Ann Coulter on Bill Clinton's book

[Bama Bo 0]

http://www.anncoulter.org

I love the last line of the article.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

War and a Piece.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I like the title: "Moby's Dick"!!

[DKW 86 7,446]

Clinton claims, for example, that conservatives decided to target him in lieu of the Soviet Union after the Cold War ended and conservatives needed a new villain. In other words, Clinton is equating himself, in scale and importance, to the Soviet Union, the global communist conspiracy and the Marxist-Leninist Revolution.   Nope, no ego problem there.<Insert Sarcasm> ("My Life" was Clinton's second choice title, after the publisher balked at naming the book "I Am God, and You Are All My Subjects.")

...

So I'm pretty sure it wasn't our anger about "the '60s" that inspired feelings of contempt for Bill Clinton. It must have been something else - some ineffable quality. Let's see, what was it again? Ah yes! I remember now! It was that Clinton is a pathological liar and sociopath.

Coulter gets right to the point.

When they build a monument to this self absorbed bufoon, it will likely take one of two shapes.

1) It will be Clinton playing with himself. Afterall, it was all he really will be remembered for other than installing the Reps in both House and Senate...

2) It will be Clinton gazing at the thing he most loves in this world..... A mirror reflection of himself.

I really think the title of the book says it all, "MY Story"

[TexasTiger 13,046]

When they build a monument to this self absorbed bufoon, it will likely take one of two shapes.

1) It will be Clinton playing with himself. Afterall, it was all he really will be remembered for other than installing the Reps in both House and Senate...

...

I really think the title of the book says it all, "MY Story"

The title is actually My Life. Since you apparently don't realize this, autobiographies are what results when a writer writes about their life. You hate Clinton so much you even criticize him for writing his autobiography about (gasp!) his life!

Actually, thanks to Bush he'll forever be remembered as the last President to balance the budget, at least in our lifetime.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Actually what bothers me most is that he says out of his entire presidency...he is MOST proud of "beating the impeachment" thing...that would have never come up had he not LIED to america and committed adultery with his wife.

I sure would be proud....what a jackass.

[DKW 86 7,446]

When they build a monument to this self absorbed bufoon, it will likely take one of two shapes.

1) It will be Clinton playing with himself. Afterall, it was all he really will be remembered for other than installing the Reps in both House and Senate...

...

I really think the title of the book says it all, "MY Story"

The title is actually My Life. Since you apparently don't realize this, autobiographies are what results when a writer writes about their life. You hate Clinton so much you even criticize him for writing his autobiography about (gasp!) his life!

Actually, thanks to Bush he'll forever be remembered as the last President to balance the budget, at least in our lifetime.

Here we go again....

This was supposed to be his memoirs, his version of how history unfolded, not a series of "EXPLANATIONS" (his word, not mine) of his foilables. Certainly they were not to be a long winded E! version of a "Where are they now..."

Many other Presidents have written their own Memoirs and did not come off as self serving as Clinton. Grant's memoirs were basically about his years as General, not about himself. They are very significant for historians. Clinton's Memoirs will only be important for People magazine.

[kingfish 73]

Excellent article by Ann Coulter on a sorry subject. What a sense of humor! Thanks for the post.

[TexasTiger 13,046]

Actually what bothers me most is that he says out of his entire presidency...he is MOST proud of "beating the impeachment" thing...that would have never come up had he not LIED to america and committed adultery with his wife.

I sure would be proud....what a jackass.

Do you have a link to this? I've heard him say something very different.

[Tiger Al 0]

David, here's how it works: Autobiographies are books written by an author ABOUT the author! I read Colin Powell's autobiography My American Journey (did you catch the "MY" in the title? It's a dead giveaway that the book is "autobiographical") and, oddly enough, he stuck to that same formula and it worked!!! But, here's the quirky thing that I think is throwing you off...they can write it however they want! See, I would've like to have seen Colin give a lot more perspective about a black man rising through the ranks of the Army, but he decided to write the thing the way he wanted to.

Actually what bothers me most is that he says out of his entire presidency...he is MOST proud of "beating the impeachment" thing...that would have never come up had he not LIED to america and committed adultery with his wife.

I sure would be proud....what a jackass.

I haven't heard this, either. In the interview I saw, he said something else. Maybe this was what FoxNews "claimed" he said.

[DKW 86 7,446]

Memoirs are not necessarily Autobiographies. memoirs are supposed to be historical in nature, not dedicated spin pieces.

[Tiger Al 0]

Memoirs are not necessarily Autobiographies. memoirs are supposed to be historical in nature, not dedicated spin pieces.

Look up the word "semantics" in the dictionary!

[TexasTiger 13,046]

Memoirs are not necessarily Autobiographies. memoirs are supposed to be historical in nature, not dedicated spin pieces.

How do you think those who oppose Bush are likely to view his future, and certainly ghost-written, memoirs? Spin? Afterall, he spins nonstop in the present. Not that his supporters seem to notice.

[Tigermike 3,057]

Memoirs are not necessarily Autobiographies. memoirs are supposed to be historical in nature, not dedicated spin pieces.

How do you think those who oppose Bush are likely to view his future, and certainly ghost-written, memoirs? Spin? Afterall, he spins nonstop in the present. Not that his supporters seem to notice.

I think you and those you speak of "those who oppose Bush" will view any future Bush memoir with the same rancor that you have displayed his entire Presidency. You and the democrats changing your screed toward President Bush is almost unthinkable no matter how far in the future it happens.

[TexasTiger 13,046]

I think you and those you speak of "those who oppose Bush" will view any future Bush memoir with the same rancor that you have displayed his entire Presidency.   You and the democrats changing your screed toward President Bush is almost unthinkable no matter how far in the future it happens.

Actually, I and, obviously, most people who oppose Bush now were part of the 90% who strongly supported him post 9-11 and into Afghanistan. Not that long ago he had the support of almost all Americans, including me. Your statement is just more revisionist history from the Right.

[Tigermike 3,057]

I think you and those you speak of "those who oppose Bush" will view any future Bush memoir with the same rancor that you have displayed his entire Presidency.   You and the democrats changing your screed toward President Bush is almost unthinkable no matter how far in the future it happens.

Actually, I and, obviously, most people who oppose Bush now were part of the 90% who strongly supported him post 9-11 and into Afghanistan. Not that long ago he had the support of almost all Americans, including me. Your statement is just more revisionist history from the Right.

If that is revisionist history, then I/we have obviously learned something from the democrats and liberals who are Zen Masters at revisionist history.

[TexasTiger 13,046]

I think you and those you speak of "those who oppose Bush" will view any future Bush memoir with the same rancor that you have displayed his entire Presidency.   You and the democrats changing your screed toward President Bush is almost unthinkable no matter how far in the future it happens.

Actually, I and, obviously, most people who oppose Bush now were part of the 90% who strongly supported him post 9-11 and into Afghanistan. Not that long ago he had the support of almost all Americans, including me. Your statement is just more revisionist history from the Right.

If that is revisionist history, then I/we have obviously learned something from the democrats and liberals who are Zen Masters at revisionist history.

Are you getting dizzy from all of your spin?

[Tiger Al 0]

I think you and those you speak of "those who oppose Bush" will view any future Bush memoir with the same rancor that you have displayed his entire Presidency.  You and the democrats changing your screed toward President Bush is almost unthinkable no matter how far in the future it happens.

Actually, I and, obviously, most people who oppose Bush now were part of the 90% who strongly supported him post 9-11 and into Afghanistan. Not that long ago he had the support of almost all Americans, including me. Your statement is just more revisionist history from the Right.

If that is revisionist history, then I/we have obviously learned something from the democrats and liberals who are Zen Masters at revisionist history.

Are you getting dizzy from all of your spin?

When your eyes are closed you don't get as dizzy!!!

[MDM4AU 336]

I think you and those you speak of "those who oppose Bush" will view any future Bush memoir with the same rancor that you have displayed his entire Presidency.   You and the democrats changing your screed toward President Bush is almost unthinkable no matter how far in the future it happens.

Actually, I and, obviously, most people who oppose Bush now were part of the 90% who strongly supported him post 9-11 and into Afghanistan. Not that long ago he had the support of almost all Americans, including me. Your statement is just more revisionist history from the Right.

If that is revisionist history, then I/we have obviously learned something from the democrats and liberals who are Zen Masters at revisionist history.

Are you getting dizzy from all of your spin?

When your eyes are closed you don't get as dizzy!!!

You and Tex should know!

[mcgufcm 4,107]

i have a question more as a lover of comedy than anything else. do those of you who wrote in about how clever ann coulter's writing is really believe that? i mean if her writing were food it'd be two month old bread. that junk was just stale (and yeah, the preceding joke was intentionally stale to match).

this is the first book ever that comes with a 20 minute intermission (wow, are you serious? i read longer books in high school. hell, the last harry potter book was only 100 pages shorter)... it's so long it should be called war and peace. or more appropriate war and a piece (good one, stay up all night coming up with that gem? we all know you didn't read war and peace since it's got a solid 5-600 pages on this one). moby's dick? what was this "find a literary classic and turn it into a penis joke" day at editorial school? i mean gimme a break.

the thing i find repulsive about coulter is that she reminds me so much of that kid that every high school has that tries soooo hard to be funny that he just can't make you laugh. i read treason, and i barely got through that without vomiting. every sentence tries so much to be wittier than the last. it's just painful. needless to say, i could do without ann coulter regardless of the fact that i find her politics ignorant. if you're going to applaud a conservative author at least gimme someone like sean hannity who can come up with an witty observation from time to time.

[AUloggerhead 2,254]

To each his own, mcgufcm. I'm sorry that not all of her columns entertain you to the fullest. I love reading Coulter. She writes some of the best satire out there. Now if you're really interested in an ignoramus columnist, look no further than here.

[TexasTiger 13,046]

"In contemplating college liberals, you really regret, once again, that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals by making them realize that they could be killed, too. Otherwise they will turn out into outright traitors." -- Ann Coulter, CPAC conference, 2002

College liberals need to fear death from their government or else they will become traitors. As if someone who joins a fundamentalist religious group like the Taliban is some pot smokin', fornicatin', god hatin', Mother Jones readin', gay rights supportin' librul, and the Taliban is merely the natural progression such a person takes. Michael Moore is an extremist, but Ann Coulter is the voice of reason. What are you guys smokin'?

[AUloggerhead 2,254]

College liberals need to fear death from their government or else they will become traitors. ...

No. You've got it all twisted about (... reading comprehension & stuff on your part.) College-aged liberals -- actually liberals of every age-group -- need to fear death from their government if they become a traitor like John Walker. Another name for taking up arms against the government in a time of war is treason, and it's typically considered a capital offense. Coulter simply states that if a treasonous person was legally executed for his traitorous behavior (and not his or her liberal viewpoints on drug use, sexual morality, choices in worship or literature,) the example made would force liberals to face hard reality instead of going off on tangents making silly excuses for why someone would become a traitor.

[TexasTiger 13,046]

College liberals need to fear death from their government or else they will become traitors. ...

No. You've got it all twisted about (... reading comprehension & stuff on your part.) College-aged liberals -- actually liberals of every age-group -- need to fear death from their government if they become a traitor like John Walker. Another name for taking up arms against the government in a time of war is treason, and it's typically considered a capital offense. Coulter simply states that if a treasonous person was legally executed for his traitorous behavior (and not his or her liberal viewpoints on drug use, sexual morality, choices in worship or literature,) the example made would force liberals to face hard reality instead of going off on tangents making silly excuses for why someone would become a traitor.

Interesting twisting of what she actually said. Nice try, though.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

yeah, the text actually reads "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals by making them realize that they could be killed, too." that says that killing john walker would be an intimidating factor to liberals b/c of who they are (although i consider myself a liberal, at least in the south, and i don't identify with him in the least). whether that's what she meant or not, that's what she said.

and loggerhead, c'mon don't put stuff like that up for me to read anymore. that was as dry as a 13-year old fat kid's sex life. i just have never understood the enfatuation with coulter. i read rave reveiws then i read the columns and my head hurts. oh well.