Imus: Clinton's election to Senate due to "her fat, stupid husband ... getting BJs ... in the Oval Office"
On Imus in the Morning, Don Imus asserted that Sen. Hillary Clinton won her campaign for a U.S. Senate seat due to "a sympathy vote," adding, "She came here, everybody felt sorry for her 'cause her fat ..." At that point, Alan Colmes interjected, asking, "[W]hy did she get re-elected?" Imus continued: "'Cause her fat, stupid husband was getting BJs from the poor little intern there in the Oval Office."
On the March 7 edition of Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus asserted that Sen. Hillary Clinton won her campaign for a U.S. Senate seat due to "a sympathy vote," adding, "She came here, everybody felt sorry for her 'cause her fat ..." At that point, guest and Fox News host Alan Colmes interjected, asking, "[W]hy did she get re-elected?" Imus continued: "'Cause her fat, stupid husband was getting BJs from the poor little intern there in the Oval Office."
As Media Matters for America documented, on the January 9 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Chris Matthews said: "Let's not forget -- and I'll be brutal -- the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win there on her merit. She won because everybody felt, 'My God, this woman stood up under humiliation,' right? That's what happened." Matthews subsequently addressed the firestorm sparked by his comment and said, "Was it fair to imply that Hillary's whole career depended on being a victim of an unfaithful husband? No. And that's what it sounded like I was saying and it hurt people I'd like to think normally like what I say, in fact, normally like me." He later added: "Saying that Senator Clinton got where she's got simply because her husband did what he did to her is just as callous, and I can see now, it comes across just as nasty, worse yet, just as dismissive."
Despite his being fired by MSNBC and CBS in April 2007 -- his show is now syndicated by ABC Radio Networks and simulcast on RFD-TV -- Imus continues to attract prominent guests. From March 3 to March 7, Imus hosted appearances by NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert, CBS anchor Bob Scheiffer, and Congressional Quarterly columnist Craig Crawford.
From the March 7 edition of ABC Radio Networks' Imus in the Morning:
IMUS: Aside from working for big-time law firms and being a doormat for her stupid husband, what in the 35 years' experience Hillary Clinton talks about would you like to highlight here this morning, Mr. Colmes?
COLMES: Well, you've just covered everything, haven't you?
IMUS: Well, no, I haven't. That's why I'm asking you.
COLMES: On the stupid husband, I mean, during the Clinton years, we had a good economy, things were going well, we were relative peace, we had employment was up, things were going great in this country. People would love to go back to the way things were 10 years ago.
IMUS: Oh, never mind. What did she do?
COLMES: What did she do?
IMUS: Why don't we answer that question, Mr. Colmes?
COLMES: She was the sen-- first of all, she got elected to -- everybody said she couldn't get elected to the Senate. She couldn't do anything. She's worked on transparency; she's worked on a number of issues --
IMUS: Oh, but she ran against a car salesman. She ran against a -- she ran against some real estate loser. I live in Manhattan. I had to vote in that election.
COLMES: What? Rick Lazio?
IMUS: It was a sympathy vote. She came here, everybody felt sorry for her 'cause her fat --
COLMES: If she -- how did she -- why did she get re-elected?
IMUS: 'Cause her fat, stupid husband was getting BJs from the poor little intern there in the Oval Office.
COLMES: You know, I'm starting to get the sense you don't like the Clintons.
IMUS: And that's how sharp she was. She couldn't figure out that her husband was having an affair with one of the people who works for him. They're in the White House, I mean, hello?
COLMES: And that means she shouldn't be president of the United States? And hey, how do you know she didn't know?
IMUS: I don't know that.
COLMES: Maybe she did know.
IMUS: She didn't -- she suggested she didn't know.
COLMES: Well, you know, the fact -- but is that relevant in terms of whether she'd be a good senator or a good president?
IMUS: Oh, I don't know.
COLMES: I mean, she beat -- she was also re-elected to the Senate.
IMUS: If the intern could sneak in the White House and put some lipstick on his dipstick --
CHARLES McCORD (news anchor): Oh no.
IMUS: -- maybe a terrorist could get in there with a bomb. Who knows?
COLMES: Yeah, if Monica Lewinsky can deliver pizza to the Oval Office, that means a terrorist is going to attack us. That's a really good analogy.
IMUS: I could make that work if you give me a couple of minutes.
COLMES: That's a really, really good analogy.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Is this insight based on exit polling?
The guy measures and speaks, according the standard of himself.
Everybody in the world seems fat, when you're a cadaver.
He (imus) should've added that Mr. Clinton, in addition to seeming fat to him, also seems lively and smiling and friendly and sociable and personable and warm, to him (imus)...
Because to a cold skeletal dried up mean drunk like imus, everyone in the world must by now seem fat and lively and friendly and warm etc., to him.
The Pillsbury Doughboy displays a similar affability (as Clinton)...matter of fact, the resemblance is remarkable.
What the hey--everybody knows fat people are jolly.
You loved it.
It inspired you to action.
Despite Imus' unsavory remarks, he made by far the better points. Colmes waffled on Hillary's qualifications and touted her husbands instead. And then the analogy that if all Mrs. Clintons husband's shenanigansis were going on right under her nose and she was clueless to it, what makes people think she can control or oversee much of anything with some level of authority?
Of course Imus makes his point rather crudely, but it may be a valid concern....or at least one worthy of talk radio.
Tommy, I've come to expect better rationale from you. Imus made no points unless you agree that HRC got elected and reelected to the US Senate solely because her husband got serviced. Colmes is milquetoast but you are defending the indefensible. Imus is perfectly entitled to hate HRC, but this commentary was nothing but sexism.
Maybe I wasn't clear, I wasn't agreeing with Imus on that specifically, I said "despite his unsavory remarks" - I was saying he made a valid point about her qualifications as she touts them now, and when he was talking about how sharp she was, how she didn't know what was going on with her own husband in the oval office.
I do not believe she was elected because her husband was a philanderer and she garnered some sympathy for that. There is no evidence to support that, so I don't agree with that opinion.
Tommy,
You are correct. I listened to Imus on the way to work, part of my spying on the enemy. He was crude but he did have a stronger debate than Colmes did. Hell Colmes was trying to drag that tired Obama's health plan leaves out 12 million people canard that's been waterboarded and debunked. Imus even called him on it, threaned to beat him up. LOL.
I still don't like Imus though, he's been tired since Stern cleaned his clock
Sorry, no dice. His only other "point" was a continuation of the philanderer thread - how could she not know. We could ask the same question of millions who's spouses have been unfaithful, some of whom found out soon, some later, and some (probably in the hundreds of thousands if not millions) who still don't know.
Imus had no point, just slime and innuendo.
Keep your dice
Are you saying Colmes brought a better game to the table?
Or just sour grapes that Mrs Experience can't even manage her own family?
So if you spouse is unfaithful, you can't "manage" your family? What the hell does that even mean? Does McCain's divorce qualify as proper management?
And what does that have to do with being President?
Its pretty simple, I can't simplify it further for you
You didn't even get that right.
She would have the beam in her eye. That is of course presuming that she was being hypocritical about the lesser fault of another. So, if I pull your thread, you're saying: Hillary was duped about an affair but since didn't know about it when it happened, her subsequent add claiming she has the competent and experience to be President is grossly hypocritical.
Who can argue with logic like that. QED.
Naw, I meant what I said
She had a mote and couldn't see what was in front of her, now she expects us to hand her a beam to different results
I'm not not sure what to tell you, but the horse is already out of the gate and I am on the winning side of this...stop, what's that sound, take a good look at what's going down...you Hillary supporters are in the minority among real liberals. Go enjoy your 3am fear ad.
I am on the winning side of this...QED
in my best school boy voice "Yes, Miss JuliaJayne" ; )
I was misbehavin' but it was in another tongue
JJ,
I'm a liberal that tends left but can be moved center left if the logic is there. McCain is someone I could never vote for, mostly because I could never vote for a Republican but moreso based on his sudden change if heart on the war, torture and the legacy of Mister Bush. Hillary IMHO has run a dirty campaign, using fear mongering 3am ads and going so far as to alude that even McCain would be better than Obama. So I put Hillary center leaning right and I believe she started trending that way as soon as it became politically expedient to not voice dissent to the war machine. But is was the 3am ad that finished her for me, that and the superdelegate override the people vote nonsense. That's why I cannot vote for her, it would be rewarding bad behavior.
But you asked about Obama...for starters he did speak against the war from the start, and he did it while it was unpopular to do so...for some (Cleland) it was political suicide, Obama spoke his conscience. By the time he had a vote we were already in Iraq and his votes for funding make sense. My cousin was there in Iraq, 3 times, and no one wants their family member to be a political poker chip. Obama also was against the bill naming the Iranian guard terrorists, something warhawk Hillary voted for, something akin to her vote for war in Iraq and the comments she made regarding that decision. Obama is against NAFTA, its not just agriculture and toys anymore, it is office jobs in India and it is that sucking sound you hear in the sky.
www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7312.html
That's why he is my guy
JJ,
Here's another one, from his mouth to God's ears, Obama says why he cannot vote for Roberts
The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.
...Given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the Court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting.
JJ,
I have more
http://www.daily-chronicle.com/articles/2007/01/21/news/news02.txt
start there...and then look at his voting record all the way from the beginning of his life in politics. This cat even stood the line against ALL guns, which is a little further than I would go but still shows that his is willing to take the hard line.
Even that National Journal trash piece did at least the service of pointing out that he does vote more liberally than Hillary, this however does not make him the most liberal senator out there but it does reinforce his bonafides.
Now Julia I would imagine his bi partisan support and ability to cross voters over is why you feel he is a centrist. But can you really blame Republicans and Independants for finally crawling out of their caves and marvelling at the light?
Attention everyone who's been cheated on. Resign your job, quit your post. You are clearly not qualified for a position of responsibility.
Did it sound good in your head when you typed it?
Yeah, I know whats going on in my house under my own gorram roof, you don't? Did that sound good in your head when you typed that. Hillary says she has the experience and the know how to manage a nation in crisis, even at 3am with the wolves at the door and yet she couldn't see that her husband, with a history of cheating, was doing it again?
Yeah, I know whats going on in my house under my own gorram roof, you don't?
You may well be the master/mistress of your domain. That's probably the same thought that goes through everyone's head right before they walk in on their spouse dancing the horizontal mamba with another.
You (and my good friend Tommy) can choose to believe that one's interpersonal relationships are a good indicator of their professional competence. I believe one has virtually nothing to do with the other. Imus was sliming HRC for a gullability that many have suffered. If this is the basis under which you judge your presidential candidates, answer this question: Who do you judge more trustworthy Hillary as the cheatee or McCain as the cheater?
For starters I said Imus made better points, such as this one what in the 35 years' experience Hillary Clinton talks about would you like to highlight. Now I also remember feeling an ickiness about Guiliani because his kids hate him. There is just something not leader like about someone whose own family is out of sorts.
And no, this has nothing to do with why I'm an Obama supporter, it was the 3am ad that did it for me, Hillary is no better than the Rove's are
Not only that but she let him go out and lie about it
and that ushered in the first term of W
If y
If you aren't going to answer the question, you don't get to declare victory.
You stated Bill's actions were a disgrace. I concur. You claimed Hillary "allowing" Bill to lie about it, not withstanding that she did not know it was a lie at the time, cost Al Gore the election. That is a non sequitur. Gore lost due to an ineffective campaign and Ralph Nader's pulling independents and Greens candidates who would have otherwise voted Dem.
Hillary's 3AM add was disingenuous and will prove ineffective - the fear card is played out. It won't work for her anymore than it will in the general election. It shows she's desparate and has nothing left but the "experience" theme. She will rally behind Obama after she is out, that's how this game is played.
That why we win so many elections Hoss?
EDENSCAPE:
I'm not getting your "final straw" view of the "3AM ad", or the "disgraceful" overreaction.
I've seen the ad, and it asks a simple and relevant question: Who do you trust to handle a national crisis? The ad, of course, suggests it should be Hillary. But that may not be YOUR answer. Fine. Your answer is Obama, I suppose, but WHY does that make the ad "disgraceful"?
I suspect it is your obsession with PERSONAL matters (Lewinsky, whether Hillary knew or did not know, etc.) that clouds your views ... and frankly, such obsession is rare in "Liberals", it's a mainstay of the Rightwing, this obsession with BJs and infidelity when it comes to Democrats.
I'm not ready to identify you as a "concern troll", but the evidence is piling up.
Hillary AND Obama are both qualified to be President, are plenty "Liberal" enough in comparison to any Republican, and would both be FAR SUPERIOR in the White House than McCain or Bush. Bill Clinton did a great job for this nation, and was a superior president, ESPECIALLY compared to Bush.
In short, your arguments are not persuasive.
You beat me to it. If the "Red Phone Ad" is "Disgraceful," I have acted disgracefully every time I have been in a job interview arguing that I'm the best person for the position. All that ad says is "when you go to the polls, remember, the next President will be Commander in Chief in a dangerous world." HORRORS! Randi Rhodes lied to her listeners the other day, claiming that this TERRIBLE ad drove her to support Obama- and never mind she's been in the tank for Barack all primary season...
This is a manufactured "scandal," just like "Hillary dissed MLKjr", except this one is even flimsier. There was absolutely NOTHING wrong with that ad.
The ad did not offend me. But talkers and pundits seem to be making hay of it. That's why I don't listen to any opinionators. I'd rather form my own opinion without all the blah blah. I have to say that the blatant bias for Obama and against Hillary is a turn off.
WOW
George Bush has been running those ads for years and ALL OF YOU denounced them. ALL OF YOU.
Christ we have had GWB at that phone with Cheney for 8 damn years and what, that was a comfort.
Bill was at that phone for 8 years and guess what, nothing happened.
Freaking George Sr was at that phone for fours years, so was Reagan and so was Carter.
Are you telling me that ALL OF THEM were more qualified to answer that phone than Obama is, ALL OF THEM?
That ad represents the worst level of fear mongering. It is just as bad if not worse than when she said we had to be careful who we voted for because the Turrists were watching.
It insinuates that
A. Bush was right, we are at constant high alert
B. That only all those former Presidents and their wives can answer that phone properly and do what is right
C. That attack is on the horizon
I called BS when Bush did and I'm calling BS now, its called consistency
Take that concern troll and shove it up your pompous a$$
There are stakes in this election
People are dying in Iraq, in Afghanistan, hell here in the US
The economy is tanked
And if McSame wins after this petty in fight then that makes 12 years of War on Terror rule, a whole generation of twelve year olds that grew up without any of the civil liberties and constitutional protections we grew up with and what then...
I stand for whats right and whats right now, YOU stand for Hillarys ego
Don't you dare try and make me what I'm not
Come On Out TEX
I'm calling you out, search my posting record and find some way to label me a troll
Pearl, lynn, round, solon and many other regulars have denounce the 3am in posts, are we all concern trolls now or are we just concerned about what our party could turn towards
Whats more important to you TEX that a Dem win this election or that Hillary does?
There are lives at stake and I'm not questioning your liberal bonafides but I'm calling you on the carpet for having the grapes to question mine
Hi Eden, no I wasn't cussin' at you and I did see your additional post a page or 2 back. I tried to post again and got the profanity filter again, so I'm going to break the post in two parts to see if I can get it through.
As far as what you term liberal bonafides and aspects pertaining to the Iraq war, I measure Obama (everybody really) against my favorite senator, Russ Feingold. He is the only senator that voted against the original patriot act and he did not vote for war authorization. He has been a very active and vocal opponent of the war and has made concrete efforts to bring the war to an end. He has authored bills and even proffered a censure against Bush and Cheney. He has made floor speeches and is very active in internet participation for his PAC that endeavors to get more real progressives elected to government. Obama falls short when compared to Feingold and his voting record is nearly identical to Hillary's. I do wish Feingold had run for president.
Okay, that went throug, so part deaux ;-)
Obama is running. But I don't see near the same level of committment from him in ending the war when compared to Feingold. Maybe because he is too busy running for president. Make no mistake. I want this war ended. I did send money to Obama after seeing a speech of his where he opined that the war has to end in order to be able to solve domestic (or any other) issues. I agreed with him and sent a check right then. But I haven't seen much in the way of concrete effort on his part.
As far as Hillary, I do not equate her husbands indescretions with character issues on her part. And any opinion I have of Obama has nothing to do with what Hillary's camp does or doesn't do. I am just sick of all the misogyny and hatred being poured her way by rightwing and leftwing (what there is anyway) media. I have turned them all off and will continue to do so.
I figured out the word causing all the drama. It was circu mspect. I had to put the space in there to get it to go through. But now I'm so tired, I'm still gonna end this. Sheesh.
I've seen the ad, and it asks a simple and relevant question: Who do you trust to handle a national crisis? The ad, of course, suggests it should be Hillary.
That ad reminds me of, the last 7 years of fear, fear and more fear. Excuse me for expecting better from a Democratic who I assumed was sick of the same mantra of fear, fear and more fear. Since 9/11 Republicans have used that fear stick to retain power and move their agenda. Fear if you don't keep Republicans in power those weak liberal Democrats will allow the turroists to take over America. Fear that if you don't give those telecom companies immunity, we won't have the tools to get get the turroists, "Bin Laden want Kerry to get elected" says Tommie Thompson, "Bush will keep us safe", Mel Martinez says "If Democrats win the White House in 2008, they will put America at risk". I personally am sick of the fear card and Hillary's ad was right out of the Republican play book of the last 7 years, IMO.
That ad was bad but it was this statement that actually put the final nail in Hillary coffin for me : "[McCain has] never been president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."
3rd time: "I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." 4th time: "Of course, well, you know, I've got a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. And you know, Senator Obama's whole campaign is about one speech he made in 2002."
Was that a simple question of who do you trust in a crisis or was that an ad designed for Republicans to use against Obama should he get the nomination. I've gotta say for a person who claims to not like Republicans, Hillary seems like the gift that keeps on giving.
It is precisely Imus' affront to the voters that I have problem with. That upsets me far more than his misconceptions about the Lewinsky scandal or having Hannity's shoeshine boy offer a lackluster response.
How many corporate CEOs' spouses are having affairs without their knowledge? Is there any evidence that these CEOs are any less effective than all other CEOs are doing their jobs? Is it worse if your CEO is having an affair and lying about it? Is there any evidence that stockholders or boards of directors generally make inquiries like this either in evaluating their current CEO or in interviewing a prospective CEO? Didn't think so...
And: how often have we asked about the affairs of male candidates' spouses and then judged THOSE MEN unfavorably when they weren't the ones having th e affairs?
That's exactly how relevant these questions are to the consideration of qualifications of the top executive of the government.
Maybe I wasn't clear,....
Tommy has had to use this line quite frequently lately.
Why that sounded as convincing as Hillary's reply to Steve Kroft. Let me ask you again, Tommy, did Hillary get elected because Bill got a BJ? Let me ask again, did Hillary get elected because Bill got as BJ? Please don't make me ask until I get a one word answer. Because I just won't be convinced until you do. :-)
Tommy, seems to me that Colmes was about to answer Mr. Imus but he interrupted and continued down his path of glee. Didn't seem that Imus really cared about any answers. He just wanted to do TALK RADIO stuff.
Anyone who wants to check out what Sen. Clinton has done can just go to her website. Seems to be a pressing question for many people who don't want to "really know" what she has done but want to play "gotcha" for Hillary supporters. Those anit-Clintons seem to be able to find all the dirt they need to find. Couldn't Imus just do some research? I believe his main objective was to hammer Sen. Clinton and possibly draw some ratings. Why not, it is TALK RADIO.
I don;t think it had anything to do with Willies escapades. HRC was a carpetbagger who looked for the most liberal voting block she could find with an open Senate seat. The Repubs ran a moron (Lazio) against her once Rudy911 dropped out. We had no choice.
Now this election seems like DeJa Vu all over again.
I did not know Imus went to College with Bill O'reilly.
What Visionary Philosophers these guys are.
Bill O's Diplomatic Mission-Statement:
"I'm Gonna Loofa You"
Is it just me or has the 'ox-Noise gotten geometrically worse ...?
Well, it's true I'm not sure about the poor part...
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0506861/mediaindex
Lazio was a last-minute substitution.
Hillary ran against Rudy Giuliani, who had to drop out of the race because his WIFE held a PRESS CONFERENCE revealing that he was cheating on her.
Then Rudy's wife should have run. According to Imus, she would have won merely because Rudy was cheating on her.
Just Big Boned
I forget the comedian's name who responded to that with, "Yeah, I noticed how the bones in your ass were protruding there."
In part for you though I would differ on classifying the most liberal block. Properly she should be classified as a reverse carpetbagger. Heading north as opposed to south.
A repub moron running for office? I suppose there are some who arn't, but I can't bring any to mind.
But dissing Hillary seems to be what you're about. Don't let me stop you.
Imus's ratings are better than ever. And so what about her husband. If she truly has 35 years of experience in Foreign AFFAIRS. She only needs to look at her Fat, Stupid Husband.
He had many affairs. And not with heads of State. With his head in a State of denial that "He didn't have sex with that Woman, Monica Lewinsky".
Give me a break.
Terrestrial radio is dead, the SAT is where it is AT
Imus is like an abacus
bcvb1949a and Imus should stand as warnings to all the young men in the world. Treat women with respect, be nice to them. Otherwise you end up as the 95 year old guy that never got a hummer and spends all day sitting around being angry at the guys who do.
So sad.
My parents always taught me that we are judged by the company we keep. Apparently 'BIG RUSS' passed down no such wisdom.
ABC radio puts up with such garbage? Were their ratings in such poor shape they needed to add a gutter-mouth to their employ? The media continues to astound me. It has no logic.
Oh, one more thing - I think the Clinton's do not have to worry about being criticized by this gutter-mouth man. One look at him, and I wonder how his wife goes to sleep at night. The ravings of this old man are actually sad, it proves the man has no life.
Imus speaks the truth.
If Hillary Rodam Clinton was Hillary Rodam Jones from a law firm in Arkansas - she'd still be working as a lawyer in Arkansas.
The ONLY "experiance" that gave her enterance to the senate was her husband's resume. Period.
And yes, if she ever has to drag her ass out of the senate, she'll have to make two trips.