Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


The Friendly and Familiar Skeletons in Hillary’s Closet

posted at 1:41 am on June 25, 2007 by Patterico
Share on Facebook | regular view

Hillary Clinton is likely to win the presidency in part because she is largely immune from attack for her past scandals. Put simply, people are tired of hearing about all the terrible and sleazy things she’s done in her life. The topic even bores Hillary:

Hillary Bored

Hillary has more skeletons in her closet than any other candidate on either side of the aisle. But unlike the scary unknown skeletons in the other candidates’ closets, Hillary’s skeletons are familiar, like old friends.

Hillary’s skeletons are so well-known, they should have their own nicknames. Hey look, it’s “Whitey,” the Whitewater skeleton! Over there is “Pink Slip,” the Travel Office Firings skeleton — right next to the collection of bones labeled “Hillarycare.” That grinning skull on the shelf? His official name is “Cattle Futures Skeleton,” but he goes by “Hundred Thousand” — the eye-popping sum of money she made off those trades. It just sounds more “street.” And that bag of bones in the corner is the one formally known as “Magic Reappearing Rose Law Firm Billing Records Skeleton.” Yeah, it’s kind of an awkward name; just call him “Rosie.” Everyone else does.

These skeletons may not offend voters . . . but they may bore them. You want proof? Let me take just a few paragraphs to remind you of the details of the Whitewater scandal.

I’m just kidding. I’m not really going to do that. But you cringed, didn’t you?

So it’s no surprise that, although Hillary’s past scandals say much about her tendency towards dishonesty and abuse of power, nobody seems to care. Big Media, which in years past had showed at least occasional interest in these matters, no longer considers them news. For example: the editors of the Chicago Tribune wrote the following passage in January 1996, about the Clintons’ behavior during the Whitewater scandal:

The legal issues will sort themselves out in time. But one thing has become all too clear. Bill and Hillary Clinton and their aides have made a concerted effort to deceive official investigators and the American public with half truths and outright lies . . . It’s not clear what the Clintons want to conceal, but it’s clear that they have made extraordinary efforts to do so.

That was Then, and this is Now. These days, your average Chicago Tribune editorial writer won’t wear out his typing finger producing an angry screed about Hillary’s past dishonesty. He is more likely to spend his time churning out an editorial about campaign videos — with praise for Hillary’s little Sopranos spoof. Concerns about Hillary’s deception of the American people now give way to more vital issues, like John Edwards’s $400 haircut.

Hillary understands this. Newsweek reported recently about opposition research into Hillary’s past, and noted:

If Clinton is worried about the new dirt-digging efforts, she isn’t showing it. When two much-anticipated biographies dropped into bookstores last week, her campaign dismissed them as “old news” and “cash for rehash.”

That will be her consistent response throughout the campaign — and it will likely work. Every candidate would love to be able to dismiss their political baggage with an airy wave of the hand, and a statement about the need to “move on” to the “real issues” facing the country. But this strategy is likely to prove particularly effective for Hillary, because people are just sick of hearing about these scandals.

That’s why Hillary is going to win. She’s the only candidate whose dirt is all old news.

Hillary Bored

[Patterico blogs at Patterico.com and can be reached at patterico -AT- gmail -DOT- com.]


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

Man – what a GLORIOUS mug there, huh?

44 indeed!

Good Lt on June 25, 2007 at 1:53 AM

This gives me an idea that has JibJab all over it. Dancing Skeletons, what could be better than that?

- The Cat

MirCat on June 25, 2007 at 2:24 AM

You forgot ol’ Filegate!

see-dubya on June 25, 2007 at 3:35 AM

Patrick, Patrick. With the help of folks just like you, it might be possible to counter the apathy trend, and remind folks of just how many truly corrupt things she has gotten away with.

Anyway, there’s always that pesky survey which indicates that more than 50% of Americans would refuse to vote for her. Why would that be? Certainly not based on looks.

Freelancer on June 25, 2007 at 3:50 AM

So it’s no surprise that, although Hillary’s past scandals say much about her tendency towards dishonesty and abuse of power, nobody seems to care.

I care and so should all the morons who might be inclined to vote for her. This woman is as great (or greater) of a danger to this country as the invasion taking place on our southern border.

The dems may be stupid enough to nominate her but I can’t believe that she can fake her way through the regular American electorate. This woman not only has her past known record of deceit and deception but she is waltzing her way through the current campaigning without answering any real questions or offering any real solutions to anything. The people of New York let her get away with it and elected her but, as I said above, I can’t believe the voters will give her a pass on this. I also believe the dems may be getting that message as time goes on and may surprize all of us by not even giving her the nomination. In any case, wouldn’t it be a gas to watch her and Fred! in a real debate?

OBX Pete on June 25, 2007 at 4:20 AM

Patterico, Ooooooo. Are you a trouble maker! ;-)

I agree. The way to defeat Hillary is on her politics and policies. I do not believe most Americans believe as she does. IF a conservative can speak to Americans with a good balanced message that also illustrates how bad a person like Hillary will be for this country, I think he’ll give her a run for his money.

csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 7:34 AM

csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 7:34 AM

Sounds like an endorsement for Fred Thompson.

right2bright on June 25, 2007 at 7:39 AM

It’s a sad state of affairs when she’s the Democrat’s best bet.

rplat on June 25, 2007 at 7:41 AM

But what is prevelant now that wasn’t as prevelant in the 90’s is the internet and blogging. Also, talk radio (that is, if the GOP Rinos like Trent Lott will get off talk radio’s back) makes an incredible impact now. So, don’t count Shrillery in the WH so fast…..I’ve listened to Dummiecrats who admitted that, if she is the cadidate, they are staying home in November, 2008. And that’s a good thing.

lynnv on June 25, 2007 at 7:54 AM

rplat on June 25, 2007 at 7:41 AM

We think it is sad, but talk to a few rabid women democrats. If they knew some of their kids would vote against her, they would have aborted them (now they may have to poison them). Just look at the women pundits on TV, they salivate when Hillary’s name is mentioned. She represents “freedom” to all those suppressed women (men teaching in colleges and universities are included…science areas excluded).
Do not, I repeat, do not get between a liberal and her picture of Hillary. It is their God.

right2bright on June 25, 2007 at 7:59 AM

right2bright on June 25, 2007 at 7:39 AM

hahaha. You wish. :-)

csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 8:01 AM

The fact of the matter is that the significant majority of the MSM are heterophobes.
Don’t believe it. Check out the editorial staff of the NY Times. The “paper of record.”
Subsequently, they have little interest in Hillaries’ peccadilloes.
The overriding factor is that she is gay, and that makes them feel better about themselves.
Helluva reason to elect someone President.

there it is on June 25, 2007 at 8:02 AM

There’s a better than 50/50 chance that you are looking at the miserable mug of the next President of The United States.
In case you haven’t noticed, the RepublicRATS (RINOS are us) are committing suicide (immigration, fighting a PC war, out of control spending).
Just because Hellary has committed numerous felonies, don’t underestimate her insatiable thirst for power and willingness to destroy anyone to get what she wants.
Breaking the law seems to be a badge of honor for the DemoncRATS. It never hurt Bubba.

mountainmanbob on June 25, 2007 at 8:04 AM

The addition of Patterico is the best thing to happen to this site since Bethany’s Vents!

gash on June 25, 2007 at 8:19 AM

csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 8:01 AM

Thought I would start off your week on a high note.
If the numbers end up showing he can beat her…whadda ya do?

right2bright on June 25, 2007 at 8:21 AM

Hillary has bigger balls than anyone in the MSM and she knows it. She will NEVER be challenged on anything she’s ever said or done. They will be labeled as gay bashing, or sexist, etc. if they do. Plus their cocktail invites will be stopped by all their friends at the DNC. They will never diss one of their own.

roninacreage on June 25, 2007 at 8:21 AM

When she is asked about the past she blows it off with “that is old news yada yada yada” and people let her get away with it. It is truly amazing.

Wade on June 25, 2007 at 8:26 AM

I say we don’t need the old news, we just need a good video editor, that clip where Hillary promised to take oil company profits, repeat it several times (once in slow-motion for good measure) and then follow it up with a small black screen with white text: “When does she come after yours?” Run it as often as possible. Hoist this commie liar by her own petard.

BKennedy on June 25, 2007 at 8:30 AM

When she is asked about the past she blows it off with “that is old news yada yada yada” and people let her get away with it. It is truly amazing.

Wade on June 25, 2007 at 8:26 AM

It IS truly amazing. They let her get away with murder, so to speak!

OBX Pete on June 25, 2007 at 8:33 AM

it seems to me that conservatives would love to have Clinton in the general election.

dansolis on June 25, 2007 at 8:37 AM

I’ll be voting for the Republican candidate , but I realize that Democrats stands a good chance next year. I hope Hilary the Democratic nominee, because she is the only one with a hint of backbone. When our back is against the wall from Islamic terrorists, I trust her to fight back. The other Dems would surrender quicker than you can say France.

It is my greatest hope that the Republicans don’t back to this mindless accusation mode against the Clintons. If this is the best that Patterico can do is to rehash the Republican insanity of the 1990’s, then I’m much less excited about my new Hot Air registration. I stopped listening to anything the Republicans said by 1994 and I still am angry with the Republicans over that impeachment spectacle. I’ve become Republican over the last few years, because they provide better answers to our war with Islam and to our economic problems–not because of their casting stones at Bill and Hilary.

We face the terrible amnesty bill, now. We face Islamic terrorism. We face bad economic policy (half-baked socialism). We face an anti-racist rhetoric that is both racists and socialist. Let’s talk about the policy issues. Let’s fight the good fight and not the sleazy fight! For alternative example, an analysis of Hilary’s support for shamnesty would be excellent.

thuja on June 25, 2007 at 8:46 AM

As soon as I read these words,

Hillary Clinton is likely to win the presidency

, I had to go home and lie down. Thanks Pattercio – please indicate a content warning in the future!

Ann on June 25, 2007 at 8:51 AM

Before I post my first comment, I would like to say thank you to everyone for the education, and thought-provoking entertainment. Happy to be here!
Now on to business, I have to agree that Hillary will likely be the next POTUS, only because Obama is a lightweight, and will crumble once the Clinton attack dogs step up their game. Since we know that 40% of the voters will vote Democrat even if a tree is the nominee (e.g: Kerry), I don’t see how the Republicans can defeat both Hillary and the media machine, especialy with the way voters can see how this administration has single-handedly tried to bring down the party lately. I hope I’m wrong. (For the record, I don’t love any candidate, but I think Mitt is the most “electable” of the group. We’ll see about Fred! as time passes.)

revolutionismyname on June 25, 2007 at 8:59 AM

You’re falling into that liberal trap of having no faith in the intellect of the American voter. Perhaps they aren’t interested in her skeletons because they’ve already decided NOT to vote for her. The secret ballot is a powerful thing. In the box, just you and your black marker (punch card, computer screen, etc.), doing the right thing just happens for a lot of folks. You don’t win elections when half the electorate will not vote for you under any circumstances.

At the risk of sounding like a writer for Time Magazine, I live in a VERY liberal town, and I’m a public school teacher here, but the vast majority of my liberal associates tell me they will NEVER vote for Clinton. And like it or not my “true conservative” friends, those same libs are itchin’ to vote for Rudy.

For me, I smell a Reaganesque multi-state trouncing by Rudy or Fred, though a Clinton presidency would put the Clinton myth to rest once and for all, and that’s a good thing, too.

Rational Thought on June 25, 2007 at 8:59 AM

Thought I would start off your week on a high note.
If the numbers end up showing he can beat her…whadda ya do?

right2bright on June 25, 2007 at 8:21 AM

ANY republican is better than ANY democrat ANY second of ANY day of ANY week of ANY year. And yes, that even includes fred?.

Hillary is scum and only scum and stupid people will vote for her.

csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 9:02 AM

Hammering her lack of qualifications for the office of POTUS will pay off more than rehashing sleazy scandals.

RushBaby on June 25, 2007 at 9:08 AM

When our back is against the wall from Islamic terrorists, I trust her to fight back wear the hajib.

Fixed it.

jihadwatcher on June 25, 2007 at 9:09 AM

I’ve never read Patterico before… and I’m glad that I hadn’t… if I read this stuff daily I’d be depressed all the time.

There’s being a realist, and there’s being glum…. you may think you’re being a realist Patterico, but you’re actually being glum.

Tell me about Fred Thompson’s skeletons…do they exist?

do you know any csdeven, since you’re the resident Fred hater (not sure what other word to use for what you say about him)

j_ehman on June 25, 2007 at 9:09 AM

Well Patterico, you’ve succeded in depressing the livingshit out of me!

james hooker on June 25, 2007 at 9:13 AM

Hillary hasn’t a chance to win. Her negatives are way too high. The fact is that she will not get enough of the Reagan-Democrats. You need the middle ground to get elected and she can’t get that middle ground. She is radioactive to the middle ground. Compounding her imminent doom is the fact that she will be running against one of two highly popular men, either Rudy or Fred, both of whom will do well with Reagan-Democrats.

Hillary is not in the running and never has been.

jihadwatcher on June 25, 2007 at 9:18 AM

Well Patterico, you’ve succeeded in depressing the living shit out of me!

james hooker on June 25, 2007 at 9:13 AM

Hear hear.

mythicknight on June 25, 2007 at 9:22 AM

I’m just kidding. I’m not really going to do that. But you cringed, didn’t you?

Heh. I did.

You seriously think she is going to win? Is this country culturally ready for a female president? Especially the likes of Hilary. This will be like David Dinkins mayoral run when he was ahead by a lanslide in the polls but barley scraped by in the election. Everyone was scratching their heads, what happened? The Bradley effect is what happened. We shall call this the Hilary effect. The anyone but Hilary vibe is strong, not that the media is going to look for it, or report on it. She is going to poll much higher than the votes she will actually receive. She isn’t going to win a single Southern state. She may not win New York if Bloomberg runs.

Theworldisnotenough on June 25, 2007 at 9:28 AM

The problem with our short memories is this: Does anyone really believe that all of these ethical lapses are in her distant past? I’m sure that she hasn’t changed her spots since she moved out of the White House. Where is the hard-nosed investigative reporting on her subsequent activities from the MSM?

Longhorn Six on June 25, 2007 at 9:29 AM

If the numbers end up showing he can beat her…whadda ya do?

right2bright on June 25, 2007 at 8:21 AM

The numbers already show that Rudy can beat her.

amerpundit on June 25, 2007 at 9:32 AM

Theworldisnotenough on June 25, 2007 at 9:28 AM

I don’t believe that being culturally ready is going to be an issue. There’s a reason Rush keeps saying that there’s an 80% chance of her winning.

I don’t think she’s going to lose to Bloomberg in NY. It seems that New Yorkers elect Republican mayors – but Democrat Presidents.

I, personally, have no problem with a woman President. She’s just not the woman.

What’s Nancy Reagan been doing lately?

amerpundit on June 25, 2007 at 9:36 AM

ANY republican…

csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 9:02 AM

I would respectfully exclude McCain from that list.

infidel4life on June 25, 2007 at 9:42 AM

I’ve never read Patterico before… and I’m glad that I hadn’t… if I read this stuff daily I’d be depressed all the time.

I think I’m winning them over, AP!

Patterico on June 25, 2007 at 9:45 AM

There’s a reason Rush keeps saying that there’s an 80% chance of her winning.

That dang pessimist Rush!

Patterico on June 25, 2007 at 9:46 AM

On another note, here’s the poll I’m talking about. McCain has fallen behind Clinton. Rudy continues to lead Clinton 46-45.

amerpundit on June 25, 2007 at 9:50 AM

That picture pretty much sums up both the Dems and the Repubs right now.

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2007 at 10:04 AM

“Now, I want you to listen to me !!! [wagging finger]…I DO NOT have any skeletons in my closet !!!”

“It depends on what the definition of “skeletons” is.”

franksalterego on June 25, 2007 at 10:16 AM

I don’t doubt that those Democrats who swear that they hate Hillary would hold their noses and vote for her if she’s wins the nomination. To them, ANY Democrat is better than…you know the rest.

Here’s the amazing thing-she still hasn’t done anything beyond yammering about how bad George Bush is, except for a few visits to the Green Zone in Iraq. That’s it. That’s all she’s accomplished. She’s not a leader in the Congress, she’s not a great States(wo)man-she’s running because she wants the power, and her ego tells her she’s entitled to the Presidency. I would love for her to be defeatedin the general election, not only for the good of the country, but because someone so elitist and arrogant needs to be humbled so that they can improve as a person. Of course, it didn’t work with Kerry, but…

Doug on June 25, 2007 at 10:25 AM

You left out the Vince Foster skeleton, which we could call . . . drum roll . . . Vince Foster.

Labamigo on June 25, 2007 at 10:52 AM

I am soooo happy finally to be able to comment here after lurking for such a long time. And the cherry on top is that my first comment is on this honking big piece of trash. I moved to Arkansas in 1988, and something in me recoiled from the clintoons as if from a vampire. Time proved my instincts to be spot on (as the Brits say). The only glow from both of them is radioactivity. God help us all if there turns out to be enough morons voting to put their sorry selves (want to be nice here) back in the WH.

BTW, HI to all the lizards newly posting here.

Thank you, MM, Allah, Bryan, et al. Am so happy to be here.

Ignorant Mensan on June 25, 2007 at 11:07 AM

Plus the Foster Factor ,and the entire Clinton ‘body count’ …it does go on forever……..
BUT, millions of voters in 2008 would have been 5,6,7,8,9… years old. The Skeletons are not/were not well known to the 5 year olds to 14 year olds in the 90’s, that will be voting next year.
Everyone born in the 80’s were too young to care about clinton lies, cover-ups and politics, but they all will be eligible to vote next year. The Clinton campaign KNOWS THIS, so they call it OLD NEWS. IT’S NOT OLD TO THE NEW VOTERS.

I say we keep the skeletons clacking, no bones about it.

Does anyone know that demographic?

shooter on June 25, 2007 at 11:22 AM

Ignorant Mensan on June 25, 2007 at 11:07 AM

welcome, and a thoughtful moniker.

shooter on June 25, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Just the fact that this beastly woman is even in the running, and not laughed into obscurity is disturbing. She will most definitly be the dem nominee, and that is a truly frightening indictment of where we are as a country.

bmac on June 25, 2007 at 12:50 PM

csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 9:02 AM

So you’re saying you don’t care for Hillary?

What suprises me is the millions who adore her, truly adore her. My sister-in-law idolizes her, I mean everything but a picture, burning candles, animal sacrifice. A bunch of women, on a full moon, standing in a cirlce, light candles and pray for Hillary…I am not kidding. And that is repeated across the country. It is too wierd.

right2bright on June 25, 2007 at 1:08 PM

Ignorant Mensan on June 25, 2007 at 11:07 AM

Lizard Power!

infidel4life on June 25, 2007 at 1:09 PM

Add my name to the list of long term lurkers now able to comment at HotAir. I have been a follower of the site since the day it launched.

Can Hillary ride Hillary Fatigue Syndrome all the way to the Presidency? I hope not, but in recent elections late negative news has been used to move the polls a point or two. HFS could protect her from that. Hillary is lying; It is hot in D.C. in August. Water is wet. Will anybody consider this newsworthy? If she launches a similar but effective attack with the electorate so near even… I feel sick.

Unquiet on June 25, 2007 at 1:46 PM

If Hillary can pass off a “contest for a campaign song” as NOT a politcal ad, plus a “spoof on the Sopranos” as also NOT a campaign ad – and thus slip all this onto radio stations and newsbroadcasts for free campaign air time, and not get called on it, then we all have a problem, and the media is part of it. Nopt to mention the FEC or whoeevr is supposed to watchdog such things.
Course, all this Hillary “I want a dialogue” monologue – all her talking and nothing is said, apart from “I want to hear from you.” Well, we’d like to hear from YOU Senator. She cruised through New York State on a vaguely defined, “Listening tour.” Not a campaign tour, “listening.” Most importantly not subject to election oversight.
Never say anyone so coddled and sheltered by the media – apart from her hubby.
How much did she pay her husband to do his schitck in the diner? He pulls down 6 figure payments for his speaking – what’s his time worth? Doesn’t the Left scowl and point at Republicans and accuse them of not counting support from other public figures as campaign contributions?
There’s a lot here, and not old skeletons, either.

naliaka on June 25, 2007 at 1:46 PM

You’re right. If you have one fire burning you can concentrate all your attention on it. However, if you have 75 simultaneously burning fires, you not only lose attention span but you can only pay scant attention to any one of them.

MaiDee on June 25, 2007 at 1:47 PM

Thanks, for giving me a major headache. Just the thought of 4 years of her, not to mention the possibility of 4 more after that, is enough to make me inclined to get out my checkbook again. I’ve not been able to bring myself to give $$ to the Republicans lately, but, I don’t know. Anybody but her. Well…..almost anybody.

Qzsusy on June 25, 2007 at 1:55 PM

“….I have been a follower of the site since the day it launched.” Unquiet
me too……me too………..

Hillary has the ‘Goddess’vote…highly educated women w/ no brains or common sense…ie., nothing matters so long as it is a Womyn! in POWER……& all x-feminist (ie “a conservative is a liberal who had a wake-up call.” someone from this site I think )are heretics! very dangerous,this WOMEN @ ALL COSTS thing.

lobosan5 on June 25, 2007 at 2:14 PM

Hello HotAir.
The Hillary will do as The Hillary pleases, and thanks you to have the class to not bring up any embarassing subjects.
The Hillary is only able to functionally process three outrageous scandals at a time. Introducing any more leads to overload resulting in total facial structural failure (see above). The Hillary will be overhauled before the fall of ‘07 to fix these performance glitches.

VolMagic on June 25, 2007 at 3:25 PM

What suprises me is the millions who adore her, truly adore her. My sister-in-law idolizes her, I mean everything but a picture, burning candles, animal sacrifice. A bunch of women, on a full moon, standing in a cirlce, light candles and pray for Hillary…I am not kidding. And that is repeated across the country. It is too wierd.

To put it plain and simply, Hillary defies logic. Not only is she the smartest blonde alive, but is the best the Dems have to offer in 08.

Although I love Obama’s consistency (even if I feel it is consistently wrong) I think if a Dem is in the oval office, we may have to pay respects to our First Man Bill. :-(

Exit question: Can Fred! or Mitt! save us?

Darnell Clayton on June 25, 2007 at 3:28 PM

Forgot to mention the above quote from me was from:

right2bright on June 25, 2007 at 1:08 PM

Darnell Clayton on June 25, 2007 at 3:28 PM

Seems there is some new dirt:

CNSNews.com) – A videotape shows New York Sen. Hillary Clinton committing felonies and should be admitted as new evidence in a California civil case, a forthcoming legal brief to be filed by Friday argues.

The tape shows Clinton — currently the leading Democratic presidential contender — speaking in 2000 with Peter Paul, a Hollywood mogul, and comic book icon Stan Lee about a massive fundraising event for her 2000 Senate race. Paul spent about $2 million of his own money to produce the event. The legal contribution limit to a candidate then was $2,000.

“The evidence is of that rare type that captures the very commission of a crime, namely, that of knowingly soliciting, coordinating and accepting federal campaign contributions far in excess of the legal limit of $2,000,” says the brief to be filed by Paul’s attorney with the Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District arguing in favor of including the tape as evidence.

mesablue on June 25, 2007 at 5:14 PM

do you know any csdeven, since you’re the resident Fred hater (not sure what other word to use for what you say about him)

j_ehman on June 25, 2007 at 9:09 AM

I am the resident fred? reality check. And yes, his philandering ways were quite well known in DC. He even admits it and brags on it like it’s a badge of honor.

And yes, fred? has lots of issues that his groupies wont talk about. All you have to do is do a google on fred? and any topic you’d like. Try lobbyist. Fake red pickup. Weak senate record. 1994 pro-choice. And that’s just scratching the surface. It’s embarrassing that the guy has the nerve to even talk about running.

csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 5:51 PM

Americans will not vote for a bald guy or a chick to become president, mark my words.

DfDeportation on June 25, 2007 at 8:17 PM

When I see her picture I can’t help but think of the movie,
“The Portrait of Dorian Grey” You see, there just comes a point when Cankles became so vile that learning of some new indiscretion no longer diminishes her stature.

TheSitRep on June 25, 2007 at 9:13 PM

I hate to admit that I once actually found Queen Hillary reasonably attractive (for an older gal). I really hate admitting it once I saw the photo for this post.

My first reaction is totally untrue but was a visceral, gut-wrenching thought…”That’s Elwood, the ugliest dog!!”

I’m sort of ashamed of that reaction, but I was simply powerless to stop that thought from popping into my head.

Oh yeah…her Socialist ideals make me cringe as much as seeing her modern self without makeup.

American_Jihadist on June 25, 2007 at 9:32 PM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.