Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 10:02 am
You last visited January 16, 2017, 9:56 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Condi Rice and Bill Clinton - both angry

Published:

A lot of talk has been made in the blogs lately about Bill Clinton's hidden bad temper and red-faced anger.  Condi Rice has been phographed the last two days making the meanest and ugliest faces I've ever seen on a woman since Linda Blair in "The Exorcist".

I don't care who's taking the pictures, when you catch images of 'Sybil' in a photograph of yourself, it's time for the public relations department to step in and train you in facial control and photogenesis, no matter what your party affiliation is.

This is not a political statement...this is a case of an attractive woman making herself look very ugly.  I think she's scaring the kids.  I know she's scaring me.

 

Entry #61

Comments

1.
Comment by Rip Snorter - September 26, 2006, 9:20 pm
That's one of the most funnest things about attractive women, Rick. They've all got a set of wolf teeth and a serving of Bella Abzug hidden down under the makeup somewhere.

Ah gee. Clinton's mad. Ah gee. Some pretty woman made him mad.

Likely as not those red faces are the reason the prediction page ain't been updating, the top predictor list, the site's been down so much and when it's up you can't post, or can post and it vanishes.

I don't know much about global warming. If I thought it was something I could do something about if it's a problem, I'd do a web search to learn about it. I don't care one way or the other about Clinton and some talking head female having a spat, whatever the reason.

But I do care whether the site's down a bunch, whether I can navigate it, whether the services I use work. But I don't know much more about that than I do about global warming, or Clinton. Can't do anything about that, either, so it's also none of my business.

Maybe it's the environmentalists doing it.

Jack

2.
TenajComment by Tenaj - September 26, 2006, 9:38 pm
Ricky G - LOL
3.
emilygComment by emilyg - September 26, 2006, 10:15 pm
rick - quick poll on aol - not too many believing rice.
4.
ToddComment by Todd - September 27, 2006, 12:40 am
Condi Rice is smarter that all of us put together. Comparing her to Bill Clinton is pretty insulting to her. Calling her angry is odd, but placing emphasis on her looks, not matter in what context, is a typical slam against women with a degree of power. It always surprises me when women who are normally indignant on principle when another woman is unfairly criticized in a way that has the appearance of gender discrimination gives a pass when that woman holds a different philosophical viewpoint from them. I've done some research in the past on discrimination tactics, so maybe I'm just keenly aware of these things, and my antennae shoots up when it senses the codewords.
5.
justxploringComment by justxploring - September 27, 2006, 2:36 am
Todd. how can say comparing Condi Rice to Bill Clinton is an insult when he was a Rhodes Scholar? Both of these people are not only brilliant, but very accomplished and talented. This is too absurd. It's like saying "My Daddy is taller than your Daddy." Both Daddy's are probably just fine.

As far as looks go, anyone can look bad in a photo. If a photographer catches you in the right (or in this case "wrong") light, he can make a subject look 10 years older too. I have always felt that Ms Rice is a stunning woman, but we shouldn't judge any person in authority by his or her looks. I agree that Ms Rice gets a lot of criticism because she is a female. So does Hillary Clinton, another very intelligent and well educated woman who is insulted in the press all the time.

When Clinton first ran for office I was embarrassed for the many women who said they wanted to vote for him because he was handsome. If looks mattered, then Richard Gere would be in the White House. Why anyone cares is beyond my comprehension. I think George W. is a very nice looking man and I still can't stand him!
6.
Rick GComment by Rick G - September 27, 2006, 9:22 am
Todd,

There ya' go again. I wasn't comparing Condi Rice to Clinton. I didn't insult her intelligence (I know she's smart and she does her job well.) In no way am I discriminating against her (that sounded a little PC to me). I was simply stating a fact as I have seen it in recent photographs of the lady. She has been shown snarling and glowering in several different photographs. If it were Hillary Clinton I would have made the same observation.

The only reason I used Clinton in the blog title is because konane and you both wrote blogs about Clinton's anger and in konane's, the reporter compared Clinton's angry face to the "dark red of hamburger meat that's been spoiling on the counter."

This is not a political issue. It's a self control issue and it affects Republicans and Democrats alike.





7.
ToddComment by Todd - September 27, 2006, 12:33 pm
I stand by my comments. The explanations don't fit the original comments. Now that all these negative stories are emerging about Democrats and liberals the very defensive and attacking posts are starting. Clinton reacted poorly and rudely, not Condi.

Condi is not "making herself look very ugly" (your exact quote). Any photographer can catch someone in an unflattering pose, as was apparently the case here. I did not see the photograph you're referring to, not that it matters.

And JE, I do not place a very high regard on the education system, as you apparently do. "Rhodes Scholar" means very little to me, and is not indicative of intelligence in my book. Clinton's attendance at Oxford is nothing special to me either. I think he's clever and wily, but I would not award him with terms such as "intelligent", because I have not seen a lot of evidence to that effect. Condi, on the other hand, has demonstrated brilliance.
8.
emilygComment by emilyg - September 27, 2006, 1:19 pm
no brilliance displayed on her trip to the middle east.
9.
Rick GComment by Rick G - September 27, 2006, 2:08 pm
Todd,

You can interpret what I write any way you want. I can also disagree with your interpretation, so you and I can give it a rest and let the readers make their own interpretation.

By the way, I'm a Libertarian not a liberal Democrat. There's a big difference. Neither Bill Clinton nor George Bush would have been nominated from that party.
10.
ToddComment by Todd - September 27, 2006, 7:08 pm
I've always (seriously) wondered: how does a Libertarian vote, given then 2 parties are so non-libertarian?

I totally respect the Libertarian viewpoint, but I just feel that it goes to a theoretical limit, rather than a realistic one. It's like if you held up a ruler that measured government intrusion in our lives, with complete intrusion (socialism, dictatorship) on the left, and lack of government (choas, anarchy) on the right, I think we would both end up on the right side of the ruler, but you would be a bit further along than me.

Of course, from the Libertarian viewpoint, the right-most side of that ruler would probably be labeled "John Lennon" or something. ;-)
11.
Rick GComment by Rick G - September 27, 2006, 11:28 pm
You are right, Todd. That is the sad part of American politics these days. Very sad, and a detriment to the American people having these two parties and these two parties only as choices in American elections.

I have called for election reform involving voting among all candidates, regardless of party or how many of the same party are running on the ballot. It could be 30 people on the ballot, I don't care. They do this in many of the other "democratic" nations of the world. This would take place of a "primary" and take place 30 days before election day. The top three vote-getters are given consideration. If one of those candidates has over 50% of the popular national vote in that initial election that candidate is the winner of the final election. If not, then the top two vote-getters are placed in a runoff election on election day and the national popular vote decides the winner, not the electoral college.

With honest voting practices and honest competition among a field of contenders there wouldn't be as much a need for recounts and it would allow third parties or strong second choices of the same party to have an equal chance to be elected and better reflect the wishes of the American voters.

The current two-party system of primaries and voting is not cutting it, is opening itself to fraud and the electoral college was something instituted when the population was a fraction of what it is today.

This is why voters are dis-enfranchised and the political polarity and lack of voter participation is higher than ever today.

As far as voting Libertarian, I sleep well at night because I didn't help vote Bill Clinton or George Bush into office, I voted for my principles and am proud of it.   One day the Democratic and Republican parties will not have a stranglehold on our politics and principles will once again come to the forefront of our thinking and decision-making in the polling booths.

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.