issue?
The only place I have seen the issue turn up was on the radio shows of
republican pundits. This should demonstrate how of little importance this
issue is.
Dave Thompson
"GKDD" <justif...@iraq.com> wrote in message
news:ME8Qc.226077$JR4.85518@attbi_s54...
Oh no, a politician posing for pictures. That never would happen with the
republicans, would it.
GKDD
"Dave Thompson" <dav1...@wdmdx1.com> wrote in message
news:10h27f8...@corp.supernews.com...
sure. they do it all the time. but when politicians pose for a picture(s)
then denie it, people start to ask questions.
Dave Thompson
Bush posed for pictures on his ranch supposedly clearing brush then denied
it was posed even the brush was hauled in for him.
Well, Ari Fleischer denied it.
lein
> http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/07/28/20040728_134402_dnc7.htm
At least his booties don't clash with his suit.
Gene
<zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote:
>
>http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/07/28/20040728_134402_dnc7.htm
As much as I dislike JK, I don't see a damn thing wrong with this
photo.
In fact, I have NEVER seen anyone look good in one.
OK, I admit, I first thought he was in one of the Halloween Outfits,
till I saw the pics :)
Bob Tiernan
> Bush posed for pictures on his ranch supposedly
> clearing brush then denied it was posed even the
> brush was hauled in for him.
Did he ask that the photos not be released?
What looks more embarrassing, being in a
bunny suit or clearing brush?
Bob T
Dave Thompson
A fake rancher clearing brush not attached to the ground.
Bob Tiernan
> You know, I doubt anyone other than those wanting to
> make political hay give a rat's ass about the photo.
That's true, and that's the point. If it was Bush,
the image would be all over anti-Bush websites etc
as it should be, but those same people say nothing
because it's Kerry instead. Either it's worth
something, or it's not.
> And I doubt anyone that has ever had to wear
> one thinks it was stupid.
Then why did Kerry and staff not want the
pictures out there?
> It would have been dumb and arrogant to not
> wear one while touring a facility that
> requires it.
Why did it take Kerry 30 years to make such
a tour? Oh, that's right -- he's *campaigning*
so he needs to show that he's interested in more
things than marrying incredibly wealthy ladies,
accumulating mansions, and botox. This is what
you get one one campaigns -- stupid, phony
images. They all do it despite previous
examples of how they backfire.
> Why don't republicans ask the people at Intel if
> they think it was ridiculous to wear one.
I bet they're chuckling, too, because they know
Kerry was just trying to get points out if
this - he really doesn't care.
> > I'd be MORE concerned if he refused to wear the bunny
> > suit for PR purposes but toured the facility anyway.
> As Bush did on the deck of an aircraft carrier.
That's right. But he used to wear a flight suit
once for real, compared to Clinton who wore one
on an aircraft carrier tour (and his staff stole
towels and stuff while they were there).
Face it, Dave, it was all about taking chances looking
stupid and silly doing something just because it's
campaign time. Another exampel was when Kerry and
Edwards made sure they were seen eating fast food
today or yesterday -- like "regular guys". Gimme
a break -- I'd have more respect for them if they
had ordered their usual lobster dinner with
caviar and a bottle of 1947 vintage wine. The
only major presidential candidate in the past
few decades who was able to get away with the
Big Mac images was Clinton -- because he really
did eat that stuff and was comfortable doing so.
Bob t
Dave Thompson
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDIR...@shell1.pacifier.net...
> Dave Thompson wrote:
>
> > You know, I doubt anyone other than those wanting to
> > make political hay give a rat's ass about the photo.
>
>
> That's true, and that's the point. If it was Bush,
> the image would be all over anti-Bush websites etc
> as it should be, but those same people say nothing
> because it's Kerry instead. Either it's worth
> something, or it's not.
It obviously makes a difference to you, because you've shown you are on the
same side as the petty republican spin whores that brought the entire thing
up in the first place.
>
>
> > And I doubt anyone that has ever had to wear
> > one thinks it was stupid.
>
>
> Then why did Kerry and staff not want the
> pictures out there?
Since when? You contradict yourself, Bob. You want it to be a posed
publicity photo and a photo his handlers don't want out. You never cease to
not make an ounce of sense.
>
>
> > It would have been dumb and arrogant to not
> > wear one while touring a facility that
> > requires it.
>
>
> Why did it take Kerry 30 years to make such
> a tour?
Kerry's only been a Senator since 1986. How could it take thirty years and
why is it even relevant? Maybe he hasn't toured a hotdog factory. Does that
mean he's somehow remiss for not visiting every fucking factory type in his
state?
Oh, that's right -- he's *campaigning*
> so he needs to show that he's interested in more
> things than marrying incredibly wealthy ladies,
> accumulating mansions, and botox.
And this is different how?
This is what
> you get one one campaigns -- stupid, phony
> images. They all do it despite previous
> examples of how they backfire.
No shit. Any more jewels of knowledge for us? Maybe you just figured out
libertarians are a bunch or disorganized losers and have come to share that
with us.
>
>
> > Why don't republicans ask the people at Intel if
> > they think it was ridiculous to wear one.
>
>
> I bet they're chuckling, too, because they know
> Kerry was just trying to get points out if
> this - he really doesn't care.
Most people involved in these visits gush over the politician and grovel to
get their picture taken with them. Your point is untrue.
> > > I'd be MORE concerned if he refused to wear the bunny
> > > suit for PR purposes but toured the facility anyway.
>
>
> > As Bush did on the deck of an aircraft carrier.
>
>
> That's right. But he used to wear a flight suit
> once for real,
But he avoided his flight physical (I wonder why, sniiiiiiiff) and does not
deserve to wear one now.
Did you catch the early propoganda during that event? The republican
spinners were suggesting that Bush actually flew and landed the jet himself
on the deck. After they were caught by such a ludicrous implication by the
puppy press they quickly backed away, but still used the same wording for
days on the screamer shows.
compared to Clinton who wore one
> on an aircraft carrier tour (and his staff stole
> towels and stuff while they were there).
Ha! What a load of crap. References?
>
>
> Face it, Dave, it was all about taking chances looking
> stupid and silly doing something just because it's
> campaign time. Another exampel was when Kerry and
> Edwards made sure they were seen eating fast food
> today or yesterday -- like "regular guys".
Evidently Edwards and his wife have been going to Wendy's on their
anniversary ever since they were married. Why do you have a problem with
that?
Gimme
> a break -- I'd have more respect for them if they
> had ordered their usual lobster dinner with
> caviar and a bottle of 1947 vintage wine.
Now that's funny. Didn't you criticize me for saying I'd respect Bush more
if he sold his ranch and bought property on a golf course?
Double standards, Bob?
The
> only major presidential candidate in the past
> few decades who was able to get away with the
> Big Mac images was Clinton -- because he really
> did eat that stuff and was comfortable doing so.
Clinton liked to eat and fuck, and despite the attempt to make him into
trailer trash he still makes his critics look like rubes every time he opens
his mouth.
I say good for Bill. Despite his white trash roots and lack of money he
turned out to be one of the smartest and most politically savvy presidents
in this part of the century. For all of Bush's money and influence, he
turned out a fratboy coattailer who sounds like an ignorant numbskull
southern inbreed despite an Ivy League education and a privileged life of
protection and favoritism.
Maybe they were switched at birth, Bob.
Lobby Dosser
> The
> only major presidential candidate in the past
> few decades who was able to get away with the
> Big Mac images was Clinton -- because he really
> did eat that stuff and was comfortable doing so.
>
>
And compared to the whol bunch running this year, a pauper.
Bob Tiernan
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > The only major presidential candidate in the past
> > few decades who was able to get away with the
> > Big Mac images was Clinton -- because he really
> > did eat that stuff and was comfortable doing so.
> And compared to the whol bunch running this year, a pauper.
Oh, I'm not sure about that. I think Bush
has about $13 million and the Clintons
are not far behind (which is hardly pauper
status even in comparison). How much
did Clinton (both) get for their alleged
autobiographies?
Bob T
Lobby Dosser
news:Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDIR...@shell1.pacifier.net:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
Post presidency money.
>
> Bob T
>
Gene
<zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote:
>Gene wrote:
>
>> As much as I dislike JK, I don't see a damn thing
>> wrong with this photo.
>
>
>That's right -- there's nothing wrong with
>it per se. But it's just that people are
>hypocrites -- the Bush haters would have a field
>day if Bush wore it, and the Kerry haters
>are doing just that -- cause their guy was
>smart enough to not do it.
Of course people are hypocrites. You, me and anyone with a
political axe to grind. However, you won't change anyones mind with a
dumb photo like that. Plus, it just shows how low we'll all stoop, to
make the "Other Guy" look bad.
I can recall the photos of Carter when he was caught scraping a
section of his face (nose area) and people just laughed. Plus the time
he was picking up a little girl and her dress came up. Funny, that's
all. So, I rank this in with them...
>
>
>> In fact, I have NEVER seen anyone look good in one.
>
>
>Which is why Kerry was stupid to be seen wearing
>one.
A photo op is a photo op. Some good, some bad. Don't mean a
thing...Unless you happen to be standing by a KKK Wizard or L. Farakan
:)
Kevin C.
the photo is kind of like the Dukakis tank photo, which some say made
Dukakis look bad and helped cost him the election.
I just happened to find both pictures side by side.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-kerrydukakisphotoops.htm
-Kevin C.
Jordan Lund
> Carlyle Halliburton wrote:
>
> > ...explains the current GOP strategy
> > of ridicule (example below) that worked
> > against Gore....
>
>
> Had Bush worn that bunny suit and had his staff
> prevented photos from being taken in the first
> place, we'd hear howls of how Bush was censoring
> items that he knew would make him look silly
> on page one of the newspapers etc etc.
Bush doesn't need to put on a bunny suit to look like a moron:
http://www.poe-news.com/imgs/story/38352-thiscornsucks.jpg
- Jordan
Dave Thompson
"Jordan Lund" <lu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:92dbefbe.04080...@posting.google.com...
Actually this one is funny also.
http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1182/article11416.asp
Rod & BJ
"Dave Thompson"
> I say good for Bill. Despite his white trash roots and
lack of money he
> turned out to be one of the smartest and most politically
savvy presidents
> in this part of the century.
I'm always puzzled by such grandiose claims (I suppose a
narrow interpretation could mean just between
1992-2000)...otherwise what criteria actually allows such a
apparent conclusion? Foreign policy wise he pretty much left
a shambles...... al Queda obviously grew and prospered
greatly under his watch, he ran tail tucked between our
collective legs in Somalia after some foolish policy
choices, the Israel/Arab conflict was no closer to
resolution in spite of massive bribes offered to the
Palestinians, Saddam got a remarkably free ride on
troublesome weapon inspectors, in Yugoslavia he bombed the
Serbs mercilessly because they had fought Muslim terrorists
in Kosova, of which to this day the few remaining Kosovian
Serbs are still being routinely attacked under the UN's
watchful eye, The Clinton/Carter nuclear Korean agreement
was a sham and largely ineffective. the Sudan "Aspirin
factory" bombing was surely not our finest
moment.....Domestically the energy deregulation policy and
desires plopped Enron and their ilk squarely on our lap, the
other runaway corporate scandals all came to fruition under
his watchful eye. The 1996 communication act helped give us
Worldcom and other telecommunication disasters...even his
much vaunted economy eventually succumbed to normal
historical business cycles....while the balanced budget is
to be admired it was not particularly done with specific
cost control (federal budgets increased nicely each year)
but rather with the exuberance of a runaway stock market and
the temporary peak of a robust economy.....he did however
squeeze the military but as history often teaches us defense
wise, what you don't buy now must be bought later. Earlier
the Waco Texas fiasco was surely not a leadership highlight
nor Hilaries much faulted failed medical reform......While
his election and re-election may be a personal achievement
of sorts many thanks must go to Ross Perot for his 17% and
9% conservative vote tallies, a split vote for the
opposition does not indicate overwhelming individual popular
support. Legislation wise over his 8 years he wasn't
particularly adapt at getting much done or leaving a
personal imprint beyond adopting a few Republican causes
(welfare reform).....What did he actually do for the
countries benefit that indicates that he was the "smartest
and most politically savvy" anything? Soggy
Dave Thompson
"Rod & BJ" <so...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:10h57bn...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Dave Thompson"
> > I say good for Bill. Despite his white trash roots and
> lack of money he
> > turned out to be one of the smartest and most politically
> savvy presidents
> > in this part of the century.
>
>
> countries benefit that indicates that he was the "smartest
> and most politically savvy" anything? Soggy
He won two terms despite being labeled as a womanizer, and beat the
republican's politically motivated hatchet job they called Whitewater.
Yeah, and if he were able to run again he'd win.
Rod & BJ
"Dave Thompson"
> What did he actually do for the
> > countries benefit that indicates that he was the
"smartest
> > and most politically savvy" anything? Soggy
>
> He won two terms despite being labeled as a womanizer, and
beat the
> republican's politically motivated hatchet job they called
Whitewater.
>
Interesting values...a claim in your eyes to presidential
fame is simply getting elected, re-elected and a office
fling....I suppose Nixon and Reagan are even bigger hero's
in your eyes because they had substantially greater
re-election margins or does the absence of a Intern fling
drop them from the running? Interesting that you ignored and
failed to defend his many other foibles and failures but
feel compelled to mention his sex life.....quite the legacy,
embarrassing but you work with what you have I suppose.
> Yeah, and if he were able to run again he'd win.
Since he garnered fewer votes and a smaller percentage in
either election than even Gore and last I heard Gore lost
....your assumption may be a tad optimistic...his claim to
fame still required a split opposition vote. Soggy
Bob Tiernan
> "Dave Thompson" wrote:
> > [Clinton] won two terms despite being labeled as a
> > womanizer, and beat the republican's politically
> > motivated hatchet job they called Whitewater.
> Interesting values...a claim in your eyes to presidential
> fame is simply getting elected, re-elected and a office
> fling....I suppose Nixon and Reagan are even bigger hero's
> in your eyes because they had substantially greater
> re-election margins
Clinton failed to get 50% or more of the
vote in each of his elections. Reagan
got that even when he face Carter as
well as Indy-Repub John Anderson getting 10%.
Nixon also whupped McG as badly as Regan whupped
Mondull in their re-elections.
Bob T
Bob Tiernan
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Oh, I'm not sure about that. I think Bush
> > has about $13 million and the Clintons
> > are not far behind (which is hardly pauper
> > status even in comparison). How much
> > did Clinton (both) get for their alleged
> > autobiographies?
> Post presidency money.
Yes, that's true. This is why, by the way,
salaries for Prez of the USA should be
$50,000 per year instead of $400,000 (up
from $200,000 which was Clinton's salary).
The reward for being Prez is the money
to be made *after* leaving the White House.
Bob t
Warren
<Uncl...@convertedrice.com> wrote:
> http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh080304.shtml explains the current GOP strategy
> of ridicule...
As opposed to the DemocRATic strategy of ridicule? Keep trying.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Warren
<Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDI...@shell1.pacifier.net>, Bob
Tiernan <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote:
> Carlyle Halliburton wrote:
>
> > ...explains the current GOP strategy
> > of ridicule (example below) that worked
> > against Gore....
>
>
> Had Bush worn that bunny suit and had his staff
> prevented photos from being taken in the first
> place, we'd hear howls of how Bush was censoring
> items that he knew would make him look silly
> on page one of the newspapers etc etc. Sorry,
> but the photos were taken and we get to see them.
> If it hurts Kerry to be seen in the bunny suit,
> then he shouldn't have put it on!
>
> Go whine somewhere else.
Yep, they're just a bunch a hypocrites. Fortunately they're a bunch of
hypocrites that are known for losing national elections, because they
nominate losers - Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. hahahahahahahahahaha.
Bill Shatzer
Warren (war...@nothere.nospam.com) writes:
-snip-
> Yep, they're just a bunch a hypocrites. Fortunately they're a bunch of
> hypocrites that are known for losing national elections, because they
> nominate losers - Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. hahahahahahahahahaha.
You mean as opposed to Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, and Bush the elder?
Or even the dubya - who also lost the election.
Peace and justice,
--
"Cave ab homine unius libri"
Bob Tiernan
> Warren wrote:
> > Fortunately they're a bunch of hypocrites that
> > are known for losing national elections, because
> > they nominate losers - Dukakis, Gore, Kerry.
> You mean as opposed to Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, and
> Bush the elder?
Bush the elder did win a national election
as candidate for Prez.
Bob t
Gene
wrote:
>
>Warren (war...@nothere.nospam.com) writes:
>
>-snip-
>
>> Yep, they're just a bunch a hypocrites. Fortunately they're a bunch of
>> hypocrites that are known for losing national elections, because they
>> nominate losers - Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. hahahahahahahahahaha.
>
>You mean as opposed to Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, and Bush the elder?
>
>Or even the dubya - who also lost the election.
Just can't get over that can you?
Heh!
>
>Peace and justice,
Not in your world....
Scratch
"Gene" <Ge...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:5ei3e0t4ti39bnrou...@4ax.com...
They always want to ignore this little thing called the electoral college
electoral college
n : the body of electors who formally elect the United States president and
vice-president
They want so badly to have this country become a full blown Socialist
country and these damn little things keep getting in the way :)
Ed Foster
<littl...@few-years.com> wrote:
> "Gene" <Ge...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:5ei3e0t4ti39bnrou...@4ax.com...
> > On 8 Aug 2004 04:39:49 GMT, aw...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Shatzer)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Warren (war...@nothere.nospam.com) writes:
> > >
> > >-snip-
> > >
> > >> Yep, they're just a bunch a hypocrites. Fortunately they're a bunch of
> > >> hypocrites that are known for losing national elections, because they
> > >> nominate losers - Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. hahahahahahahahahaha.
> > >
> > >You mean as opposed to Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, and Bush the elder?
> > >
> > >Or even the dubya - who also lost the election.
> >
> > Just can't get over that can you?
> >
> > Heh!
> > >
> > >Peace and justice,
> >
> > Not in your world....
>
> They always want to ignore this little thing called the electoral college
>
> electoral college
>
> n : the body of electors who formally elect the United States president and
> vice-president
That, plus the fact that Gore couldn't carry his home state. If he
had, he'd be President now. The people who knew him best voted for his
opponent.
Scratch
"Ed Foster" <erfo...@nospam.attbi.com> wrote in message
news:080820041823394571%erfo...@nospam.attbi.com...
Very good point :)
Bob Tiernan
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Face it, Dave, it was all about taking chances looking
> > stupid and silly doing something just because it's
> > campaign time. Another exampel was when Kerry and
> > Edwards made sure they were seen eating fast food
> > today or yesterday -- like "regular guys".
> Evidently Edwards and his wife have been going to Wendy's
> on their anniversary ever since they were married. Why do
> you have a problem with that?
They go to Wendys not because it seems natural to them
but because it's a sentimental thing. That's not the
same thing.
By the way, did you see that story from last week about
Mr. and Mrs. Kerry and Mr. and Mrs. Edwards on campaign
pretending they were eating a fast food meal in front
of the photo-op cameras (taking one bite or so) and then
going into their campaign bus where a very expensive
catered lunch (the *real* lunch) was waiting?
> > Gimme a break -- I'd have more respect for them if
> > they had ordered their usual lobster dinner with
> > caviar and a bottle of 1947 vintage wine.
> Now that's funny. Didn't you criticize me for saying I'd
> respect Bush more if he sold his ranch and bought property
> on a golf course?
I don't recall that. In fact, I don't recall much of
what you write within hours of it being posted. Your
posts are the Chinese food of or.politics.
[snip]
> I say good for Bill. Despite his white trash roots and lack of
> money he turned out to be one of the smartest and most politically
> savvy presidents in this part of the century.
Not quite. He lost any chance at being considerd savvy
when he allowed himself to be hamstrung by a Republican
Party reacting to the nes of Monica Lewinski. Yes, you
could say that the Repubs "shouldn't have done that",
but they are a major political party like the Democrats
and thus could do nothing else. Clinton was hardly savvy
if he went into that thinking that if he got caught,
the Repubs would not work to make him ineffective.
Any Democrat who was interested in seeing Clinton
getting more of his agenda passed in his second term
have no one else to blame except Clinton. Not to
mention the blackmail potential. This was very reckless
and stupid behavior, and worshipping Clinton as some
sort of sexual liberation hero is foolish. Unless you
didn't mind his presidency becoming ineffective.
Bob T
Scratch
> Dave Thompson wrote:
>
> > Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
>
> > > Face it, Dave, it was all about taking chances looking
> > > stupid and silly doing something just because it's
> > > campaign time. Another exampel was when Kerry and
> > > Edwards made sure they were seen eating fast food
> > > today or yesterday -- like "regular guys".
>
>
> > Evidently Edwards and his wife have been going to Wendy's
> > on their anniversary ever since they were married. Why do
> > you have a problem with that?
>
>
> They go to Wendys not because it seems natural to them
> but because it's a sentimental thing. That's not the
> same thing.
>
> By the way, did you see that story from last week about
> Mr. and Mrs. Kerry and Mr. and Mrs. Edwards on campaign
> pretending they were eating a fast food meal in front
> of the photo-op cameras (taking one bite or so) and then
> going into their campaign bus where a very expensive
> catered lunch (the *real* lunch) was waiting?
Was it a plastic turkey sandwich? :)