my honey my baby don’t put my love upon no shelf
By Johnny Roosh
Clinton Leaves Convention Nomination Open
Observers have all but ruled her out as a potential running mate to Senator Barack Obama, but Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is not going away.
I got a little change in my pocket going jingle lingle ling
want to call you on the telephone baby I give you a ring
but each time we talk I get the same old thing
always no huggin no kissin until I get a wedding ring
my honey my baby don’t put my love upon no shelf
she said don’t give no lines and keep your hands to yourself
In a video clip making the rounds today, which, according to ABC News is from a fund-raiser in California on Thursday, Mrs. Clinton fielded a question about whether her name would be “placed in nomination” at the convention.
Cruel baby baby baby why you want to treat me this way
you know I’m still your lover boy I still feel the same way
that’s when she told me a story ’bout free milk and a cow
and she said no huggin no kissin until I get a wedding vow
my honey my baby don’t put my love upon no shelf
she said don’t hand me no lines and keep your hands to yourself
“Well, I’m asked this question every day. And it is a question that I think is a very obvious one to ask. I mean, what will happen at the convention in respect to you know, my putting my name in nomination, the roll-call vote, you know, the usual kind of process that occurs at conventions,” she responded, emphasizing the word “usual.”
you see I wanted her real bad and I was about to give in
that’s when she started talkin’ true love started talkin’ about sin
I said honey I’ll live with you for the rest of my life
she said no huggin no kissin until you make me your wife
my honey my baby don’t put my love on no shelf
she don’t hand me no lines and keep your hands to yourself.
We’re trying to work that out with the Obama campaign and with the D.N.C. I happen to believe that we will come out stronger if people feel that their voices were heard and their views were respected. And I think that is a very big part of how we actually come out unified, because I know from just what I’m hearing that there’s just this incredible pent-up desire. And I think that people want to feel like, O.K., it’s a catharsis, we’re here, we did it, and then everybody get behind Senator Obama. That is what most people believe is the best way to go. No decisions have been made.
she said don’t hand me no lines and keep your hands to yourself
August 7th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Heh. Georgia Satellites. Next to the Kentucky Headhunters, probably the ugliest band of that era. Kind of like the situation Her Royal Clinton keeps exacerbating.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Speaking of schedules and timelines:
It’s nice to see that the Bush Administration is negotiating a deal for the COMPLETE withdrawal of all US troops by 2013, with the VAST majority out by Oct 2010, or TADA , 18 months or so after a change over to a new administration – which TADA – looks surprisingly EXACTLY like what OBAMA advocated.
Let’s put it this way, it’d be 98 years, or 95, sooner than McCain offered might be necssary, or two months longer than Obama, I wonder who was more correct?
It’s also 9 years sooner than Mitch predicted in 2006, or TWO MONTHS longer than Obama suggested, I wonder who was more correct.
It also sets a FIRM TIMETABLE for withdrawal – Damn that traitor Bush – I can’t believe he’d give those terrorists a timetable to wait us out, what an utterly incompetent ass to do something like that.
BTW – please don’t reply to that last part that ‘circumstances change’ because THAT WAS ALWAYS THE PREMISE – that Bush needed to be accountable for accomplishments which would lead to withdrawal and he needed to provide deadlines for accountablity. Equally, that, just as this timetable points out – our presence has nearly NOTHING to do with stability in Iraq, and the Iraqis know it. In fact, most likely, our presence PRECLUDES resolution of issues, which is why we are not needed to stay.
Al Maliki gets it, the LIBERALS got it 2 years ago, too bad you neo-kooks took so long to get to the party.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Jeezawfriday, Peev – now that you got your own blog, I thought you could refrain from hijacking topics on mine. I mean, wasn’t that the idea?
Or are you finding out that doing it yourself is harder than you thought?
Maliki gets it
I wrote about this two weeks ago, utterly debunking your (I’ll be charitable) “premise”.
the LIBERALS got it 2 years ago,
No, they didn’t. They wanted to withdraw immediately and leave the Iraqis to their own devices. Bush waited until the war was essentially won and we could safely leave things to the Iraqis.
That there’s a 180 degree difference between the two isn’t something I’d expect you to get in your zeal to just bash at the “other” party – which is really all you’re about.
too bad you neo-kooks took so long to get to the party.
It’s like “debating” with a fifth-grader.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
If it is okay with you Peev, can we get back to the G-Sats and Hillary and the Dem nomination?
August 7th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Here is the liberal point of view, expressed in an NY Times editorial in July 2007: Let there be genocide:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/opinion/08sun1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Obama expressed these same sentimetns later the same month. Gee, do ya think Obama takes cues from the Times?
“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done. We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea.”
Peev once again proves his toolhood.