Dna analysed

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on August 9th, 2017 at 07:32 am

Rosa Prince, political correspondent for the Daily Mirrorenjoyed Bill Clinton’s recent Labour Conference appearance:

In a speech as powerful as it was persuasive, preacher-man Bill Clinton declared not just Britain needed the Labour Party in government – but the world …

In words that would not have been out of place in the Arkansas churches where he first learned the power of oratory, he thundered: “The great promise of progressive politics in the end is that we really do believe our common humanity is more important than our differences.”

At that moment he became warrior and missionary, his faith helping the poor, his battle-plan to end global injustice.

Since quitting the White House six years ago, Bill Clinton has dedicated himself to making the world a better place.

Er, OK. Clinton didn’t “quit” the White House (interesting, by the way, that he decided to become a force for good only after his presidency). Rock on, Rosa:

Almost chuckling with glee, he told how, when DNA was analysed, it showed 99.9 per cent of what makes us human turned out to be identical. How he gloried in this confirmation of his faith in the commonality of humanity.

He became an Arkansas preacher again [ed: again?] as he urged the crowd to concentrate not on the 0.1 per cent which was different but on what was the same.

No surprise, given certain skirt-based evidence, that Clinton is a DNA expert. His next point was to contradict his own idea of glorying in the commonality of humanity:

Clinton explained to the delegates that he needed a Labour Prime Minister in No 10 because only Labour shared his vision.

Never mind all the 99.9%-shared DNA. Concentrate on what is the same, Bill, not on differences!

And the world could not afford another mistake such as that by US Democrats which allowed a dangerous Republican president into the White House.

Republican DNA must be scary stuff.

(Via Ushbeti)

Posted by Tim B. on 10/01/2006 at 01:06 PM
    1. At that moment he became warrior and missionary, his faith helping the poor, his battle-plan to end global injustice.

      Such a confluence of religious and military imagery. Isn’t this the stuff that usually gives lefties the vapors?

      Anyway, best of luck to Bill on that whole ending-poverty-and-injustice thing. Should be a doddle, now that he’s no longer shackled to being the leader of the most powerful and wealthy nation on Earth.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 10 01 at 01:27 PM • permalink


    1. Did Bill volunteer to live with the DNA inhabiting Zimbabwe, Iran or North Korea instead of the DNA in the Hamptons by any chance?

      Posted by andycanuck on 2006 10 01 at 01:27 PM • permalink


    1. Boy this is a breathless account of another “progressive” circle jerk. You can almost hear her bosom heaving.

      helping the poor,global injustice….how about we start with a liberalized economic market and stop pandering to the dictators of the third world shitholes.

      Meanwhile, we have barbarians at the gate….and Im willing to concede that we sharing 99.9% dna with them, but man does not live by DNA alone.

      Posted by debi L. on 2006 10 01 at 01:28 PM • permalink


    1. The Shadow Party: How George Soros, the Clintons and 60’s radicals siezed control of the DNC.

      FP: So what exactly is the Shadow Party?

      Poe: The Shadow Party is the real power driving the Democrat machine.  It is a network of radicals dedicated to transforming our constitutional republic into a socialist hive.

      The leader of these radicals is multibillionaire George Soros.  He has essentially privatized the Democratic Party, bringing it under his personal control.  The Shadow Party is the instrument through which he exerts that control.

      FP:  Does the Shadow Party really seek to destroy America?

      Poe: Judge for yourself.  In his new book The Age of Fallibility, Soros writes, “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.”  He announced in 2003 that it is necessary to “puncture the bubble of American supremacy.”  Soros is working systematically to achieve that goal.

      There’s more. Those are just some snippits.
      A quote I believe is relevant today:

      A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

      —Marcus Tullius Cicero

      Unfortunatly, we’ve already passed the threshold as warned about by:

      Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
      Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

      – Sir John Harington (Harrington), Of Treason—Epigrams (bk. IV, ep. V)

      Posted by Grimmy on 2006 10 01 at 01:37 PM • permalink


    1. And the world could not afford another mistake such as that by US Democrats which allowed a dangerous Republican president into the White House.

      I must be reading wrong. Is she saying that Clinton has admitted Democrat mistakes (and not Republican perfidy) has caused their losses?

      Posted by bovious on 2006 10 01 at 01:39 PM • permalink


    1. Every time I read the name “Soros” my mind automatically wants to replace it with “Blofeld”.

      I’m not sure why…

      Posted by fclark on 2006 10 01 at 01:46 PM • permalink


    1. And the world could not afford another mistake such as that by US Democrats which allowed a dangerous Republican president into the White House.


      What is Bill Clinton advocating here, exactly?  Are the US Democrats being called to save the world from a “dangerous Republican president” now or sometime in the future?  By what methods are they to accomplish this feat, sir?  You’re not quite as clear on that part as you are with the notion that the present occupant of the White House is “dangerous”.

      What exactly constitutes Mr. Bush being considered “dangerous” to you, Mr. Clinton?  Is it the fact that he’s Republican?  That seems to be the only criteria you have provided here.  So are we to assume from your statement that Republican = “dangerous” in your mind, then?

      As a Rhodes Scholar, I would hope that Mr. Clinton understands that presidential elections aren’t a matter of Good Democrats “allowing” a candidate to win or not.  It’s a little matter of the Electoral College and the number of participating voters of all stripes.  Or, again, is this a rallying cry to the US Democratic faithful to storm the barricades and rescue us all from “dangerous” Republicans like President Bush, now and in the future?  Or just dangerous Republicans in general?

      If that’s the case, then why appeal to the British Labour movement, exactly?  Except for a few Guardian editorialists, most British folk understand they have no say in American politics, just as we have none in theirs.

      It’s good to see he’s still clinging to the Progressive mantra of “The great promise of progressive politics in the end is that we really do believe our common humanity is more important than our differences.”   Perhaps a tiny asterisk at the end with the caveat “*Except for the dangerous Republican(s), whom we do not like.  He/They, of course, are not as human as we,” might be in order, if we are to reconcile Mr. Clinton’s mildly divergent statements.

      Apparently, a certain Seussian “Star Bellied Sneetches” brand of superiority is still being practiced at the highest levels of leadership in the Progressive movement.  Perhaps Mr. Clinton is trying very hard to cover his personal belief that the .1 percent of difference he is waxing over so poetically might just encompass a very fashionable, star-shaped mark on his tummy, one that those “dangerous” Plain Bellied Republican types don’t have.

      Naturally, his fellow travelers would find their own personal starry bellies to be proof of their own very special “members only” status.  Thus the fluttery prose about the great orator’s hokum.  Though it’s the disconnect between Mr. Clinton’s platitudes and his tarring of certain Plain-Bellies (and by extention, the whole herd of Plain-Bellies), that belie all his pretty words, I’m afraid.

      Or is Mr. Clinton basically being another conman like Sylvester McMonkey McBean, trying to raise a little dough for his own pockets with his Star Belly On/Star Belly Off Machine?

      As long as folks continue to give leaders like him the power to determine what that .1 percent means and doesn’t mean, I think we can look forward to lots of stars being printing and removed from lots of bellies in the future.

      Beware the man who is telling you he has all the answers.  He’s usually selling something.

      Posted by BethB on 2006 10 01 at 02:14 PM • permalink


    1. I’m just hoping Rosa brought her own kneepads with her.

      Posted by ushie on 2006 10 01 at 02:49 PM • permalink


    1. Er, OK. Clinton didn’t “quit” the White House

      Well, he did practically have to be pried out of it with the Jaws of Life. What I want to know though, is how did Rosa Prince manage to type this article while giving Clinton a Monica? That’s some gymnastics there.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 10 01 at 03:14 PM • permalink


    1. No surprise, given certain skirt-based evidence, that Clinton is a DNA expert.

      John and Ken in the latest news on the stain (August 3 1998) In a bizarre twist in the Monica Lewinski case, the stain apparently did not come from a human.  We now go to our White House correspondent. Well, the White House is breathing a sigh of relief as they’ve discovered that apparently some other mammal contrinuted the stain to Monica’s dress.


      Posted by rhhardin on 2006 10 01 at 03:18 PM • permalink


    1. “Preacher-man Bill Clinton”.  That’s rich.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 10 01 at 03:46 PM • permalink


    1. I always thought that some on the right had a bit of Clinton Derangement Syndrome in the hatred he caused in them, but I completely fail to understand the adoration he causes in the much of the world.  On a very good day, he was an average president.

      Posted by Not My Problem on 2006 10 01 at 04:12 PM • permalink


    1. I completely fail to understand the adoration he causes in the much of the world.  On a very good day, he was an average president.

      But the press treats him as a god on Earth. That’s how he came by his reputation.

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 10 01 at 04:47 PM • permalink


    1. You know we share 94.6% (or 96.4%) with bonobos and chimpanzees too!  I think the difference is more important than he thinks.

      /bonobo female signs off

      Posted by spyder on 2006 10 01 at 04:58 PM • permalink


    1. Actually, he did quit the White House. Quit = to leave.


      Posted by Sarah Brabazon-Biggar on 2006 10 01 at 05:20 PM • permalink


    1. He might like to remember that the DNA of rats and humans is 98% identical. Perhaps even more so with Mr Clinton.

      Posted by Ian Deans on 2006 10 01 at 05:20 PM • permalink


    1. Quit = to give up voluntarily

      /non twerp

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 10 01 at 06:00 PM • permalink


    1. #16 Ian Deans, is it cos bonobos and chimps are closest to us; but then again daughter woke me up at 4.30 this morning and couldn’t get back to sleep, so head’s not working, and I put my % in from memory.

      Posted by spyder on 2006 10 01 at 06:06 PM • permalink


    1. Bill certainly likes to spread his humanity.

      If all Rosa got from him was missionary then she’s simply not trying hard enough.

      Posted by Henry boy on 2006 10 01 at 06:26 PM • permalink


    1. “Clinton explained to the delegates that he needed a Labour Prime Minister in No 10 because only Labour shared his vision.”

      What’s Clinton “need” with a Labour PM?  He is not in office, has no power (well except for “star” power).  They are always suggesting that Bush is planning some kind of nefarious scheme to take over the world.  This sounds scarier than anything I’ve ever heard or seen the GOP say or do.

      Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 10 01 at 06:31 PM • permalink


    1. Is Bill getting ready to move to England, take up British citizenship, and run for Parliment, a la’ Hillary and New York?  Would British law allow that?

      God knows he’s really sucking up the Brits.  That’s all I can think of, unless some English lass was under the podium during the speech, adding to Bubba’s passion.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 10 01 at 06:53 PM • permalink


    1. God knows he’s really sucking TO up the Brits.


      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 10 01 at 06:54 PM • permalink


    1. Anyone who hates America is a friend of Clinton’s.

      He is, after all, the first POTUS to arrange for his office to be purchased by a hostile foreign nation.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2006 10 01 at 07:06 PM • permalink


    1. I wonder what the actual “mistake” made by the democrats was that let a Republican into the White House. Could it have been a craven weakness in the face of an unappeasable enemy? That only explains the last five years. Dems have been losing ground for decades. I guess it has to do with collectivist tendencies at a time when free markets have proved the best way to improve the lot of the masses.

      Posted by Latino on 2006 10 01 at 07:22 PM • permalink


    1. Actually, I voted for Bill Clinton twice.  But that was on the other side of 9/11, and my whole angle of reality has changed since then.  But I think #12 has it right, that Bush Derangement Syndrome is partial payback for the god-awful slagging Clinton took (besides the wholly deserved Monica debacle) during his eight years in office.  We can lay that down to Richard Mellon Scaif, another deranged millionaire with an axe to grind and plenty of money to do it with.

      I suspect when Bush leaves the White House, he’ll be glad to be shut of the place.  There’ll be no unseemly longing glances at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, no finger-waving about how “he tried”, no attempts to pull strings again by setting his wife up in the office.  Clinton embarrasses himself and all of us.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 10 01 at 07:29 PM • permalink


    1. But I thought the liberal left thoroughly scorned and rejected the Elmer Gantry types?  Not if they are Ol’ Preacher Bill-Boy

      Posted by Barrie on 2006 10 01 at 07:38 PM • permalink


    1. I only voted for Bubba the first time, when he sold himself as a “new” democrat. Didn’t get fooled again. Post 9-11, I am only voting for the one who will kill the most jihadists, regardless of party. But the dems aren’t offering much in that respect, I don’t see Zell Miller getting the nod in 2008.

      Posted by Latino on 2006 10 01 at 07:48 PM • permalink


    1. This is it, it is time to work on the “Calvin Coolidge Presidential Retirement” Amendment.  When Calvin left the White House in 1929 he moved back to his home state, and taught at a small college the rest of his days.  He never publicly commented on his successors and resolutely stayed away from any political angles.  All Presidents upon leaving office would be required to do the similiar.

      This might be the only way to shut up the obviously bitter and frustrated Clinton and Carter.

      Posted by CliffC on 2006 10 01 at 07:51 PM • permalink


    1. If socialists actually cared about poor people they’d be capitalists.  Socialism impoverishes, capitalism and globalism enrich, and they enrich poor people as well as middle-class and rich people.  Indeed, they create middle-class and rich people by the millions.

      As long as someone stays a “progressive” his concern for the poor is a lie and a fraud.

      Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 10 01 at 07:59 PM • permalink


    1. “Clinton Derangement Syndrome” was nothing like BDS.  It did not lead to treason in the middle of a war, as with the blowing of those intel programs following terrorist finances or intecepting phone calls to terrorist owned phone numbers.  The impeachment was for a real illegal act, perjury in a civil rights case (the feminists have assured us for years that sexual harassment is a civil rights issue, now haven’t they?) I must admit it was probably the most trivial of the illegal acts the Clinton Administration committed during its tenure.  I’d have preferrd impeachment over the attempt to frame Billy Dale and the other fired Travel Office employees for nonexistent crimes, and several other dirty deals The Big He and Herself got up to.  Sufferers from BDS, by contrast, want to impeach Bush for defending the USA against enemies making war on us.  To Democrats, that constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.

      Bubba beat the rap and he and his apologists should be content with that and STFU.  There was a time, long ago, when “progressive” applied to people who were opposed to corruption in politics.  Today it stands for people who want to enhance corruption in our politics.

      Cliff, that is an excellent idea.  But it would kill Bubba.  He can’t live except by preening in the spotlights.  He has no independent existence apart from the audience applauding him.

      Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 10 01 at 08:17 PM • permalink


    1. RebeccaH, if you’d met some of the horndog Preachers I’ve known you wouldn’t find PreacherMan Clinton so unusual.

      Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2006 10 01 at 09:57 PM • permalink


    1. Looks like my DNA is closer to an Orang Utan than a leftist.
      Which pleases me intensely since they are far more lovable creatures.

      Posted by davo on 2006 10 02 at 01:32 AM • permalink


    1. Well, non twerp, the dictionary ranks my definition above yours, so nah nah.

      Posted by Sarah Brabazon-Biggar on 2006 10 02 at 06:06 AM • permalink


    1. Poor Bill—nailed by that .1 per cent difference.

      Bill and Hillary Clinton were the biggest pair of grifters ever to call the White House home. Some of us recognized that early on and it wasn’t because we suffered from any form of derangement.

      “It is so much cheaper to alleviate poverty, put kids in school, fight disease, build government and economic capacity in a poor country than fight a war. You have to believe in equal opportunity and empowerment, rather than the concentration of wealth and power.”

      Unfortunately he didn’t tell us how to get around the Saddam Husseins, Robert Mugabes, Mahmoud Ahmadinejads, Kim Jong-ils, Omar el-Bashirs, etc etc etc, to accomplish all this without fighting a war.

      Back when he was “forced to pander to the narrow interests of US voters”, Bill Clinton was capable of occasional bursts of common sense. Now that he’s a citizen of the world, he’s just one more looney leftist limousine liberal redistributionist who hasn’t a clue in this world how to accomplish his lofty goals. The interesting question for me is how much of this is the real Bill Clinton (is there a real Bill Clinton??) and how much is cynical legacy burnishing?

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 10 02 at 12:38 PM • permalink


Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.