Comments on: David Broder, Pantysniffing Pervert

By: kidneystones

kidneystones — Mon, 29 May 2006 15:29:00 +0000

Here’s a little piece that captures the flavor of the Broder moment. I’ve immodestly included a taster and link to the rest. PS. You won’t want to miss FrancisHolland’s frenzied response.

Whip it Out (a private brief on Bill and Hillary) Hotlist
by kidneystones [Subscribe] [Edit Diary]
Thu May 25, 2006 at 06:04:00 PM PDT

Was it Balzac who wrote, “the vices of youth return in old age with renewed vigor”? Maybe Flaubert. Anyway, I think its long past time politicians provide journalists with photos of their private parts. Folks want to know (some folks, anyway) exactly what makes Bill Clinton’s penis so very, very special. And that question can’t really be answered without providing folks an image.

The good news is that technology now allows us to move far beyond two dimensions as demand for a more up-close experience swells.

Warning: explicit language below.

* kidneystones’s diary :: ::
*

Hallelujah! We can actually recreate Clintonis erectus; so media types can each have their very own replicas to gaze upon, admire, debate with, stick pins in, and (dare we say) fondle to their fast-beating heart’s content. The list of those in possession of these precious artifacts might surprise folks. But this of course is only the beginning.

Consider a museum no longer crowded with busts of fusty old dead folks sternly staring off into the distance or smiling benignly up towards heaven. These could be replaced with rampant rigid organs preserved in transparent plastic and vaginas suspended from the ceiling. Anyone who’s visited museums in the last twenty years, however, knows that these static displays pale before more engaging experiences in more modern settings…

It gets much worse. Looking for skidmarks? Click the link up top.

By: mk ultramaroon

mk ultramaroon — Fri, 26 May 2006 14:19:08 +0000

Whoops. That’s principle .
Stoopid grammar check.
~

By: mk ultramaroon

mk ultramaroon — Fri, 26 May 2006 13:38:14 +0000

Upon final review of this thread I can only conclude that there are a lot of panties in knots.

In principal, a great discussion about the limits of tactical responses.

Strategically, too much time dedicated to the defense of Clinton.

By: doug r

doug r — Fri, 26 May 2006 04:45:29 +0000

They want to hang out outside the window wearing the trenchcoat-then fuck’em, they deserve to have their dirty panties on display!

By: mui

mui — Fri, 26 May 2006 02:29:52 +0000

*Lemon-yellow* pantsuit, heh?It s a good thing it wasnt the *peach* pink pantsuit or OReilly would have been salivating to get her into his *No Spin Zone.* He confesses to dreaming about it in one of his opus terriblus. I think I hate Hilary stalkers more than I hate Hilarys dishonest letter to the CT dems.

By: El Cid

El Cid — Fri, 26 May 2006 01:32:27 +0000

Don’t you people get it?

What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is open to public inspection, consideration, and debate. (If they’re Democrats, at least.)

What Republican Senators say about AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION must take place in privacy away from the prying eyes of American citizens.

(AKA, Senator Russ Feingold’s having to walk out when Arlen Specter ordered moving a hearing on a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT — some anti-gay marriage nonsense — away into private hearing chambers.)

By: Shell

Shell — Fri, 26 May 2006 00:11:50 +0000

And another thing, Skippy — the color of the pantsuit is all you got out of Broder’s screed? Or is that as far as you COULD read? And I have no doubt you had to go take a shower — and it isn’t because you were mad at the story.

By: Shell

Shell — Fri, 26 May 2006 00:08:23 +0000

Skippy –

Go back to your lovely right-wing blogs — I suspect their “intelligence” will be more to your liking.

Since you don’t seem to understand, I will tell you 2 things:

1. EVERY post cannot be 100% serious. Some are actually funny, WHILE being serious.

2. This topic IS actually serious. And the MSM is trying to make a huge deal out of the Clintons’ marriage, in hopes of throwing the 2008 election. Is there much more SERIOUS than that?

If you don’t see the future in allowing this shit to stand, then you are way too stupid to be at a progressive blog.

By: nan

nan — Thu, 25 May 2006 20:45:16 +0000

davidbroder@washpost.com

Give him a piece of your mind.

By: Mary McCurnin

Mary McCurnin — Thu, 25 May 2006 20:37:38 +0000

I haven’t read all of the comments so I am not sure if this has been brought up yet. It seems that George Bush’s bisexual nature has been coming to the forefront in the last week or so. Perhaps the Clinton
article was a smokescreen. I think it is Georgie Boy’s
marriage that should be examed here. Born again in the name of Gannon.