Did Nina Burleigh ever apologize for treating the President of the United States like a boy toy in a women's magazine?
"The president's foot lightly, and presumably accidentally, brushed mine once under the table," Burleigh writes. "His hand touched my wrist while he was dealing the cards. When I got up and shook his hand at the end of the game, his eyes wandered over to my bike-wrecked, naked legs. And slowly it dawned on me as I walked away: He found me attractive."
"The president's foot lightly, and presumably accidentally, brushed mine once under the table," Burleigh writes. "His hand touched my wrist while he was dealing the cards. When I got up and shook his hand at the end of the game, his eyes wandered over to my bike-wrecked, naked legs. And slowly it dawned on me as I walked away: He found me attractive."
She adds: "I probably wore the mesmerized look I have seen again and again in women after they have met him. The same silly hypnotized gleam was displayed on the cover of Time magazine in Monica Lewinsky's eyes."
In an interview, Burleigh, now a New York freelancer, said she in no way felt harassed or pressured by the president but that it was "not unusual for women" to swoon over him. What is unusual, for a journalist, is Burleigh's sexually charged declaration of support for Clinton. "I'd be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal," she said." Washington Post, July 6, 1998, quoting Mirabella magazine essay she wrote.
Her full quote, not used in that WaPo story: "I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs."
So, just as Hillary Clinton threw millions of women in a bucket as deplorable, this Time reporter wanted all American women to perform oral sex on the president. Who's more lewd--this obscure female journalist or the famous Donald Trump? Do you know any pro-life women who would prostitute themselves like this for a magazine article or even write such evil? Is that how to get published?
She got a lot of flack--after all it was 1998. But she wasn't very good at prophecy, claiming there would be no problem if a man had written about a woman. 'Wake up, ladies! Were we ever to get a female President, Pete Hamill or Norman Mailer would never be so savaged and maligned and ridiculed for writing about the woman’s charms. On the contrary. They would be paid a king’s ransom by Esquire for performing the service." http://observer.com/1998/07/my-spin-through-the-cycle/
In an interview, Burleigh, now a New York freelancer, said she in no way felt harassed or pressured by the president but that it was "not unusual for women" to swoon over him. What is unusual, for a journalist, is Burleigh's sexually charged declaration of support for Clinton. "I'd be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal," she said." Washington Post, July 6, 1998, quoting Mirabella magazine essay she wrote.
Her full quote, not used in that WaPo story: "I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs."
So, just as Hillary Clinton threw millions of women in a bucket as deplorable, this Time reporter wanted all American women to perform oral sex on the president. Who's more lewd--this obscure female journalist or the famous Donald Trump? Do you know any pro-life women who would prostitute themselves like this for a magazine article or even write such evil? Is that how to get published?
She got a lot of flack--after all it was 1998. But she wasn't very good at prophecy, claiming there would be no problem if a man had written about a woman. 'Wake up, ladies! Were we ever to get a female President, Pete Hamill or Norman Mailer would never be so savaged and maligned and ridiculed for writing about the woman’s charms. On the contrary. They would be paid a king’s ransom by Esquire for performing the service." http://observer.com/1998/07/my-spin-through-the-cycle/
Posts
7 comments:
Nina Burleigh is not running for President of the United States.
Of course she isn't. Another disgusting woman is running, and you're supporting her.
Actually, I do not support her. But I'm certainly not voting for Donald Trump, and the fact you are is a disgrace. Sometimes you just have to admit that you've been wrong. That you've prayed long and hard, and that you've decided not too blindly support (and defend) this candidate just because some Republicans put him forth as the nominee. We all make mistakes - and you writing anything in defense of this perverted, ignorant excuse for a human being is a mistake. If you had an ounce of integrity you would admit it and the fact a single Christian defends this man is astounding. So much for the high ideals you espouse in this blog, which I have read and enjoyed for some years. That's one thing about Mr. Trump - he's allowed people to show their true colors.
Look whose lecturing on integrity--Miss Anonymous. Trump has never been my first or 6th choice, but at least Republicans had a choice. That's how voting goes in a Republic. And I've always been pro-life even the 40 years I was a Democrat, something you wouldn't understand, so that would leave out Mrs. Clinton who stands firmly on the Democrat platform of any time for any reason. Trump is not the ideal, that's for sure, but there is nothing about her any decent person or Christian could support. The Friday Wikileaks revealed even more garbage, so she had to sling more mud so the media would spend the week-end talking about Trump and not her treasonous behavior.
So your troll believes only people who run for president need to apologize for saying disgusting things about American women. Where'd she pick up her values, a bar?
Well, first of all I'm not a troll. As a retired librarian and amateur genealogist, I'm a regular reader of Mrs. Bruce's blog. Secondly, lots of people say things that debase and insult women - it's just they are not running for President of the United States. I hardly think his crass remarks are the thing that disqualify Mr. Trump, as his misogyny was already well known. My response to the blog post reflected my astonishment that devout Christians continue to defend this man. It would make more sense to just say you vote Republican all the time, no matter who the candidate is, and quit trying to defend anything about him as being Christian, or intelligent, or good for this country. Because he's not. Lastly, I am actually a Mr. Anonymous. Not all librarians, or readers of this blog, are female.
These days, thanks to Democrats, being a male librarian doesn't matter at all, does it? Maybe tomorrow you'll feel like a girl. Or a troll. People, particularly women, say things that ridicule and debase men. Mr. Trump has said nothing about women that is as bad as what Mrs. Clinton has said and she is running for President. And he said it 11 years ago when he wasn't running and was a Democrat. This won't be the end of it--there's more in her dirty words archive. She's been quoted numerous times with a potty mouth, but that's overlooked.
This devout Christian would have preferred any of the other candidates, but this is how the election turned out, something Democrats didn't get. Their candidate was crowned; it was decided years ago. It was her turn for putting up with Bill and not telling all she knew. The two of them are perfectly matched for the Clinton Crime Syndicate. The Democrat candidate and the party believe in aborting babies right up to the day of birth and allowing them to die if they are born alive. Read your platform, then come back and post something holy and self righteous. Read my blogs; I'm a one issue voter. Trump could disappoint--he wouldn't be the first. But she's a proven traitor and criminal. Tough hard choices Christians have to make.
Post a Comment