Jay Leno just gave us a preview of why the Republicans want Hillary to be the nominee

[NDP]

Like I told you all.

Jay Leno in his monologue mentioned this book that's going to come out claiming that Bill Clinton has had a number of one night stands overseas. That Bill flies overseas to cheat. Some book, I don't remember the name of it.

Either way, this is why the GOP and their corporate media want Hillary. So that we can keep hearing about what Bill has allegedly been doing in his "spare time." After all, as they will posit, "how would she be able to govern the free world and look out for the country if she has to keep an eye on him as well?"

[Eric J in MN]

1. "The Clinton Crack-Up: The Boy President's Life After The White House"

Yeah, Clinton is the boy president. George W. Bush isn't the boy president. Give me a break.


http://mediamatters.org/items/200703160012

[papau]

9. I smiled at R Emmett Tyrrell Jr.'s Hillary national Cambodian re-education camp for capitalists idea

"R Emmett Tyrrell Jr. couldn't captivate readers with his dissection of her early political influences (such as Saul Alinsky) or his argument that she would start 'a national Cambodian re-education camp for anyone caught wearing an Adam Smith necktie or scarf.' "

that he tried to sell in his other Hillary book

Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House (which "sold" 9,000 copies)! :-)

[Bucky]

23. Thanks for the link! This stuff is hi-larious!

In a chapter named "The Ghost Ship," Tyrrell claims "a forlorn Bill Clinton" was "a flesh and blood modern-day reenactment of The Flying Dutchman," a legendary cursed ghost ship that is also featured in the movie Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. Tyrrell details "grim evidence" of a "Clinton Curse," and, recounting the death of the Clintons' dog Buddy, "a fixture in the Clinton family since joining it as a pup just before the Lewinsky scandal broke," writes, "Even the animal world is not exempt from the Clinton Curse." In a later chapter, Tyrrell elaborates further on the "Clinton Curse," writing, "Its carnage has been awful, not just among Clinton's lackeys but even among the rich and powerful," and "sluts and virgins alike often suffered dreadful misfortune."

Tyrrell also baselessly speculates about Clinton sex tapes being acquired by foreign intelligence experts, writing, "What will happen if the tapes of President Clinton's phone sex with Monica (and probably others) make their way into the public domain, perhaps after being sold or leaked by the foreign intelligence agents who almost certainly have them?"

Poor Tyrrell. All this hate in him and he just can't seem to vent it fast enough. His dog was hit by a car! The dreaded Clinton Curse strikes again! *Dum-dum dah Dummmmmm*

[Prophet 451]

2. *sigh*

Does Bill's womanising matter? No. I would presume that since Hillary knows about his previous escapades and is still married to him, she's made some kind of peace with it so is Bill's skirt-chasing likely to distract Hillary? Doubtful. Bill's hardly the first politico with an eye for the ladies. Hell, JFK had so many affairs, he was nicknamed Jack The Zipper. Is there any danger of actually talking about issues anytime soon?

[Eric J in MN]

3. These supposed affairs may not have even happened.

It's just anonymous junk some obnoxious right-winger threw together.

[pocoloco]

6. If I was a betting man, and knowing Bill's past history,

I know where I would put my money!

[aquart]

7. About a guy who had major heart surgery.

[bigdarryl]

30. Well if Bill risk having sex in the white house he sure as hell could be reckless oversees

[Eric J in MN]

31. Yes, it's possible, but this book doesn't convince me.

The anonymous sources of a right-winger with a loud style.

[Tellurian]

33. Why would he do that?

[CoffeeCat]

11. Unfortunately, for the entire country...

...Bill's womanizing did matter. In fact, Junior's entire campaign was devised around
"restoring morality back into the White House". He ran against Bill's womanizing and
the perceived "lack of moral values".

All of us understand the horseshit game the Republican thugs play. We know they're full
of it. However, Bill Clinton and his behavior helped the Republicans galvanize the
religious-right faction and get them voting in high numbers.

Gore distanced himself from Bill during the campaign. He ran from him, because it was
well understood that many in this country had Clinton fatigue. Yes, the Republicans
lie and distort--but after months of Monica, Whitewater, Paula Jones, Vince Foster,
Travelgate, etc--people were weary of it all.

You can bet that the Republicans are salivating at a Hillary run. They can't wait
to remind America about all of these scandals and of Bill's past behaviors.

Why anyone would want that baggage on our Dem ticket, is beyond me. We have so many
good candidates--Gore, Edwards, Obama--why would you even take that chance with Hillary?

[Tellurian]

34. I doubt the smears will even get off the ground..

We have the Right Wing to consider. Who is the strongest to face them and their ferocity and ever so low bag of tricks.
There isn't a candidate that can compete on the level of the Clintons to guarantee us a dem presidency. They've proven they can prevail even through the worst of time. Others have tried and failed. We've waited eight years for the turnaround..I'm not about to take a chance losing more valuable time. We don't have the luxury of waiting eight more years.

[sodenoue]

67. you're right

we can't wait any longer!

Obama 08! Take Back America!

No American Aristocracy!

How long has it been since our president has not been either a Bush or a Clinton (or, for that matter, a Harvard or Yale alum)?

Give me a real person, PLEASE!!!

[loudsue]

83. Um...Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law Review...

He went to Harvard.

:kick:

[SoCalDemGrrl]

84. Two Sparkles, you are 100% on the money. Thanks for the astute analysis.

I have been saying for month's now that a Hillary candidacy is the GOP's wet dream.

[Digit]

4. Just pubes slinging the dirt, just as you would expect

Quite typical....nothing to see here, so move on.

[CoffeeCat]

5. Hillary has more baggage...

...than an overbooked United flight.

Not only does she have Bill's escapades--there's also Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster,
Monica, Paula Jones, the Impeachment. People forget how much mileage the Republicans got
from all of this stuff. These debacles were the reason that Bush won...remember he ran on
"restoring morality back into the White House"? People were so fed up with all of this.
All of this has receded to the back burner, but when Hillary runs it will all be resurrected,
and America will remember again--and we will lose.

Anyway--Hillary has been silent on too many critical issues. She refuses to denounce her war
vote. Recently, she was repeating Junior's Iran talking points--in an effort to make herself
look "strong on terror".

I just can't vote for a candidate who has had next-to-nothing to say on this pResident
destroying our Constitution and destroying our civil rights. Where is Hillary on torture?
Where is she on illegal wiretapping? Has Hillary ever acknowledged that the neocons exist?

I'm sorry, but we can do better.

If she put herself out there and was willing to fight against these Fascist thugs--I could
overlook the baggage. However, she has been a flat-line when it comes to speaking out
against this sick administration. You're either outraged and fighting against these bastards--or not.

[papau]

10. That "baggage" proves GOP crying wolf over and over again - and will help her in

any election.

[left is right]

18. I strongly disagree

the kinds of emails that I receive most are rather cruel HRC jokes. I have deleted them, I have refuted them, I have begged that people not send me such trash, but I still get them. No one can run effectively carrying the kind of baggage she has to carry. And then there are those of us, who were really excited by her run for senator and became disappointed with her votes and her silence on the big issues. She can't win!!! Personally, I could vote for someone who couldn't win--like DK, if that candidate said all the right things and would be really good for the country. Casting such a vote would be simply the right thing to do no matter what the outcome was. But voting for HRC in the primaries would be a wasted vote.

[papau]

24. voting for HRC in the primaries would be a wasted vote" - if her health care

position does not move beyond child via via Federal monies to states to buy health insurance, I may well be joining with you in a vote for someone else in the primaries - indeed Edwards with his backdoor to Medicare for all, albeit over time -perhaps 20 years, is moving up, as the rest show their fear of Insurance company purchased political whores calling them "socialist".

Obama's fresh face and ability to fill a room is running up against non-specific positions and the hidden fact that on the IWR, when asked in 06 if he would have voted yea or nay, he said he did not know and that it was a tough vote (interestingly when this broke to the media 2 weeks ago, the media buried it because it did not fit the story line - seems the story line is already getting fixed in concrete).

It is so far before the primaries that I am not even thinking about who to vote for - I'll wake up politically as a primary voter the first week in January of 08! :-)

Meanwhile you are correct in my opinion that for 80% of the 30% that would vote GOP even after a waterboarding re-education, Hillary hate/jokes (like Beck's of CNN saying "Her voice makes me think "bitch" - like someone telling me to take out the garbage" paraphrased despite my use of quotes) are locked in concrete - and have been since 92.

But that is similar to the Right's hate of FDR - and he was both electable and a great president - who for his first term ran on balance the budget and had no major social ideas (much like Hillary or Obama so far).

I will start the "serious" thought process on this in January! :-)

[Tellurian]

37. Funny, you mention that, papau..

Obama's fresh face and ability to fill a room is running up against non-specific positions and the hidden fact that on the IWR, when asked in 06 if he would have voted yea or nay, he said he did not know and that it was a tough vote (interestingly when this broke to the media 2 weeks ago, the media buried it because it did not fit the story line - seems the story line is already getting fixed in concrete).

Believe me, if the fact 'that Obama said he didn't know how he would vote on the IWR'..was a thread topic here, the person positing it would be seriously abused and derided for doing so.

Preferential treatment of candidates doesn't do the country any favors. We should be allowed to ask question about ALL the candidates running for the WH without fear of recrimination. I want to do my best as a citizen to ensure a Democrat gets elected this time around.

[karynnj]

51. Do you have a link to that suposed Obama statement?

It wouold not make sense in 2006 for someone with the on record comments that Obama made in 2002 to say this. The only thing I can find is BILL CLINTON claiming this. (not like he has a vested interest or anything)

[Tellurian]

54. Glad you asked. Actually, I have an article discussing Obama's statement..

BILL RIPS TIMES' HILL BASHING


March 16, 2007 --

THE long love affair between Bill and Hillary Clinton and The New York Times seems to be over.

At a fund-raiser Tuesday night at the Trump World Tower apartment of mortgage mogul Keith Kantrowitz, the former president spoke for two hours to a select group that had contributed the maximum $2,300 to Hillary's presidential campaign, and much of his talk was devoted to attacking the Times.

"He said his wife wasn't getting a fair shake from the Times," said Curtis Sliwa, the WABC Radio host, who was there as a guest. ("I'm a Rudy guy," Sliwa explained.)

"Clinton said the Times is attacking Hillary because she won't apologize for her vote on the war in Iraq," Sliwa said. "The Times has always been supersupportive. It's the equivalent of Rudy Giuliani attacking The New York Post."

"We were surprised," Prudential Douglas Elliman superbroker Dolly Lenz corroborated. "He went into great detail criticizing the Times. He was really upset."

The group in Kantrowitz's 42nd-floor aerie included former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, Brooklyn Beep Marty Markowitz and former City Councilman Ken Fisher.

Clinton focused on the fact that three years ago - shortly after Barack Obama burst onto the world stage with his speech at the Democratic National Convention where John Kerry was nominated - Obama was asked how he would have voted on the Iraq war if he'd been in Congress at that time.

"And Obama said, 'I'm not sure,' " Sliwa recalled. "Clinton said the Times has a duty to report on Obama's initial ambivalence."

Clinton's spokesman, Jay Carson, said, "I don't think I'll go on the record about something that may have been said off the record about the paper of record."

But a source close to Clinton said the former president only talked about the Times in response to a question and said nice things about the paper and about Obama.

"He was engaging and personable," Sliwa said. "I was watching the faces of the people. It was the Bill Clinton magic. For two full hours, they got their money's worth."

Clinton also said he wouldn't want to replace his wife as U.S. senator if she were elected president. "If she gets elected, I will do whatever she asks me to do," he said. He seemed keen to act as a global trouble-shooter, going to hot spots that are too dangerous for the president.

[hedgehog]

66. That's a circular reference back to the original source for this

quote back to the source for this story. Can you give the ewxact quote in context?

[Tellurian]

70. linky..

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03162007/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm

[hedgehog]

74. Sorry, it's still Sliwa saying that Bill Clinton said that Obama said...

I want to see the direct quote from Obama; in context with any explanatory sentences before and after.

[Hav]

78. .

The link you were given conveniently left out very important parts of the article in question.
I don't know the whole context, but here is a bit more (link was from another DU thread).

This was from the Times in 2004:

"In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.
''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''

But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ''What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,'' he said."


http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/03/obama_quote_tha.php


Surprisingly, the context makes quite a difference.
I think it's clear why he responded the way he did: he gave Kerry and Edwards the benefit of doubt and he was careful not to say something that could be used against them a few months before the election of 2004. But to only take "What would I have done? I don't know" out of the whole article is just wrong.
I don't think there is any doubt concerning his own opinion.

[hedgehog]

82. Sounds like he was giving the Senators the benefit of the doubt

He's suggesting the possibility that they may have had additional information unavailable to the general public while still affirming his original opposition based on what was public knowledge.

[sendero]

26. I've been singing that song..

... here forever. She is probably the most villified public figure in the history of the country. It is fair? No, most of it is not. Does that matter? No it doesn't, because there are LEGIONS of Hillary haters out there and I guarantee you NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS BECAUSE THEIR FEELING IS NOT BASED ON REALITY TO BEGIN WITH.

If HRC gets the nomination, it will take a miracle for us to win.

[Tellurian]

39. I don't agree..

The fight is not here on DU.. The genuine fight is with the Right Wing Hate and Dirty Tricks Machine. Hillary and Bill are committed to beat the RW at their own game. They are the only proven electables alive having the knowledge and the savvy of getting the job done guaranteeing us the WH in the next election cycle.

[karynnj]

53. Proven electables?

Bill can make that claim, Hillary has never run a national race. Also Clinton defeated a President who had a below 40% approval rating through most of 1992 - even before his incessantly covered throwing up on the Japanese Foreign Minister.

Gore had to run against Bush running on bring dignity back to the white house - which was not based on the Gores behavior. Kerry had to run against a President at around 50%. My guess is that either Kerry or Gore could have beat GHWB and if Bill Clinton were still Governor of Arkansas in 2004, he would have had no chance against Bush.

[Tellurian]

57. And your point IS?

[karynnj]

73. If the main issues are still corruption and Iraq, Hillary is NOT

the best we can do. (She's also not that good on environment - Clinton's Arkansas record was awful. In the WH, the main things done were by executive order at the very end of his last term - which meant none had a track record that could be pointed to when rescinded by Bush.

If it's because they are willing to play as dirty as the Republicans - they may hit just as the public rejects the politics of personal destruction.

[mtnsnake]

44. If HRC gets the nod, she'll have as good a chance to win as anyone, maybe better

As an Obama supporter myself, I have to admit that nobody will put up a stronger campaign effort than Hillary would. I've seen what she can do in rural upstate pockets on northern NY where previous to her they were 90% Republican and now they're 90% Hillary. Now I'm not saying she'd pull any miracles in the South, but she'd definitely have a great chance to convert a few red states elsewhere, like in the midwest, the heart, or in the west. If you deny that, then you haven't been paying attention to what's going on outside this forum. Nowadays, attitudes about Hillary are simply not the same as they were 5 or 10 years ago. Maybe they still are that way in your area (and on DU, of course), but not all over.

[SoCalDemGrrl]

85. Disagree, Most voters never want to hear the words MONICA LEWINSKY again

... and with Hillary running you know the GOP can't resist. They will

mention Monicagate every chance they get.

NO on Hillary, I love her, but too much baggage.

[mitchtv]

14. Funny ,all those GOP talking points fail; to persuade me

I will still consider her seriously. Hopefully, you will promote the candidate you prefer and spent less time maligning a decent Democratic candidate, like Hillary. No I am not a Hill supporter, but if she gets the nod. she will get my support, money and vote.

[papau]

25. I agree on all your points but I note that observing FDR like right wing hate is both a plus for

some of us, and a negative for others.

And I suspect that observation is just one of many we will make for our personal primary vote.

But I agree one does get tired of Dem candidate supporters doing Dem candidate bashing.

[Tellurian]

35. Hillary's baggage has been disposed of..

as I mentioned upthread.. Hillary's strategy has been giving little ammunition for the Right to attack her on issues. The closer we get to the elections the more you Will see her as a staunch defender of the people.

[mtnsnake]

45. Hillary's baggage is a thing of the past, except on DU.

If she wins or loses in a general election, it won't have anything to do with her baggage. There is none anymore.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Behold, the mighty Clenis!

Republicans just can't keep their minds off of it. It might be a good argument for Hillary as President - the Republicans will be so distracted by the Clenis that they won't notice Hillary fixing healthcare in this country until it's too late.

I wonder if SHAME-ON-THAT-CLENIS could work out as an acronym for a universal health care act? The Republicans couldn't help but vote for it. It would sail through Congress faster than the USA-PATRIOT act.

[Nite Owl]

12. This could totally backfire on them

Second time around it's all old, really old. People have other things on their minds like jobs, the war. It could only help people remember what life was like before the turn of the century! I think alot of people realize they impeached him for what? and this jerk we got created a mess that will last for decades and this is what they want to talk about?

[TheConstantGardener]

13. Hillary would motivate the right like ANYTHING

She is the least electable candidate in my view.

[mitchtv]

15. motivate them to what ?

Vote for Guiliani of the 3 wives?
or 8 more years of war?
or private Social Security?
I think the Republics are the least electable.

[TheConstantGardener]

16. Republicans are in it bad but Religious Right

is just begging for Hillary to run. They hate her with a passion and their base is the same way.

[mitchtv]

17. They are gonna stay home

wait and see
the monolith is crumbling

[Prophet 451]

19. Possibly murder

Hillary is so veneomously loathed by teh right (take a bow, Rush) that I'd honestly worry about her wellbeing if she were elected.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. No

you'd just encourage it by spreading the hate.

[TheConstantGardener]

49. Hatred of war supporters, corporate whores

Proud to spread that.

[MonkeyFunk]

58. oooh

you're so lefty!

[mitchtv]

61. so lefty'er than thou, unfortunately

bad news as a Democrat

[Alcibiades]

60. Or they could elect a drunken,

drug-abusing, draft-dodging, AWOL, cretinous jerk who faked a conversion to evangelical Christianity for political purposes. Oh, wait, they already did that.

These standards only apply to Democrats. Michael Dukakis was attacked for having a wife with substance abuse issues--issues that probably pale in comparison to what George has done. Nowadays, it doesn't matter what the Republican has/has not done in their private life. So long as he is a whore for big oil and the war industry and hates gays, any sin is forgivable.

As far as the occupation of Iraq goes, the majority of Republicans want it to go on forever.

[mtnsnake]

38. The strongest Democratic candidates always motivate the Right. nt

[TheConstantGardener]

55. Then why aren't Kucinich and Obama motivating them?

Haha...

[BenDavid]

21. Yes from the same silly sombitch

from Americian Spectator that wrote all the lies about Clinton in 92, 93.Hell, anyone with common sense would know the right wing would come after her with something sexual about Bill.I suspect that Bill and Hillary knew this was coming and have protected themselves against this with accurate accounts of where, who Bill meant with and at the proper time will present said evidence and smear the right wing zealots......

Listen folks each time we hear a talk radio Nazi, or any Fox reporter say "The republicans want Senator Clinton to run," means they're afraid of her. Talk radio and Fox whores are saying great things about Obama, which should make you wonder. Why would facsist bastards say nice things about Obama?

I have nothing bad to say about Obama. If Obama wins - whoever wins the Democratic nomination, I'm behind him/her all the way. (That's a sentence you won't hear from most in here.)

But seriously, between Obama with two years experience and the only team to win back-to-back presidential campaigns since FDR, (the team that beat war hero Bush and war hero Dole), ...

who do you think the super-racist GOP wants to run against?

[rman]

22. If repubs want Hillary, it's the higher-ups

who want her for political reasons (presumably because she is 'moderate'=Right-leaning) - not to spend 4 or 8 years smearing a guy who is not president, which would be frivolous and inconsequential. Some repub voters might want that, but they do not set the agenda of the Republican party.

[SaveElmer]

28. If the Republican use this as a tactic...Hillary wins in a landslide...

eom

[NDP]

42. Keep fooling yourself. If the Democrats nominate a real candidate instead of someone who

is benefiting just from her last name, then the Democrats will win in a landslide.

[TheConstantGardener]

56. Exactly

HRC has been useless in the Senate (except for authorizing IWR and voting against denying cluster bombs to Israel and other murderous votes); if we have someone who actually has real vision and has policies Americans support, well it'll be a shoe-in with the sorry state of the GOP right now.

[mitchtv]

62. You are sure doing 'loads ' for the Democratic effort

we saw how Democratic 5th column did for us in the California election already. Lay off good Democrats. Promote the candidate you want. What you are doing here is counterproductive. Build up, do not tear down. Very bad for all candidates.

[TheConstantGardener]

63. Making Hillary our nominee is the 100% best effort for the GOP you can make

Least electable, most-GOP-base-motivating candidate we have.

[mitchtv]

65. I am not supporting SenClinton

what I am doing is defending Dems Against well meaning tools of the GOP who will write their attack ads for them. Nothing gets me more pissed than so called Dems trashing our candidates. obviously you have no candidate worth talking about

[NDP]

75. Bingo. Nominating Hillary is akin to ripping the scabs off of old wounds.

[MGKrebs]

29. It's probably true because they must be out of ideas by now.

Nothing left to make up about any of the other Dems. So HC has done us a huge favor by using up all the wrath that the VRWC can muster, thereby ensuring a smooth path to the WH for any other Dem candidate.

:shrug:

[SaveElmer]

32. Jay Leno is sooo sceeery...everyone run and hide....

And the Republicans tooo.....oooohhhh!!!

We don't want t o make them mad!!

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SaveElmer]

43. And if they do...

The same thing will happen that happened in 2000...Hillary Clinton will win big...

[MonkeyFunk]

47. and somehow

every other candidate will get a pass?

Look, the American people have heard the case against Bill Clinton's dick, and they don't care. He's as popular as ever.

[mtnsnake]

36. I'll bet you worry that it might get dark tomorrow night. nt

[NDP]

40. Actually I don't worry about much of anything. I just don't want my time wasted in 2008 with a

Clinton nomination, because it will be wasted.

[mtnsnake]

46. No, you don't worry about anything, just what comedians say. lol

[Cameron27]

48. You must have the "intellect of a right-winger," mtnsnake;

you're focusing on Jay Leno, ***after what HE said*** Apparently we have someone of importance among us.

[mtnsnake]

50. Not following you

Can you clear it up what you're saying? What's with the "intellect of a right-winger" thing that you have in quotes?

[Cameron27]

52. Sorry, read post 41

"Jay Leno? If you focused on Jay Leno after what I said, then you have the intellect of a right-winger."

[mtnsnake]

59. Ahh, thanks. I'ts a good thing I didn't focus on what Leno said, eh. nt

[NDP]

76. Jay Leno mentioned a book. At best, Leno is no different than Terry McAuliffe mentioning something

about Hillary Clinton. Leno's not the problem, the "book" that Leno spoke of is not the problem. The fact that 2008 would be all about what Bill has been up to, what Hillary has on, how she can watch out for the country and Bill at the same time, is the problem, because it's a waste of time for the country to be talking about that instead of real issues.

Hillary Clinton represents the past, and that will never change, genius. You can keep focusing on Leno. That's what right-wingers do. Focus on the "person" who brought it up, instead of "what" they brought up. Example. If Dean says the war in Iraq is wrong, they focus on "Dean," not whether or not what he is saying is true.

So, if you can't see beyond "Jay Leno," and see the fact that he just gave you a preview of one of those scabs that will be ripped off for 2008, then yes, that means that you are thinking like a right-winger.

[Cameron27]

80. I didn't alert your previous post,

but you simply cannot refrain from making rude comments about other DUers.

What I wrote had nothing to do with Jay Leno, and everything to do with the way you posted your comments. Now, I'm finished with this conversation...genius.

[NDP]

87. That's what you think, after the fact.

[mtnsnake]

86. You sure do insist on telling people they're "thinking like a right-winger"

even though your other post about it already got deleted for doing it.

BTW, what makes you such an expert on how right wingers think and on identifying people who think just like them?

[NDP]

88. It's an insult to right-wingers, and a statement of fact. People who focus on the person saying

something as opposed to the truth of what they are saying, are thinking like right-wingers.

If bin Laden says 2+2 = 4, a right-winger is going to disagree with him because he is bin Laden.

If someone thinks that Jay Leno is a Republican shill (mainly because of his support for Schwarzenegger), and therefore criticize him instead of focusing on the information in the book that he mentioned (not wrote), then they are thinking like a right-winger, and why saying that would be deleted in the first place is ridiculous, and shows a lack of understanding.

[mitchtv]

64. Still watching Leno

I gave up on that creep after about 10 years of Clinton jokes ( the Dennis Miller of late night)

[mtnsnake]

68. Yeah, actually I am

I gave up on that creep after about 10 years of Clinton jokes

Bill Clinton is one of my all time favorite presidents, but Leno hasn't been any harder on Clinton than he has on any other president in office. In fact, I think Leno has usually poked fun at Clinton for his sexual excapades, as opposed to getting on other presidents like Bush for being imbeciles.

I like both Leno and Letterman, but IMO, Leno's got the funniest opening monologue of anyone.

[sampsonblk]

69. Bring it on

We are ready this time. As long as the weaklings of the party are not running her campaign, then she gives us the best shot at winning.

[MODemocrat]

71. Jay Leno is so perfect; it's no wonder he condemns Bill Clinton

Handsome too! :rofl: :rofl:

[NDP]

77. Jay Leno didn't condemn "Clinton," he mentioned a book that's coming out in his monologue

And he didn't even focus on it. It just caught my attention because I hadn't heard about the book. How anyone can think this is about "Jay Leno," is amazing to me. I guess I have been "overestimating" the intelligence of many here.

[Cha]

72. So they can keep trying to destroy

Bill's legacy so the sociopathichimp won't look so bad? Wouldn't surprise me that's the way they're thinkin' or not.

[libodem]

79. Oh, those Republics

Ya can't live with 'em, and ya can't live with 'em. My mom and I were talking this afternoon and both of us agreed that no one can smear like the Republicans. They have already written the playbook to smear our gal. I just cringe to think of the nasty, trashy, godforsaken horseshit that's gonna fly. What alot of time, energy and money to deflect flying horseshit. I wish, Hillary, a big yellow rainslicker sprayed with pam. She will have to dodge flying horse biscuits while she holds her head high. She doesn't seem to frighten easily or she would have withered from all the ill will on both sides of the fence. Maybe that is how one knows if they are doing OK...having both sides pissed off.

[JerseygirlCT]

81. She's definitely their choice -- I agree that's been quite obvious

for a long time.

They think they know how to defeat her.

(I think they're wrong there. Her chief advisor is still twice as smart as they are.)