General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe 10 Most Hilarious Quotes From 'Blood Feud' Book About The Clintons And The Obamas
And DUers were actually buying this idiot's bullshit about Obama, Warren, and Clinton....
7. Klein writes that the Obamas sleep in different beds, and while they don't take antidepressants, a doctor has recommended they should. When staying at Blue Heron Farm in Martha's Vineyard, he adds, the pattern persisted. Klein quotes an anonymous "domestic servant" at the farm:
"The president ate in bed. You had to change the sheets every day. He smoked cigarettes and didnt try to hide it at all. And he snores. I heard him. He ate a lot of junk food, chips and stuff. He loved fudge and bought it from Murdicks Fudge. It was a wonder he stayed so thin."
...
6. Here, Klein quotes Bill Clinton discussing Obama, citing a source he describes as "someone who was present at the gathering and spoke on condition of anonymity."
"I really can't stand the way Obama always seems to be hectoring when he talks to me. Sometimes we just stare at each other. Its pretty damn awkward."
...
More of the shit Klein pulled straight out of his ass at Huffpost.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Every good American likes hard candy - the harder the better. President Cleveland preferred to eat actual rocks that had been painted in festive colors, and if it's good enough for Cleveland it's good enough for me.
Bryant
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Bullshit on he said that out-loud. No way. He did not Billsplain that to her.
LisaLynne
(14,554 posts)And I don't even like fudge all that much. Thanks, silly book, now I am hungry. :/
And yeah, if Pres Obama does eat like that and is as thin as he is, I am totally jealous. Stupid metabolism.
Edited to add: Not that I think for one minute any of that crap is real. It's sort of pathetic how fake it is.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)The scenes have no coherence in wrtiting-style: They switch back and forth between attention to minute details and gross general depictions. You just skip over the action of the scene and jump from dialog to conclusion. I shouldn't have to tell you that dialog alone is not strong enough to carry a scene.
The incoherence also stretches to the description of the dramatis personae: Their vita as skilled politicians and orators is at odds with their linguistic style and their ongoing use of profanities.
I realize that you wanted a side-by-side-comparison between the public and the private persona, but you failed to elaborate on the public persona and therefore there is no connection between those personalities. It seems as if you describe characters with split personalities.
Switching the characters from double-faced to schizophrenic might be a way to give the book a new direction, if you are willing to change the premise from thriller more towards a psychological drama.
We are sorry to inform that your novel is not suitable for publication or a detailed editing-process in its current state. We hope to hear from you again with a revised version.
with best regards