Get your kids out and put them in front of the TV: The Clinton Era officially ended at 9:34 p.m. EST when Edwards paired with Obama to bury Hillary as a non-agent of change.
Wow, again.
--Tom Schaller
Posted by Tom Schaller on January 5, 2008 9:31 PM|Permalink|
COMMENTS (33)
We saw that in Elizabeth Edwards' appearance on Hardball. The public wants change, Hillary's not going to deliver, so it's Obama or Edwards.
Agreed. Edward's ENTIRE campaign has been angry and it's not working. Hillary gets angry once and everyone jumps on her. Tonight she is showing how passionate she is about actually directing change (not just talking about it), and is drawing convincing contrasts with Obama. Let's see how she does in NH.
I said the exact same thing to my husband--exact! The moment she got angry I said, "Honey--this we will look back on this as the MOMENT Hillary Clinton lost this election.
There's a difference between the bitter, mean-spirited personal anger of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards displaying contempt for the rigged political system, and that difference has absolutely nothing to do with gender. It has everything to do with Hillary (and her DLC surrogates) being a petty, nasty, triangulating neocon.
OBAMA/EDWARDS 2008. We've never had a one-two like that... not just in the Democratic Party, but in American history.
Hillary really upset me when she lost it, she played into the stereotype that women are too emotional. How can she ever recover from this moment, that's all people are going to remember about her.
Some of these comments just prove that america is as sexist and into stereotypes as it ever was. If Hillary was a man her "anger" would be called passion, ala John Edwards.
I have yet to decide on a candidate to support but many seem to pay to much homage to rhetoric on all sides.
It's too bad that we live in a world that has double standards on what it means when a woman shows anger verses a man. And we all want to say that we should focus on the issues and not the sex of the candidate, but a lot of voters will use that to cast their vote and Hillary has to remember how her "passion" may be perceived by potential voters and keep her cool. It's not fair but that is the way it is.
Hillary got what she deserved this time around. She started the fight by going negative against Obama with a barrage of incoherent issues (Iraq vote, Patriot Act, etc.) and then Edwards delivered beautifully. It was actually a perfect strategy. Lump Clinton with the status quo and tell people to move on to Obama and himself and a debate on who's idea of change is better.
Edwards is personally angry that the richest nation on earth has millions of people living in poverty, and is destroying its middle class and potential for upward mobility.
Hillary was angry that people weren't giving her experience the respect she thought it deserved.
See how these two kinds of anger are not the same? One, I believe, is called "moral outrage" and the other one simply isn't.
This was her Howard Dean scream. The scream confirmed what we all sort of felt; the Dr. is a little unhinged. With Hillary we all sense the smiles are all fake. She's a lawyer and an asskicker. She should have run on that, because everyone can tell a phoney. Tonight it slipped out. This isn't sexist, we wouldn't want a truly angry man as President either. That doesn't make Hillary a bad person, it just means she won't be President this go round.
Edwards' anger is fake as hell, that's why it doesn't make a difference. He has his own issues of being overly pretty, but I don't think people feel he's truly angry. I think Biden's anger shows through sometimes...America doesn't like angry politicians.
Who is he angry with? Not the American people! His anger comes from a realization of the crap the average American has to deal with every day.
I read somewhere today (in the WaPo, I think) where a NH supporter reframed his anger as STRENGTH. That's exactly what it is. That strength gives him the power and courage he'll need to fight for all of us.
If Hillary shows a lack of emotins she is cold. If she expresses emotion, she is petulant. As an registered Independent, I have decided to vote for her and I do hope she becomes the nominee.She has convinced me that she has what it takes to go the distance.
Incidentally, Romney and Guillani has far greater negatives than she does.
For the scummy turd with the "cankles" comment, Hillary is 57. She is not a model. She never has run on her looks. For a woman of my own age, she looks fine. She is not young, but neither is McCain, Richarson, or many of the other candidates.
What a scummy toad you are, jack. I don't support her, but don't attack her for her ankles. Only a total moron would do that.
As a Chinese, I can see clearly the anger running high and 'personal' in Obama and Edwards,and why they have to join hands to send the Clinton home along with all those old time insiders who want a 'change' of their status quo enhanced within the party machine but not the all round,fundamentally transforming change that this country is in dire need of and O & E are representing in this totally changed world.
Clinton Era ended 8 years ago, we give credit to the things achieved then.And their flaws of that era and the current era are rooted within the system, so we need real new faces,new mind, new voices and
new yin and yang that go beyond the narrow consideration of party,gender,race,style,etc,and diliver.Hillary should be wise enough to offer her concession and support to the younger pals if she really thinks democrats can benefit from her '35' years of experience with power.
No way, I disagree with most people here. Her anger is no different from any of the male candidate's anger, other than that she is a woman. She represented herself and her platform very well last night. How else should she have responded to his baseless accusations? The fact that Edwards decided to gang up on her last night only solidifies her place as the number 1 contender for the Democratic nomination.
This was exactly my take as I watched the debate. We saw, for better or worse, her real voice, which she has struggled to soften in each presentation.
Should she be able to be angry in her impassioned defense of her work, as would a man? Yes.
However, contrasted with the soaring enthusiasm growing around Obama, it may be irrelevant. There is a desire for a new political frame--and substantive thinkers like Bradley are willing to rank this higher than the models of the past--the need for a new starting point, a clearing of the dark errors of the past 8 years, and not through irrational exuberance, but through intellect and passion.
Go BHO.
A great Obama theme song--captures the spirit of what he is doing:
1) Obama
a) seemed so exhausted as to struggle with enunciation of words and expression of ideals.
b) tells bald faced lies when unexpectedly confronted with embarrassing facts such as his campaign manager being a lobbiest for Pfizer
c) He sounds remarkably like the post 9/11 President George Bush on foreign and domestic policy, e.g. attacking a nuclear armed Pakistan with missiles and ending pork-barrel legislation that builds bridges to nowhere
d) overconfident of his abilities and feels superiour to others: for example his statement as to what he would do with health care were he to tear down our system and replace it with one of his own design (i.e. he is swallowing hook, line, and sinker, the words of all the panderers he has surrounded himself with)
2) Clinton
a) Hillary is much smarter and more dedicated than Bill
b) Hillary is vengeful and petty: proven by her constant reference to George Bush and Republicans with a disgusted tone of voice. Who among the voting Republicans will want to switch sides and vote for a woman who expresses contempt and disgust at their existance?! She is not a uniter, she is a divider.
c) Solution to winning the election is to buy votes by extending government handouts with regards to housing, health care, citizenship, and anything else you care to think of.
3) Richardson
a) Panders to the candidate he thinks is most likely to grant him a powerful position in a new administration.
4) Edwards
a) Easily the smartest of the Democratic candidates.
b) Easily the most trust worthy of Democratic candidates.
c) Has the smarts to lead a movement to severely curtail the influence of lobbiests in our government. I believe him when he says these things to the point that I believe if he looses this election he will organize a grass roots movement among the US populace to amend the constitution to end lobbies in our government over the objection of congress much in the same way as Gore has galvanized movement on environmental causes.
I disagree with all of these candidates' intentions regarding their desire to make government responsible for health care and for education. Eat what keeps you healthy and read what interests you if your are to be happy in life. Health & education are that simple.
The ideal that the goverment will buy pills for you because you insisted on overeating at McDonald's all your life is ludicrous.
I disagree also with their intent to grant citizenship to illegal aliens in a bid to flank the will of the America people in order to put Democrats in power over Americans in perpetuality.
JoeCHI, I don't think Edwards is angry. You've just picked up on a post-Iowa manufactured buzzword. Better to think for yourself.
But...some things merit anger, so if Edwards shows some anger those, that's all to the good. Meanwhile, HRC isn't showing any anger about the shaft the GOP has hoisted us on, she's angry because people are not voting for her.
I agree this probably will lead to serious problems; if not the loss of the nomination for HRC. I also agree with those who point up the difference between how angry men and angry women are seen/treated in our society. That being said; I think it is important to challenge anyone's statements made in indignation and anger. HRC does correctly bring up her work as a govenor's wife; one of the most publicly and politically active presidential wives in American history, and a United States Senator. But in touting these very laudable accomplishments; I think she commits a logical fallacy in her argument. She appears to present herself as the only candidate with a record of accomplishment and achievement.
However; I would also refer people to the fact that BHO has 10 years of experience as a legislator vs. 6 for HRC. He is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He has taught on the university level; worked in community activism on both voter rights, civil rights, and in the projects of Chicago. He has been at least as successful as a senator as HRC. To demonstrate his achievement of change in his public roles: As a state senator he was pivotal on legislation on ethics, health care, and welfare reform. He was active on reforms to homicide investigations, racial profiling, child care subsidies for low income families; and tax credits for low income workers. As a U.S. senator he as been involved in conventional weapons controls; governmental transparency; lobbying, electoral fraud; climate change and nuclear terrorism legislation sponsoring 152 bills and resolutions and co-sponsoring 427 more.
In short; HRC's anger is disingenous and creates a false image that BHO in not an accomplished leader and incapable of creating the change he exhorts all Americans to embrace not only in its leaders but how our country acts both internally and externally.
This fallacious argument and hollow indignation is what is repugnant to me. I respect HRC for what she has done and over-come. But to dismiss her opponents similar accomplishments with a finger-wagging, school-marmish, moralistic and bombastic tirade demonstrates why I do not believe she is as capable of a leader as BHO. Similarly I do not embrace the patrician noblesse oblige populism of JRE who decries the excesses of the wealthy while pursuing and indulging in those same excesses in his personal life. I think both of these individuals are engaging in 'false' anger and neither are deserving of my vote.
I'm not buying the double-standard argument here. I mean, I want to see some numbers.
I supported Howard Dean in 2004, and *his* anger was certainly not called "passion" by the mainstream. In fact, the Washington Post called him "The Anger Candidate" and waxed poetic about the throbbing vein in his temple. Later, the "anger" line was translated to Gore. All of us were called "angry liberals," and, well, we are. But we have a right to be.
I agree that Hillary's anger seems focused personally at her immediate situation and her opponents, while the anger Edwards displays -- fake or real -- is interpreted as an anger he shares with his supporters towards the failed policies of another party. It's not a gender difference, it's a situational one.
Yeah, the digs at Hillary's looks are petty, and unflattering to the jack*sss guy that made them. I remember the bizarre insults that were even made at *Chelsea's* looks back when she was 12 or so (I think Rush called her "the family dog"). So, lay off those Clinton women. They've had enough struggles with the man in their own house.
And besides... even as a red-blooded under-40 male Obama supporter, I happen to think Hillary looks pretty good anyway!
Ed,
First of all, many of us believe that Great Britain would have been a lot better off WITHOUT Margaret Thatcher and her ankles, thank you very much. Second of all, for your information Golda Meier had a beautiful pair of gams -- all the way down to the floor. Like a race horse, my mother used to say.
Ms. Clinton lost my support when she failed to kick out Bill for breaking those inconvenient vows.
That she didn't do so instantly signalled the malodorous quid pro quo that they established to prepare for this current run.
Her inevitable loss (while I won't like it because of what it won't do for capable women president's) will signal to everyone, but most of all to Bill and Hillary, that forgetting is not a way to forgive.
TAPPED, the Prospect's award-winning group blog, is a link-intensive collection of musings, ramblings, opinions and other assorted writing on the political developments of the day. See a list of our contributors.
Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
COMMENTS (33)
We saw that in Elizabeth Edwards' appearance on Hardball. The public wants change, Hillary's not going to deliver, so it's Obama or Edwards.
Posted by: Joe Buck | January 5, 2008 9:39 PM
Clinton isn't half as angry as Edwards has been all year.
We should have the same rules for both men and women candidates, Tom.
Posted by: JoeCHI | January 5, 2008 10:11 PM
Well I hope somebody Youtubes it for those of us away from TeeVees
Posted by: Jim | January 5, 2008 10:18 PM
Agreed. Edward's ENTIRE campaign has been angry and it's not working. Hillary gets angry once and everyone jumps on her. Tonight she is showing how passionate she is about actually directing change (not just talking about it), and is drawing convincing contrasts with Obama. Let's see how she does in NH.
Posted by: Harrison | January 5, 2008 10:30 PM
I said the exact same thing to my husband--exact! The moment she got angry I said, "Honey--this we will look back on this as the MOMENT Hillary Clinton lost this election.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 5, 2008 10:55 PM
There's a difference between the bitter, mean-spirited personal anger of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards displaying contempt for the rigged political system, and that difference has absolutely nothing to do with gender. It has everything to do with Hillary (and her DLC surrogates) being a petty, nasty, triangulating neocon.
OBAMA/EDWARDS 2008. We've never had a one-two like that... not just in the Democratic Party, but in American history.
Posted by: Bryan Newbury | January 5, 2008 11:02 PM
Hillary really upset me when she lost it, she played into the stereotype that women are too emotional. How can she ever recover from this moment, that's all people are going to remember about her.
Posted by: anonymous | January 5, 2008 11:03 PM
Some of these comments just prove that america is as sexist and into stereotypes as it ever was. If Hillary was a man her "anger" would be called passion, ala John Edwards.
I have yet to decide on a candidate to support but many seem to pay to much homage to rhetoric on all sides.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 5, 2008 11:09 PM
It's too bad that we live in a world that has double standards on what it means when a woman shows anger verses a man. And we all want to say that we should focus on the issues and not the sex of the candidate, but a lot of voters will use that to cast their vote and Hillary has to remember how her "passion" may be perceived by potential voters and keep her cool. It's not fair but that is the way it is.
Posted by: anonymous | January 5, 2008 11:19 PM
HILDABEAST DID NOT LOSE TONIGHT!
WHAAAAAA! IT WAS STOLEN!!!
OBAMA AND EDWARDS DID NOT BEAT UP ON HILDABEAST!
WHAAAAAA! IT WAS STOLEN!!!
THE HILDABEAST ERA DID NOT END TONIGHT!
WHAAAAAA! IT WAS STOLEN!!!
Posted by: DemocraticUnderground Moron | January 5, 2008 11:27 PM
OK, I've GOT to get this off my chest...As much as it disgusts me...
Hitlery's Cankles...
THEY'RE DISGUSTING!!!!!
I just thank the good Lord above that he/she always wears those pantsuits...
When was the last time you've seen her in a dress??? And what did you notice???
HER CALVES REACHED ALL THE WAY DOWN TO HER FREAKING FEET!!
CANKLES!!
CANKLES!!
CANKLES!!
This "Woman"??? CANNOT lead this country with CANKLES like THAT!!! He/She is NOT a REAL "Woman"???!!!
Posted by: A man who appreciates REAL women | January 5, 2008 11:39 PM
Hillary got what she deserved this time around. She started the fight by going negative against Obama with a barrage of incoherent issues (Iraq vote, Patriot Act, etc.) and then Edwards delivered beautifully. It was actually a perfect strategy. Lump Clinton with the status quo and tell people to move on to Obama and himself and a debate on who's idea of change is better.
Posted by: Anon23 | January 5, 2008 11:51 PM
Sorry, no.
Edwards is personally angry that the richest nation on earth has millions of people living in poverty, and is destroying its middle class and potential for upward mobility.
Hillary was angry that people weren't giving her experience the respect she thought it deserved.
See how these two kinds of anger are not the same? One, I believe, is called "moral outrage" and the other one simply isn't.
Posted by: anonymiss | January 6, 2008 1:11 AM
It was an Omega-Burn!
You could see steam coming out of Hillary's ears.
Posted by: B Estep | January 6, 2008 1:41 AM
This was her Howard Dean scream. The scream confirmed what we all sort of felt; the Dr. is a little unhinged. With Hillary we all sense the smiles are all fake. She's a lawyer and an asskicker. She should have run on that, because everyone can tell a phoney. Tonight it slipped out. This isn't sexist, we wouldn't want a truly angry man as President either. That doesn't make Hillary a bad person, it just means she won't be President this go round.
Edwards' anger is fake as hell, that's why it doesn't make a difference. He has his own issues of being overly pretty, but I don't think people feel he's truly angry. I think Biden's anger shows through sometimes...America doesn't like angry politicians.
Posted by: Spectator Consumer | January 6, 2008 2:07 AM
Edward's anger is our anger.
Who is he angry with? Not the American people! His anger comes from a realization of the crap the average American has to deal with every day.
I read somewhere today (in the WaPo, I think) where a NH supporter reframed his anger as STRENGTH. That's exactly what it is. That strength gives him the power and courage he'll need to fight for all of us.
Posted by: VABlue | January 6, 2008 2:17 AM
If Hillary shows a lack of emotins she is cold. If she expresses emotion, she is petulant. As an registered Independent, I have decided to vote for her and I do hope she becomes the nominee.She has convinced me that she has what it takes to go the distance.
Incidentally, Romney and Guillani has far greater negatives than she does.
Posted by: Lady Eagle | January 6, 2008 7:00 AM
For the scummy turd with the "cankles" comment, Hillary is 57. She is not a model. She never has run on her looks. For a woman of my own age, she looks fine. She is not young, but neither is McCain, Richarson, or many of the other candidates.
What a scummy toad you are, jack. I don't support her, but don't attack her for her ankles. Only a total moron would do that.
Posted by: POed Lib | January 6, 2008 8:15 AM
As a Chinese, I can see clearly the anger running high and 'personal' in Obama and Edwards,and why they have to join hands to send the Clinton home along with all those old time insiders who want a 'change' of their status quo enhanced within the party machine but not the all round,fundamentally transforming change that this country is in dire need of and O & E are representing in this totally changed world.
Clinton Era ended 8 years ago, we give credit to the things achieved then.And their flaws of that era and the current era are rooted within the system, so we need real new faces,new mind, new voices and
new yin and yang that go beyond the narrow consideration of party,gender,race,style,etc,and diliver.Hillary should be wise enough to offer her concession and support to the younger pals if she really thinks democrats can benefit from her '35' years of experience with power.
Posted by: guang zhao | January 6, 2008 10:16 AM
Re: This "Woman"??? CANNOT lead this country with CANKLES like THAT!!! He/She is NOT a REAL "Woman"???!!!
Huh. What did you think of Maggie Thatcher? Or Golda Meir? Guess what--a vag doth make a woman. You're an ass, Mr. Troll.
Posted by: Ed | January 6, 2008 5:23 PM
No way, I disagree with most people here. Her anger is no different from any of the male candidate's anger, other than that she is a woman. She represented herself and her platform very well last night. How else should she have responded to his baseless accusations? The fact that Edwards decided to gang up on her last night only solidifies her place as the number 1 contender for the Democratic nomination.
Posted by: Jane Know | January 6, 2008 5:27 PM
This was exactly my take as I watched the debate. We saw, for better or worse, her real voice, which she has struggled to soften in each presentation.
Should she be able to be angry in her impassioned defense of her work, as would a man? Yes.
However, contrasted with the soaring enthusiasm growing around Obama, it may be irrelevant. There is a desire for a new political frame--and substantive thinkers like Bradley are willing to rank this higher than the models of the past--the need for a new starting point, a clearing of the dark errors of the past 8 years, and not through irrational exuberance, but through intellect and passion.
Go BHO.
A great Obama theme song--captures the spirit of what he is doing:
http://xpatriate-greetingsfromlafayettepark.blogspot.com/
Go
Posted by: Cara Prado | January 6, 2008 5:31 PM
You know what I noticed in these debates?
1) Obama
a) seemed so exhausted as to struggle with enunciation of words and expression of ideals.
b) tells bald faced lies when unexpectedly confronted with embarrassing facts such as his campaign manager being a lobbiest for Pfizer
c) He sounds remarkably like the post 9/11 President George Bush on foreign and domestic policy, e.g. attacking a nuclear armed Pakistan with missiles and ending pork-barrel legislation that builds bridges to nowhere
d) overconfident of his abilities and feels superiour to others: for example his statement as to what he would do with health care were he to tear down our system and replace it with one of his own design (i.e. he is swallowing hook, line, and sinker, the words of all the panderers he has surrounded himself with)
2) Clinton
a) Hillary is much smarter and more dedicated than Bill
b) Hillary is vengeful and petty: proven by her constant reference to George Bush and Republicans with a disgusted tone of voice. Who among the voting Republicans will want to switch sides and vote for a woman who expresses contempt and disgust at their existance?! She is not a uniter, she is a divider.
c) Solution to winning the election is to buy votes by extending government handouts with regards to housing, health care, citizenship, and anything else you care to think of.
3) Richardson
a) Panders to the candidate he thinks is most likely to grant him a powerful position in a new administration.
4) Edwards
a) Easily the smartest of the Democratic candidates.
b) Easily the most trust worthy of Democratic candidates.
c) Has the smarts to lead a movement to severely curtail the influence of lobbiests in our government. I believe him when he says these things to the point that I believe if he looses this election he will organize a grass roots movement among the US populace to amend the constitution to end lobbies in our government over the objection of congress much in the same way as Gore has galvanized movement on environmental causes.
I disagree with all of these candidates' intentions regarding their desire to make government responsible for health care and for education. Eat what keeps you healthy and read what interests you if your are to be happy in life. Health & education are that simple.
The ideal that the goverment will buy pills for you because you insisted on overeating at McDonald's all your life is ludicrous.
I disagree also with their intent to grant citizenship to illegal aliens in a bid to flank the will of the America people in order to put Democrats in power over Americans in perpetuality.
Posted by: Affirmed | January 6, 2008 6:05 PM
JoeCHI, I don't think Edwards is angry. You've just picked up on a post-Iowa manufactured buzzword. Better to think for yourself.
But...some things merit anger, so if Edwards shows some anger those, that's all to the good. Meanwhile, HRC isn't showing any anger about the shaft the GOP has hoisted us on, she's angry because people are not voting for her.
Posted by: justcorbly | January 6, 2008 6:15 PM
I agree this probably will lead to serious problems; if not the loss of the nomination for HRC. I also agree with those who point up the difference between how angry men and angry women are seen/treated in our society. That being said; I think it is important to challenge anyone's statements made in indignation and anger. HRC does correctly bring up her work as a govenor's wife; one of the most publicly and politically active presidential wives in American history, and a United States Senator. But in touting these very laudable accomplishments; I think she commits a logical fallacy in her argument. She appears to present herself as the only candidate with a record of accomplishment and achievement.
However; I would also refer people to the fact that BHO has 10 years of experience as a legislator vs. 6 for HRC. He is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He has taught on the university level; worked in community activism on both voter rights, civil rights, and in the projects of Chicago. He has been at least as successful as a senator as HRC. To demonstrate his achievement of change in his public roles: As a state senator he was pivotal on legislation on ethics, health care, and welfare reform. He was active on reforms to homicide investigations, racial profiling, child care subsidies for low income families; and tax credits for low income workers. As a U.S. senator he as been involved in conventional weapons controls; governmental transparency; lobbying, electoral fraud; climate change and nuclear terrorism legislation sponsoring 152 bills and resolutions and co-sponsoring 427 more.
In short; HRC's anger is disingenous and creates a false image that BHO in not an accomplished leader and incapable of creating the change he exhorts all Americans to embrace not only in its leaders but how our country acts both internally and externally.
This fallacious argument and hollow indignation is what is repugnant to me. I respect HRC for what she has done and over-come. But to dismiss her opponents similar accomplishments with a finger-wagging, school-marmish, moralistic and bombastic tirade demonstrates why I do not believe she is as capable of a leader as BHO. Similarly I do not embrace the patrician noblesse oblige populism of JRE who decries the excesses of the wealthy while pursuing and indulging in those same excesses in his personal life. I think both of these individuals are engaging in 'false' anger and neither are deserving of my vote.
Posted by: Dale Wethered | January 6, 2008 7:27 PM
Health & education are that simple.
Ah, good to see the delusional are clueless regarding congenital health defects, such as being born with epilepsy, as I was.........
Posted by: oddjob | January 6, 2008 7:27 PM
I'm not buying the double-standard argument here. I mean, I want to see some numbers.
I supported Howard Dean in 2004, and *his* anger was certainly not called "passion" by the mainstream. In fact, the Washington Post called him "The Anger Candidate" and waxed poetic about the throbbing vein in his temple. Later, the "anger" line was translated to Gore. All of us were called "angry liberals," and, well, we are. But we have a right to be.
I agree that Hillary's anger seems focused personally at her immediate situation and her opponents, while the anger Edwards displays -- fake or real -- is interpreted as an anger he shares with his supporters towards the failed policies of another party. It's not a gender difference, it's a situational one.
Posted by: Thud | January 6, 2008 8:21 PM
oddjob...you are a liar.
Posted by: Affirmed | January 6, 2008 8:53 PM
Yeah, the digs at Hillary's looks are petty, and unflattering to the jack*sss guy that made them. I remember the bizarre insults that were even made at *Chelsea's* looks back when she was 12 or so (I think Rush called her "the family dog"). So, lay off those Clinton women. They've had enough struggles with the man in their own house.
And besides... even as a red-blooded under-40 male Obama supporter, I happen to think Hillary looks pretty good anyway!
Posted by: GH | January 7, 2008 8:49 AM
Ed,
First of all, many of us believe that Great Britain would have been a lot better off WITHOUT Margaret Thatcher and her ankles, thank you very much. Second of all, for your information Golda Meier had a beautiful pair of gams -- all the way down to the floor. Like a race horse, my mother used to say.
Posted by: priscianus jr | January 7, 2008 2:42 PM
Ms. Clinton lost my support when she failed to kick out Bill for breaking those inconvenient vows.
That she didn't do so instantly signalled the malodorous quid pro quo that they established to prepare for this current run.
Her inevitable loss (while I won't like it because of what it won't do for capable women president's) will signal to everyone, but most of all to Bill and Hillary, that forgetting is not a way to forgive.
Posted by: jerbly mcfinkus | January 7, 2008 3:24 PM
IN YOUR FACES CLINTON HATERS!!!!
AMERICA HAS SPOKEN. OBOMBA IS A LYING DORK.
HILLARY ROCKS!
WHAT DO YOU PSEUDO DEMS WANT? PRESIDENT HUCKABEE? THANKFULLY NEW HAMPSHIRE VOTERS HAVE AN IQ HIGHER THAN 70 LIKE THOSE DOLTS IN IOWA!
HILLARY 2008!
SIDE WITH A WINNER DEMS OR LOSE BIG TIME TO SOMEONE EVEN WORSE THAN BUSH!
HILLARY HILLARY!
Posted by: Reality Hurts | January 9, 2008 9:11 AM
Nice call.
Posted by: arbitropia | January 9, 2008 3:03 PM