Breaking down the Hillary Clinton sex video

Hillary Clinton and a Panda?

Hillary Clinton and a Panda?

FreedomWorks, an influential Tea Party group, made a promotional video for a big conference. For some reason, the promotional video included a sequence that showed two female interns dressed up as Hillary Clinton and a Panda (the Panda represents bleeding heart liberals, by the way). Allegedly, the panda is seen on its knees giving Hillary Clinton a blowjob. Yes, a Hillary Clinton Panda sex video.

Of course, it was never screened because that would be crazy. MotherJones broke the story this morning and people are outraged. But is it really that bad?

First of all, people have said that the sequence is not only pornographic but it is a representation of bestiality. Nope, sorry, you’re wrong whoever said that.

Sex with animals is bestiality. A real live panda was not simulating a blowjob in the video. It was an intern in a panda suit. Using a real panda to simulate oral sex is far too dangerous and expensive. Not mention completely fucked up and disgusting. Sex with a human wearing an animal costume is closer to Furry fandom than it is bestiality.

For those of you who don’t know, Furry fandom is an appreciation for anthropomorphic animals. A small percentage of Furries are “Yiffs”. Yiffs are Furries with an erotic fetish appreciation for anthropomorphic animals. And since anthropomorphic animals do not exist, humans dressed up as animals are the closest thing they can get. It’s dangerously close to bestiality but it’s still human on human, so it’s ok.

So in other words, it’s not bestiality. It’s really weird but it’s not bestiality. So now that that crazy claim has been dealt with, let me ask you this…

Where else have you seen someone in a bear costume giving another person a blowjob?



If you said Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining give yourself a pat on the back.

Sources said that the premise of the video was a dream sequence, where Executive Vice President of FreedomWorks Adam Brandon observes “a giant panda on its knees with its head in the lap of a seated Hillary Clinton and apparently fellating the then-secretary of state.”

In the novel version of The Shining, Stephen King had developed a larger back story for the older man and his oral sex pet. Horace Derwent is the older man who is fills the role of eccentric billionaire who invested in the Overlook Hotel.

The younger man, seen earlier behaving like a dog to amuse party-goers, had a homosexual/bi-sexual crush on Mr. Derwent (or maybe he’s just trying to get his money, who knows? It doesn’t matter). Mr. Derwent told the younger man that maybe, if the man acted like a nice doggie they would sleep together.

However, none of this back-story appears in Kubrick’s film. We still get to see the end of their story when Wendy, played by Shelley Duvall, just happens to see the oral sex going down while trying to escape her husband. Why would Kubrick include the culmination of the Mr. Derwent story without the setup?

Because without any context, the image of seeing a man in a dog/bear costume giving an old man head is not only very disturbing and jarring. It’s shocking and out of context and it’s probably one of the most memorable moments of the entire movie.

Is it really inconceivable to think that FreedomWorks was trying to recreate this disturbing image for their promotional video? Some could argue that Wendy is in a dream-like state when she witnesses the blowjob, much like Executive Vice President of FreedomWorks Adam Brandon.

The only difference is that it’s been put into a political context by depicting Hillary Clinton and a panda. They’re using this disturbing image from The Shining to illustrate the nightmarish hell-world a Democratic government create because it gets ultimate pleasure from special interest groups. Don’t you guys get metaphor?

Just because they want smaller government, doesn’t mean they don’t know their film history.


FreedomWorks logo


The final point I would like make is that FreedomWorks knew that they had gone too far when the final product was turned in, which pretty admirable (By the way, I can’t believe I’m defending this). It was never screened. No one ever saw it.

Was it a good idea? No, not really. But that’s why it never made it out in the open because it was such a bad idea. If it had been released, you better believe Hillary would have sued or sent some secret service goons after somebody.

If we want to criticize and make a big stink about this Hillary Clinton-Panda sex video, we should at least be able to see it.

That’s why wants to speak to anyone with a copy of this promo video. We want people to watch it and make a decision for themselves. Otherwise, it’s just a non-issue.

*Insinuating that Hillary Clinton has a penis is pretty funny though
  • Pingback: Tea Party -- Plushophiles()

  • rewa

    Khodavand zibaiy ra dost midard, dost aziz shoma chera inghadr per shode? shoma dar in sait che mikone? khob be midan amade vale nashod. Motasefam