posted June 22, 2005 02:46 AM              

quote:

---

You've got me Petron, I haven't heard a word about this. I thought Rather tried to paint Bush Sr as having had an affair...with a woman.--jwhop

---

posted June 22, 2005 05:20 AM            

I just want to point out the obvious here again like I did the first time.

Let's suppose this is Bill Clinton. He's in a place with people all around him. There's a Kerry Edwards ball cap on what appears to be a woman. In the second photo (above) there are two clear female faces observing the scene, and two hairdos that suggest another two women in extremely close proximity. There's also two old men in the foreground.

- The Kerry Edwards cap suggests it is indeed prior to the election, because it wouldn't make much sense to wear one after the day of election.

- Bill has just gone through a quadruple bypass operation, which is known to require months of recovery.

Is it logical with his history that he'd be kissing a chick at a political event with four other women and two old men in close proximity knowing that there are conservatives gnawing at the bit to garner any little tidbit to defame him?

Is it more likely that that some concerned water sign is wishing him well during his recovery?

I think Pidaua's body language assumption is in error. I think it's quite apparent what is and what is not going on.

Wishful thinking is all that picture is. Plain and simple.

---------------------------------

posted June 22, 2005 01:34 PM            

It is NOT friendly to cup a member of the opposites face like that unless you have an intimate relationship. Maybe her husband died of cancer and since they were such wonderfully close friends, he leaned in to offer his condolences? Who knows, but based on the body language and what can be seen in the picture, it is an INTIMATE embrace.

In one shot she has one hand cupping the left side of his face, in the other shot she has two hands on either side of his face.

It is similar to the way two lovers would embrace, or if an elderly person is cupping the face of a relative to give them comfort (it reminds me of Aunt Bea and Spiderman..but that is beside the point).

For the record, Clinton had his surgery in September 2004. He was hot on the Tsunami relief tour as late as May 2005. He didn't look on deaths door then, nor did he look liek he was on deaths door right before the surgery. Just because she is wearing a Kerry / Edwards hat does NOT mean she was at a campaign (sure we can infer, but based on the pic we can't be 100%).

We can also assume (I hate that word) that the book / picture is showing us "who" the woman "is" and that even in public they shared an embrace "thus throwing caution to the wind".

Until we have the actual facts we need to go on what is there. I have no political motivation in this. I am merely analyzing a picture (being objective and looking at them as if they were two people I had never seen before). Can you do the same?

What if this was...oh Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie? Would we say "Ahhh....yes, it IS an intimate embrace?" Of course we would. But being that it is of a former president that many people either hated or loved as though he was a guru, well hell, now we have to pretend it is just "trick work of the camera".

posted June 22, 2005 02:00 PM            

quote:

---

John Kerry is the typical liberal. In the Senate for about 20 years and though he rails against everything America stands for (in typical liberal fashion) his legislative successes are nil. In 20 years, John Kerry has not authored 1 (one) substantive piece of legislation to correct all those ills he sees in America. February 13, 2004 09:12 PM

---

quote:

---

There is no bigger elitist in the US Senate than John Kerry and few less qualified for the Senate. In more than 20 years in the Senate, Kerry has never once authored one piece of legislation that became law. June 18, 2004 02:49 PM

---

posted June 22, 2005 03:30 PM            

Intelligencer
Ed Klein’s Canoodle Kerfuffle
Bill’s “mouth-kissing” photo in “The Truth About Hillary”
By Greg Sargent

(Photo credit: Jay L. Clendenin (Polaris))

The photographer who took the picture in Edward Klein’s new book, The Truth About Hillary, catching Bill Clinton in a moment of P.D.A. with someone other than his wife, says that the book’s use of the photo is a “huge misrepresentation of the event.”

In his first public comments about the salacious picture, photographer Jay L. Clendenin said in an interview with New York Magazine that the picture was one of “dozens” he took at a rally for presidential candidate John Kerry that Bill Clinton attended in Philadelphia on October 25, 2004. He said that Clinton wasn’t at all intimate with the woman. “I was there,” he said. “She kissed him on the cheek. Nothing more. Two seconds out of each other’s lives.”

Clendenin also said he had no idea the photo, which he took for Polaris Images, a picture agency in Manhattan, was appearing in Klein’s book until New York told him about it.

“You’re kidding,” Clendenin exclaimed when reached on his cell phone. “Oh, Jesus.”

(Photo credit: Jay L. Clendenin (Polaris))

The photo appears on the same page of The Truth About Hillary as another candid shot of the former president in black tie half-embracing a woman at an event (or, as the caption puts it, “putting the move on a blonde in 2002.”). The caption under Clendenin’s picture says “Bill mouth-kissing a supporter. Hillary’s aides noticed that Bill seemed to grow even more reckless after his memoir, My Life, became a big bestseller. He was rolling in money—and hubris. Throwing caution to the wind, he started a torrid affair with a stunning divorcée in her early forties.”

The photo—which appears to be intended to back up the book's claims of infidelity—was also key to the publisher’s promotional strategy. An advance copy of the image appeared on the Drudge Report, under the banner headline BOOK CLAIM: HILLARY HUMILIATED AS BILL HAS NEW AFFAIRS. The book, which was officially published on June 21, has since rocketed to No. 1 on Amazon.com's nonfiction list.

The book doesn’t come out and say that the woman in the photo is the “stunning divorcée.” But the picture was clearly selected and positioned to bolster the book's lurid allegations. And the book does not specify the circumstances or the date of the event in the photo. Sharing the fact that it took place at a campaign rally would obviously have undercut the book’s claims of extramarital intimacy.

What’s more, the photo is in fact one of several taken by Clendenin—which New York has obtained—showing a sequence in which a female supporter approaches Bill amid an adoring throng and leans in for what appears to be a kiss on the cheek. Klein’s book reprinted the closest shot of the kiss—the only one that could conceivably be construed as “mouth-kissing.”

Klein dismissed the photographer's charges, arguing that the two pictures on the page reinforced the impression of an overall pattern. "The pictures speak for themselves," he said. "They make the point I was trying to make in the book, which is that he hasn't stopped being a philanderer."

(Photo credit: Jay L. Clendenin (Polaris))

Klein bristled when asked if juxtaposing the photo with a caption charging extramarital affairs was misleading in that it invited the reader to see the photo as proof of misbehavior. He said, "It invites the reader to see a pattern of behavior on his part. A man who masturbated in the Oval Office with a cigar shouldn't be going around leering at women and kissing them on the mouth."

A spokesman for the book’s publisher, Sentinel, a conservative imprint of the Penguin Group, also brushed off the photographer’s charges. “It’s not implying that the woman pictured in the photo is the one he’s having an affair with,” said the spokesman, Will Weisser.

Clendenin doesn’t see it that way. He accuses Klein of taking the photo “out of context” to make it “look like something other than what actually happened.”

“This is one of maybe a dozen people who kissed him on the cheek,” Clendenin said. “It’s like being misquoted . . . I believe that the insinuation of intimacy is a misrepresentation of the photo. It misrepresents my work.”

“I feel a little guilty,” Clendenin added. “Taken out of context like this, it would appear that I’m insinuating the same thing, with my name on the photo. In reality, this was a routine, split-second moment that happens dozens of times in a campaign.”
http://nymetro.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/12099/index.html

posted June 22, 2005 04:00 PM            

A new hard-hitting book about Hillary and Bill Clinton has soared to No. 1 on at least one national best-sellers list.

"The Truth About Hillary," by Edward Klein, takes a scathing look at the New York senator's lifelong ambitions, claiming she was making plans to succeed her husband in the Oval Office at the beginning of their marriage.

States promotional material for the book: "As Hillary gears up to run for president in 2008, distinguished journalist Edward Klein has produced an exposé of her darkest secrets that just might do to her presidential ambitions what the Swift Boat Veterans' "Unfit for Command" did to John Kerry's."

Drawing on rare access to sources close to Hillary, Klein – former editor in chief of The New York Times Magazine – claims Clinton will stop at nothing to become the first female president of the United States.

Klein "produces secret documents and stunning evidence to show just how much she has been willing to lie, bully, cheat and manipulate people in her quest for power" – including information about what Hillary knew during Bill's impeachment proceedings and when she knew it.

The author says Hillary accepted Bill's philandering, which reportedly dates back to their days at Yale, so she could benefit from the political power she enjoyed as his wife. He even claims Hillary knowingly allowed women to be hired by Bill that were regarded as "safe" for him to have affairs with.

"Hillary never wanted to be a wife. She wanted to be president," Klein quotes one Clinton insider as saying.

Klein has been roundly criticized by some in the media for exposing Clinton secrets and using unnamed sources, including his reporting of Bill's alleged torrid affair with a divorcee who lived near the Clintons in Chappaqua, N.Y.

In an interview with National Review, Klein defended his book:

"No reporter likes to use anonymous sources. But most people are afraid of invoking the wrath of Hillary Clinton, and so they will talk about her only on condition of anonymity.

"I interviewed nearly 100 people who know Hillary, including classmates from high school, college, and law school; Democratic activists and party officials; White House support staff, speechwriters, and military aides; Cabinet officers, senators and congressmen; and other intimates of the Clintons.

posted June 22, 2005 05:33 PM              

Who cares?

posted June 22, 2005 09:02 PM              

quote:

---

In the Senate for about 20 years and though he rails against everything America stands for (in typical liberal fashion) his legislative successes are nil.--jwhop

---

false, as you now know....

quote:

---

John Kerry has not authored 1 (one) substantive piece of legislation to correct all those ills he sees in America.--jwhop

---

bush said kerry introduced some 300 bills ....... this statement says nothing about bills that passed......

quote:

---

That right Petron, Bush hit Kerry with the charge in the debate that Kerry hadn't authored legislation in the Senate and Kerry didn't refute that...instead he said some of his legislation was introduced by other Senators.--jwhop

---

i'm still waiting for your source for that 1........ or are you admitting you made that up on the spot?

heres another....this was some kind of bluff right?

quote:

---

PS Gia: Name one thing John Kerry has done for America or American citizens during his 20 years as a US Senator. Name one piece of legislation Kerry has authored that became law.--jwhop

---

posted June 22, 2005 10:07 PM            

quote:

---

There is no bigger elitist in the US Senate than John Kerry and few less qualified for the Senate. In more than 20 years in the Senate, Kerry has never once authored one piece of legislation that became law.--jwhop

---

And here I thought this was the comment you were complaining about....since this is the one you posted.

Now if you feel you weren't given an answer, I'll be happy to post my answer again.

posted June 22, 2005 11:03 PM            

quote:

---

I have no political motivation in this. I am merely analyzing a picture (being objective and looking at them as if they were two people I had never seen before). Can you do the same?

---

Anyone else would say I was being completely objective. I stated the facts at hand. I think we can both agree to perhaps a version of intimacy, but the insinuation of them being lovers is the part I have an awful hard time swallowing. It only makes sense in articles Jwhop reads.

The hat places the time as prior to the election, and after the VP announcement regardless of whether it's a campaign stop or not. Any time during that time period would have been been an appropriate time to express concern over his health, or relay how she prayed for him during his surgury. That is all I'm saying regarding time period.

The photographer's own words say it all. According to Jwhop's article,

quote:

---

"He said that Clinton wasn’t at all intimate with the woman. “I was there,” he said. “She kissed him on the cheek. Nothing more. Two seconds out of each other’s lives.”

---

In my mind even a 13 year old put into the shoes this book seeks to put Clinton in, that of a ongoing adulterer, could figure out that if he's gonna kiss his girlfriend he should do it in a less public place. Not at a crowded venue with four women onlookers and two men of indeterminate concern. Is this not logical and objective?

I think that if the article's contention, and my interpretation of the picture at hand were put before a jury to decide it I'd win, because there isn't a definitive kiss, and everything that I've stated is verifiable. You could offer expert body language testimony, and it wouldn't alter the logic of the situation. Look at the two girls obviously watching the scene with smiles on their faces. Do you think they'd be smiling if what Clinton and the woman did looked untoward?

Furthermore, the photographer said SHE kissed him on the cheek. She might have done so out of gratitude over any number of things. She could have even done it simply because he's a celebrity.

posted June 22, 2005 11:23 PM              

by her body language i'd say this babe doesnt want that short little old chimps pucker anywhere near her lips......but shes being forced to let him kiss her ...

posted June 23, 2005 12:02 AM            

Don't look now Acoustic but your objectivity is sorely lacking. That is most definitely Bill Clinton.

As for what the photographer said...she kissed him on the cheek. That's BS. That was most definitely mouth to mouth resuscitation they were giving each other.

Oh, I know, it doesn't matter. Commander Corruption's behavior didn't interfere with his job performance....perjury, obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury, bombing the Sudan to get Monica off the front pages of the news papers, sexually assaulting Kathleen Willey., the bimbo eruption suppression squad in the White House

Oh, that's right, that's old news. Well Clinton's continuing affairs, as detailed in the book that picture is connected to isn't old news, it's just the same old Bill Clinton. The book also details an ongoing affair with a woman right in Bill and Hills home community.

So while none of that matters to some people here, it matters to lots of Americans...enough to send this book to the #1 spot on one best seller list and # 2 on another...on the second day of it's release.

It's also confirmation and validation for the historians who voted Clinton the most corrupt President in American history....even beat out the left's favorite whipping boy...Richard Nixon for the honor. They thought character counts, most people do and that's one of the reasons the left is losing election after election...the left is prepared to overlook and condone character flaws in leftist candidates who have the leftist values I listed before.

Now, if Hillary should become the Democrat candidate for President, there are a hell of a lot of questions about her character...all ending in ..gate, that she's going to be asked and it just isn't going to fly when she says...that's old news....that doesn't matter.....I can't remember...nobody cares.

posted June 23, 2005 10:39 AM              

quote:

---

Really AG.. how many psych or sociology courses have you taken? I have made it a practice to read body language for years, especially in the board room. My father emphatized it as he was in law enforcement and as a narc had to lie for a living. He taught my brother and I the art of getting a read off of people..I am hardly ever wrong in my read of people.

---

posted June 23, 2005 11:54 AM            

Everyone does it!

Pid can speak for herself but last time I leaned in to hear what someone wanted to say, I put my "ear" near their mouth. Perhaps Clinton is strange in ways we haven't discovered...yet.

posted June 23, 2005 01:22 PM            

Whether the picture is fake or not, the body language is still that of an intimate embrace (which I explained fully in my last post) In my explanation I also noted that he may have been comforting her or she may have been comforting him. The fact is 'WE DON'T KNOW' the story behind the picture - we can only judge what is in front of us. That is the scientific way. I am not here to pass judgement, but a kiss is a kiss and embrace is an embrace.

Heck - one only has to look at the wonderfully manipulated pics that Petron always posts to know that people doctor photos. BUT... we still see the photo in all of its literal light.

posted June 23, 2005 02:28 PM              

Let me state again, for emphasis, that I do not care in the least about the picture that sparked this entire thread. All I have to say about it (I have already said it, and I will say it again)is: Who cares, and why does it matter?
Take that as you will.

I do care, however, about comments made by you equating all leftists (not the left but leftists ) as those who unequivocally condone 'rape, treason, bribery, perjury, sexual assault,...'. This displays an attitude that is beyond arrogant.

Do what you want to do and post what you want to post, jwhop. I hardly care. But before you start flinging accusations towards others accusing them of being biased and whatnot, be aware that you yourself are guilty of the same things. I am tired of this high-handed and entirely unjustified attitude on your part.

posted June 23, 2005 06:17 PM            

Web Site Not Responding
The web site you have requested may be experiencing technical difficulties due to a busy or broken server.

Please try again by clicking the Reload icon on your navigation bar or, if that doesn't work, you may want to return to the site at a later time.

posted June 23, 2005 06:22 PM            

It is noted, no one attempted to refute what I said about Clinton...no one wanted to enter into a rational discussion of the allegations I leveled against Clinton. Instead, the attack centered on how mean I am to call people leftists. I call them as I see them. I've already explained the difference between liberals and leftists and have no intention of posting a subscript setting them apart in my posts. Let me say, liberals are very hard to find on this forum. Of leftists, there are plenty.

I have, at numerous times..on this very forum asked for rational debate of the issues...Bush, Kerry, Al Gore or any other subject, policy or otherwise. Instead there has been a steady drumbeat of personal attacks against the character, integrity, intelligence, morality, spirituality and appearance of George Bush.

You have totally overreacted to a simple picture, an undoctored picture. I wonder where you were when the pictures which follow and comments were posted on this forum?

It seems to me your outrage is very selective, also illiberal.

posted June 23, 2005 06:24 PM            

I cannot help the fact that you are not willing to see two people that are touching in that manner as being intimate (again, I am not saying intimate in a sexual manner- but also in a manner such as would be consistent with Aunt Bea talking to her beloved nephew).

Here is another question "Would you allow a mere acquaintance touch you in that manner? Would it bother you for say, a colleague to take your face with both of his hands to just whisper something into your ear?"