Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

The Clintons are reported to be livid at comparisons to Weiner/Abedin (and who knows what “livid” means, anyway?)

The Clintons are reported to be livid at comparisons to Weiner/Abedin (and who knows what “livid” means, anyway?)

Here’s the story:

“The Clintons are upset with the comparisons that the Weiners seem to be encouraging — that Huma is ‘standing by her man’ the way Hillary did with Bill, which is not what she in fact did,’’ said a top state Democrat…

A longtime Hillary aide and Clinton friend, Abedin’s surprisingly unequivocal support of her husband after his bombshell admission Tuesday that he engaged in salacious online sexting well after he resigned in disgrace from Congress in 2011 left the Clintons stunned, continued the source.

What an odd notion, if true. Why would the Clintons of all people, be stunned? Surely they are aware that politicians can get into political trouble for infidelities of various sorts and make promises to spouse and/or the general public that it won’t happen again, and then fail to live up to those promises, get caught, and have to face some sort of consequences? And disclaimers aside, surely they know that even the most capable of political wives can wind up performing ye olde “Stand By Your Man” routine? Although in the immortal words of Hillary herself (and by the way, for those who forget what a pretty woman Clinton was twenty years ago, this might serve as a reminder):

So, what’s the big difference? Is it that Bill’s peccadillos were more conventional in that they involved actual sex with real live people in the non-virtual world (despite his use of the legalistic definition of “sexual relations” in his Paula Jones deposition, which enabled him to later claim that what he did with Lewinsky didn’t actually fall under that heading)? Compared to Weiner, the former president was positively old-fashioned in his procilivites. Is it Weiner’s relative kinkiness that’s the problem here? Or the fact that the Weiner/Abedins are reminding people of what was hardly Bill and Hillary’s finest hour, a memory the Clintons would rather have people forget if Hillary is to run successfully in 2016?

Or is it that, for the Clintons, the lying and the standing-by were justified because the stakes were so very much higher? (Also from the NY Post):

“The Clintons are pissed off that Weiner’s campaign is saying that Huma is just like Hillary,’’ said the source. “How dare they compare Huma with Hillary? Hillary was the first lady. Hillary was a senator. She was secretary of state.”

This is a curious remark, because actually Hillary was only the first of these things when the Lewinsky story broke, and she’d only been a first lady of Arkansas when the original “standing by” occurred in 1992, back when Bill was running for his first term as president.

So maybe that’s the difference. Maybe Hillary wouldn’t have stood by for a measly mayoral first-ladyhood.

And the moral of the story? Perhaps it’s bad luck to have Bill Clinton perform your wedding, as happened just three short years ago when Weiner and Abedin tied the knot.

As for the use of the word “livid” (the headline of the Post story I’ve been discussing is “Bill and Hillary Clinton are ‘livid’ at comparisons to Weiner’s sexcapades and Huma’s forgiveness”), it has long puzzled me. When I first learned its meaning in high school—because it appears in quite a few old literary works—I was told it meant “pale” even though people often used it to signify “red.” At any rate, it was a color, not a feeling. But then I kept seeing it used to mean any of those things, and the NY Post headline about the Clintons and the Weiner/Abedins seems to be using it to mean “angry,” as far as I can tell.

Here’s the complete lowdown on the word “livid,” everything you ever wanted to know about it for those who are curious about that sort of thing. Livid is apparently a word of many colors–specifically red, white, and/or blue. How apropos! It can also be used to mean “angry,” although that’s a much more recent practice.

 

[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Yeah, livid=pissed off like the second quoted piece reads. Not upset like the first quoted piece.

I can’t believe that these women ‘stand by their man’. Any woman for that matter. If I were them(the women) I would feel humiliated. This is like telling your man it’s okay to fuck around on me, don’t worry there won’t be any repercussions. But guys if you get this kind of deal with your woman, where you can go out and get some ‘strange’ and when you go through a ‘strange’ drought, you can always have your woman at home as backup. What a deal!!!

    Musson in reply to Alan Cain. | July 29, 2013 at 4:30 pm

    To your point the new Hillary CLinton movie will star Diane Lane. So they can call it ‘Must Love Dogs’.

The following commercial WILL NOT be shown during the corrupt, socialist media’s blatantly biased propaganda show supporting Shrillary…..

ATTENTION d-cRAT Socialist Women:
Has the man in your life worn out your Shrillary Rotten Clinton DOORMAT by constantly wiping his filthy, dirty shoes on it? Then you are in luck ! For the next 30 days, you can get at a bargain price a brand new genuine Huma Weiner DOORMAT to replace your worn out one. Like the Shrillary version, the Huma model will help you achieve your base political ambitions while letting your “special” man walk all over it – and NO, you don’t have to be a islamofascist, Muslim Brotherhood-supporting, America-hating jihadist to own the Huma model !!!!! (However, if you, like Huma, OBOZO and most other d-cRAT extremists support these things, you’ll save 10% ! Just ask for your “Shiite-Head” discount when ordering.) CALL NOW – supplies are limited !!!!!!! That’s 1-800-DCRAT-SCUM. Our Operators (who get less than minimum wage and NO health benefits) are standing by !

Please File(AGAIN..!!) Under: CANNOT POSSIBLY MAKE THIS S*** UP!!

“Livid..” Right. Got it. Ho-Freaking-Hum. Billy the Rapist and his sickazz codependent-vastly ambitious wifey are “outraged..”, “dissappointed..”, “sooooo shocked..”..

Right.

    jayjerome66 in reply to NeoConScum. | July 29, 2013 at 7:05 pm

    A story from the NY Post on the Clinton’s, written by Fredric Uberall Dicker (DICKer, how appropriate for a Weiner story), based on unnamed sources – now there’s a tale to bet the Homestead on for veracity, from a writer who never ever muckrakes for political reasons, more then once or twice a day that is.

    Think we might get a followup for authentication from TMZ?

The irony…..it burns. 😛

Sounds like a Weiner waving contest to me …. who’s the judge ? What are the judging critiera ? Oh, wait, this just in …\

Here come da Judge ! Here come da Jdge !

And the Wiener is ……

Best Drudge line yet –

“Campaign working short-staffed’ 🙂

And under that ‘Campaign sticks it out’ ….

Here’s one difference: In the Weiner case, there’s a photographic/digital record. In the Clinton case, it came down to “Who are you going to believe? The President of the United States or some bimbo from a trailer park?”

It was amusing to see Democrats take the position that someone who manages to get elected president is ipso facto honest and trustworthy–and then do a quick turnabout starting in January 2001. But it wasn’t quite so jaw-dropping as the shift from portraying Clarence Thomas as a monster because of rumors about off-color jokes, to revering Bill Clinton even when it became clear that he was a serial groper (at the very least).

i thought imitation was supposed to be the sincerest from of flattery?

i guess the Clintoons aren’t used to seeing themselves in the mirror.

    Observer in reply to redc1c4. | July 29, 2013 at 4:58 pm

    Well to be fair, it’s not the sleazy sexual behavior or the chronic lying about it that the Clintons appear to object to — it’s the fact that Huma and the Weiner aren’t of the same status as the Clintons.

    IOW, the Clintons are upset about the comparisons between them and the Weiners because Huma and the Weiner are mere peons. (Huma’s just an aide, and the Weiner is just a wannabe mayoral candidate) — not titled Democratic aristocracy like the Clintons.

    When the Clintons look at themselves in the mirror, they see a crown atop their heads.

Weiner is a spastic psycho, an amateur. The Clintons were total pros, serial psychotic liars. Check out Christopher Hithens’ book “No One Left to Lie To.” Hillary Clinton may be the most committed, balls-to-the-wall, unregenerate serial liar and weapons-grade corrupt politician in American history. This goes way back. I have the Congressional transcript of the Travel Office scandal. What a read. Then there was Johnny Chung, Whitewater, Web Hubbell, her ill-gotten commodity profits, her enemies’ list, the healthcare hearings (the only first lady ever fined by a court for lying and withholding documents), her campaign irregularities, Rose Law Firm docs, and Benghazi.

    inquisitivemind in reply to raven. | July 29, 2013 at 5:13 pm

    You forgot to add Vince to that list

      Yes. Thanks. I should have put an “etc..” at the end.

        inquisitivemind in reply to raven. | July 29, 2013 at 6:47 pm

        Wasn’t knocking you it’s a fairly long list of atrocities committed by Clinton’s in their march to political aristocracy.
        I hope for his sake it’s rehashed and the FOIA requests are actually allowed at some point.
        Being it was 20yrs ago there’s an entire generation of voters that have no idea Hillary had Vince whacked to prevent “The can of worms from being opened” with regards to the funds of the blind trust – well where they illegally came from anyways.
        But then I’ll just be called a crazy conspiracy theorist

          Radegunda in reply to inquisitivemind. | July 30, 2013 at 12:23 am

          The official “suicide in Fort Marcy Park” story never stood up against the evidence, and some strange contortions were used to force the facts into the narrative — e.g., the conclusion that every witness at Fort Marcy Park in the relevant time frame was mistaken about the color of the Honda in the parking lot.

          I recall seeing White House aides squirm as they tried to explain such mysteries as how the “suicide note” could have escaped detection (all seventeen pieces of it) in the first search of the briefcase, and then later — voila, there it is! Except the place where a signature would have been. And it had no fingerprints. And it sounded like an apologia for the Clintons. And three highly distinguished manuscript experts pronounced it a very bad forgery. Why do you have to forge a suicide note for an actual suicide?

          There’s much more. But the Clinton machine managed to bully and intimidate skeptics into silence, and soon the whole Republican establishment and the conservative media were ridiculing anyone who questioned a story that never made sense.

    tencz65 in reply to raven. | July 29, 2013 at 6:28 pm

    she sounds just like a ‘Cold War’ Russian .

    ConradCA in reply to raven. | August 1, 2013 at 1:44 pm

    You forgot to add that is responsible for the murder of 4 people in Libya because she didn’t read her emails or told her employees not to send them.

In fairness to Weiner, the women he consorted with consented.

He never sexually harassed or raped anyone – which makes him not only a better man then Bill Clinton, but based on Filner and his ilk most of the make leaders in the Democrat Party.

boo hoo for Bill and Hill, put some ice on it.

If they don’t like the comparison then don’t associate with such behavior. Hillary could have fired Huma and cut their ties.

Huma to Hillary – ‘What difference does it make?’

    NeoConScum in reply to Musson. | July 29, 2013 at 6:37 pm

    Please add Huma to Hilly: “It’s a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy against po’wittle us.”

Another Voice | July 29, 2013 at 4:42 pm

” What difference at this point does it make?
It is our job (Bill and Hillary in context) to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.” Jan. 2013

With the same defiant attitude Hillary sounds exactly like the position statements she took from their play book in Jan. 1992 interview. If she is planning on the same results for Jan. 2016 no wonder they’re livid. They weren’t counting on Huma and the pervert to plagiarize the script. The third time was supposed to be their “charm”.

Does anyone really believe the Clintons?

    tencz65 in reply to Ike1. | July 29, 2013 at 6:32 pm

    NO . from this side (good guys). They love’em some Clintons from the dark side (bad guys).
    I can’t stand them . Hillary truly is a lousy politician ,what has she accomplished for the country ? Nana Zip

      Uncle Samuel in reply to tencz65. | July 30, 2013 at 7:23 am

      My own Mother, rest her soul, was a big fan of demogogues from Huey P. Long to Billy Jeff Clinton. I could never help her wise up. Sadly, both she and my father were also a life-long smokers, functional alcoholics, and Democrat voters…perhaps due to having lived through the Depression, his participation in Merchant Marines, WWII, Korea (Our family was literally there and evacuated when it started; he went in a private aged 16, came out a Lt. Col.) and having lost a son-in law during the Viet Nam years.
      Their politics were skewed…but at least we their children cancelled their votes, if we couldn’t change their minds.

    jayjerome66 in reply to Ike1. | July 29, 2013 at 8:58 pm

    It’s not who believes her – it’s how many vote for her.
    And who will the Republicans put up who will have ANY chance of beating her?
    Who is that? That name again? I didn’t hear ya, a little louder, please!

Why the Clinton’s reaction?

Simple arrogance. They’re the kind of arrogant people that don’t see themselves for what they really are. “Are you kidding? Those people are liars, we couldn’t lie if our lives depended on it.

This is an absolute false flag op concocted by Anthony Weiner’s adoptive parents, Bill and Hill.

The news was released at a point where they’re 45-plus days away from the primary. Plenty of time, had the press just behaved, to make this a minor story that blew over.

It has been presented in the MFM largely without connection to Huma’s running buddy, Hillary and Anthony’s mentor, Bill.

And if we can “get past” this depravity, it will innoculatw the country over the vile rehash of Hillary being such a scheming doormat for her husband during her nascent 2016 run.

Actually, this whole plan is in jeopardy simply because Weiner never met a microphone he didnt like. But I believe Hillary will be able to now say this sort of scandal is old-fashioned and therefore not worth campaign time. The stenography pool press will probably agree.

Unless President Corey Booker seems like a better bet to them…

Why would the Clintons make a public statement about this now? And why oh why is it always about them? They’re upset? Why not disappointed in Anthony? No, we have to rush to their side and comfort them as Bill bites his trembling lip and Hillary looks stoically into the future.

Total setup.

‘Lewinsky didn’t actually fall under that heading…’

That was easy.

inquisitivemind | July 29, 2013 at 5:06 pm

So we’re revising history again…nah dems never do that

What does ‘Livid,’ mean?

In the Clintons’ case I suspect it’s old-age induced livid spots.

They may look like little bruise scars but more than likely it’s old-age progressive livid spots.

Actually in 1992 Hilary was only “First Lady” of Arkansas – which had, in 1992, a population of 2.4 Million – whereas the population of NYC is 8.25 Million.

So – MS. Clinton (said with a sneer) – you were the queen of a small pond and Weiner is running for King of a much larger pond.

Besides, Anthony Weiner is an entitled annoyance who sends pics to women who are texting him, and, truth be told, I bet egging him on. Whereas Bill had credible SEXUAL ASSAULT charges laid against him, and apparently groped actual women, in real life. One is creepy, the other is illegal.

Emil de Blatz | July 29, 2013 at 6:33 pm

It’s not that it is bad luck to have Bill Clinton perform your wedding ceremony, it’s that it is bad luck to be oblivious enough to ask Bill Clinton to perform your wedding ceremony.

It’s theater. We don’t know who the script writer is, though. But God help us if Huma is looking to position herself publicly for her own coming out as a politician or political appointee. Stealth jihad.

Uncle Samuel | July 29, 2013 at 7:53 pm

The news headline writers are going to put Late Night Comedy out of business.

Here’s another one:

<a href="http://therightscoop.com/um-elliot-spitzer-doesnt-think-anthony-weiner-should-be-mayor-of-nyc/"Elliot Spitzer doesn’t think Anthony Weiner should be mayor of NYC

Uncle Samuel | July 29, 2013 at 8:08 pm

Hillary is actually a crooked and nasty person in her own right.

She’s not beholden to Bill in that regard.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 29, 2013 at 8:46 pm

    And that video of their slick shifty way of dealing with Bill’s philandering scandals was a wonder to behold. Bill puts the moral onus on the media, said it would test ‘character of the press’ to do the right thing and accommodate his sins.

    They truly are a pair of evil political geniuses.

Huma has family ties to the Brotherhood. I don’t know whether she maintains active ties to that organization, so this is only speculation. If the Brotherhood has had plans to use her as an agent of influence, her marriage could fit within those plans. If so, she could have received instructions to stay together with Weiner, who at one time seemed to be an up-and-coming politician. This idea has the advantage that it gives a reason for her to stay with an embarrassing partner. The test would be, what happens when Weiner’s career is well and truly over, which may happen soon. Will her loyalty continue?

It’s a pretty good parallel with Hillary, who hitched her wagon to a man of immensely more talent than Mr. Weiner, with the apparent difference that Hillary was probably motivated by personal ambition rather than by a dark conspiracy.

I’d find it interesting if all of a sudden a divorce is in the works. So many people are infatuated with her that she would have no trouble finding another, more promising, husband.

But, again, this is all merely hypothetical.

way, for those who forget what a pretty woman Clinton was twenty years ago, this might serve as a reminder…..

Wait, what? Hilary was never pretty…she just looks prettier in old photos, by comparison, because she looks like forty miles of bad road now.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to herm2416. | July 29, 2013 at 8:54 pm

    More than 40 years of bad acts have marked her face. She was always corrupt and unethical.

    Hillary was actually fired from the Nixon Impeachment committee:
    “In March 2008, as Hillary Clinton was running for president, Jerry Zeifman — the chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee at the time of Nixon’s impeachment and a lifelong Democrat — expressed his profound disappointment with her work on the committee. Among her transgressions were lying, removing files from the committee offices without permission, and arguing that Nixon shouldn’t be allowed any legal counsel before the committee. “I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff,” he told me. “My only regret was I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations. I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust.”

    jdkchem in reply to herm2416. | July 29, 2013 at 9:49 pm

    40 miles of bad road in a polyester pantsuit!

“…forget what a pretty woman Clinton was twenty years ago…” Wait-what?

Hillary was so homely, Bill used to smoke domestic cigars…

I’m imagining Foghorn Leghorn saying “I did not have sex with that woman!”

Wasn’t there a movie about this is the 60s? Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice & Bill & Hillary & Anthony & Huma?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064100/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl

The video really showed Hillary in her classic persona – trying to come across as an intellectual with a heart but is actually a bully and a ball-buster. She was so determined to take control of the interview – couldn’t let Bill speak for himself until the interviewer finally directed a question right at him. And with that smirk on his face you could tell he had his answer prepared. The two of them are true scum.

Juba Doobai! | July 30, 2013 at 1:14 am

Livid? You’re worried about the meaning of livid? Here I am pondering “preternaturally”! They’ve used it in re Huma Weiner and Barack Obama. What the heck does it mean?

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Juba Doobai!. | July 30, 2013 at 10:36 am

    It means, we are going to suspend reality, evidence and common sense in the interest of our talking points, PC position and/or political agenda.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 30, 2013 at 10:38 am

      Preternatural reality came along at the same time as ‘spin’ and ‘truthiness’ was implemented as a substitute for truth and reality. When Clinton asked what the meaning of ‘is’ is.

        Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 30, 2013 at 10:43 am

        Preternatural Reality (TM) is like a verb tense or literary convention that can be used by politicians in campaigns, by political parties for their platforms and promises ‘to the American people’ and by anyone taking an oath of office, making sworn statement or marriage vow.

        Obama and the Democrats live and operate entirely in the Preternatural Tense.

Why is everybody ignoring the elephant in the room? Clintons don’t want Hill tied to this because it lends fuel to the rumors of Abedin and Hillary. It makes it look like Weiner’s her ‘beard’.

The last thing HRC needs in 2016 are those rumors surfacing again.

I forgot how well Hillary Clinton can turn on the fake accents and drop colloquialisms like “Heck”. She played the simple, frustrated Southern wife pretty well there for a few minutes. And Bill was lying through his teeth the whole time, its just that America had not seen his “liar face” yet. Frightening, actually. I think Bill’s best line was to say that his success or failure would be partially based on a test of his character, and a test of the media’s character. Ugh…

    NeoConScum in reply to Giglawyer. | July 30, 2013 at 10:46 am

    “Character” and Clintons? Yep, they go together like a coral snake and a….

    So, at 69 when she runs, will the Co-Dependent in Chief, Hilly, have had a new butt lift, face lift and moral tutoring?? None will ‘Take’. Nada. Nyet. No Way.

    Trust me.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend