Hilarity Clinton’s Latest Message

Hilarity addresses her Donors

Hilarity addresses her Donors

At tonight’s debate, Bernie Sanders will likely announce that he has received five million individual contributions to his campaign.

Now, we’ve racked up more delegates than he has and we’re doing better in the polls than he is. But that’s a lot of contributions — if his supporters keep stepping up at a higher rate than our team, we’re going to have more contests that look like the ones we saw yesterday in Kansas and Nebraska.

We’re just 5 people away from hitting our goal in Fountain Valley. Chip in to help reach our goal and to support this campaign right now:

Unlike Jay, I cannot support Hilarity Clinton.

Why? Because I do understand her swerve to the Left (because of Saunders) followed by a sharp arabesque to the right.

Why Hilarity? because I can either scream at our choices or mock. Currently I choose to mock. Quite possibly I need an attitude adjustment (please send me a few million to adjust my attitude, and not storm troopers).

Why Arabesque? (Nice balancing act you’ve got there, pity if something Trumped it).

<mock on>

From Wikipedia:

In the first arabesque, the dancer stands in effacé position (for point 8, facing the front left corner, with the left foot in front) with the right leg raised in arabesque, the right arm extended to the side (to the audience) and the left arm extended front (towards the corner). The gaze follows the line of the arm extended en avant, so Hilarity can gaze adoringly at her rich donors.

In the second arabesque the legs are like in the first arabesque, but the right arm is extended en avant while the left arm is extended aligned with the dancer’s shoulder; the shoulders are in épaulement in line with the arms and the gaze is turned to the audience. The dancer’s face focus must turn directly towards the audience/front/direction 1, which allows a Mocking Gaze at the peasants.

In the third arabesque the dancer stands in croisé position (for point 8, facing the front left corner, the right foot is in front) with the left leg raised in arabesque, the right arm extended to the side and a little behind the shoulder, and the left arm extended front. The gaze follows the line of the arm extended en avant, placing Hilarity’s eye on the prize, and inviting others on her side to share in the spoils.

In the fourth arabesque position the dancer stands in croisé as for the third arabesque, but the right arm is extended front and the left arm is extended as far back as possible in line with the right arm. placing Hilarity’s eye on the prize,and leaving the peasants well behind to consume crumbs (if they are so lucky).

</mock off>

This post was read 1190 times.

About author View all posts


11 CommentsLeave a comment

  • Thank you for moving this satire from the front page to diaries.

    Composing it (there was little writing) was a deliberate preventative act, bait, if you will.

    Fish took bait.

      • It has confirmed my thoughts, as did this:

        When Sanders drops out and endorses Clinton, pragmatic progressives will do the same. We won’t become a refuge for a bitter “should have” crowd.

        • Right! But we’re not there yet. In the meantime, we should be free to point out Clinton’s failings on multiple fronts.

          Silence of the majority will only speed up Clinton’s landing in Wall Street’s arms. A continued robust counteroffensive may yet awaken in her a desire to serve the people of America. One should never give up hope. Fight till the last minute and then do what is right.

  • I may be stating the obvious, but it seems to me that one of the key goals of this forum is to put all the credible evidence on the table either supporting or questioning candidates’ eligibility as effective leaders and examine it in good conscience (which is certainly characteristic of the Agonist’s contributors). Once that task has been accomplished, and nothing new emerges, I agree with Jay that there’s little point in rehashing standing criticism. What bothers me when I talk to people or hear voters’ comments in news interviews is that they tend to focus on the candidates’ nominal platforms and personalities with little if any knowledge of their past records. If I were choosing between two mechanics to repair my car, I’d certainly want to know something about their actual past performance regardless of the glowing claims they made.

    I agree with Adrena that a lot can happen between now and November. [CLIP.] In the meantime, as long as the discourse is civil and adds new perspectives, I’m hoping that all defensible views will be welcomed at this web site.

  • OK, I’ll rephrase my admittedly acid remark. If I were fully convinced that Hillary had seriously reconsidered her position on past policies that have drawn criticism at this site, I wouldn’t have a problem voting for her, so I’ll try to keep an open mind during the rest of the campaign. I think that’s pretty defensible.

    • She has evolved on some major issues. DOMA was a temporary thing to keep it from going to the supreme court. Both the Clintons have publicly changed their mind on the crime and welfare bills. She is anti-TPP now that the final draft has been released. Despite the Wall Street smears, she was ahead of the game before 2008 and her finance reform platform is a lot more robust than Bernie’s, who keeps talking about Glass-Steagall as if it would have helped, and “audit the Fed,” which has open books now.

      What Hillary positions bug you?

      • My concerns are more for her foreign policy record and implied positions, but, since I’m about to travel for the next few days, I’ll elaborate at more length when I get back. I appreciate the dialogue.

Leave a Reply