Clinton Condomania
There are so many different types of condoms in the world. Zod and I are partial to Lifestyles Discs, but there are so many to choose from that it is often difficult to decide. A couple of months ago we couldn’t find our favorite brand in any of our local pharmacies and we started going crazy… rationing as if it were the great condom depression. The day we found a store stocked with our favorite condoms, I bought all 6 boxes. A few days later, I bought out another store…
Well, it seems like there are two new brands on the market now in China… the ‘Clinton’ and the ‘Lewinsky’:
BEIJING — A new line of condoms is grabbing headlines in China even as its sparks a debate about trademark law and promotion campaigns. The products’ brand names: “Clinton” and “Lewinsky.”
The condoms are sold in boxes of 12, with the brand named after former President Bill Clinton priced at $3.70 and that of former White House intern Monica Lewinsky at $2.25.
Guangzhou Haojian Bioscience Co. said it registered both trademarks and is pricing the brands differently to reflect the higher quality of the Clinton line.
“We chose the name because we think Clinton is a symbol of success and a man of responsibility. And Lewinsky is a woman who dares to love and dares to hate,” said Liu Wenhua, the company’s general manager.
“We haven’t told Clinton about this yet, but maybe you could help us find him,” Liu added. “We’d like to tell him how respected he is in China, so we can boost his confidence and help his career.”
Interesting… so they think this will help his career? Just when the press is finally dying down and moving on to other stories…? If anything, this is going to take away from the professionalism that he has been working to build back ever since the Lewinsky scandal…
I have to admit, though, I do find it funny that the Clinton condoms are much more expensive than the cheap-ass Lewinsky brand. Isn’t that just the sweetest metaphor…
September 22nd, 2005 at 9:12 am
Not surprised that the “Clinton” is marketed as higher-quality… I guess the higher quality of condom will prevent ejaculate from spilling out and messing up the girlfriend’s lovely dress…
I have a joke for you:
Monica Lewinsky, being quite lonley after the whole scandal, was walking alone on the beach one morning when she tripped over and fell flat on her face. She looked back, and saw an oil lamp sticking out of the ground. She picked it up, rubbed off the sand, and a genie appeared before her eyes.
“Thank you Mrs. Lewinsky for freeing me from my prison. To show my gratitude, I will grant you one wish!”
“Isn’t it supposed to be three wishes?”
“Yeah, but with the economy being on the rocks… you know? So one wish it is”
Monica thought about this for a few minutes and said:
“You know, I’ve always wanted to get rid of these love-handles”
“As you wish”, replied the Genie. He snapped his fingers and *** POOF ***
Her ears dissapeared.
September 22nd, 2005 at 10:26 am
Ya know, from a what-might-have-happened perspective, ya gotta wonder what would have happened if the Whitewater commission had run dry and closed up shop without the Lewensky thing breaking. What would the nation have thought, looking back on the Clinton years in the 2000 election? I’m not a big Gore fan, but that election was absurd; there wouldn’t have been the Nader protest vote, and I suspect that there wouldn’t have been a moral wave cresting crest underneath the Bush barge. It was an absolutely classic “Warren Harding Error,” per the book “Tipping Point.”
When you peel back the facade, people are generally twisted and perverse at some level or some point in their life, and the gritty reality of human existence never quite matches with moralistic rhetoric. Bush’s checkered past is just as replete with indescretions; they just aren’t impeachment offenses.
It’s really too bad that Clinton so badly tainted his own legacy, and the overall public perception of politicans and the office of the Presidency. Like Nixon, in a way he poisoned the pot for everybody.
September 22nd, 2005 at 10:37 am
Clinton tainted who now? No one gave a fuck about Clinton’s sex life EXCEPT for the media and the fundies who already hated him.
Gore lost cause he wouldn’t run on the successful Clinton platform, choosing to placate a “moral outrage” that wasn’t there. He started mumbling about lockboxes, and programs.
If Clinton ran again, he would be elected in a heartbeat.
September 22nd, 2005 at 11:27 am
I think a lot of middle-of-the-road Americans were personally somewhat embarrassed and discomfted by the revalations of sexual antics in the oval orifice, regardless of what they thought of Clinton’s record. This just served to amplify his already slightly shifty “slick willie” reputation.
It also provided a vast amount of inflammatory fuel for the “moral majority” fire-and-brimstone crowd to mass around and warm themselves; it provided a common lightning-rod issue for all of them to deplore. Bush provided the corresponding polar opposite to them to ground out on and unify around. It broke ground for his “Christian base.”
Given how close the election was, I wonder how close it would have been without the so-called “immoral taint” to the office. Part of Bush’s appeal was his self-portrayal as a god-fearin’ moralist in the office, the implied message that he would “bring some respectability back to the office.” (That last being a sort-of quote of a lot of articles and public discussion I remember from the 2000 election).
As for “poisioning the pot,” that’s a stolen line from Hunter Thompson’s wonderful book “Better than Sex,” telling the story of the 1992 election:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345396359/qid=1127402441/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-7734627-0307163?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Nixon left us with an overall profound distrust of presidential politicians and a subtler distrust of our political system. One could argue that Carter won much the same way that Bush won - as a backlash/protest vote against the taint of the Nixon scandal.
Clinton’s oval office antics simply served to belittle the man in the moralistic public eye, to show his personal flaws in a harsh public light - and to strip facade of dignity, so to speak, from the somewhat naive American public’s eyes. Americans are victorian and naive; the idea that a politician would get a blowjob in his office is shocking, just shocking! By contrast, I recall Francois Mitterand’s mistress and his illigetimate daughter, standing side-by-side with his wife and daughter, at his state funeral. And the French press made hardly a mention of it, save to note it.
Man, this is one repressed country!