Hillary Clinton's legs
There's a good article in today's Wall Street Journal by Christina Binkley about "Women in Power"--their fashion tastes. Hillary is shown in that bright yellow blazer with black slacks we've seen on TV. Most of the other powerful women are shown in more feminine attire. Of the outfits shown, Condi's was way out in front with a very attractive skirted suit that showed off her lovely features, but looked smart. Nancy Pelosi's suit was a tad short and bunchy, and looking at her person you can't help but see she is a Californian with various enhancements and injections a part of her regimen. The PepsiCo CEO also looked lovely in an outfit that spoke to her heritage. Would it be racist to suggest that minority women in the US have a flare that the rest of us lack?Yes, Hillary looks like I loaned her my legs, even though she's a pro-abortion, feminist, socialist who might go to the White House, not on the coat tails of her husband, but his fly. (There's some pretty good theory out there that she might not be where she is today if it hadn't been for Bill's indiscretions, particularly 10 years ago with Monica.)
But here's something to consider. She's probably healthier than the other candidates, both Republican and Democrat. Those of us with pear-shaped bodies (which almost always means heavier legs) are much healthier than those of us with apple-shaped bodies (usually they have great legs). If you don't believe me, google it. But I think she should get out of those omnipresent, omni-coverage slacks, and flaunt her healthy, solid, sturdy legs. Just lengthen the skirts a little, because wide thighs are just murder when you sit down on stage in front of an audience--even for skinny candidates.
Posts
4 comments:
HRC isn't a socialist. Kucinich isn't even a socialist.
Splitting hairs. She isn't running on a Socialist ticket. I doubt that for political expediency she is a member of the Socialist Party. A socialist advocates government control of or collective ownership of the means of production or distribution of goods. She's been trying to take over on behalf of the government one of the largest parts of our economy since the early 90s. And when she succeeds, she won't stop there. Technically, she's not a blonde either, but that's another hair story. If it quacks like a duck. . .
We have lots of socialist institutions in America. The police, fire and armed forces are (rightly) hailed as the height of patriotism and what is good about America. Yet these are tax-payer financed endeavors and no one complains about the "socialist Marine Corp" or those socialists down at the cop shop.
Government ownership of vital services turns out to work well. Government ownership of factories, farms and stores? Not so much.
More pick-ily (?) if you say she's a socialist and she's not and I demonstrate that it's not "splitting hairs." It's correct and incorrect. She's a free-market capitalist and a fairly conservative one at that. That's not splitting hairs, that's splitting a huge log of wrong.
Dick Morris, their former hired gun, says (reported by another blogger who heard his speech): Morris believes Hillary's policies will create a mass exodus from the stock market and real estate because she will increase the capital gains tax on par with the income tax rate. Additionally, her policies will greatly increase government programs and her universal healthcare plan will push the total rates above 50% and up to 61% for the top income bracket in the U.S.
Call it what you will Chuck--you work for the state now, but you might want to check where they've invested your pension and drop a few bills in the old mattress just to be safe from Hillary.
Post a Comment