YouTube bans political satire video about Hillary Clinton just before Clinton/Obama contests in Texas/Ohio; YouTube stays mum on whether for politics or video cleavage of Hillary or Sharon Stone.

By Jim Wrenn, 
Editor and Washington Bureau Drawer Chief at PoliSat.Com.
March 4, 2008--

            YouTube banned political satire video about Hillary Clinton apparently in response to demands of political hacks (or upon the initiative of political hacks within YouTube).  As usual, YouTube gives no reason, refuses to identify who demanded the ban or why, and refuses to respond to email inquiries seeking to elicit such information.  

            Just yesterday (March 3, 2008), YouTube banned a PoliSat.Com satire/parody video featuring Sharon Stone in a "HEICO" ad as an "actor" spokesperson for Hillary to show her political sex appeal to both the Left and the Right.  That same video now "banned" by YouTube may still be available for viewing on Google Video (scroll-down to view), but if not, it's still available for viewing in Windows Movie Video format at PoliSat.Com (here and here) and in the original context in the news archives here).  

            That YouTube's banning of that video exemplifies the side of partisanship to which YouTube genuflects is self-evident from viewing the content of the video.  It's a free country, and YouTube is a privately owned company.  It has the right to be partisan but just not the credibility to deny being so.  Anyone not living under a rock already knows that both Google and YouTube strongly and overtly favor the politics exemplified by the Hollywood Left (and virtually worship Al Gore, who's currently trying to "rearrange the icebergs" in the Global Cooling ice-pack headed towards the purportedly unsinkable Global Warming Goretanic.)   


 About  Archives (Old ArchivesContact  Search PoliticalxRay/PoliSat.Com  News  Troops  

Embed this Sharon Stone Cleavage Ad For Hillary video 
or go here for other configurations.



·Global Web Solutions, Inc.·

            What is the etymology of the video?  What inspired it were statements by Hillary at a campaign event when she rebuffed a question which she deemed to have implied that she lacked what was necessary to confront "evil men" in the world.  It wasn't long after that that she sparked a lot of "buzz" when she wore a blouse showing a very slight hint of "cleavage" while giving a speech in the senate.  And of course, it had been quite a long time before that when actress Sharon Stone (in an effort to garner publicity for her then-being-released sequel to "Basic Instinct") held a news conference to announce to the world her considered political judgment that Hillary was simply "too sexy" to be president because "men" would be "intimidated" by her "sexuality."  If this isn't material suitable for satire or parody, what is?

            Surely depictions of the roundness of breasts without exposing their maternally functional portions is no more "riské" than the portions of breasts routinely exposed in pictures (and YouTube videos) of women in bikini tops.  Only the hopelessly Puritanical could find these images offensive.

·Embed this Flash version of 

Sharon Stone Cleavage Ad For Hillary·
(for top-speed connections)

·Global Web Solutions, Inc.· 

            What about political correctness?  Of course, one of the purposes of political satire and parody is to be "politically incorrect."  But no sensible person could seriously take offense at the "husky" depiction of Hillary at the end of the video (to satirize her attempt to negate the implication of some that she's "not tough enough" to confront "evil men" in the world.)    Would anyone have been offended by satirical depiction of Margaret Thatcher as a "muscle man" when she directed the war in the Falklans?  Of course not,  Her fans and admirers would have loved it.  Wasn't Hillary trying to depict herself as being as "tough" as, if not tougher than, Thatcher?

            So, what's the problem with the video?  Is it "offensive" to Sharon Stone, who denigrates the sacrifices of our troops in statements to the foreign press (to garner more publicity for herself) with impunity in the form of the liberty associated with American citizenship protected by the very troops whose sacrifices she denigrates?   So what if she's offended?   One would hope she's deeply offended, even though such hope would be unrealistic given the fact that it's difficult, if not impossible, for shallow people to be "deeply" offended.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor and Washington Bureau Drawer Chief at PoliSat.Com.

Permanent links for this installment:

  http://polisat.com/DailyPoliticalSatire-Commentary/Archives2008/du20y08m03d04-01.htm  .

  http://PoliSat.Com/SharonStoneCleavageAdForHillary.htm  .



Footnote 01.  I think Ed Morrissey coined the phrase "rearranging the icebergs," but he applied it in the context of evaluating the policies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  I'm borrowing his phrase to describe what the emerging evidence of the potential beginning of a period of Global Cooling will force Al Gore to do as his Global Warming Goretanic is sunk by a growing ice-pack. 

Footnote 02.  A few examples of a growing ice-pack floating towards the Global Warming Goretanic include:  Global temperatures drop; Snow cover over North American and Siberia greatest since 1966; Sun's cooling cycle spark fears of Global Cooling; Deepest freeze in Iceland in 10 years; Russian scientists predict Global Cooling coming soon.  Looks like the Sun, with its warming/cooling periods, forgot to study the Da Gorgle Code.



 About  Archives (Old ArchivesContact  Search PoliticalxRay/PoliSat.Com  News  Troops