Monica Lewinsky’s ex-Boyfriend’s Wife, ‘08!
January 22nd, 2008 at 01:41am Mark Noonan
That, I understand, is a new bumper sticker going ’round out there. It does kind of say it all about Hillary - a non-entity who believes her marriage to a philandering ex-President warrants her elevation to the mightiest office in the world. Go figure. Then again, she does have a better claim to expertise than Barack Obama or John Edwards.
We had a lot of discussions at work on Monday about the Saturday caucuses - as it turns out, I work with a lot of Democrats, and of the ten or so who went to the caucuses, 9 were convinced Obama supporters and one was leaning Obama. There were two things I got out of our discussions - the Democratic caucuses were chaotic and the Obama supporters, at least those I work with, are almost all unwilling to vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination. And as an aside, they felt that if there had been less chaos, Obama probably would have won the vote as a large number of caucus-goers left early in disgust, and they seemed to drift away from the Obama supporters. This might seem an indication of shallow Obama support, but it could also mean that soft Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents just didn’t want to put up with the chaos while a bunch of Hillary supporters made a lot of noise - could mean that Hillary has the machine, and Obama has the heart.
And that heart is what seems to be driving Obama’s support - in a sense, he’s the “un-named Democrat” who always does so well in polling. He’s unknown, his words are high-sounding (though entirely empty of actual content - but most casual observers miss that entirely) and anyone can place upon him any dreams they wish. The pitter-patter you hear out there is the beating of hearts for Obama - not from hardened Democrats, but from semi-Democrats and even a few “wet” Republicans who assume that the divisions in our nation are the result of mere political gamesmanship, rather than the outward sign of intense and irreconcilable ideological conflict. Obama says he will unify America, and that is what they want…forgetting that its impossible for Obama to unify America because he’s of that hard left which is at war with conservatism in the United States.
Be that as it may, it seems to me that a lot of people are getting emotionally invested in Barack Obama - which could work to his advantage should he win the nomination, but which could work decisively to the Democrats’ disadvantage if Obama is beaten by the heartless political machine of Clinton, Inc. The behavior of Hillary towards Obama in last night’s debate is an indicator of both how high the stakes have become, and how hard Hillary will be willing to fight for her chance at the big prize.
This could get rather nasty…
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
27 Comments
1. Barack Obama » Moni&hellip | January 22nd, 2008 at 2:53 am
[...] Alan Peters wrote an interesting post today on Monica Lewinskiâs ex-Boyfriendâs Wife, â08!Here’s a quick excerptGo figure. Then again, she does have a better claim to expertise than Barack Obama or John Edwards. [...]
2. John Edwards » Blog&hellip | January 22nd, 2008 at 3:23 am
[...] Join the Campaign to Change America / John Edwards ‘08 Blog wrote an interesting post today on Monica Lewinskiâs ex-Boyfriendâs Wife, â08!Here’s a quick excerptGo figure. Then again, she does have a better claim to expertise than Barack Obama or John Edwards. [...]
3. Diane Tomlinson | January 22nd, 2008 at 5:35 am
What you mean is you “hope” it gets nasty on the Democratic side. You already have a fractured base but I guarantee no matter how nasty, bitter or even racial the process on the left gets they will still field a candidate that the majority of Democrats can get behind. Your choices? Nominate Romney and many evangelicals will stay home but you will get all of the fiscal conservatives. Nominate McCain and you get all the Security Moms and strong military types but none of the No to Illegals crowd or the evangelicals. Send up Giuliani and you get the tough on crime paleoconservatives and the country club set but you get none of the rest of the moral base. Elevate Huckabee and you get the evangelicals in droves and drive away anyone who has ever had any dealings with Wall Street.
You are right this Bill Clinton thing could be the wedge that drives the Democrats apart and costs them the White House in ‘08 and the Congress possibly in 2010. In American politics anything is possible. However, I cannot see that the bickering and albeit stupid hatchet work being done by Bill Clinton is causing more rumblings in the stomachs and fluttering in the hearts of Democrats than the prospect of Giuliani winning Florida causes real ulcer pain in the halls of the RNC.
Of course my opinion and € 2,5 gets you a latte in Brussels, but it will be fun to watch.
4. Pain | January 22nd, 2008 at 5:39 am
Who exactly are you trying to convince with this allusion to the oral sex Bill Clinton had with Ms Lewinsky? The confused GOP so-called base? They wouldn’t vote for Clinton if their lives depended on it immediately after casting their ballot. Democrats who are in the “listening phase”? They know that no matter who survives the primary battles their candidate can win in the general against anyone the GOP fields. For Our money We will take the Machine over the hearts anyday.
Machines put nominees in the Oval Office, hearts vote for Bob Dole.
5. Gabrielle Deroscheres | January 22nd, 2008 at 5:46 am
How about that soaring US economy now, Noonan? Wouldn’t you rather be talking about Iraq right now instead of an issue that REALLY affects EVERY American citizen like the value of the cash in their pockets? Bush can have his war, his overreach of Executive Authority, his arrogance in the face of international law and even his disdain for the US Constitution but one thing you know that he cannot do is sit back idly and watch the US economy tank without getting his hide tanned but good.
Dow 30 futures down 520 at last check. And yes I know one day in the market is just a snapshot but a 12% decline over 90 days is called a correction in every school of economics on Terra. Buy gold.
Stay tuned its gonna be a long day.
6. Rana Quijotesca | January 22nd, 2008 at 7:10 am
Who would put that on their car? I mean honestly, mucking up the paint for Hillary? Jeeze…
7. plainjane | January 22nd, 2008 at 7:18 am
This could get rather nasty…January 22nd, 2008 at 01:41am Mark Noonan
Since former President Clinton has struck as only he knows how Senator Clinton has won two primaries. Isn’t that the point of these primaries; win them. Yet I see this challenge as pretty tame. The differences between Obama and Clinton are so minor that corporate media keeps playing the race card and the bickering of the campaign to keep the viewers watching the Viagra commercials.
Obama is smart enough to know that should he win the nomination the real nastiness will begin. In the general election he will have to deal with Republican spokesmen such as Ann Coulter who stated “…The Confederate battle flag today has nothing to do with race. It stands for a romantic image of a chivalric, honor-based culture that was driven down by the brute force of crass Yankee capitalism,…” Did the destruction of the United States of America have anything to do with their cause? No, the Confederacy was just a group of Gone with the Wind romantics. Lincoln just rolled over in his grave yet again.
8. neocon | January 22nd, 2008 at 8:31 am
All of the Democrats should be worried by that shameful display of a childish debate last night. I have never seen so many unqualified empty suits on the stage last night running for President. Incidentally, why isn’t everyone talking about the constantly changing Iraq plans from the Democrats? In a debate last summer, neither Dem candidate would commit to 100% troop withdrawal by the end of their presidency. Now it’s a track meet of who can get out first.
Any GOPer will eat these pandering cowardly socialists alive in the general debates. Pass the popcorn.
9. Diane Tomlinson | January 22nd, 2008 at 11:10 am
Neocon,
Okay pal it’s high time you put up or shut up.
I’ll take your wager and let’s make it hurt. I will wager that the Democratic nominee no matter who it is wins the White House over the republican right now and I am willing to wager the value of an ounce of gold as it trades on the NYMEX on the morning after the election [which could be as much as US 1 250 by then the way the US economy is going] payable within 90 days of the inauguration, which means you’d have until after tax time to pay up.
Nasty partisan rhetoric is one thing fiscal confidence in your party is another my friend.
10. Joe | January 22nd, 2008 at 11:28 am
neocon,
You use the same comments all the time (probably because Rush told you to say it). All you do is call them all “empty suits”, “unqualified” and “have no experience”.
So I ask you again………..
What would be suffiecient “experience”? It sounds like from your previous comments that the only person who has enough “experience” for you is Mitt (and you claim the Dems pander?????? yikes). So if Mitt doesn’t win the nomination will you claim that all the rest are empty suits?
11. Mark Noonan | January 22nd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Humorless bunch of lefties here today…
Gabrielle,
DOW down 102 as of this moment…not bad considering the necessary shake-out in the financial industry.
Diane,
At least there are differences among the GOPers…the Democrats top three are policy-duplicates of each other. You might like a rigid, party-line political organization, but we GOPers prefer freedom.
Pain,
Get your mind out of the gutter; it is you who immediately thought of that - that physical act never even crossed my mind…
12. Presidential election 200&hellip | January 22nd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
[...] TimT wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThat, I understand, is a new bumper sticker going ’round out there. It does kind of say it all about Hillary - a non-entity who believes her marriage to a philandering ex-President warrants her elevation to the mightiest office in the … Read the rest of this great post here Posted by [...]
13. keefer | January 22nd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I see all of Hell’s Kitchen are here again, except Cav. Diane, what was that paper called? The one you’re a “journalist” for? Or do you do your “journalism” solely for Brimstoned?
14. liberalT | January 22nd, 2008 at 6:29 pm
That, I understand, is a new bumper sticker going ’round out there. It does kind of say it all about Hillary - a non-entity who believes her marriage to a philandering ex-President warrants her elevation to the mightiest office in the world
–
hmm perhaps that is slightly better than the drunken frat boy failure who happens to be the son of a former president. Gotta love Mark Noonan for his consistency in his hypocracy
15. js | January 22nd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
maybe if the feds keep the rates low, it will cut the number of forclosures way back and shore up the banks that are in trouble
just maybe
its always possible that the banks just abuse it and screw themselves too
16. js | January 22nd, 2008 at 9:33 pm
all the GOP needs to do to dust off the reality of the DNC is to start documenting all the earmarks that the DNC’s finest promised they would end…last election
does the term lie ring a bell anyone?
17. mikeinportc | January 22nd, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Where’d you see the bumpersticker ? I know a friend of a friend of Monica . She just might like one of those for her car . =))))))
18. Joe | January 22nd, 2008 at 10:25 pm
js, have you looked up who the biggest porkers are for earmarks? Yes, the Dems said they were going to cut the earmarks and that hasn’t happened. Nobody is happy about that. I can say that the number of congressional earmarks are down, but by no means gone.
Maybe we need to tell Stevens and Cochran to cut the crap with the earmarks.
19. Mark Noonan | January 23rd, 2008 at 12:48 am
liberalT,
You are an amazingly unforgiving person…you know, I boozed it up a bit in my youth, too…so, tell us how you managed to be sinless your whole life.
20. keefer | January 23rd, 2008 at 4:50 am
…so, tell us how you managed to be sinless your whole life.
Mommy doesn’t let him out of the basement…
21. liberalT | January 23rd, 2008 at 7:12 am
Mark - we are not talking about a bit of drinking in his frat boy days. He did not sober up until he was 40. Now - its not that he had a problem with alcohol that I have a problem with. What I have a problem with is that he was in general a complete failure. What saved him from this was the fact that his father had a lot of power, influence, money, and a legacy at Ivy league schools.
Thus while he was a C student he coasted into some of the best schools in the country based not on his accomplishments but based on who his father was. After that he continued to fail but was put into important positions in the family business or got positions because of his father’s influence. All the time drinking like a fish and continuing to coast through life.
No , sadly no Mark Noonan. It is not that I am unforgiving - but rather that you see what you want to see. Where there is a clear record of failure, cowardice, and drunkenness you see only what you want to see and disregard the rest…
22. TiredofLibBullShit | January 23rd, 2008 at 11:39 am
libt……
“What I have a problem with is that he was in general a complete failure.”
So, what does that make Democrats? He repeatedly made Democrats look foolish in defeating their attempts to hamper his presidency! Defeated them at every turn (some were successful), so what kind of failures does that make you and your precious party?
“Thus while he was a C student….” - It has been proven that his record was better than Kerry’s!!! Kennedy was dismissed from Harvard because he PAID someone (probably with someone else’s money) to take a test for him and he got caught. If it wasn’t for Daddy’s money and influence he would not have been reinstated. Uh, where did Kennedy go after being drafted into the Army during Korea?
“Where there is a clear record of failure, cowardice, and drunkenness…”
Uh, with records of Bill Clinton, Robert Byrd, Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid, Jefferson and many covicted criminals via pardons etc. etc., you and your ilk are always too forgiving and are very willing to give second chances. Stating all too quickly that person has changed.
libT, your talking points are getting tiresome as are your unintelligent posts. You would fit in much better at the robotic sites of moveon, dailykos and the democratic underground; where you will be accepted with open arms and not be banned as long as you continue to regurgitate the nonsense you post here.
23. liberalT | January 23rd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
ugg
I am not talking about Kerry I am talking about Bush. Think what you want about Kerry - thats fine - that doesn’t change the fact that Bush only got into ivy leauge schools because of his legacy , only succeeded at all due to his father’s influence and money, only was elected because of his father. Otherwise he would have never been Governor of Texas or President for that matter and you know its true. So I have a hard time understanding how Mark can complain with a straight face about Hillary’s connection…
24. TiredofLibBullShit | January 23rd, 2008 at 7:45 pm
libT,
I am going to ask you what all libs demand on this blog. Put your money where your mouth is. Show us proof!
Otherwise, your post is nothing but the same tired old talking points with absolutely no substance what-so-ever. I brought up Kerry and the other examples because you claim that Bush is such a failure and at the same time your last nomination was an even bigger failure by your standards. But now you are likely going to nominate a candidate with absolutely no experience. All the candidates with experience have dropped out.
But I would expect nothing less from you lib losers.
25. liberalT | January 23rd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
what exactly do you need proof of?
That he was an average student in high school and college - that is a matter of public record
That he was a drunk - a matter of public record
That he got jobs because of his father - explain to me then how else he ended up as vice-president of his father’s corporation? I suppose that was just random good fortune and coincidence?
and no - sorry Kerry was a real war hero. unlike george who stayed in texas thanks to daddy
26. Mark Noonan | January 24th, 2008 at 12:36 am
liberalT,
Drinking like a fish? Just where is that fact to be found? He did have a DUI…but I could have had a dozen DUI’s if the police had happened upon me at the right time back in the mid-80’s. Does that mean I was drinking like a fish?
And while he might have been a legacy into the school, he actually had to perform to get the diploma…and its not at all easy to get a Master’s degree…and no amount of daddy’s influence helps you out when your flying a fighter at 30,000 feet.
I think what we have here is envy on your part - you envy what the man has done.
That is a sin, you know?
27. TiredofLibBullShit | January 24th, 2008 at 11:30 am
libt,
you are hopeless.
Provide proof, means provide proof. How can I make it more plain than that?
Show us proof that Bush’s acceptance into college was solely the work or influence of his father.
Wow, I have several relatives/friends who are Vice-presidents in their families’ corporations.
Wow, one DUI translates to drinking like a fish. So how would you classify the Kennedys - drinking like a whale perhaps? What is your excuse for the familial influence that got Kennedy out of his vehicular homicide incident? Or his dismissal from Harvard? Or his assignment to Europe during the Korean War? Since all these incidents you cite are a matter of public record, then it should be an easy enough task.
Obviously, since you can’t provide proof and speak in generalities, then you are strictly regurgitating party propaganda, which are extreme exaggerations of much smaller incidents.
Just proves you are a good little USEFUL IDIOT of the Democrat power machine.