Skip to content

New York Times Slobbers Over Hillary Clinton — Again

Sunday, July 29, 2007

I remember the days when the New York Times lived up to it’s motto: “All the News Fit to Print”, but that was a long, long time ago. Now the Times is a treasonous rag, pushing it’s own political agenda right on the front page. I think they should just stop the pretense and put Mark Rich’s vile comments on column one and the rest of the page devoted to revealing the latest government top secret reports.

Today’s Sunday edition has a love piece on Democratic Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton, “In the ’60s, a Future Candidate Poured Her Heart Out in Letters”, by Mark Leibovich.

Hillary Then

Hillary stare
And now

John Peavoy, a High School friend and Hillary wrote dozens of letters to each other between the late summer of 1965 and the spring of 1969. Leibovitch drools the following,

“Ms. Rodham’s 30 dispatches are by turns angst-ridden and prosaic, glib and brooding, anguished and ebullient — a rare unfiltered look into the head and heart of a future first lady and senator and would-be president. Their private expressiveness stands in sharp contrast to the ever-disciplined political persona she presents to the public now.”

Mark Leibovich’s article reads as if it were written by Hillary’s media campaign folks. It shows her “soft” side — the one they would really like us all to believe, instead of her persona as the “Ice Queen-Bitch”.

Hillary also has a hair-trigger temper and swears like a truck driver. Here is just one foul mouthed quote on Hillary Clinton, “Coming out of the Arkansas governor’s mansion early morning on Labor Day 1991, Hillary screamed: “Where is the goddamn fucking flag? I want the goddamn fucking flag up every fucking morning at fucking sunrise!”

There are more of Hillary’s gems here.

All I can say is that anyone wanting her to be President of United States is as crazy as Hillary herself!

Posted: 1710PT 07/29/07


Subscribe with Bloglines

7 Comments leave one →
  1. Monday, July 30, 2007 11:39 am

    SHOCKED that you would even link up to that crackpot!!! I thought you were more discerning than that – truly I did.

    Anyhow, so what if she used bad language once in awhile and slurs. I think that’s only human. Most “real people” do when they get super angry. The real issue would be does she ACT LIKE THAT or TREAT OTHERS BADLY and the answer is clearly
    a resounding NO!


  2. Thomas permalink
    Friday, August 3, 2007 6:51 am

    Donna, Hillary Clinton is a true Leftist. Her graduation thesis at Wellesley College for Women (a well-known hotbed of liberalism and lesbianism) was on Saul Alinsky, who was a Communist radical in the early 1960s. He was her hero.

    Hillary doesn’t treat others badly you say??? The incident with female Secret Service agent has come from several good sources. In fact, Hillary subsequently treated that same female Secret Service agent with such meanness that the agent resigned from the Secret Service.

    Hillary is meaner than a rattlesnake and her and John McCain make a good pair.

    Grow up, Donna, Hillary knows how to give good speeches that appeal to women.

  3. Tuesday, August 7, 2007 9:40 pm

    Thomas –

    Why did you feel the need to personalize your comment with the addition of “grow up.” I respect your opinion and your right to have it (though those rights do not apply to everyone all o the time), though I disagree with your analysis and conclusions drawn. Further, I did not direct the specific negativity contained within my comment at you; I directed at the author of the blog for endorsing this character and linking to his “gems.” I was really surprised that this particular blogger would stoop down to that level and maybe it was meant to to stir up controversy and certain readers of this blog. The guy who wrote those “gems” is dangerous as far as I’m concerned. This guy trashes what has clearly been an entire life of true devotion, dedication, and public service to this country by Hillary (and Bill) Clinton based on what? Some third+++ degree of hearsay commentary and news reporting as well using those same “sources” reporting her use of “bad words.” So what!!! (I’m sure he has never met her but he degrades her publicly simply b/c as a woman she should not use “inappropriate language”, if he were speaking about a man then the language would never be an issue) …well, I won’t say more.

    But as for Hillary Clinton, the redeeming part of the post was that it proved that Hillary Clinton’s desire for the betterment of the people was present since her earliest days. Her passion was likely one of the reasons that Bill Clinton was attracted to her, as they shared a common belief. Her passion is what has propelled her to one of the highest positions in our country. I don’t agree with everything she says and likely not more than 50%, but she seems better than most for the Presidency. By the way, just who did YOU vote for???

    Certainly when I mention that Hillary Clinton doesn’t treat other badly I mean she doesn’t act out in a very public sense

  4. Wednesday, August 8, 2007 1:58 am

    The “Blogger” replies:
    I always appreciate your comments and your continued viewing of this blog. Just wish I wasn’t working 70+ hours a week to have more time to post.
    In regards to your reply to Thomas: Let’s not use Bill Clinton to measure the “likeability” of Hillary Clinton. I believe what was quoted and they have also been verified by reliable sources – Hillary is very calculating, cold, ruthless and not very likeable at ALL. She is inconsistent in her politicl stance. Hillary has changed her answers on hard topics soley based on the polls, the extreme left groups and George Soros.

    Maybe Bill was “attracted” to her in University – but I think now they remain together for purely political gain. Bill’s feckless, adulterous and lascivious view of women, certainly is not the image that Hillary would want to have as part of her campaign.

    But I’m not going to vote or support Hillary Clinton for President anyway. None of the Democratic Presidential candidates give me any hope. They will just roll everything back and conveniently blame Bush and the Republicans in the first two years of regaining the White House.

    Just look at how much they have accomplished with their majority in the both the House and Senate – NOTHING.

    Nothing is what you will get as well with either Hillary, Barack or John as President in January 2009.

  5. Wednesday, August 8, 2007 9:22 am

    Aha! He lives!!

    I assumed you were working on that “project.” Hope all is well. I also hope you’ll spill the beans when you and if you can. I have a hard time just pulling away from you, manical or not (just kidding).

    Okay then, who would YOU vote for if not any of those listed? Not a Republican I hope? Just look at the shambles the Supreme Court is in thanks to Bush. School segregation? I can hardly believe that. And though I generally agree with you about the Congress I see less as a failure to act, and more as rather to act successfully or to act on the war. Payoffs, paybacks, greed, follow the leader, and total laziness are just a few of the reasons the Republican controlled Congress did nothing. The Dems have different excuses (not real reasons).
    I think the present House of Representatives is braver than the Senate and would be doing more and acting bigger if not constrained by an overcautious Senate or a Senate that does not want to put up legislation that is not destined to succeed beforehand, and one not likely to be vetoed. Bush’s use of the veto is no longer lacking -as it totally was in the Republican Congress since they never did a thing he wouldn’t want. I am disappointed in Congress, really I am, and I am not thrilled with the Dems candidates but not unhappy either. Anyway, I still don’t know that you and I can ever agree on a majority of the issues – especially with your endorsements of “gems” by some wacko’s wacko.

  6. Wednesday, August 8, 2007 9:26 am

    P.S. What vile comments from Marc Rich deserve to be put on the NY Times front page?


  7. Rubicon permalink
    Sunday, August 26, 2007 9:30 am

    Doesn’t it just warm your heart that someone who wants to be President of the United States, feels its OK, even appropriate to refer to the national flag as, “that G**D*** F*****G Flag?”
    It may not be a “sacred” symbol to some, but referring to it in such a manner reflects the real opinion of the speaker. They wanted their “prop” so they could look good!
    The attitude reflects one of those that implies, just pacify the “folk” & we can do whatever we want.

Leave a Reply to Donna Goldman Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: