Subscribe via RSS Feed

Damn it, Bill

[ 73 ] January 21, 2013 |

I defended Obama against Althouse et al.‘s unfounded and visually illiterate accusations, but I just can’t bring myself to back the Big Dog when he’s so obviously enjoying the view:


Comments (73)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Barry Freed says:

    Who is that he’s checking out?

  2. Craig says:

    Billy Jeff is our foremost ex-Presidential scholar of the badonkadonk.

  3. Tybalt says:

    I’ll defend him. Ain’t nothing wrong with that.

  4. rea says:

    It looks to me like Clinton is 3 rows back, looking around two people in front of him, and his expression may just be an artifact of the moment rather than representing some serious oggling on his part.

  5. Murc says:

    I’d hit that.

    Clarkson looks pretty hot too.

  6. FlipYrWhig says:

    I know you’re the master of the eye-line, SEK, but wouldn’t his eyes be pointed much lower if he were trying to focus on a butt two rows down?

  7. Randy Paul says:

    He’s channeling Sir Mix-a-Lot.

  8. Ann “Lets take a closer look at those breasts” Althouse is a crackpot.

  9. Law Spider says:

    Scott, I generally love your visual-education posts. And I’m a woman who used to (back in the day) be the recipient/victim of some annoying oggling. But this comment is a cheap shot. As people have noted, he’s quite close to her, and if he were focused on something lower than her head/ upper back, his eyes would be lower. (Look at the red-headed woman’s eyes. His eyes are indeed aimed lower, but by very little.) And unless you are a robot, your eyes generally scan around while you are looking at someone. Especially when the speaker is facing the other direction, and the observer can’t focus on a face, eventually the observer is going to look downwards. Not to mention, she’s wearing a wool coat — there can’t be much definition to her backside. Bill deserves a little more respect.

  10. Incontinentia Buttocks says:

    Sometimes an onion ring is just an onion ring (though usually it’s Hillary Clinton’s ladyparts).

  11. max says:

    He’s simply trying to see around the two heads that directly in his line of sight.

    However, if they catch him eyeballing some attractive lady’s ass, I shant begrudge him would applaud him for his good sense.

    [‘Dog-whistling and audible remarks are out, of course, as they should be at all times.’]

  12. Aaron Baker says:

    Ah, Clinton . . . during the eight awful years of Bush no. 2, I really missed that big lug.

  13. Anonymous says:

    I understand it when you say you’re being “flip” here, but there comes a point at which it’s just utterly depressing that a woman in public is automatically considered eye-fucking fodder for some Important Dude whom we love (cue all the Gooooooooo Biillllll comments here; we’re very happy he’s enjoying The View, hardy har har). As blowback notes, she couldn’t be more prim and proper in dress and makeup, and still simply being in the vicinity of a man famous for harassing and goosing women and fucking employees who may or may not have fully consented makes her (and him) suspect.

    • Tybalt says:

      People are not allowed to look at each other now? He is not leering or making her uncomfortable. He is looking, and looks as if he likes what he sees. There is nothing wrong with this. I don’t care if you are dressed as Queen Victoria herself. We are allowed to look at other people.

      • Anonymous says:

        What an hysterical, overly emotional response. I never suggested people stop looking at other people. I’m commenting on how the male gaze continues to inform the way media interprets these kinds of photographs. Read for comprehension, dude.

        • CashandCable says:

          Calm down and stop contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you note how we’re talking about a “man famous for harassing and goosing women and fucking employees who may or may not have fully consented” (which I would say definitely gives people a reason to instinctually believe he’s checking out a lady on the sly). And then you immediately overreach and start talking about the “male gaze” or how “a woman in public is automatically considered eye-fucking fodder for some Important Dude whom we love.”

          Newsflash: it’s not about “men” or “Important Dudes”, it’s about the public figures who once got a blowjob from an intern half his age. Much smaller sample there.

          • Anonymous says:

            Cool story, bro.

            As I say, male left-wing commenters tend to exhibit Tin Ear and Blinders On syndrome when it comes to liberal-ish male politicians and sexism. Rape-y behavior becomes a misunderstanding or a consensual affair, and a dude noted for harassing women when he had the power to do so is cheered on when he makes (or, in this case, doesn’t make) googly eyes at a young woman with accomplishments in her own right who, in turn and by virtue of being seen, now constitutes a “view.”

            • Djur says:

              I agree with you on the “go get ’em, Bill” point, but I don’t know of any claims about Clinton’s sexual behavior that can really be dismissed as a “misunderstanding”. The only proven/admitted behavior was with Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers, and both of those were consensual. The alleged behavior with Paula Jones was unambiguously harassment, and Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick alleged sexual assault.

              I think most Clinton supporters completely dismiss the accusations from Jones, Willey, and Broaddrick as politically-motivated fabrications. Leaving those aside, the image of Clinton remains “horny adulterer”, not “sexual predator”.

              • Dilan Esper says:

                You should be more critical as to WHY Clinton supporters dismiss those allegations. Were they really redolent with credibility problems (and I mean actual credibility problems, not the sorts of arguments based on “sluttiness” and “manipulativeness” that defense lawyers in rape cases often use and which our side rightly condemns when deployed by anyone other than Bill Clinton)?

                And bear in mind, until the blue dress, the official Clinton story, told to many of his supporters and blasted by many surrogates throughout the media, was that Lewinsky was a stalker.

                People should be much more honest. You don’t have to think that impeachment was correct or that he was a terrible President to concede that Bill Clinton may have acted in various shady, rape-y ways with a number of women. Many powerful men on both sides of the aisle have done the same thing.

                • dave says:

                  Monica Lewinsky was NOT and intern at the time of the affair.

                  Ken Starr (not exacly a Clinton supporter) concluded that Kathleen Willey was a liar and almost charged her with perjury.

            • SEK says:

              I’m not sure how my saying, off the cuff, that I’m not going to defend Clinton constitutes an implicit endorsement of the male gaze.

              • laura says:

                There’s nothing wrong with the Male Gaze unless it shuts down the Male Brain.

              • Anonymous says:

                Really? That’s surprising. I should think calling her “the view” does just that and I find it hard to believe you’re not aware of that.

                Again, I don’t think he was looking at her. I don’t think you think he was looking at her. It’s not wrong to look at people. The feminazis, despite what Tybalt insinuates above, are not coming to collect yer eyeballs and/or penises for re-educumacation purposes.

                But, as with the “who’s the new intern?” schtick, this whole thing where we play for silly season laughs the concept of objectification because the person doing the objectifying is on our side and the one being objectified is just some silly girl begins to fucking pall after a while.

                If even banal instances of sexism can’t be called sexism for fear of offending men on the interwebs, I honestly don’t know how we’re going to sort out the larger, more oppressive instances.

              • Anonymous says:

                Apart from all of that, I don’t know who you think you’re fucking kidding with the who-me routine. Who else is talking about and framing this photograph this way? Who else is calling him Bill and Big Dog, all chummy and affectionate-like? You selected the photo and made a post about it. What other interpretation, given your commentary, is there?

        • Tybalt says:

          I’m so glad you went with “hysterical” here (lacking a uterus though I am) because I would love you to identify the language I used that is in any way emotional.

          • Left_Wing_Fox says:

            That alone is probably a good indication that this is a troll doing an impression of a SJW. Seriously, if there are two phrases that get jumped on quick by actual feminists, it’s “hysterical” and “emotional”.

        • Tybalt says:

          And, I might add (now verging somewhat toward the emotional) what exactly am I supposed to “read for comprehension”, you insufferable twit? Your second sentence makes no sense whatsoever (suspect of…?) and “fodder” doesn’t mean what you must think it means, because, yuck.

    • Djur says:

      “a man famous for harassing and goosing women and fucking employees who may or may not have fully consented”

      Huh, I thought he was famous for having several consensual affairs.

    • blowback says:

      The Daily Mail has an article that is more balanced than this post. The fucking Daily Mail for Christ’s sake!

  14. paulo says:

    I think if you follow his eyes they are making a beeline to the one thing even more powerful that bootie – a camera!

  15. Major Kong says:

    Say what you will about him. He at least had the benefit of not being a fucking sociopath like a certain fake Texan in recent memory.

  16. Tybalt says:

    Actually, when you view the tape, it’s clear he isn’t checking out anything. The look is utterly fleeting. Sad to say.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.