Clinton's hands remain incredibly clean, don't they, and Tony Blair's smile remains as wide as ever. I view these guises with profound contempt.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
No connection to the average voter - Clinton has an air of superiority. Despite her wide smile and pleasant appearance, she is envisioned as someone who is trying to hide something all the time.
I don't care about Clinton's haircuts or his affairs or any of that stuff.
When I first met Tony Blair in 1996, he was open and idealistic, keen to bring a breath of fresh air to government. But something happened - was it just the arrogance of power? - that narrowed Labour's vision from purposeful reform and investment, to peevish and petulant pragmatism.
I don't even pretend we can occupy the Lib Dem holier-than-thou, hands-entirely-clean-and-entirely-empty-type stance. No, we are getting our hands dirty, and inevitably and totally understandably we are being accused of being just like any other politicians.
If there's one thing above all that sets me apart from Tony Blair it is this - I am not embarrassed to articulate the instincts of the British people.
Tony Blair is a brilliant politician. Unfortunately, his legacy is entwined with George W. Bush because of Iraq.
I'm a big fan of Tony Blair. I'm not saying that I think his judgment has always been right, but I look at him as a person.
Tony Blair has turned his back on the principles he claimed he believed in before he stood shoulder-to-shoulder with George W. Bush. He was an entirely different kind of leader.
There has always been something less than wholesome about New Labour. But Blair for a long time had an easy ride. There was the whopping majority. There was the relief that the Tories were finally gone. There was the grand hyperbole.
I find the whole Blairish idea more and more repugnant every day. 'New Labour': the term itself is so trashy. Kind of ersatz.
No opposing quotes found.