Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Parsing the Polls: Clinton's Female Foundation

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y) was under attack throughout Tuesday night's Democratic debate in Philadelphia, valiantly fighting off some of the hits landed by her opponents, but also getting knocked off her balance by a few. It's easy to get lost in the weeds of the various attacks and counterattacks, but the broader picture is almost always the more important one.

That broad picture: Six men regularly ganging up on the lone woman on the stage. As stated here before, Clinton's male competitors must be careful not to look as though they are bullying her during these forums. For what it's worth, the Clinton campaign did everything they could today to make that case, even posting a video on YouTube called "The Politics of Pile On."

Women -- especially Clinton's contemporaries -- may have some doubts about the Democratic frontrunner, but they also don't want to see her attacked by a group of men. Thus the other Democratic presidential hopefuls must tread carefully when confronting Clinton on the issues.

But what do women really think of Clinton as a politician and a person? And how do those views differ from the opinions held by men? A new CNN survey gives us some insight into the battle of the sexes over Clinton.

Let's parse the polls!

The survey asked a national sample of more than 1,200 adults for their views on Clinton on a variety of character traits.

Not surprisingly, women regularly rated Clinton between 5 and 8 points higher than men. Sixty-five percent of men said Clinton was a "strong and decisive leader," while 71 percent of women said the same; 58 percent of men said Clinton "can work well with people from both parties," compared with 63 percent of women; 60 percent of men called Clinton "likeable", 65 percent of women said the same.

Asked whether Clinton is a person they admire, just 41 percent of men said they agreed -- the lowest rating Clinton received in any of the character questions asked by CNN. Nearly six-in-ten women (58 percent), however, said Clinton was someone they admire, a 16-point gender gap.

The only other double-digit gap between men and women came in response to a question about whether Clinton "shares your values." Forty-eight percent of men agreed with that sentiment while 58 percent of women felt that way.

Overall, the CNN survey shows that whether or not women agree with all of the decisions Clinton has made in her life, they still tend to view Clinton as a sister-in-arms -- a potentially HUGE plus for the senator's campaign. It may well be that women feel comfortable criticizing Clinton but ultimately don't want to hear a bunch of men doing the same. (Sort of like how you can pick on your little brother, but if someone else does you immediately leap to his defense.)

It's not by accident then that Clinton regularly works to make sure women know the challenges she faces as the lone female on the campaign trail. When Republicans were attacking her recently she joked that a friend said at her age (she just turned 60) she should be flattered by so much attention from men.

Then on Wednesday, a press release that accompanied the "Politics of Pile On" video ended with these lines: "The American people are looking for a President who can stand strong and come out ahead under any circumstances. Last night, once again, that person was Hillary Clinton. One strong woman."

Clinton's campaign knows that if they can continue to win women by the broad margins they currently enjoy, it will be tough to knock her from her perch as frontrunner. Expect them to continue to drive the story line going forward that she is being unfairly targeted by the men in the race because she is the lone woman in the field.

Will women stand behind her, bristling at one of their own being attacked? Or will they define their opinion of Clinton downward based on what they are hearing from her rivals? The answer to those questions will determine just how strong a frontrunner Clinton truly is.

By Chris Cillizza  |  November 1, 2007; 5:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008 , Parsing the Polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FixCam: Happy Halloween
Next: Hillary Tries to Rock the Vote

Comments

If you work in the United States and have tried to get promoted, you know there reall is a "glass ceiling" and a "boys club". If you mention it and try to play by the rules you are accused of playing the gender card. Get real folks especially you Gatorman2 just had to use the vagina reference. Women get a grip and stop listening to the men. In your heart you know you want a woman president. I do. Women make great leaders and so will Ms. Clinton.

Posted by: ONEWHICH | November 2, 2007 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton is the worst choice for the presidency, mainly because the problem how to void WWIII is becoming the most urgent problem currently, and she is the well known warmonger. The fact that she is woman is not changing this current exposure. There were, are, and would be always warmongering females, like she is, and warmongering males. The fact that her husband-our former president had less aggressive nature, if any, is irrelevant now, as she would be Commander in Chief, not he. People here are writing in their comments that she is seldom repeating her mistakes, referring to her health plan, which she currently "borrowed" or "copied" from Edwards health plan. So, what? It is another part of her nature-she is a pretty skillful con artist (it means - a thief of ideas and concepts among other qualities). Is it what the country needs now-the warmonger and the skillful con artist simultaneously? I seriously doubt it. Anyhow, each nation deserves its leader. The re-election of Bush, to which Mrs. Clinton contributed a lot, illustrated this statement very well.

Posted by: aepelbaum | November 2, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I'm tired of Billary. I've seen this movie before. Haven't you ever had a boss or co-worker like her who uses everything from their well-honed chameleon-speak, to their "poor me I'm a woman" (while I claw your eyes out?)

Even in her latest outreach to black women at churches - please, spare us, Billary. I'd rather have an honest person respectfully disagree with my beliefs than the hand-shaker that tells me what they think I want to hear, then wants to be in the group photo.

I'd never choose a friend like her...I need girlfriends who say what they mean and mean what they say.

Posted by: marilynlovesmozart | November 2, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

I'm tired of Billary. I've seen this movie before. Haven't you ever had a boss or co-worker like her who uses everything from their well-honed chameleon-speak, to their "poor me I'm a woman" (while I claw your eyes out?)

Even in her latest outreach to black women at churches - please, spare us, Billary. I'd rather have an honest person respectfully disagree with my beliefs than the hand-shaker that tells me what they think I want to hear, then wants to be in the group photo.

I'd never choose a friend like her...I need girlfriends who say what they mean and mean what they say.

Posted by: marilynlovesmozart | November 2, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

LV and dave, thanks for your replies with cites.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 2, 2007 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps the first sign of Hillary's inevitable descent is the emphasis on balkanizing the constituency. That's going to be the nail in her coffin. When you have to resort to your own kind, as it were, then you're alienating a large percentage of those outside the circle as well as those brighter individuals who don't want to be treated in a such a narrow fashion despite being in that circle.

Yes, women have been unfairly excluded from the top post. But should that be the principal reason for voting for this woman? If so, you're desperate to make up for lost time. And for your sake you better hope she doesn't get elected because her Neocon streak is going to leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth. It'll be a long time before another woman gets a decent shot after her 1-term presidency.

The piling on schtick, by the way, is utter nonsense, and will appear to be sour grapes as time goes on. As usual she dominated the air space. If she hadn't made the grave mistake of voting for calling the Iranian guards terrorists - a ticket for W and the Neocons to extend their immoral war into Iran - then she wouldn't have been under the spotlight so much. Instead, she could've exploited the opportunity to dispense more of her slick rhetoric and snake oil. Unfortunately for her she received the consequences she deserved.

The Right keeps saying she's moving left, but the truth is she never totally gave up her Republican allegiances. After all, it was Newt Gingrich's Contract with America that served as the foundation of Bill's Administration. And don't forget Dick Morris serving as Focus-Group Guru. Hillary may act in ways to accrue votes by shifting left and right but her heart's more aligned with Republicanism than any of the other candidates by far. You have to be blind to not see that.

Finally, the country got to see her insubstantial character the other night. And now it's only a matter of time before they tire of the amorphous answers she customarily gives to specific questions. For example, if she truly intends on pulling the troops out of Iraq then tell us, within a reasonable time frame, when that will happen. Currently, she says, "I don't want to get into hypotheticals."

Well there's a sizable group of Americans who don't want to see her hypotehtically occupying the White House again because she's not a true leader. A true leader reveals specific goals without denigrating that process by calling it hypothetical. She'd rather get the focus group results to see how to act, just like her husband did. Read Joe Klein's book if you doubt it.

Posted by: arty6tk | November 2, 2007 4:50 AM | Report abuse

Mark_in_austin,
Here is the PWC resolution that passed last July. http://helpsavemanassas.org/docs/june26resolution.pdf

Posted by: dave | November 1, 2007 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Well, Loudmouth, go read a few of those we sites. You Clinton Clowns sem think if ou believe in something enough it will be true. That, in my book, makes you no diferent than the Fundimentalist or the Taliban or the Branch Davidians. But, what makes you dangerous is your viceral hatred of men and all things male. I know, a lot of the female supportes of this whack job sympathize with Ms. Clinton and her rake of a husband. A lot of them have posted as such and whine abou some man that did as mch to them. The male supporters are just pitiful emasculated, self loathing twits. All of them, inclding Ms. Clinton, are badly in need of psychiatric help. If you warped sick people actually succeed in lecting this twisted sicko, then god help this country. Men will pay for all of the perceived sins of the fat soap opera watching crowd everywhere.

Men, ever worked in an office where the majority of your co-workers are women, the bosss are women? Well, magnify that a hundred fold and you might get an idea of what is in store for you. It appears that we have a full scale war being jammed down our throats by the feminists and these "wronged" twisted females.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 1, 2007 9:49 PM | Report abuse

JD, do you have a cite to the proposition that passed?

I told this tale the day it happened last week. A conscientious client of mine has me ck all SS #s of his new hires. One came up "failed" last week.

SS advises double checking the #, having the employee go to the local SS office, "checking" with the employee after a month or so; and

NOT FIRING THE EMPLOYEE BASED ON THE "BAD" #!

We must get immunity from civil rights suits for employers who fire based on false SS #s.
------------------------------------
HRC should have been able to defend the NYDL flap by saying the method was approved by USDHLS. She had not done her homework and tripped. In and of itself it was not a huge deal. But it was the first time Ds ever even spoke about undocs/IAs, even for a minute. That Party needs to get in the picture on this.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 1, 2007 8:22 PM | Report abuse

mbrooks: Right, ace, I'm sure "those clowns at the Border Patrol" are throwing out the 38 million number when their bosses at the White House say it's 12 million. Sure they are.

Well, if you "read where it was reported" -- and let's make it clear, all of those news reports trace back to the SAME SINGLE REPORT from the obscure group in California -- then it must be true.

By the way, ace, my questioning the deep-seated issues at the root of your Clinton hatred really doesn't make me a "Clinton type." But you're known for making pretty large logical leaps. Or illogical as the case may be.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 8:13 PM | Report abuse

LoudounVote - yep! Those clown at the Border Patrol are inventing numbers again! Same for the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Seattle P.I., bizjournal, etc. And, as I stated originally and you blew off, "I read where this was reported". DOn't you get a little bit tired acting like a blithering idiot? And regularly being exposes as an ignorant clodhopper? I know, you Clinton types are bigots and drooling fools. One of you was just reported as threatening the life of the forum moderator for this weeks debate.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 1, 2007 8:00 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks: you haven't proven anyone wrong, you blithering idiot. Those "100 hits" all refer to one report by some whackjob rightwingnut group in California.

No wonder you lost your job to some uneducated illegal, you're a fool.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 7:46 PM | Report abuse

If the elections were held today and the nominees are Hillary Clinton (D) and Rudy Giuliani (R), who would you vote for?
-------> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=859

.

Posted by: PollM | November 1, 2007 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Of course, lylepink and loudounvoter, nw that you've been shown to be complete fools, instead of shutting up and admitting you were wrong, you will blather on and on, ignore anything I or anyone else could possily say that you might learn from, and roll around in your ignorande and bigotry. What a delussional collection of dangerous whack jobs, so typical of the Clinton supporters. It really is all about emotion and hysteria, isn't it? I wish you would go back to watching soap operas.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 1, 2007 7:34 PM | Report abuse

It's starting to feel like tag team wresling, arguing with you ignorant twits. DOL figures show that fewer than 500,000 illegals are engaged in agricultural work. The estimates for the construction and related trades runs upwards of 4 million. There are also millions in meat cutting, manufacturing, and other jobs. As for the latest estimate of 38 million: http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/10/study_says_illegal_alien_popul.php.

And, you slobbering nitwits would spend two minutes ceasing your pathetic attacks, you could have done a simply Yahoo search, typing in "illegal 38 million" and you would have come up with over 100 hits, all of them citations for the most recent number; cites from everyone from the border patrol to customs to cnn and other media outlets.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 1, 2007 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Hey 'Voter, I live in PWC and I'm fully behind those proposals. And for those who bother to examine the prop, it's not as draconian as the critics (like WaPo) like to paint it.

It's a very measured, reasonable response to the illegals' snubbing of US border policy.

If anyone wants to debate it on the merits (not emotions drindl, save your breath) I'm game.

Posted by: JD | November 1, 2007 7:22 PM | Report abuse

LV: Going from 12M to 38M in a couple of hours is typical, mind you these are supposed to be workers, not the whole picture. Good for a laugh.

Posted by: lylepink | November 1, 2007 7:13 PM | Report abuse

lylepink: but surely you believe mibrooks's estimate of 38 million illegals now?

And have you noticed how his rants have moved from outsourcing to illegal immigrants?

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 6:28 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27: Again you are posting inaccurate information about the illegal/undocumented workers. Most of these workers are found in about 6 to 10 places. Farm work for the large Corp.s, not the family farm. Hotels, Motels, Restaurants, Construction, Nursing homes and Yard/Landscaping are the most I can think of at this moment. The employers are to blame for this simply because a whole bunch of these folks are paid under the table, saving the employer vast sums of money they otherwise would have to pay in FICA and other taxes. Another thing worth mentioning is the guest worker program where they overstay and cannot be found. American workers are not able to fill the high tech jobs, and that is because of the schooling/training that is so expensive and lacking here in america. Paying a decent wage in the unskilled market would greatly reduce this problem as well.

Posted by: lylepink | November 1, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Mark: here's an example of the debate. Prince William County is at the forefront of the "crackdown" on illegals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/11/01/ST2007110101357.html?hpid=topnews

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 6:18 PM | Report abuse

LV, for a while we had a USAFA grad, Mike in NoCal, on the blog, who strongly supported Kennedy-McCain and would not budge from demanding citizenship at the end of the regularization process. I engaged with him often at the time but I did not understand his rationale to be stronger than "we should not exploit undocs."

This is not an all or nothing argument. It has so many facets that there should be competing positions within the parties.

There should be cross party alliances, too. KBH has a modest proposal that some Ds might support. McCain is not playing the xenophobe game either. There should be some non-xenophobic, modest or even grand proposals from Ds, too.

If there is a conversation, we feel listened too.
If only one party talks about it, we feel ignored.

Just how bad are the VA proposals?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 1, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks: What are you talking about? I hope you have a spit guard on your keyboard and someone has revoked your coffee privileges.

You're starting to scare me.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Loudmouth, you keep changing the subject. Are the only issues you care aout entirely perpheral? THE ECONOMY IS IN RUINS! It is in ruins largely due to those illegal immigrants. They take jobs from Amercian workers. They drive down wages and benefits when compteting for jobs with Amercian workers. I know, you "feeeeel" badly for them. Well, "feeeel" badly for your fellow countrymen and women who are lossing their homes, having marriages destroyed, loosing their medical coverage, watching their lives and their family's lives go down the drain. The last estimate I read was that the 12 million illegal has now ballooned to 38 million. We couldn't afford the original 12 million so you need to figure out how on earth we can afford three times that many!

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 1, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

mark: Immigration is just the latest issue to be demagogued by one party or the other. You would not believe -- I mean, of course you would believe -- the stuff being thrown out by candidates in Virginia's upcoming elections for local offices and state senators and delegates. It's bordering on xenophobia.

Pay close attention to these races.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

lylepink - "...mibrooks27 does not know the difference between GM and Chrysler concerning layoffs..." And that somehow negates the point I was making? Not quite, the point is that tens of thousands of people are loosing their jobs, the entire economy is going into the tank, the dollar is at record lows and still is falling, inflation is certain to to take off at record rates and simply devistate families, and Hillary Clinton hasn't got the slightest idea of how to deal with it.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 1, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

proud, nobody quite believed me, an independent, when I said yesterday that "border security/IAs" were right up there with energy independence and foreign policy
for independents and when I said the Rs debating it while the Ds were silent helped the Rs. Now that you found a poll of "my people" maybe the Ds can take up the discussion, too.

Colin, I posted McCain's letter to Mukasey on the McCain thread - he was joined by Graham and Warner, so my inference that Graham's views were similar to McC's was correct.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 1, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Some surprising numbers from a poll conducted by Democracy Corps and Democratic pollsters/strategists Stan Greenberg, Al Quinlan, and James Carville:

They asked independents their top two reasons why America is on the wrong track from a list of seven.

"Bogged down and spending billions in Iraq" came in next to last at 23 percent;

"Government failed on Katrina" came in last at 13 percent.

The tops for independents? "Borders left unprotected," way ahead at 40 percent.

"Doing nothing about dependence on oil/global warming" came in second at 31 percent,

"losing jobs to China and India" at 27 percent, "government is running up record budget deficits" at 26 percent,

"leaders have done nothing on health care" came in at 24 percent.

Independents Are More Upset About the Border Than Democrats Are About Iraq

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTllNWFhMDI0MGNmODM0N2I3ZWQ0Nzg3MjAzOGZjMmM=

Considering whose votes will most likely decide the next election, the immigration issue is THE preeminent R opportunity.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 1, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

LV: mibrooks27 does not know the difference between GM and Chrysler concerning layoffs. As usual his posts are amazing as to the extent of their being totally inaccurate.

Posted by: lylepink | November 1, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

LoudounVoter - Substance! Where is the substance, the justification for your remarks? Vitrol, personal attacks,name calling, DO NOT amount to a refutation of anything I said.

As for women looking to Ms. Clinton for revenge or otherwise engaged in male hating, lets try a few of the remarks "gang bang", "Those male candidates are poster boys for "doesn't get it" and remind me of my ex-husband carrying on with gotcha glee about the Visa bill", "[for the 'attacks']...she and women in general have a legitimate complaint..", "When men stay home to take care of their children, it's called babysitting. When I go on a business trip, I have to make sure that my husband makes sure to get my son's lunch money paid... that's part of the reason women like Hillary. She understands things that only other women can understand", etc. And, that's just a small sampling from this one forum. This silly sort of nonsense is all over the web and today Ms. Clintonis back at Rqadcliff making snide remarks about men, again! Is that what this election has boiled down to? Have we been reduced to some sort of battle between the sexes, a slugfest in the mud, where women exercise their "right" to belittle men, to denigrate fathers and husbands and former partners, but god help us all if a man returns the favor. There are some serious issues at stake here. One of them is people's ability to feed themselves and their children. Our economy is in genuine trouble and I keep trying to throw cold water on the Clinton bandwagon by pointing out that she is not capable of dealing with it, is inexpert at best - part of the problem at worst. That is not "bashing" Clinton and it doesn't involve denigrating women. It is recognizing that we have a serious economic problem and emotional outburst aren't going to solve it.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 1, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

"LoudounV"--I am not going to stick up for "mibrooks", but if you go over to several of the other blogs on the WaPo over the last 12 hours, he IS very right to say that there are at least several women voters who say they are now voting for Hillary simply because they perceive that she was ganged up on by the men or because she is a woman [regardless of the lack of other credentials], etc. I agree with his implication that such a switch is irrational.

As for any misogynist tendencies you find in him, well, I don't see them and I certainly would oppose them if they are there, but I don't even bother with looking for them, any more than I would bother to read something by the ... shall we say, the "moonbat" posters.

To be misogynist is certainly as foolish and despicable as to call anyone who opposes Clinton in any way a "Hillary hater", as of course "lylepink" is always wont to do. Doesn't that sound to you just like the Republican loonies who call anyone who criticizes Bush a "Bush-basher"? But then, you have to be truly non-partisan to be able to see the multitude of similarities between the Bushes and the Clintons, both the has-beens and the wannabes.

I'm off now to work for a living--what a horrible way to live. Have a good day!

Posted by: radicalpatriot | November 1, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

drindl - you are leading in the race to dementia. Loud and dumb, you better get with it.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

claudia, nice dig at the GOP. We get it, you hate the Republicans. Roger that.

The question was, what specifically are HRC's quals? And I answered it.

If you know of something else on her resume, please feel free to chime in.

Posted by: JD | November 1, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Course it's no big deal to you chickenhawks who gets up blown up over there -- it's a video game to you. You're quite comfortable so why would you give damn about your fellow americans? It's all just a game, just a joke, just smething to stoke your egos and make you feel' manly'.

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

The Whitehouse & Graham interview is at

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/mukasey_10-31.html
---------------------------------
drindl, I do not think MH intervened b/c of the Clinton "connection", but I have read this tale, and others of his first term in office, and based on the importuning of Baptist Ministers he knew he pressed for clemency and parole in this case and in others. His judgment sucked, and he tried to cover it up at the time, and when this creep committed a rape-murder after release he begged forgiveness. The Willie Horton moment all over again.

There was a Clinton connection, but no evidence that it directly affected MH's very bad decision. As the article says, the creepy Post journalist who manufactured
a whole story about DNA clearing this rapist was also believed by MH, over his parole board.

Not a glorious moment in the history of the Baptist Ministry or the State of AK or the Governorship of MH.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 1, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Imagine signing up for State Department Service and being sent....gasp...overseas. Kind of like being in the Reserves and...gasp...being called up to active duty.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

claudialong | November 1, 2007 01:00 PM,
"Uneasy U.S. diplomats yesterday challenged senior State Department officials in unusually blunt terms over a decision to order some of them to serve at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad or risk losing their jobs."

Foreign service officers have an obligation to uphold the oaths they took to carry out the policies of the government and be available to serve anywhere in the world. Since 2002, more than 1,500 U.S. diplomats have served at the Baghdad embassy and in Provincial Reconstruction Teams in outlying areas. Number of dead - 0. Methinks they doth protest too much.

Posted by: dave | November 1, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Blarg: When I use the term "Hillary Haters" it is directed to those in the political world that are so strongly opposed to Hillary. Most folks I know do not really hate in the term you seem to be implying. Reading "The Fix" on a daily basis, I find CC is opposed to Hillary, but not to that great extent I refer to as the "Hillary Haters". Chris Matthews is one of these folks and it goes back many years, anytime the name [Clinton] is mentioned by him it is easy to see. How you could think I am "Whining" is beyond me, for I am enjoying seeing these folks make fools of themselves.

Posted by: lylepink | November 1, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

yes drindl, you most certainly are one of the original moonbats on this blog. but who else could come up with such dementia as:
"live in a dog cage blindfolded and get tortured at will"
"extorted billions of US taxpayer dollars, in return for which he repeadtedly lied to start a war that would benefit mmostly himself and then spied for Iran. I guess bush will be giving him the Medal of Honor next"
"Some people here think he suffered a neurological event in '98 when his speech changed. Others insist it is just playing at "good 'ole boy".

Was that when he stopped drinking? Maybe he stopped in response to the neurological event..."

"the alternative is too terrifying to me to think about. A bloodthirsty dictator, and WW3."

And that is just a sampling of the wit and wisdom, although "some people here" say it is lunacy, of drindl. the prototype of the moonbat contingent. the rest of you try to keep up.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I've been waiting for the first mibrooks anti-Clinton post of the day and there it is!

This clown really needs an editor before he hits the Submit button. "The number of women posting here that say they are going to vote for Ms. Clinton based on the fact that she is a woman, based on revenge for some misdeed by a past spouse, is simply amazing."

Has even one woman posted such nonsense on here? Mibrooks, you are a sick, woman-hating deviant. We understand you've been wronged by the women in your life. There, there, it will be ok. Just get help immediately.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

What is bothering me about this whole debate is that it is based on emotion, not on issues and facts. The number of women posting here that say they are going to vote for Ms. Clinton based on the fact that she is a woman, based on revenge for some misdeed by a past spouse, is simply amazing. Where are the issues? Look, in case it has passed your notice, the stock market is falling..again...it is now down by nearly 400 points. The dollar is at an all time low, GM annouced the layoff of 12,000 workers and Boeing, IBM, Microsoft, Intel all have announced plans to move an estimated 500,000 more jobs offshore! Not only that, housing sales dropped by 30% last month, are down by over 70% in the past three months and that foreign capital keeping our ramshackle economy is leaving/fleeing at a record pace. OPEC is moving, as I write this, to peg oil to the Euro. The international bond market has switched from the dollar to the Euro. European countries are expecting the dollar, our entire economy to collapse THIS WINTER! Hillary CLinton's stated policy for dealing with this is continued outsourcing, more guest workers, a flood of jobs and money exiting this country for cheap labor markets in Asia, primarily India and China.

Only a fool cannot see that this is going to lead to a disaster of monsterous proportions. Ms. Clinton hasn't got idea one of how to deal with this, she hasn't addressed it, she is stuck in the past with her failing free market, free trade bankrupt ideology, and her relationships with and dependency upon big corporations, bankers and lobbyests makes it highly unlikely that she will be able to deal with this effectively. The whole thing is coming unravelled right before our eyes. Women may indeed succeed in gaining some manner of revenge upon men who wronged them, but the cost is going to be a lot higher than they bargained for.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 1, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

What WAS Graham's point, Mark?

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

'moonbat moonbat moonbat moonbat moonbat moonbat moonbat moonbat"

see i can do it too, koz, just like you!

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Colin, thanks.

Did you see Graham and Whitehouse on Lehrer last night discussing Mukasey? If not, I 'll summarize later, or you can probably find the transcript. Attributing Graham's position to McCain I can understand where they are coming from. If the SJC gives me a vote on Mukasey, I vote "no", even 'though I see Graham's point.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 1, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"live in a dog cage blindfolded and get tortured at will"

HHhhooooowwwwwllllllll

what a strange and frightening world you moonbats inhabit. Keep your head down, here come some black helos, right for your roof. Is your tin foil hat out of adjustment again?

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

surprise - the other total nutjob moonbat takes the side of Loud and dumb.

drindl - I am a Republican and according to the new rules set by Loud and dumb, you are no longer permitted to offer any opinions on any republicans. Please heed the new moonbat law. If you don't support one of your own kind, who will?

Maybe you two could bark at the evil bush moon rising together one evening. Or is that the idea here?

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

'hat some U.S. prisoners would "love to be in a facility more like Guantanamo." '

Well, I throw up my hands. Pardoning a child rapist because the victim is a cousin of Bill Clinton, and now this kind of demogogery -- yeah, you bet, lots of US prisoners would like to be in a facility where you live in a dog cage blindfolded and get tortured at will--yeah, they're lining up for it. You know, I actually wanted to like this guy. I honestly wanted to beleive they aren't all hateful. And I still do beleive that of McCain. But he has shown by caving on Mukasey that he will do what he is told also.

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Loud and dumb - please refrain from making any posts about Bush. he is a Republican and according to your own rules - a committed leftist like you should have no viable opinion about any Republicans. your post is therefore nothing but clutter.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

'my screen name has offended loudon's sensibilities. Excellent! I will consider that a success, and carry on ignoring his vapid postings as per usual.'

clearly you're here then not for reasonable discussion, but just to offend eveyone you can and disrupt the forum. just like koz.

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

"moonbat.... mumble mumble moonbat.... mumble mumble... Libs... moonbat... mumble... dems bad... zzzzzzzz.... moonbat"
--zouk

Kind of like what a dog hears, hm Loudon? He just doesn't know many words and his love for the savage Malkin, the world's meanest woman, well he just can't do anything but repeat what she says...over and over and over.

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

You're right there Loud and dumb - no sense asking the Dem lead and record low rated Congrese to actually do thier job and pass legislation and confirm nominees. better to obfuscate, regulate, investigate, pontificate....

so far one meaningful Dem law has passed - min wage - well maybe not that meaningful but there is so little to work with. but there is so much to investigate - like whether the AG can fire attornies. Well yes they can. If you're a Dem you may want to find a way to make this look improper and waste more time.

but if you're a Dem what you really want to do is socialize health care before Hillary goes down in flames and that hope with it. you may want to take vote after vote on losing a war that seems already won. anything but pass laws and approve nominees.

but this, like all things, must be................wait for it.................Bush's fault.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Colin: Bush is now "demanding" a swift confirmation for Mukasey. What makes him think he can demand anything from Congress after his recent outburst and vetoes?

Maybe they'll trade him SCHIP for Mukasey.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Mark -- here's an example of Huck's views on civil liberties generally that tends to be supportive of - in my view - illegitimate executive actions. I'll take a longer look later to try and find what I was thinking of relative to torture. Admittedly, I may be wrong on that one.

Guantanimo:

"Huckabee, who has visited Guantanamo, says the facility is better than some prisons in the United States and that some U.S. prisoners would "love to be in a facility more like Guantanamo." Huckabee in June 2007 also warned against releasing its prisoners. "If we let somebody out and it turns out that they come and fly an airliner into one of our skyscrapers, we're going to be asking how come we didn't stop them, we had them detained," he said. "If we're going to make a mistake right now, let's make it on the side of protecting the American people."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13816/

On a somewhat related note, did you see that McCain has come out in favor of Mukasey's nomination, despite Mukasey's refusal to disavow waterboarding as torture? I understand the politics here, but still this is a sad moment for me.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/


Posted by: _Colin | November 1, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

that looks like Dem math allright. Only problem is....you are a moonbat. the english language is very descriptive and the term fits you like a glove.

Moonbat (also "barking moonbat" and "moonbat crazy") is a term often used currently in U.S. politics as a political epithet referring to anyone that is liberal or on the left.

According to an article by New York Times language maven William Safire, the term was first used by the famous science fiction author Robert A. Heinlein in 1947. Heinlein used the term in a 1947 short story, "Space Jockey", as the name of the third stage of a rocket bound for the moon.

The term has been used by three columnists at the Boston Herald newspaper. Howie Carr uses the term regularly in his columns. Margery Eagan, another Herald columnist, has used the term several times to characterize some supporters of Democratic governor Deval Patrick, and Michael Graham has also used the term.

It also refers to a certain idiot found on the WaPo blog who uses the screen name - Loudon voter but who is more widely known for his true character trait as "Loud and Dumb". Others on this blog are also characterized as loony left moonbats - you know who you are.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

"Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated," according to Sheik Omar Jabouri, spokesman for the Iraqi Islamic Party and a member of the widespread and influential Jabouri Tribe. Speaking through an interpreter at a 31 October meeting at the Iraqi Islamic Party headquarters in downtown Baghdad, Sheik Omar said that al Qaeda had been "defeated mentally, and therefore is defeated physically," referring to how clear it has become that the terrorist group's tactics have backfired.

take it back Dirty Harry!

http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/iraqi-islamic-party-says-al-qaeda-is-defeated.htm

is the war really lost - or just your dreams of a continuing majority.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I'll deal with koz and proud in one post so as not to clutter the board like those two.

koz: Malkin is the only blogger who uses the term moonbat. You're the only poster on here who uses the term moonbat. I've done the math: (Malkin + moonbat) + (KOZ + moonbat) = KOZ is a freak.

proud: uh, I think you need a refresher course in reading. Your screen name, far from "offending" my "sensibilities," instead allows me to consider your posts about the Democrats to be nothing but clutter. Your screen name is in fact a useful tip to the lack of usefullness in your posts about Democrats.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Proud - well done. What can you expect from someone who finds their identity in the fact that they vote. Hey look at me - I vote. Listen to me, I know stuff. I like to use cutesy names like Ace and numbnuts. I haven't progressed much since middle school. But I vote.

And if you don't agree with him/her/it, you won't be read. What a terrifying threat.

But seriously Loud and dumb, what do you offer us of value? Keep in mind my whole goal in life is to somehow sway your single vote over to my side. that is why we GOPs blog here. to convert votes of the immature and helpless. That is why we target you. we know drindl is way too far gone, but there is hope for you. you are obviously maleable.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Apparently my screen name has offended loudon's sensibilities. Excellent! I will consider that a success, and carry on ignoring his vapid postings as per usual.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 1, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Because you are a numbnuts moonbat, Ace.

If the shoe fits. who else would proclaim that only committed moonbats should be read on this blog? answer - a committed moonbat.
Afraid of a little reality creeping into your shadowy world?

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Most women I've heard talk about this (albeit the few clinton supporters) feel as if she was "jumped on" by the men in the race.

Amazing how gender is played in this race as a matter of convenience.

When she was attacking the right-wing machine, she was thought as "strong, a fighter etc" In fact, she reveled in being the one who has "fought the right-wing machine and has always come out on top"

Oh how the times have changed.

Now, her gender is conveniently important when she's being challenged as if it's unfair.

Her challengers can't talk about her marriage.

Can't talk about her time in the white house because the papers are under lock and key.

Can't talk about her untrustworthiness because it's unfair.

Can't challenge her in a debate because it's pile on.

Can't call her by her first name.

What's next,

Can't stand to close to her because it's harrassment?

Posted by: dcis1 | November 1, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Colin, if you read my post again you would see that I said MH had asserted himself against torture. Period. I was sure that I had heard that in 2 R debates.

I did not know where he stood on unitary executive theory, but your post troubles me [more than why he pardoned a child molester]. Do you have a cite? I will read his web page again, in an hour or so.


Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 1, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

proud: Here's the problem. Your screen name indicates that you are a strong partisan. Not a conservative, just a partisan. So why should anyone believe that anything you have to say about the Democratic candidates now is nothing but a calculated effort to get the weakest possible candidate in the general election as the opponent for your party's candidate. For you, party is preeminent. At least your honest about that, but it undercuts your credibility.

Therefore, I just can't take you seriously -- all because of your screen name. Most of the other regular posters at least hold out the possibility of their voting for a candidate of either party. Not so in your case.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

In a baffling display of censorship Loudonvoter writes: "Strong partisans have no business butting in until the other party has chosen its candidate."

Need I remind you that this is a platform to comment on local, state and national politics and political news. More communication and sharing of ideas is always preferable in a free society, even if those opinions are at odds with your own.

Have you never read a post and had your mind changed, or thought "Gee, I never thought of the issue like that"? I have. Right here on the Fix, from posters with whom I generally disagree.

Your decision to read or not read others' postings is completely up to you. However, attempts to silence dissent, opposition and alternative viewpoints is not very democratic of you and I doubt many will agree with it, despite their partisanship.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 1, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink, you want some examples of whining? Look at CC's post. He describes Hillary's media strategy of acting like a scared woman who's being bullied by mean nasty men. Complaining about your opponents' criticisms, especially such mild criticisms, is whining. So is referring to anyone who dislikes your candidate as "Hillary Haters", for that matter.

Posted by: Blarg | November 1, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Proud: I have found no "Whining" by Hillary or any of her supporters. By you and other "Hillary Haters" to keep repeating this does not make it so. Appears you are up to your usual [create something that does not exist] dis-information speel. The cable media is doing the same thing. Not working according to snap pooling.

Posted by: lylepink | November 1, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I was pretty disgusted with the debate. Regardless of who they were aimed at, Russert should try to ask questions that might actually let the voters get some good information, instead of always, always playing "gotcha." It's even more irritating when all the "gotchas" are aimed at one candidate and the others get questions that are easy, or else opportunities to criticize that same candidate. I thought Hillary did an admirable job under the circumstances. Heck Obama gets nervous when he answers a softball question and Edwards' people can't even manage to smack down those old attacks about his haircut and new house.

Obama, Edwards should try building support on their own terms instead of going negative. If for no other reason, it's terrible strategy - that worked out great for Dean-Gephardt's mutually assured destruction in Iowa last time around!

Chris Matthews is nuts, who takes that guy seriously? For real.

Posted by: alyce_b | November 1, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

proud: I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying I shouldn't expect Democrats to comment on the next GOP debate? You're right. Strong partisans have no business butting in until the other party has chosen its candidate.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

there you go with "moonbats" again. Your keyboard must be stuck. Wonder why that is.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

hey numbnuts - "you look like you've just finished masturbating to Michelle Malkin's blog."

what are you twelve? you seem to have a fascination with this particular activity and person. Are you cutting class today junior? Are all your posts scatalogical and perverse, Ace? R U BFF w/ Malkin? Or just dream it?

what a funny lot you moonbats are. Existing in a world where Krazy Keith delivers the "news".

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Loudon, I'll remember you said that after the next R debate.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 1, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

proud: serious question: Why do you comment incessantly on Democratic intra-party activities? You're not going to vote for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is. Given your screen name why should anyone spend a second reading anything you have to say about Democrats?

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Game for everyone!

We can still safely assume that Clinton will be one of the two or three candidates who will make it through the primaries. My question: out of the supporters of all of the other candidates, how many will turn to support Clinton if theirs calls it quits? Obviously this will depend a bit on who the other two are, too, but Clinton has a pretty clear "market segment" that her supporters will fall in.

My guesses:

Biden: 70%
Dodd: 40%
Edwards: 10%
Gravel: 10%
Kuchinich: 5%
Obama: 15%
Richardson: 35%

If you like, include the splits for matchups that you think are likely: Clinton-Obama, Clinton-Biden, whatever.

Posted by: roo_P | November 1, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

"Personally, I can't stand Hillary's campaign tactic of a "poor woman attacked by those mean men." Pleeeeeze."

Truthhunter, I agree 110%. Poor little Hillary...gimme a break! Playing the gender card will not garner her any more support, imo. Especially so early on. Dang, they just took the gloves off and whadya know, she's starts whining right away.

That's the only way her team can spin it, I guess. It wouldn't look good to admit that she blew it in the debate and it had n o t h i n g to do with her being the only woman.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 1, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"So how do you define best leader?"

Leadership is a quality wherein someone (the leader) can inspire people to do things they otherwise might be disinclined to do.

I do not see evidence of Leadership in HRC. If you look at the Senate careers of McCain and Biden (as examples), there is evidence of leadership, of building coalitions - bipartisan coalitions - for the purpose of achieving common goals. I think there are multiple candidates who are more suited to this role than HRC.

Posted by: bsimon | November 1, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: "Independant of the alleged 'toughest broad' credentials, shouldn't we be selecting a President based on who is the best leader for the country, not on who is most likely to penetrate a glass ceiling unscathed?"

Problem: Who among the current crop of candidates would you say fits that description? Someone who is competent but colorless? How about charismatic but divisive? And don't even start talking about someone who can "unite the country. That's just laughable.

So how do you define best leader?

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

here's the story numbnuts, read for yourself:

http://www.sacbee.com/341/story/456858.html

BTW, do you really think anyone seriously thinks Pelosi won't be reelected? If so, you're far, far dumber than you look.

And regarding Kos, what is that? You seem quite familiar with it. Not me. And you really should at least try to stop using the word moonbat -- it makes you look like you've just finished masturbating to Michelle Malkin's blog.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

DonJasper asks
"Can anyone name a tougher broad than Hillary?"

Scroll up in the thread a bit; there're some interesting comments on Ann Richards.

Independant of the alleged 'toughest broad' credentials, shouldn't we be selecting a President based on who is the best leader for the country, not on who is most likely to penetrate a glass ceiling unscathed?

Posted by: bsimon | November 1, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I can't stand Hillary's campaign tactic of a "poor woman attacked by those mean men." Pleeeeeze.

It's demeaning to women, and I for one don't like to be talked down to and treated like a mindless nitwit.

Let's face it, Hillary is tougher than most campaigners in either party. Her media vapours have the opposite effect on me.

Without a doubt, Biden is gaining momentum in Iowa.... a "real stuff" kind of a leader groundswell.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | November 1, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Sorry dave, the devil made me do it:

'Still, this dialogue last night about Fred Thompson from Chris Matthews -- who is really just the slightly less restrained id version of most media stars -- is simply too extraordinary not to note:

Does [Fred Thompson] have sex appeal? I'm looking at this guy and I'm trying to find out the new order of things, and what works for women and what doesn't. Does this guy have some sort of thing going for him that I should notice? . . .

Gene, do you think there's a sex appeal for this guy, this sort of mature, older man, you know? He looks sort of seasoned and in charge of himself. What is this appeal? Because I keep star quality. You were throwing the word out, shining star, Ana Marie, before I checked you on it. . . .

Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man's shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of -- a little bit of cigar smoke? You know, whatever.

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

The first woman president is going to have to have skin as thick as old shoe leather - regardless of her politics. It would probably help to have a husband that has been known to cheat on her - to see how she deals with public/personal humiliation.

We all know you can tell a Republican by their slime, and the first b*tch would have to show she could deal with unsavory personal issues being discussed in public.

Can anyone name a tougher broad than Hillary?

It's a wonder that Osama could keep a straight face while trying to link Hillary to 'business as usual'. Or as the 'establishment' candidate.

Posted by: DonJasper | November 1, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

GordonsGirl,
"Anybody notice how little press Obama's getting for saying he believes Spitzer is right? Not much... WHY??? Because he simply TOOK A STAND." So did Dodd and it was not the stand that sits well with liberals. Why is nobody talking about that? Rest assured, if Obama wins the D nomination, they'll be talking about it.

Posted by: dave | November 1, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Loud and dumb - was that in CA only, nationwide, district by district? what happened to your own proclaimed metric? It would help if you actually thought a single idea throught before cutting it from Kos and pasting it here.

I don't know why I am engaging moonbats today but here goes:

Drindl - recruiting for new soldiers is very sensitive to unemployment in the general population. you see the pay is low (something like .89 of the civilian pay) and the work is dangerous at times - mostly the armor and infantry. when we have a long period of record unemployment, you should expect that military recruting will be a challenge.

But I am sure these facts don't comport with your surrender-crat world view. Low unemployment is not something that can be attributed to Bush. Only poor recruting.

HHoooowwwlll.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

"they said all those things, dave, and much more -- you want links?" I'm sure they did and that proves they are republicans. Please don't send links, I can't deal with hyperventilation this afternoon...

Posted by: dave | November 1, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

From a recent Sacramento Bee story on approval ratings:

"Still, the Democrats now in charge of Congress fared better than Republicans, with a 34 percent approval rating compared to 20 percent for the GOP."

Sorry to bust your puny nads, Zouk, but you really shouldn't be holding your breath for a GOP retake of Congress next year.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

they need you, zouk. go for it! they'll take anybody now, even those with very low IQs and violent tendencies, even criminal records:

'WASHINGTON -- The Army began its recruiting year Oct. 1 with fewer signed up for basic training than in any year since it became an all-volunteer service in 1973, a top general said Wednesday.

Gen. William S. Wallace, whose duties as commander of Army Training and Doctrine Command include management of recruiting, told reporters at the Pentagon that the historic dip will make it harder to achieve the full-year recruiting goal _ after just barely reaching it in the year ended Sept. 30.

Achieving the Army's recruiting goals _ a challenge in the best of times _ is not only more difficult now but also of more consequence. That is because the Army has decided that it must grow its active-duty force by several thousand soldiers a year in order to relieve strain on war-weary troops.'

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

This 48-year-old woman is embarrassed for all her fellow females crying that Hillary was beat up on. Come ON, everybody!!! You can't have it both ways - a female candidate who must always get special treatment simply due to her gender. If HRC is as tough as she wants us to believe, she must show a thicker skin. Trust me, what she received Tuesday evening is child's play compared to what the GOP has waiting for her.

This post-debate cry of victimhood only confirms what I've long suspected: HRC is not the woman she wants us to think she is. John Edwards was right: Stop running a campaign and simply tell the truth.

Anybody notice how little press Obama's getting for saying he believes Spitzer is right? Not much... WHY??? Because he simply TOOK A STAND.

Posted by: GordonsGirl | November 1, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

KOZ: "just more in the long line of insults aimed at your fellow bloggers. try for once to deal with the candidates or issues."

Try reading some of your own posts, sniveler.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

they said all those things, dave, and much more -- you want links?

oh look - we're winning!


'Uneasy U.S. diplomats yesterday challenged senior State Department officials in unusually blunt terms over a decision to order some of them to serve at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad or risk losing their jobs.

At a town hall meeting in the department's main auditorium attended by hundreds of Foreign Service officers, some of them criticized fundamental aspects of State's personnel policies in Iraq. They took issue with the size of the embassy -- the biggest in U.S. history -- and the inadequate training they received before being sent to serve in a war zone. One woman said she returned from a tour in Basra with post-traumatic stress disorder only to find that the State Department would not authorize medical treatment.

Yesterday's internal dissension came amid rising public doubts about diplomatic progress in Iraq and congressional inquiries into the department's spending on the embassy and its management of private security contractors. Some participants asked how diplomacy could be practiced when the embassy itself, inside the fortified Green Zone, is under frequent fire and officials can travel outside only under heavy guard.'

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

didn't you all already know that Russert, Oddball Mathews, Obama and Edwards are all an important part of the VRWC?

Everyone is. but you also know that any issue which requires a decision is just a Republican talking point. no need to respond when you are the victim.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Alls fair in love and war they say.
In sports, its not always easy to win. Its even tougher when the refs work against you as well.
'Meet The Press' just lost a viewer. Tim Russert, someone I admired (past tense) did a huge dis-service to the public by being the seventh dwarf in Philly. I am a Republican, not a proud one, but one non-the-less, and we were treated much differently in our debates. That's sad.
The conversations around my office is, 'there are two men who is responsible for Hillary Clinton's success, Bill Clinton because of his popularity and George Bush because of his administrations hipocracy,corruptness and incompetence.
After this last Democratic Debate, let me suggest the list of people most responsible for the success of Hillary Clinton grew by 7. Good by 'Meet The Press' and the 'hacker' Tim Russert.

Posted by: gary | November 1, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

claudialong - "saying stuff about republican men like, they have such big shoulders and smell so manly" No really, stop - you're making my sides hurt! I can't catch my breath!

Posted by: dave | November 1, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Best Moment, Period:

When Hillary got visibly angry when her competitors razzed her for her very, err, confusing answer on Spitzer's license plan. Both Dodd and Obama got the best of her, and Obama had the audience laughing at her rambling, "meaning of is" hair-splitting.

She raised her voice--yes, even more!--and got a flush in her cheeks. Methinks tougher attacks from a Republican candidate will make her crack into full Cruella Deville mode. Let's get this party started quickly.

yiiiikkkess - the truth is finally emerging

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton, I'd like to follow up, because in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave?

Because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012."

Clinton hemmed and hawed about the processes of the archives, and moving at the speed the bureaucracy--Way to show that get-'er-done spirit, Hill! Can't wait to see you get to work on the whole federal government!--when she knows full well she could speed the process along and ask Bill to remove his rule. Russert, undeterred, plows on:

"But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?"

Clinton: "That's not my decision to make." Uh-huh.

Another great one from Russert: "Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up which goes to the issue of credibility. You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you would consider taxing, lifting the cap from $97,500, taxing that, raising more money for Social Security. You said, quote, It's a no. I asked you the same question in New Hampshire, and you said no.

Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman, a teacher, and had a conversation with him saying, I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000. You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying that.

Why do you have one public position and one private position?"

On the Social Security crisis, which Hill claims doesn't exist anymore, Russert strikes again: "You call it a Republican talking point. Georgetown University, February 9, 1998: We are in a -- heading to a looming fiscal crisis in Social Security. If nothing is done, it will require a huge tax increase in the payroll tax or a 25 percent in Social Security benefits, Bill Clinton, 1998... Is that a Republican talking point?"


the lies and vacant answers are starting to unravel.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

My fellow moonbats:

"Hillary succumbed to the Left's favorite bogeyman--the stolen election!

"Well, I think we were making progress in the 1990s and I am very proud of the progress were making until, unfortunately, the Supreme Court handed the presidency to George Bush, and we have been living with the consequences ever since."


and don't forget world trade center building 7. HHhoooowwwwlllllll

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

so, lots of time on your hands, koz? what did you say you did for a lving again? collect welfare checks?

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

The decrease in casualties in Iraq is directly related to the decrease in the mentions of Iraq in Democrat debates. I wonder why they don't want to talk about it?

Sept. 26 debate: 56
Oct. 30 debate: 44

MK Ham

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

'I need to find a new party...'

I would strongly suggest that in any case dave. Looks like yours is going to tank in the next election.

as far as what they did before -- that is irrelevant. hillary clinton was president of the college republicans. is she still a republlian, dave? i have been watching them viciously attacking democrats for years with my own eyes and saying stuff about republican men like, they have such big shoulders and smell so manly -- it's pretty easy to see where their affection lies.

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

loud and dumb - do you just play at ignorance or is it inbred? I specifically said those ratings were in their own districts. I guess the urge to repeat lame Kos talking points was just too strong. but you moonbats don't often make any sense, why should we expect anything different?

and as usual your input adds nothing of substance to the debate - just more in the long line of insults aimed at your fellow bloggers. try for once to deal with the candidates or issues. you would have to engage what the rest of us call reason but you may be able to do this, despite the evidence so far.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

claudialong,
"Mathews and Russert and all the other R 'centrist' pundits in the DC cocktail weenie circuit are so terrified a Dem will win and they won't be invited to the cool parties anymoe that they are going to go after Hilary with everything they've got."

This is so laughable that I'm literally disturbing my co-workers. What did stalwart Republicans Mathews, Russert and Brian Williams do before they got media jobs? Before joining NBC News, Russert served as counselor in New York Governor Mario Cuomo's office in Albany in 1983 to 1984 and was chief of staff to Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan from 1977 to 1982. Matthews has worked for four Democratic politicians. He was a presidential speechwriter for four years during the Carter administration. He served as a top aide to long-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O'Neill for six years. He worked in the U.S. Senate for five years on the staffs of Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie before himself campaigning for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, and losing his party's nomination to Pennsylvania Congressman Joshua Eilberg in the Democratic primary in 1974. College dropout Brian Williams took an internship with the administration of President Jimmy Carter. If this lineage constitutes the center of the Republican party, I need to find a new party...

Posted by: dave | November 1, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the laugh, koz. Your lunatic incoherence is always amusing. You seem to get more humorously inane every day.

Mark and other who are interested in Huck check this out. The rape victim, Ashley Stevens, was a cousin of Clinton's and a high-school student. This from the Arkansas papers:

'But the Times' new reporting shows the extent to which Huckabee and a key aide were involved in the process to win Dumond's release. It was a process marked by deviation from accepted parole practice and direct personal lobbying by the governor, in an apparently illegal and unrecorded closed-door meeting with the parole board (the informal name by which the Post Prison Transfer Board is known).

http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=154e1aad-fd18-4efd-8d80-b5dab8559419

All this to free an animal who raped a child. I could never vote for this man.

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Just because I haven't answered a single question yet doesn't mean I am going to start now. all this endless questioning is just piling on. I don't have to answer questions. bill said so. those answers are sealed until 2012.

the blue dress democrat

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

to Kingofzouk:If it's so wonderful over there,are you planning a vacation soon to see all of our wonderful work??
Al Quaeda isn't dead or gone,it's stronger than ever,remember,the REAL Al Quaeda is in Afghanistan.What a moron!!!!
Iraq is nothing but corruption and death and I'm sure that Iraqi civilians would side with me on this one. They are still a country with no country. They are an occupational haven for the Big Oil giants,that's all.
As long as Bin Laden is running around,
we've lost. He did more than just destroy the twin towers in New York.Let's see,6yrs and 4000 troops dead,30,000 injured,untold Iraqi civilian death,in the 100's of thousands,we'll never know,millions displaced,2.? trillion dollars stolen,our Constitution in tatters,foreclosures on the rise,our country dividing as we write,
Yeah,we won. What a moron!

Posted by: jime2000 | November 1, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Once again, KOZ is laboring under the mistaken belief that voters vote for "Congress" and that anyone outside Nevada or San Francisco can vote for Reid or Pelosi.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

The kingofzouk posting protocol:

Pelosi, Reid, blah blah blah. Moonbat, Kos, blah blah blah. Ignorant coward blah blah blah blah. MoveOn Rufas blah blah blah.

Insult vigorously and nastily while simultanteously accusing others of being insulting and nasty.

Repeat ad infinitum.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

The political strategy is clear enough. Mrs. Clinton wants to roll to her party's nomination on a tide of "inevitability" while disguising her real agenda as much as possible. But Democratic voters ought to consider whether they want to put all their hopes for retaking the White House on Mrs. Clinton's ability to obfuscate like her husband without his preternatural talent for it. Aside from lacking her husband's political gifts, Hillary's challenge is that we've all seen this movie before. And performances like Tuesday's might be enough to convince voters to opt for a candidate who is his own man.

good luck with that, you're going to need it. Even with the GOP brand at a 20 year low, the Dems poll even. Pelosi is below 505 in her own district. Reid is below 30% in his. congress as a whole is down near 11% - a record in miasma.

As long as the Dems keep doing what they do, and the people find out what the facts are, the GOPs will stage a huge come back. how could they not against an opponent like that?

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Ugh. I have Clinton fatigue. You'd think there were no other Democrat candidates to write about...

Posted by: soonerthought | November 1, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton was especially clumsy in trying to evade any clear position on New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's proposal to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. When asked why, in her words, it "makes a lot of sense" to give licenses to illegals, her first answer sounded like an endorsement. Mr. Spitzer is trying to "fill the vacuum left by the failure of this Administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform," she said.

But after Senator Chris Dodd disagreed, calling a license a "privilege" not a right, she broke in a moment later to clarify: "I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it." This prompted Mr. Dodd to interject that her second answer didn't sound like her first. So Mr. Russert tried again: "Do you support [Mr. Spitzer's] plan?"

"You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha," Mrs. Clinton replied. "It [Spitzer's proposal] makes a lot of sense." So, she does support it? Unfortunately, she wasn't done speaking. "Do I think this is the best thing for any Governor to do? No." At that point, Mr. Williams changed the subject.

Huh?????

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

In the 1990s, "Clintonesque" became a by-word for political double-speak. We even became, briefly, a nation of deconstructionists when President Bill Clinton mused on the meaning of "is."

Such existential questions seemed to be in the past. But with another Clinton running as if she's all but a sure thing for the White House, Clintonesque is once again becoming a politically relevant adjective. In Tuesday night's Democratic Presidential debate, the moderators and Hillary Clinton's fellow panelists took pains to pin her down on one question after another, without notable success. The junior Senator from New York seems increasingly to have adopted her husband's political methods, minus the savoir-faire. The result is that it's impossible to know what she believes about anything.

On Iran's nuclear ambitions, moderator Brian Williams asked a number of the candidates what their "red line" was. As he put it to Barack Obama, "What would make it crystal clear in your mind that" the U.S. "should attack Iran?" When he repeated the question to Senator Clinton, her answer was, in sum, "I think that what we're trying to do here is put pressure on the Bush Administration." She added, "we've got to rein him in." And, no, she didn't mean Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. When pressed by Mr. Williams, she clarified, in a way. "We're not in my view, rushing to war. We should not be doing that. But we shouldn't be doing nothing."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010809

Indeed!


Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

'Drindl -- Out of curiosity, do I intuit from your comments that you now support Hillary? '

No Colin, I just sent some $ to Biden. He's my choice at this point. I had some issues with him and some of his votes, but his performances lately -- and his stands -- have been strong and sensible.

But like I said, I intend to vote D this time in the hopes of shocking the R party into returning to some rational form of conservatism, instead of whatever lunatic neocon fantasy they are pursuing now..

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

drindl - are you now filling the role of both rufas and Ignorant coward?

you can tell us now, you were ignorant coward all along weren't you?

Are you even capable of independent thought or do you just spew every moveon/Kos talking point you can find. I must assume that the writing biz is slow these days, so much time on your hands.

If you ever come to the realization of a single fact, I would be happy to humiliate your views. Until then, your rampant emotionalism is worthy of ridicule.

you and your kind are most certainly what we call the

Blue Dress Democrats

and moreover - the moonbat loons of the left. Try to say soemthing on point for once. Until then I am sure your constant spate of insults and innuendo will continue unabated. We thinking bloggers will mostly ignore you. and the votes you seek in the way of

Hillary for intern

just won't materialize. Of course, an intern might get bill's attention. that would be something new and different.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

I find it odd that the "I'm just a girl" and "piling on" defense did not seem to be a problem for Democrats when it was used during her campaign against Rick Lazio. What has changed? And a better question, if she wins the nomination, will it be a problem with Democrats in the general election?

Posted by: dave | November 1, 2007 10:33 AM

Dave, the short answer is that Lazio crossed a line when he pushed the clipboard at her. HRC backed away slightly, looking a little alarmed, and Lazio pushed it at her again, a little more vigorously. Just in terms of body language and gender dynamics, it was an uncomfortable moment, and Lazio's campaign was essentially finished.

So, physical intimidation: bad; verbal jousting: okay, and quit whining about it, Team Hillary.

Posted by: novamatt | November 1, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

'I suspect that at least McCain, Romney & Huckabee would not be as similar to Bush as they would have primary voters believe. I am absolutely convinced that McCain, warts and all, would be a superior President to HRC. The jury is out on Huckabee and Romney.'

Romney is an absolute zero -- an empty suit, a puppet. He will do exactly as his RNC masters bid him do. Huckabee I used to have more respect for. Now I find out that he went to a great deal of trouble to have a rapist released early from prison -- because the rape victim was a cousin of Bill Clinton's. I have links for this, btw. He even wrote the rapist a nice letter. So then the guy goes out and murders a woman. So I question his judgement and I think he's a lot further right than you know.

McCain, on the other hand, I do respect. However, I doubt if he would be much different than Hillary as a president--he has pandered jusst as much and been as dishonest as her since his campaign began. He licks the boots of the ayatollahs and that makes me sick.

No they are not all alike, but they are all repellent to me, except I could live with McCain, same as with Hillary, if push comes to shove. I do not want either a theocracy or a dictatorship, and that's why I'm oting D.

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Mark -- Other than McCain, who is the other R that you see as favoring good government? Huckabee, if that's your #2, has indicated that he does favor the unitary executive and has engaged in the same "lets expand Guantanimo" rhetoric as the rest of the GOP field. Curious to hear your thoughts.

Drindl -- Out of curiosity, do I intuit from your comments that you now support Hillary? I ask b/c I was under the impression that you disfavored her for some of the same reasons I do. Also, I would add that Hillary is definitely trying to "play the gender card" if you look at her campaign strategy. This "piling on" BS is just silly. You can't run an "inevitability" campaign and then credibly complain when other candidates rightfully focus on your errors and weaknesses.

Posted by: _Colin | November 1, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

I disagree with Senator Clinton on a number of her positions but the slugfest that the media staged the other night so that her six male rivals and the two pompous moderators could use her as a punchbag was one of the more disgraceful political media events staged for a while.
This was a sorry display of a bunch of guys indignant that a woman has so far topped them in polls and of two full-of-themselves talking heads who acted on behalf of many in the media that were eager for a brawl.
On this see also,
http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2007/11/eight-guys-poun.html

Posted by: bn1123 | November 1, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

drindl, After watching Podhoretz perform, RG is not on my list of possibles. I now have 6Ds and 2Rs on my possibles and only one of the Rs is the one who has proven again and again that he believes in transparent government. He is also the one [RadPat will remind me that Paul, also, is on my side about this] who is least likely of all to hide behind the theory of the unitary executive, and the 2Rs on my list both reject torture in no uncertain terms. You know that "process stuff" is more important to me than ideology, but I mention it because you have been lumping all Rs together and they are not, any more than are all Ds. I'll bet bsimon has a similar take.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 1, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

And to think I USED TO like Chris Matthews.What has gotten into him? It's almost comical the way he berates Hillary on his show,which I will no longer watch. During the debates and then the follow-ups on MSNBC made it seem like I was watching Faux News. All of the Hillary haters write nothing but talking points from Faux News or worse Rush Limpaugh. Why is it when Chris asks someone a question about Hillary and doesn't get the answer he's looking for he cuts them off? When announcers become too subjective with their own interests,they should not be allowed on the air. It was disgraceful all around that night. It looked more like a "Get Hillary" debate than a true debate about the issues. Tim Russert should not be allowed to moderate another debate.It was despicable the way he looked while attacking,not questioning,Hillary. If he did that in the Republican debates he'd be fired. I say let Keith Olbermann moderate the next Rep. debate and use the same tactics on them. It would be fun to see those losers crack under pressure, something that Hillary did not do. All this krap about double-speak is because you don't listen to her,only what you want to hear. How about Mitts' flip-flops,too numerous to mention,or Rudys' just tossing out numbers with no factual data to back them up?? Hillary has my vote because she does have the best interests for the people who need it most. Irregardless what you say or write or feel about her,you know I'm right.
And thank you campaigndiaries,I looked at those poll results you posted and knew that the people are tired of this lying and stealing from the Republicans and just overall BS coming from the Neos' and the MSM. I'm sorry that Joe Biden isn't given more time like the other top three because he is the best out of any candidate,be it Dem or Rep. My only hope would be that he's chosen as Vice Pres,which he would do a great job.

Clinton/Biden 08'

They'll give our country back to us.

Posted by: jime2000 | November 1, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

What measures of success do critics of Iraq's liberation now demand?

Violence is falling fast. Al Qaida has been crippled. The Shiites, Kurds and Marsh Arabs no longer face genocide.

What's more, the country has stayed unified. The majority now rules. Despite that, minority Sunni leaders are co-operating in government with Shiite ones. There is no civil war. The Kurds have not broken away. Iran has not turned Iraq into its puppet.

And the country's institutions are getting stronger. The Iraqi army is now at full strength, at least in numbers. The country has a vigorous media. A democratic constitution has been adopted and backed by a popular vote. Election after election has Iraqis turning up in their millions.

Add it all up. Iraq not only remains a democracy, but shows no sign of collapse. I repeat: the battle for a free Iraq has been won.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22687841-5000117,00.html

We win. they lose. what will Dems say?

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Coffee break. Boko - In metro Austin I know dozens of Rs and none have Romney even on their radar, but I am sure they would vote for him if he were the nominee.

Even in TX, Rs are not a majority of voters. But the Is will tend to vote R in a national race. KBH would seal that. Of course, MH would probably seal it, too. Judging by the recent Governor's race, we have:

39% Rs, 30% Ds, and 31% Is.

If there is still an R race with all the players in it when TX votes in March, it will not help Romney. I think the other 4 will finish ahead of him.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 1, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Women are certainly not alone in sizing up their presidential candidate based on breasts, lipstick shade and the "you go girl" factor. Plenty of Repugs picked the current prez (twice!) on how he looked clearing fake brush and strutting around on an aircraft carrier with a sock in his jumpsuit.

Posted by: slavin2 | November 1, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

one more thing about rudy--an investigation now takingplace about this:

The radios used by the FDNY on 9/11 were precisely the same ones that malfunctioned during the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. Eight years after that attack, Giuliani did replace the defective equipment. But the new radios he bought under a no-bid, $14 million contract from Motorola (the previous contract was $1.4 million) were never field-tested. The "upgrade" proved disastrous. Within a week, the just-purchased radios were recalled after a firefighter's mayday went un-heard. Giuliani was forced to reissue the old, faulty batch. And on 9/11 when a police helicopter warned that the North Tower would collapse, more than 120 firefighters remained inside.

"The radios failed them and that was Giuliani failing them," says Roseleen Tallon, whose brother Sean was an FDNY member killed in 9/11.'

Giuliani's office did not return calls requesting comment.

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"While I agree with you about the Dems, seriously, which R do you think could be better? I don't see it... Every republican who runs now haa a nearly monolithic agenda -- exactly the same one as George Wl bush. Not a one of them would do anything much different."


Well, therein lies the problem. Much like HRC is campaigning firstly on name recognition, secondly on nostalgia, I think the Rs are currently campaigning primarily on fear of HRC specifically & liberalism in general. In other words, I suspect that at least McCain, Romney & Huckabee would not be as similar to Bush as they would have primary voters believe. I am absolutely convinced that McCain, warts and all, would be a superior President to HRC. The jury is out on Huckabee and Romney.

Posted by: bsimon | November 1, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

And to think I USED TO like Chris Matthews.What has gotten into him? It's almost comical the way he berates Hillary on his show,which I will no longer watch. During the debates and then the follow-ups on MSNBC made it seem like I was watching Faux News. All of the Hillary haters write nothing but talking points from Faux News or worse Rush Limpaugh. Why is it when Chris asks someone a question about Hillary and doesn't get the answer he's looking for he cuts them off? When announcers become too subjective with their own interests,they should not be allowed on the air. It was disgraceful all around that night. It looked more like a "Get Hillary" debate than a true debate about the issues. Tim Russert should not be allowed to moderate another debate.It was despicable the way he looked while attacking,not questioning,Hillary. If he did that in the Republican debates he'd be fired. I say let Keith Olbermann moderate the next Rep. debate and use the same tactics on them. It would be fun to see those losers crack under pressure, something that Hillary did not do. All this krap about double-speak is because you don't listen to her,only what you want to hear. How about Mitts' flip-flops,too numerous to mention,or Rudys' just tossing out numbers with no factual data to back them up?? Hillary has my vote because she does have the best interests for the people who need it most. Irregardless what you say or write or feel about her,you know I'm right.
And thank you campaigndiaries,I looked at those poll results you posted and knew that the people are tired of this lying and stealing from the Republicans and just overall BS coming from the Neos' and the MSM. I'm sorry that Joe Biden isn't given more time like the other top three because he is the best out of any candidate,be it Dem or Rep. My only hope would be that he's chosen as Vice Pres,which he would do a great job.

Clinton/Biden 08'

They'll give our country back to us.

Posted by: jime2000 | November 1, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

The question is really, do you want four more years of exactly what we have now? Becuase if we elect another R, that is precisely what we will get...you know, Rudy the frontrunner's, idea of foreign policy is that we have to start 3 more wars during his term -- we need 'regime change' in Egypt, Iran and Syria. How long before the entire Muslim world, including the nukes of Pakistan, and possibly Russia and China, come at us with everything they've got?

You might not like Hillary, but at least she's not insane.

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

boooo, the scary vagina monster is coming for ya, chrissie. and all of your village pals -- cheney's buttboy tim russert, the neutered tucker 'i cross my legs when she talks' carlson, but most esp the drooling obsessive chris matthews. she's gonna squeeze those republican nuts until you all collapse in a puddle screaming for your mommies.

BOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Posted by: mycomment | November 1, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

boldbooks: Chris Matthews is a Clinton hater from way back when. I watched the "Morning Joe" show and heard some of his comments and nothing new there. I haven't talked to but a couple folks about the debate and they got a laugh as I did. This will continue until the Rs come up with another smear talking point.

Posted by: lylepink | November 1, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

'We can do better. Several of her Dem competitors and possibly a couple Repubs would be better Presidents than she.'

While I agree with you about the Dems, seriously, which R do you think could be better? I don't see it. And I agree with you, radpat, that it is irrational to vote for a candidate based on party--or rather, it used to be. Every republican who runs now haa a nearly monolithic agenda -- exactly the same one as George Wl bush. Not a one of them [except of course Ron Paul] would do anything much different.

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse

newsviews, I found elsewhere in the Post some coverage on the Debate. Kornblut & Balz report that "her advisers argued that the "piling on" engaged in by an all-male field of opponents will ultimately drive more female voters into her camp."

Yet they also report that "[her] rivals focused on her missteps, in particular what they said was her defensive tone on the issues of Social Security and how to approach Iran, her unwillingness to freely share her and her husband's White House papers from the 1990s, and especially her equivocation on the driver's-license issue."

Which says to me that, as usual, she is trying to change the subject from her lack of specificity and instead claim that the boys are picking on the girl. Why offer substance when there's political advantage to be gained by subterfuge and misrepresentation?

Posted by: bsimon | November 1, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

"bsimon" raises an intelligent point [from JD] that "I think JD was reasonably accurate in characterizing their [Hillary supporters'] support as being more based on sentimentality than a rational analysis of what an HRC administration would be."

Support for a candidate based on sentiment or gender or race, or even party, is based on an irrational approach. And as you also pointed out, President Bush-Cheney has set the bar/standards so low that almost any candidate looks good by comparison.

This is why a candidate's true character and true intelligence [beyond mere political cunning], though often hard to gauge, are nevertheless two of the more important qualities that do not emerge from these circus "debates." I do agree with those who on most all other points I disagree with--that the moderators and pundits and commentators and all the other clowns of the media circus are really quite pathetic in their biased uselessness.

Posted by: radicalpatriot | November 1, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Every woman in America should be outraged at the way the bullies attacked Hillary in Tuesday's debate. I was going to vote for Edwards but no more. I am now voting for Hillary. I may not agree with her positions on all issues but she showed more intelligence and common sense than all the other candidates put together. What was wrong with her answer on "a low tiered drivers license in New York for illegal aliens", it makes total sense until we can pass a real immigration bill. Clearly, most of the other's were influenced by media loud mouth idiots like Chris Matthews and the "Gotcha" Tim Russert that they fell into the trap set to stir up the debate. If the other candidates are that stupid, they do not deserve to be President. Three cheers to Biden and Richardson who did not bite the media's poison apple.

Posted by: newsviews | November 1, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

claudia writes
"No JD, what we want is someone who isn't a loony Republican with authoritarian tendencies."

I think you're talking about Dems in general, while JD was talking about HRC supporters specifically. In that regard, I think JD was reasonably accurate in characterizing their support as being more based on sentimentality than a rational analysis of what an HRC administration would be. While I think she would be an improvement over the current administration, I think that bar is set too low. We can do better. Several of her Dem competitors and possibly a couple Repubs would be better Presidents than she.

Posted by: bsimon | November 1, 2007 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Mathews and Russert and all the other R 'centrist' pundits in the DC cocktail weenie circuit are so terrified a Dem will win and they won't be invited to the cool parties anymoe that they are going to go after Hilary with everything they've got. Watch the media turn on her and go for the throat, once she gets the nomination, just like do every Dem.

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

That is, female voters tend to be more favorable than male voters toward Democratic candidates'

Which is why Ann Coulter says women shouldn't be allowed to vote...

No JD, what we want is someone who isn't a loony Republican with authoritarian tendencies...

boko, that was John Cole--funny guy. HIis formerly rightwing blog is http://www.balloon-juice.com/-- he's better at skewering the wingers than anyone as he used to one of them.

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 10:56 AM | Report abuse

This piling on bit is yet another media creation. For days before the debate pundits had been hyping how Obama had to go after Hillary. Russert was the main offender in part, IMO, because of the way Hillary made a fool of him on Meet the Press a few weeks ago. Then Chris Matthews, long a Clinton hater, comes along to back up Russert. I think Hillary did just fine and she is able to take care of herself. I have not found her "Whining" at all, but showing she can take on all comers in the political world.

Posted by: lylepink | November 1, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

kstack, you ask "in what is she an expert?"

Um... she is an expert in bringing Bubba back to the White House. Which is all her backers really want, nostalgia and all that.

Posted by: JD | November 1, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

drindl, who are you quoting in re: Soros and 40 virgins? (sorry to be slow on the uptake.)
Mark, if you're still checking this, how is Romney seen in Texas? would adding KBH to his (supposed) ticket be enough to swing votes there? He (Mitt) seems to me to be the least sincere, least authentic, most ego-driven candidate I can remember...
and on-topic, in general: I do not think Hillary was bullied in the debate. She may have had her positions challenged directly, and I support that - after all, she's running to be the leader of a democracy, in which she is (in theory) required to govern at least making reference to the will of the people. If she can't explain and defend her policies/positions clearly and persuasively, she's not the one I want in office. It is true, however, that the debate format is not adding to the flow of information. Those who did not see it could be excused for thinking that there were only 3 or 4 candidates.

Posted by: bokonon13 | November 1, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Chris -- You are on Hardball all the time. Tell me, has Chris Matthews lost his mind? He was on "Morning Joe" this morning claiming that Hillary was "laughing" about illegal immigration during the debate and just basically slandering her in the most horrible way possible. Is he drunk? Did Hillary reject a pass from him? Why do you guys continue to go on his show when he has such a bias against one candidate.

If Hillary is now so bad on illegal immigration, why isn't Rudy who actually sued the federal government to allow illegals to collect welfare checks?

Posted by: boldbooks | November 1, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

'Chris links to the Clinton campaign video 'the politics of pile on'. I haven't watched it; I get the impression that they aren't explicitly playing the gender card, but that the implication is there.'

Possibly, bsimon, but pile-on is a football term, and after all -- that's what they did. At this point, the debates ON BOTH SIDES have become nothing but piling on Hillary. I really can't remember another time when this was the case. Like I said, I'd prefer Elizabeth Edwards myself -- tough and as gracefful as them come, I met her once and she was really warm. But we got what we got--and the alternative is too terrifying to me to think about. A bloodthirsty dictator, and WW3.

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 10:38 AM | Report abuse

I find it odd that the "I'm just a girl" and "piling on" defense did not seem to be a problem for Democrats when it was used during her campaign against Rick Lazio. What has changed? And a better question, if she wins the nomination, will it be a problem with Democrats in the general election?

Posted by: dave | November 1, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Since the blog has come to this....This could be why women like Hillary in general.
When men stay home to take care of their children, it's called "babysitting." When I go on a business trip, I have to make sure that my husband makes sure to get my son's lunch money paid, and take care of other routine family things that just happen to be my responsibility. When he leaves for a business trip, he just goes. Things have come along for women. I don't think this falls upon my family exclusively at all. Most of my female collegues say the same thing.
Maybe that's part of the reason women like Hillary. She understands things that only other women can understand.

Posted by: badger3 | November 1, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Some blue state polls were out yesterday, allowing us to verify everything is as usual in California, Massachusetts (where everything is as usual) and Maryland (where it is too close for comfort). Full numbers: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/11/reviewing-blueness-of-some-blue-states.html

Posted by: campaigndiaries | November 1, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

The "gender gaps" you cite of women being more favorable than men toward Hillary also show up with male Democratic candidates (although admittedly to a bit lesser degree). That is, female voters tend to be more favorable than male voters toward Democratic candidates, whatever the gender of the candidate. So I think that those figures in relationship to Hillary and the nomination have little significance.

It is also true that some people have a visceral negative reaction to Hillary. To the extent that I have observed it, that visceral reaction is as likely to occur in women as in men (and is not necessarily related to where they might fall on the political spectrum.)

I think that the notion that women will support a female candidate regardless of the female candidate's positions is an extremely sexist viewpoint. I only hope that those who hold such a notion are very wrong, else my belief in the fundamental equality of women and men will be badly shaken.

Posted by: Stonecreek | November 1, 2007 10:25 AM | Report abuse

As a young woman who one day hopes to run for political office, I find the idea that the debate was a bunch of guys picking on Hillary laughable. Politics has never been for the meek of heart and just because a candidate is a woman does not automatically make her the damsel in distress trying to navigate her way through the fray. Hillary is a calculating politician who has time and again shown that she has no problem attacking rivals and defending herself. She has accepted and engaged in the culture of the "boys club". Her campaign has wholeheartedly adopted a theme of inevitability, so all of us should expect her to be harshly critiqued on why her ascension is so natural and expected. Once the discussion of policy begins and she is trying to perform the shifty politician shuffle, she is even more ripe for criticism. This is what politics is, using criticisms to differentiate the candidates. We should let it happen and be thankful that this will make our choices much easier.

Posted by: chrissyl | November 1, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

claudia- in paragraph 2, above, Chris links to the Clinton campaign video 'the politics of pile on'. I haven't watched it; I get the impression that they aren't explicitly playing the gender card, but that the implication is there.

My gut reaction is: Once again, the Clinton campaign wants to have it both ways.

Posted by: bsimon | November 1, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse

But I guess what you all want is Rudy and four more years of this:

'In a series of internal musings and memos to his staff, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld argued that Muslims avoid "physical labor" and wrote of the need to "keep elevating the threat," "link Iraq to Iran" and develop "bumper sticker statements" to rally public support for an increasingly unpopular war'.

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Has Hilary Clinton or her campaign itself complained about men 'attacking' her? Or are you all just jumping to conclusions?

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Grace under fire. Hillary will play the games she does now as that is her temperment and the mindset of the clintons in general. Remember how both reacted in the White house.
Unfortunately, both embody all the worse stereotypes of what Baby bommers are like.
It's all about them and what they want. Period. Hillary wants the presidency to win and to be a real president. both clintons crave the spotlight and attention. it's all about them.
So, don't look for grace.
I remember a few debates back when it was pile on Obama. I don't recall him pouting and raising a big deal and crying racism. He did handle that with extreem grace and good humor and dealt with it well and intelligently.
Same with Edwards with his haircuts story and even with his wife's illness (as well as Elizabeth. Pure grace).
But, never look for that or class or elan with the clintons.

Posted by: vwcat | November 1, 2007 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Two related facts:

1) We wouldn't be at war in Iraq if it didn't sit on a sea of oil.

2) 6 guys wouldn't be at war with Hillary if she didn't have a 20 point lead in some polls.

Posted by: rich5 | November 1, 2007 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Not an advocate, like I said, just reporting the news:

'One year before voters go to the polls to select the next president, the Republican Party is as weak as it has been in a generation, a detailed new poll suggests.

In a hypothetical match-up between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, bloc after bloc of traditionally Republican voters break for Clinton:

She wins the South.

She polls evenly with voters who attend church at least once a week.

She splits families with a household income above $100,000.

She loses rural voters and men -- but only by a narrow margin.

All are constituencies Republicans have dominated for decades; George W. Bush won each by double-digit margins.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6644.html

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Strangely I don't remember the media weeping for Howard Dean when, after assuming frontrunner status, the other candidates AND debate moderators began going after him hard. Honestly, this whole "don't gang up on her b/c she's a woman" stuff ought to be insulting to women everwhere. I am strongly supportive of electing a woman president in the abstract and agree 100% that sexism is alive and well. But insinuating that a woman of Hillary's academic and professional accomplishments, who has willingly signed up to compete for literally the most important job in the world, somehow should be treated with kid gloves is beyond the pale to me.

Posted by: _Colin | November 1, 2007 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Jenn, I sure miss Molly myself... and love Biden too. Wish he had a better chance...

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Good God, what was women's liberation all about anyway. Hillary touts her leadership in that movement and now seeks to hide behind the social conventions of the 50's. Women have come a very long way over the last 50 years and that has been a very good thing. My wife and especially my daughter, have benefited much from the changes. I find it both ironic and extremely retrograde that the first viable woman candidate for the most powerful position in the world would cry foul when the other candidates for that position, complained about her inconsistencies. This Queen of Go Girl has no clothes.

Posted by: ohlsonrw | November 1, 2007 9:57 AM | Report abuse

--and this...


'The new Pew Research poll shows Hillary Clinton leading Rudy Giuliani by a 51%-43% margin -- calling into question the conventional wisdom about Rudy's electability and Hillary's supposed lack thereof.'

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Biden would actually be my first choice and I loved the line about Giuliani. If Hillary wins, I hope she considers him for VP.

I think you're right that she must be tough under fire and graceful under pressure. Sure. But her opponents need to be careful about what they do, because even if she never does whine about it, people sometimes still perceive and treat women a little differently. Wasn't there some guy who refused to shake Ann Richards' hand and paid probably a higher price politically than he would have if she were a man. It is ungentlemanly to do to anyone, but the (Texas) public particularly didn't appreciate it towards a woman. And if I were a mean ol' dude like Giuliani, I would be doubly careful.

I remember Molly writing about it but I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

Posted by: Jenn2 | November 1, 2007 9:54 AM | Report abuse

RadPat, this has gotta be my last -

7 or 8 years ago, KBH adopted a kid and now she has adopted another. I believe that she really wants them in public school in Austin. And as you know, being Gov-TX is SO ez that she could be their mom at the same time.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 1, 2007 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Blarg, my tendency is to see this the way you did at 9:23A. This was the first forum that looked like a debate and as the casts winnow it will be ever more so.

However, as CC noted yesterday, the Philly forum was designed to "showcase" the three presumptive fronrunners. I thought that was silly - Biden used his six minutes better than anyone else used six minutes, but he had...six minutes.

So it is a fair criticism that the debate was set up as one where HRC
would generate much attention and heat.

If she is going to be the D nominee, she will see much more of this, but she must never complain
about it. She must be tough under fire and graceful under pressure.
Anything less is an Rx for defeat.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 1, 2007 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Mark, you asked me how people in NY feel about Rudy vs. Hillary -- those of us who have actually experienced both--here's your definitive answer:

'A new round of polling from SurveyUSA would seem to totally undermine a central claim of Rudy Giuliani's candidacy -- namely, that he can put some usually safe-Democratic state into contention.

"We need a candidate that, you know, the day after the nomination, we don't close down our offices in 20 or 25 states, like we've been doing," Rudy said recently to the Republican Jewish Coalition. "We don't win the next election if we don't run a campaign in New York and California. I tell you, we don't."

As it turns out, a poll released Monday showed Giuliani losing California to Hillary Clinton by a 55%-39% margin. And as for his home state of New York -- it's even worse, with Hillary beating Rudy by an astonishing 64%-30% margin in a poll released on Tuesday.'

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Well, if I could resuscitate Ann Richards or Molly Ivins, I would vote for either of them in a heartbeat. As it is, I'm just happy to be able to vote for someone with a (D) after their name who stands a chance at winning. Hillary isn't my first choice for Dem nominee, but like many Democrats, I don't really care all that much either. The important thing is that it is illegal for Bush to be president again.

Like many women, I'd like to see a woman elected, but it's not as if that trumps the need for competence and someone I can support. It's more like a little bonus than anything else. That being said, Jon Stewart said something last night along the lines of Hillary preparing her inaugural pantsuit and I just thought,

If she actually wins this thing, I want her to show up for the inauguration in a SKIRT suit.

Posted by: Jenn2 | November 1, 2007 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Mark--very interesting info on KBH. I don't want to turn this public blog into a personal exchange, but the topic here is politics and women.

Do you think, despite what she has said so far, that Kay would accept or even consider a VP slot on the Republican ticket? Or is she politically fixed (if at all) on the Governorship?

Posted by: radicalpatriot | November 1, 2007 9:40 AM | Report abuse

I had to post this from my favorite former republican:

'I had intended to register independent, but when I got there to do it, I had a moment of clarity- there seemed to be no point leaving the Republican party in protest and joining the unwashed masses. If I really was going to protest, it made no sense to not commit to the opposition party. Besides, as a Republican all these years, I never had any problem voting for libertarians, Democrats, etc., I don't see why being a Democrat will change anything. And, the 2008 election really is the most important election of my lifetime- the basic foundation of our country has been under assault for a while, now, and I want to vote in the Democratic primary as a Democrat, not as someone with no party affiliation. I want to send a message, and as small as this gesture (which should appropriately be interpreted as a middle f*nger to the GOP and not as a sloppy wet kiss to Nancy Pelosi) is, I want it to mean as much as possible. There is now one less Republican in WV, and one more Democrat.

Long story short, I got up there to register as an independent,, and now I am a Democrat. I certainly don't agree with all their positions, but they are not b*tsh*t crazy like the GOP. That has to count for something. Additionally, I no longer have to read posts by the 24% crowd calling me a "true conservative" with quotes o'sarcasm (you know who they are). Not any more,. I repudiate you, your party, and whatever the f*ck it is you are currently pretending is "conservatism." It isn't.

Now send me my check from Soros and the 40 v*rgins.'

This pretty much sums up the way I feel about the parties. I am not in love with the Dems, any of them, especially Hillary, BUT I wiill vote for any of them over continuing the nightmarish R creep toward a police state that we see now.

Like I said, I don't like her. But The aternative will be Rudy -- which would be the worst thing that could ever possibly happen to us.

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 9:36 AM | Report abuse

I take no issue with her opponents attacking Clinton. However, I do take issue with MSNBC and the moderators for being active advocates for her opponents.

There were 52 questions asked last night; 25 had to do with either Hillary or Bill Clinton, including very personal insinuations, with 22 of the 25 being abjectly hostile.

Tim Russert asked 26 questions; 14 were to Clinton, with 5 directly targeting her personally.

In contrast, Obama was asked about air travel, life beyond earth, and his Halloween costume.

Is it any wonder why some are questioning the methods and intentions of Russert, Williams, and MSNBC?

Further, for all the talk about Clinton avoiding details, it's bizarre that the media choses to attack her for attempting to offer a comprehensive view of federal immigration policy that explains why Spitizer feels he must enact additional policy on the state level.

Finally, while the moderators and her opponents may not agree with her positions on Iran and social security, it doesn't mean that she hasn't explained her position.

That's for the voters to decide, not the media.

Posted by: JoeCHI | November 1, 2007 9:35 AM | Report abuse

'BTW, GWB cultivated a gentlemanly demeanor throughout that '94 race and he could speak without slurring or shushhing his esses, too.

Some people here think he suffered a neurological event in '98 when his speech changed. Others insist it is just playing at "good 'ole boy".

Was that when he stopped drinking? Maybe he stopped in response to the neurological event...

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 9:33 AM | Report abuse

BTW, GWB cultivated a gentlemanly demeanor throughout that '94 race and he could speak without slurring or shushhing his esses, too.

Some people here think he suffered a neurological event in '98 when his speech changed. Others insist it is just playing at "good 'ole boy".

When GWB would be asked about Ann's publicized history as a recovering alcoholic, he would say that he thought she should be rightfully proud of her recovery and that if the reporters knew him they knew he was in no position to cast stones about that.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 1, 2007 9:25 AM | Report abuse

I just realized I missed one!

When covering the "attacks" on Hillary, the media never analyzes the substance. For instance, Hillary has been criticized for her recent vote on Iran. Is this a legitimate criticism? Did her vote give the president license to invade Iran, just like her vote on Iraq a few years ago?

It doesn't matter! It makes no difference whether the vote was good or bad. The important thing is that someone called her on it. It's a brutal attack! It's like that man punched her in the face! Will it break her nose? How many teeth will get knocked out? Will she require facial reconstruction surgery? Ignore the substance; all that matters is the fight.

Posted by: Blarg | November 1, 2007 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Chris
It feels like Howard Wolfson wrote your column today. "6 men piling on Hillary" -- give me a break. Hillary did a classic double speak (immigration) and non-answer "Fiscal Responsibility" for Social Security. She needed to be called on those topics.


She has a plan for everything, except for the major wedge issues between Republicans and Democrats. I think it was refreshing for folks to call her on it.

This is not a cornation. Dems need to debate policy differences (and there are very few differences). You play right into the Hillary machine for leading off with the piling on.

Give it a rest.

Posted by: rpinNH | November 1, 2007 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Another comment before I head out the door...actually it's a question.

Just what is Obama and Edwards's stand on giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants?

Posted by: badger3 | November 1, 2007 9:19 AM | Report abuse

RadPat -

I worked for a year in her husband's law office in 1970 and I counted her as a friend - went to many non-political bbq-pool parties at their house.

KBH would be a boon to the R ticket, esp. for Romney. Someone here called her an airhead, but she is not and she is in a different league from Cornyn, who is as ineffectual a Senator as one can be while drawing breath, I think. KBH was one of 4 women in my Property section with about 100 men. She entered Law School on a "3-3" program and was able to remain a cheerleader her first year. On Fridays she came to Property in the Fall of '64 in chherleader gear. Prof. Fritz tortured her. She took endless verbal abuse. She stood it with grace and good cheer. She could not get a job in a big law firm after law school despite good grades [same thing happened to Sandra Day and Ruth Ginsburg]. She became a newscaster in Houston. The Rs in Houston saw a good thing and recruited her. She can handle adversity. I have never lost my high regard for her, although she has diminished as an independent voice during GWB's Prez.

AndyR - I did not think the lezzie stuff played in the '94 race at all, but I may be mistaken. In fact, it was GWB who deflected Ann's sharp tongue with affability in '94, especially the hunting-out-of-season hoohah. Too bad about that year. TX became a one party state after that.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 1, 2007 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Well, this is nice. The media has once again decided to take talking points from the Clinton campaign, assume they're true, and promote them. Great job!

And CC does a great job of repeating the Clinton spin. He ignores the fact that Hillary is the presidential frontrunner, so of course her debate opponents are going to criticize her. He doesn't mention that pundits have been calling for Obama to criticize Hillary more. Instead, he uses a bunch of violent metaphors to imply that Hillary's opponents are bullies beating a defenseless woman. And it's all accompanied by the implication that women should vote for Hillary, to support their sister who's treated so unfairly by those mean men. It would be impressive if it weren't such terrible journalism.

Posted by: Blarg | November 1, 2007 9:13 AM | Report abuse

democrats are already on the plus side of the gender gap. what more do they get with hillary, even if she draws better among women?
i agree with the posters who say her much-touted record is smoke and mirrors. she has exactly the same white house record as laura bush (from whom god preserve us) and has been a do-nothing senator. what is her signature issue? in what is she an expert? about what does she care passionately (other than being president)?
the middle class? the constitution? not on her record.

Posted by: kstack | November 1, 2007 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is not the smartest woman in the world as she would have us believe. She failed her bar examination the first time she took it.On national television she answered a question about her husband's reported sexual encounter with a woman who was a few years younger than their daughter by saying that the rumor was part of a right wing conspiracy.I am a woman, and I want to regurgitate every time I think about how Bill Clinton dishonored the Oval Office. Why would we want another Clinton to bring more disgrace?

Posted by: tsapp77 | November 1, 2007 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Clinton's female backers want it both ways. They want to think that Clinton is the only candidate that can take on the ruthless Rudy and the other nasty Republican tricks. If one or all of her Democratic rivals challenge her, however, on her honesty and having positions based on her audience, they cry that they are picking on their "little girl". I am a Democratic (soon to be independent) woman who does not admire, support, or think that Hillary Clinton is a "strong" woman. She traded her respect and honor for a pact with her husband that basically allowed his abusive treatment of women in exchange for his political connections. The women her husband choose to abuse included Hillary herself, his daughter, and vulnerable woman in lower economic and social status than his own. The typical male predator. If these women who support her are not smart or perceptive enough to see Hillary Clinton for what she is, they deserve her. Just don't impose her on intellegent, independent, and strong woman. I do not know one woman in my social and business network who wants H. Clinton to be president. We would much rather support a woman who has made it on her own, such as Nancy Pelosi, Senator Feinstein, Condi Rice, or any other female governor or congressperson.

Posted by: bringbackimus | November 1, 2007 8:53 AM | Report abuse

I had to post this because it is simply mindboggling. Here we have someone who has extorted billions of US taxpayer dollars, in return for which he repeadtedly lied to start a war that would benefit mmostly himself and then spied for Iran. I guess bush will be giving him the Medal of Honor next. Why not just hand the whole country over to Abenadinnerjacket right now?


'On Sunday, McClatchy reported that disgraced Iraqi politician Ahmed Chalabi had "re-emerged as a central figure" in the U.S. strategy for Iraq. His latest job: to press Iraq's government to "deliver better electricity, health, education and local security services to Baghdad," as "the next phase" of the escalation.

Today, Blackanthem.com reports that Petraeus has been trumpeting his new alliance with Chalabi, introducing him to U.S. troops serving in Iraq:

Gen. David Petraeus, commanding general, Multi-National Force-Iraq, Dr. Ahmad Chalabi, director of services in Iraq, and Dr. Safi Al-Sheik, director of the Iraqi National Reconciliation Committee, met with Soldiers and leaders of the 1st Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Ga., who are operating in the Arab Jabour area.

Before the war, Chalabi provided faulty intelligence on Iraq's supposed weapons programs, helping launch the war. He was investigated for allegations that he passed intelligence to Iran, "wrongdoing that endangered American troops and American lives," according to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). Furthermore, Chalabi has alliances with militia leader Muqtada al Sadr, who has led a "series of uprisings against the U.S. military."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/20893.html

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 8:53 AM | Report abuse

I'm a woman who does NOT support Hillary. Nor do any of my activist woman friends. The crybaby "pile on" video was rich coming from a campaign machine that will pretty much stoop to anything. I really hope this is the beginning of the end for Hillary. I'm for Edwards but Dodd looks good too. I've no desire to watch our first woman president bomb Iran to build her military cred.

Posted by: reneecote | November 1, 2007 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Mark, and Ann Richards got beat when someone was willing to go just a little deeper in the gutter and call her a lesbian.
I see Hillary's situation the same way. The Clinton machine has been known for a while as a cut-throat take no prisoners attack oriented type of group. They honestly believe that people don't care about substance and only pay attention when candidates go at it. The thing is that if that is your strategy you can't complain when your opponents go after you with the same zeal that you have used on others. As the proverb goes 'you reap what you sow'.

Also Women should be careful that if they vote a candidate in just because she is a woman and not because that candidate shares their views then they will be disappointed when they find out she isn't the best person for the job.

On the short term I think the debate and the way that Edwards confronted Senator Clinton will help his cause in Iowa.

Posted by: AndyR3 | November 1, 2007 8:51 AM | Report abuse

HI Mark. Did you know Ann, or were you just doing the famous Bentson line? Ann was one interesting politician. Like her or not, I would be far more comfortable if she were the front-running woman today.

What about Kay [KBH]? Wouldn't the Republicans be clever if at least they had a capable woman running in the VP slot? I know Kay says she won't, and she is looking at the governorship here, but could you feel supportive of her? I don't fully support her [hell, I don't fully support anyone], but as Republicans go, she is a lot better--and different--then her "Corny" counterpart.

Posted by: radicalpatriot | November 1, 2007 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Here's strategy idea for Biden, Dodd, and Richardson. They should go after Edwards and Obama, and in particular Obama's lack of experience. If they did this enough, that could very well push them ahead of Obama and Edwards. Anyone of these 3 do have a chance then of catching up with Hillary. After listening to all the debates, it's clear to me that any of them would make an excellent President. They could point out another fact about Obama, that he didn't even bother to vote on the Iran issue, that he is critizing Hillary for.

I like Hillary and as of now, I will vote for her, but if it was closer and if Biden, Dodd, or Richardson could move up, I'd have to think twice.

Hillary has a better chance of beating any of the Repulican candidates than Obama or Edwards, but I think Biden, Dodd, or Richardson would have no troble winning the election.

My qestion, why isn't the media talking more about these guys? Why didn't Russert and Williams give them equal time with questions, versus simply setting up the scene for Edwards and Obama to attack Hillary? They were obnoxious moderators.

Posted by: badger3 | November 1, 2007 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Cilliza says six men were attacking her. I'd say seven because Russert went way over the line as a supposedly neutral moderator. Of course the anti Clinton faction claim she's whining despite the fact that analyses have been done of the nature of the questions asked and the direction of the questioning which points overwhelmingly to an Get Clinton debate. It stood out a mile so I think she and women in general have a legitimate complaint. It's to her credit that she ably defended herself.

Posted by: johnbsmrk | November 1, 2007 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Cilliza says six men were attacking her. I'd say seven because Russert went way over the line as a supposedly neutral moderator. Of course the anti Clinton faction claim she's whining despite the fact that analyses have been done of the nature of the questions asked and the direction of the questioning which points overwhelmingly to an Get Clinton debate. It stood out a mile so I think she and women in general have a legitimate complaint. It's to her credit that she ably defended herself.

Posted by: johnbsmrk | November 1, 2007 8:43 AM | Report abuse

"vwcat"--a very intelligent post, especially in how much Hillary is like Bush. The more one examines that line, the more disturbing the similarities are.

President Bush-Cheney has been so nastily divisive for our country, and Hillary personally is the single most divisive of all the candidates. His, and her, personal repulsiveness to so many millions carries right over to the nasty partisanship that both of them carry with them in their words and deeds everywhere.

Bush-Cheny has been the most secretive, anti-democratic [and even anti-republican, small R] presidency in a long time (possibly ever?), and Hillary's history is also one of political secrecy and suspicion. Her refusal to reveal any of the documents from the White House years until after next year's election is a typical example. Like Bush-Cheney, there's always an excuse for why something cannot be made public, and the bottom line is always, "Just trust me."

Behind all these and other similarities is the ad nauseum possibilities of this perpetual Bush--Clinton--Bush--Clinton . . . circus, at the expense of our country. Bush 1 and Clinton 1 are now bosom buddies, doing their world tours. Oh yes, it's all for a good cause--but whose good cause? Most Americans are stuck on the surface of reality, and unwilling to make the effort to tear themselves away from their regurgitated opinions, spoon-fed to them from whichever biased source they get their "news" from.

Posted by: radicalpatriot | November 1, 2007 8:42 AM | Report abuse

I knew Ann Richards; Ann Richards was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Ann Richards.
----------------------------------
From the NYT in 1990: Ms. Richards, who received 39 percent of the vote, faces Attorney General Jim Mattox in a runoff on April 10. He trailed her by only two percentage points, while Mr. White was far behind with 19 percent of the vote.

''I will never endorse Ann Richards,'' Mr. White told a news conference at the Capitol. ''I will never support Ann Richards. And I will never vote for Ann Richards.''

''Ann Richards willfully and knowingly smeared me with false accusations that she knew at the time to be untrue,'' he said.

He stopped short of endorsing Mr. Mattox but said he would be voting in the runoff.

All three candidates ran hard-hitting campaigns, but Mr. White declined today to criticize Mr. Mattox's tactics. ''I've always thought he was one of the toughest campaigners I've ever seen,'' he said, ''but what Ann Richards has done would make Himmler blush.''
---------------------------------------
No punches were pulled. Tough candidates give as good as they get. Ann NEVER whined.

NEVER.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 1, 2007 8:31 AM | Report abuse

AmericansforPeace, what you supporters of clinton do not understand is that up until the debate Hillary has enjoyed a virtually free ride in the press and the previous debates.
I did not see people get all upset when it was pile on Obama with one debate.
Besides, if she really wants to be President, she has to deal with this with world leaders. if she can't handle this and runs and cries sexism and pile on after one night out of 10 months of easy coasting, what is she going to do when she is surrounded by leaders of others countries and they disagree with her and get mad or disagree. Is she going to cry sexism and play victim.
That is totally not presidential.
I would be more sympathetic if A) she was open and honest with her answers and straight with the people. B)She actually had some vetting and some tough questioning and had to deal with some of the negative press the others have had to deal with.
While the press has been kicking the other candidates, who are much better choices, around, Hillary has been treated like the queen she thinks she is.

Posted by: vwcat | November 1, 2007 8:27 AM | Report abuse

CC: Once again you show your bias against Hillary by the CNN survey in which " whether or not women agree with ALL of her decisions...". I think most women, as well as men, does not agree with anyone ALL of the time. vdeputy, I agree MSNBC should be ashamed.

Posted by: lylepink | November 1, 2007 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Actually Chris, you should be looking back at the debate and asking yourself; (1) Why was Russert asking Hillary all the questions (Iran, Social Security, Clinton Library) and then asking Edwards, Obama to respond? It was never the other way around. And Russert asked Obama about (1) UFOs, (2) Life on Earth and (3) Airline Managment.

The media has a responsibility to be accountable on its own. I am a follower of The Fix and you should be looking at the "fix" that Russert did on Clinton. I am a Republican and I was disgusted by it. It shows that these men are just annoyed by her and I will support her.

Posted by: AmericanforPeace | November 1, 2007 7:57 AM | Report abuse

Seems to me HRC's rivals are caught between a rock and a hard place. If they continue to softpedal around her, they get criticized for not drawing out the differences and blurring the reasons for getting the nomination (Obama is poster boy #1 for this until recently).

If they take the gloves off, they get accused of giving her the Rick Lazio treatment, and the amen chorus in the MSM chimes in that she's a poor woman, take it easy, no hard stuff, etc.

Obviously the world stage will require more toughness than this. If HRC wants to play in this league, she needs to be able to take a punch, and stop the crying and whining about 'piling on'. Or, put another, far more cruder way, if it was a gang bang as one poster put it, then HRC was asking for it.

Posted by: JD | November 1, 2007 7:54 AM | Report abuse

I fit Hillary's demographic. I refuse to vote for Hillary.
I don't like her. one of the most telling things about her is that she is a follower. She won't take a stand and waits to find out how everyone else feels. She regularly waits until Obama votes, does whatever, and then votes like he does. I started noticing this last year when Obama went on his book tour so she suddenly re-releases her 10 year old book and launches her own tour.
She picks up the slogans of the other candidates and lifts their ideas. Her much touted Health Care plan is mostly Edwards plan. but, she gets the credit for being so wonderful while Edwards was never given any credit or press for his.
I honestly do not think she really knows how she feels about any of the issues. She is running for president for the same reason Bush did. Not to be a real president but, to run and win.
Also like Bush, she is trading on a family name without accomplishing anything of real value. Her record should be seriously looked at in the senate. Her only real legislation was flag burning. She has no real record. But, she owes her 'success' and is touted as a serious candidate only because of her name.
this country simply cannot afford another Family member being elected because of name and not accomplishment.
I challenge the fix to look at Clinton's real record in the senate and tell us if she truly deserves all this groveling by the press and being a real candidate for president.

Posted by: vwcat | November 1, 2007 6:49 AM | Report abuse

Here is one woman's take on the debate: it was a gang bang.

I don't fault the other candidates so much for taking the opportunities that were offered them. They are, after all, trying to defeat Hillary to win the nomination. If they'd had the quickness and wit to do that on their own, fine.

But it was the moderators that I found disgusting, particularly Tim Russert. They deliberately set it up for the men to be able to whack on Hillary at will. Instead of being neutral parties trying to elicit information from ALL the candidates, their agenda seemed to be to create as many fireworks as possible for ratings and that meant holding Hillary down so the others could do their dirty work. (And then, of course, Chris Matthews, who is obsessed with Hillary could assemble his after-debate hit squad to count body blows that landed). Thankfully, HIllary ended up bloody but not broken.

MSNBC should be ashamed.

Posted by: vdeputy.sheriff | November 1, 2007 6:39 AM | Report abuse

Gatornan2, first you need a mind to make a mental note, and it's no wonder you have an "ex". Since when does having a vagina make you immune to criticism? If a man point's out Hillary's lies he's a brute and if a women does she's just being catty. What a bunch of double standard b.s. What happened to the "strong woman"?

Posted by: dochi1 | November 1, 2007 6:27 AM | Report abuse

Of course she looked piled on, and I made a mental note to send her more $. Those male candidates are poster boys for "doesn't get it" and remind me of my ex-husband carrying on with gotcha glee about the Visa bill. Good riddance fellas - you had your chance. I wish the election were this month...

Posted by: OrlandoNan | November 1, 2007 6:07 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company