Oh, How They Hate The Big Dog

So, Bill Clinton’s Presidential portrait was unveiled, and what was the headline in the Clinton-hating New York Post?

WELL HUNG. Of course.

It’s all about the Clenis.

I rather like it, although it’s a bit too self-consciously Kennedyesque. And you know it’s going to bug W no end to be reminded that no amount of codpiece-stuffing, flight-suit-wearing, aircraft-carrier-landing swagger could give him the kind of sexiness that the Big Dog could achieve just by biting his lip.

Not to mention, it looks like he’s holding a newspaper and was captured in a moment of connecting with the world. And we all know that Bubble Boy doesn’t read the papers.

Anyway, let’s see what the Post had to say after the penis joke of their headline (and the criminal joke of their inside headline, “PICTURE THIS: BILL IS FRAMED.” I guess if they couldn’t impeach him, they’ll just pretend he’s a criminal).

In the unconventional creation by artist Nelson Shanks, Clinton bears a passing resemblance to former “Nightline” host Ted Koppel and has a hint of a scowl on his face.

But it was the former president’s somewhat unpresidential, somewhat louche stance in the Oval Office that had people talking from Washington to New York.

I’m not seeing the scowl. If anything, he looks slightly bemused. But the louche thing — well, I can see if you were obsessed with the guy’s penis five years after he left office and still fuming over the fact that a big sex scandal couldn’t make him half as unpopular as your boy, you might choose words like “louche” instead of “relaxed.”

And there are worse people to look like than Koppel. Though fewer toupees worse than that.

They can’t avoid getting a comment from someone at the Smithsonian, so here it is:

Carolyn Kinder Carr, chief curator at the Smithsonian, describes the portrait in programs handed out before the ceremony. She said Clinton appears “intense” and sports a “warm gaze” as if to “greet an unseen visitor.”

The Post knows that the Smithsonian is just crawling with liberals, but since it’s hanging there, what can you do?

But what about Hillary’s portrait?

The other portrait commissioned at the same time features a more-traditional profile of Sen. Clinton striking her best Susan B. Anthony dollar pose.

Get it? She’s a FEMINIST!

Oh, and haven’t we heard this word before in reference to Bill?

While many liked Hillary’s pose, some of the same people said Bill’s “Inside the Beltway” portrait looked very unpresidential.

I’ll let you all suggest how the current occupant of the White House has earned that sobriquet. But note the penis reference!

And here’s our cabdriver stand-in, a White House tourist, giving voice to the Post’s thoughts on the subject:

Carol Baker, 65, a tourist from London, said Clinton’s pose looks feminine.

“He looks very effeminate for some reason,” she said. “He ought to be wearing a white shirt.”

Ms. Baker fails to explain how wearing a white shirt increases one’s manhood. But we’ll be sure to let Worried Mom in Florida know: no blue shirts for little Brett or he might turn out to be President one day.

And now, the final dig at the Clintons, surely a reference to George Soros or Marc Rich:

Both paintings were paid for by Clinton’s friends.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

26 comments for “Oh, How They Hate The Big Dog

  1. April 25, 2006 at 5:25 pm

    Oh man, I saw that Daily News cover this morning, and laughed and laughed…

  2. Kristen from MA
    April 25, 2006 at 5:26 pm

    actually, he was impeached, just not convicted.

  3. April 25, 2006 at 5:30 pm

    …and by “Daily News,” I meant “Post.”

  4. Anne Nonymous
    April 25, 2006 at 5:58 pm

    Oh man, that’s hilarious. This is Onion-level stuff. “WELL HUNG”, “inside the beltway”… They should’ve just done the whole article like that rather than switching over to the more boring political innuendo. You know, if Bill ever gets tired of his career as an ex-president, he should try for a career in pr0n. I might well pay to see that.

    I hope the “Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy” won’t take away my liberal card for being too busy laughing to get angry at the Post.

  5. j swift
    April 25, 2006 at 6:03 pm

    The purple shirt and red tie are a bit loud. They draw the eye there instead of to the Bill’s face, but on the the other hand it is not the usually boring conservative suit… not bad though.

  6. April 25, 2006 at 6:08 pm

    It’s not purple. It’s blue. As in blue shirt, red tie, creamy white backdrop. There may be a subliminal message there, but can’t figure out which one ;)

    He looks good but old, or at least a bit ragged.

  7. April 25, 2006 at 6:43 pm

    I have to say that I’m not a fan of either of the Clinton’s. I never have been. I also find it interesting that so many people are willing to quote Chomsky when he’s dissing Republicans, but no one seems to ever point out that Chomsky wrote this:

    Clinton is ecactly what he says he is, a pro-businuess candidate. The Wall Street Journal had a very enthusiastic, big, front-page article about him right after the NAFTA vote. They pointed out that the Republicans tend to be the part of business as a whole, but that the Democrats tend to favor big business over small business. Clinton, they said, is typical of this. They quoted executives from the Ford Motor Company, the steel industry, etc. who siad that this is one of the best administrations they’ve ever had.

    The day after the House vote on NAFTAQ, the New York Times had a very revealing, front-page, pro Clinton story by their Washington correspondent, RW. Apple. It went sort of like this: People had been criticizing Clinton because he just didn’t have any principles. He backed down on Bosnia, on Somalia, on his economic stimulus program, on Haiti, on the health program. He seemed like a guy with no bottom at all.

    Then he proved that he really was a man of principle and that he really does have backbone–by fighting for the corporate version of NAFTA. So he does have principles==he listens to the call of big money. The same was true of Kennedy. (Secrets, Lies and Democracy)

    And his back-stepping on homosexuals in the military? That whole “first Black President” nonsense that the CBC did? Naw…fuck all of that shit.

    The only think I can think of is Public Enemy:

    “Neither party is mine, not the jackass or the elephant.”

  8. zuzu
    April 25, 2006 at 8:48 pm

    I certainly have my issues with Clinton, and I couldn’t bring myself to vote for him the second time around, but you gotta admit: he sure does make the Republicans nuts.

  9. April 25, 2006 at 10:09 pm

    It looks like one artist did his face, and then another artist with a more realistic style did everything else.

    And in light of the various innuendos going on, I would like to clarify that by “did,” I mean “painted.”

  10. Pingback: Rox Populi
  11. April 25, 2006 at 10:50 pm

    I used to think that the Big Dog was too moderate. Boy, how I’d love to have another 8 of those years!

  12. April 26, 2006 at 12:23 am

    Huh. Y’know, I had a suspicion all along it was about penis envy.

    I’ve said for years that the best thing about Clinton was his enemies. As you said, Zuzu: makes ’em nuts — where that isn’t redundant.

  13. Thlayli
    April 26, 2006 at 5:29 am

    The story in my paper was al about how you can’t see his wedding ring.

    It must be nice to have the leisure to obsess about such things. Some of us have to work for a living.

  14. Thlayli
    April 26, 2006 at 5:29 am

    All about it, also.

  15. Didi Hylobates
    April 26, 2006 at 8:43 am

    Is he flashing a gang sign? The Jefferson Boys?

    I hated him as a president (the human face of corporate rule) but love him as a lightning rod for the America-hating, treasonous, jihadist GOP gangsters.

  16. Samantha Vimes
    April 26, 2006 at 8:46 am

    The blue and red are the strongest colours, drawing the eye to the torso rather than his face. As I remember, he did dress like that, but as an artist, I think the tones should have been seriously muted.

    And… the easel takes away 30 pounds? I don’t remember him being that slim.

  17. Magis
    April 26, 2006 at 9:29 am

    I used to think that the Big Dog was too moderate. Boy, how I’d love to have another 8 of those years!

    Interesting thought. Just for the hell of it. Is there any prominent politician, Republican or Democrat, any of you wouldn’t trade for Dear Leader? (Darth excluded). What if it had to be a Republican?

  18. zuzu
    April 26, 2006 at 10:03 am

    I’d even take Nixon. He went to China, ended the war, and started the EPA. He was a paranoid freak, but at least he got a few things done.

  19. Magis
    April 26, 2006 at 10:36 am

    zuzu:

    I would too. Anybody alive?

  20. April 26, 2006 at 10:57 am

    Gerald Ford

  21. Didi Hylobates
    April 26, 2006 at 12:28 pm

    George HW Bush. I think Reagan and sort-of Nixon are the only ones I would consider just as awful. Even Goldwater smells like a saint next to Marvin’s brother.

  22. April 26, 2006 at 12:41 pm

    I certainly have my issues with Clinton, and I couldn’t bring myself to vote for him the second time around, but you gotta admit: he sure does make the Republicans nuts.

    So true!

  23. QLH
    April 26, 2006 at 3:28 pm

    And… the easel takes away 30 pounds? I don’t remember him being that slim.

    He’s lost weight since leaving office. Health issues.

  24. April 26, 2006 at 6:47 pm

    Republican I’d have to take? McCain.

  25. April 26, 2006 at 9:28 pm

    I don’t like the picture. He has too much of a swagger.

  26. Laura
    April 28, 2006 at 9:25 am

    Hey! I thought *I* coined the Clenis–as in Republicans’ Gollum-esque preoccupation with “the-Clenis-my-precious”…OH–Speaking of which, I heard it has been rumored that the GOP is, uh…erecting a 50 foot gold replication of the Clenis near the National Aboretum so that all Gollumpublicans can pilgrimage to it annually and dance around it like a Maypole. ;)

Comments are closed.