Nasty, Brutish & Short

Hillary Clinton Archives

The Obama v. Clinton Cage Match

April 29, 2008 10:52 AM

Why didn't someone think of this sooner?   Thank you, New York Post

I can't get the Hillary character to hit below the belt, though.  It would be much more authentic if she could hit below the belt.

Wherein I say something positive about Barack Obama; He's not going to give out "Street Money" in Philadelphia

April 11, 2008 08:53 AM

What's "street money"?  Per the L.A. Times, it is:

"[A] long-standing Philadelphia ritual in which candidates deliver cash to the city's Democratic operatives in return for getting out the vote.

Flush with payments from well-funded campaigns, the ward leaders and Democratic Party bosses typically spread out the cash in the days before the election, handing $10, $20 and $50 bills to the foot soldiers and loyalists who make up the party's workforce.

It is all legal -- but Obama's people are telling the local bosses he won't pay.

If that is legal, it is appalling.  But for the Dems in Philly, it's just how things are done:

Obama's posture confounds neighborhood political leaders sympathetic to his cause. They caution that if the senator from Illinois withholds money that gubernatorial, mayoral and presidential candidates have willingly paid out for decades, there could be defections to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. And the Clinton campaign, in contrast, will oblige in forking over the money, these ward leaders predict.

Who's not surprised the Clintons don't have a problem with this?  Anyone?

Another non-surprise?  John Kerry didn't have a problem with it either.  He paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in "street money" in Philadelphia in 2004.

The locals are hoping Obama will give in before next week's primary in PA.  You know.  For his own sake:

With a week and a half left before the election, political leaders hope that Obama will relent.

Garry Williams, a ward leader based in north-central Philadelphia, said that he had not heard directly that the Obama campaign was withholding money. But he said payment would be needed. Workers who are in the field for Obama on April 22 will put in days stretching from 12 to 16 hours, he said.

"It's our tradition," Williams said. "You don't come to someone's house and change the rules of someone's house. That's just respect."

No, it's just corrupt.  If Obama can bring an end to it, kudos to him. 

John McCain's New Ad...

March 7, 2008 03:58 PM

...is excellent.

Of course, I would never vote for someone because of a campaign ad. But that's just me, and a lot of people don't think that way.

How funny is it that the Democrats are calling each other names, and the McCain campaign is producing video like this?

Ann Althouse has excellent commentary up on the visuals, from the subtle references to "The Color Purple" to the LBJ daisy ad. I suspect there's more there, if you look. This was very, very well thought out.

Is the Secretary of State taking on the "Limbaugh Effect"?

March 6, 2008 02:29 PM

And if so, to what ends?

From the Enquirer's Politics Extra:

Brunner's staff has begun to call counties to find out how many crossover voters there were and how many 10x forms were filled out by pollworkers if someone switches parties within two years.

"Once we start to gather the figures of what rate of crossover was, then we can start to dig into . . .what some of the motivations were."

Why is she digging into what some of the motivations were?  How is that an appropriate area of concern?

And what about this?

She does plan to ask counties for statistics and details on voters who signed forms attesting that they switched political parties.

Gathering statistics doesn't concern me.  Gathering "details on voters" does. 

Is she going to also look at the McCain Effect from 2000?  That was when Democrats in Ohio voted for McCain in the Republican primary to slow down George W. Bush.

I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  And I think you're playing with fire when you start looking at voter's "motivations."

Hillary is still dead...

March 5, 2008 03:58 PM

...the indominitable Mrs. P. gives us the whys and hows:

On a much, much happier note, Hillary Rotten Clinton died. Though I told you she had died in January. Admit it now, most of you doubted me then, some of you even questioned my sanctity and others of you went so far to call me at home to question my sanity. And I know most of you are now saying "Mrs. P, she's not dead! She's alive! More than than, she's standing right behind you with a big butcher's knife!" No, she's not. She may technically be alive. Alive in the same technical sense Castro is, which is a Hell of a life, I might add, now that his power has been transferred. Hillary Clinton is as dead as Castro is, politically. For her to win the White House she needs her husband to call up his *friends* and get them to get the dead, as well as abandoned parking lots, stray cats, dogs and parakeets to cast their votes for her. So, this primary season has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the world's smartest woman and leading feminist, Hillary Clinton only rose as high as she did by marrying the sleaze she did. (Don't you just adore the First Amendment?) More than that, Hillary, to get the chance to run for president (and promptly fall flat on her face) had to sacrifice her feminist principals, relinquish her dignity as a woman, and take all of her husband's abuse publicly for more than 2 decades while saying she loved him. What makes her death (or transfer of power) all so much more delicious is that she is being beaten by a carbon-copy airhead candidate of her husband, complete with the Ivy League-educated angry wife. So we cheer the dead woman walking, Hillary Rotten Clinton, on as she will now, once again for the 2,345.725 time, go back on her principals and try to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates so that she can finally take the sack full of wet sand to the back of Obama's head at the Democratic National Convention. As the ladies at NOW are so fond of screeching "You go girl!"

I bolded the part I like the best.  Perhaps when Mrs. Clinton is literally dead, we can get the schoolchildren to send in their nickels to build a memorial, upon which we can put Mrs. P's words?

An ordinary headstone's not going to do.

For the first time, I walked in to the polls not knowing who I was going to vote for.

March 4, 2008 09:07 AM

The temptation to cross party lines and vote for Hillary was very, very strong.  Having her continue to battle it out with Obama is very good for the cause.  But in the end, I couldn't do it.  The woman in front of me did, though.  And I know a lot of people who were considering it.  When you switch parties, you have to complete a form that says you swear "to uphold the principles of the Democratic party."  Well that wouldn't be too hard--since they have no principles. 

How's that for an obvious joke?

Anyway... I placed my protest vote for Mitt Romney.  Not that it will matter in the end.  My protest vote in the 2000 primary didn't matter either.

I did get to vote in all the down ticket Republican races.  For Congress, I voted for Jean Schmidt.  Over at WMD, they've pretty much summarized my thoughts on that race, so I won't repeat it all here.  The only other contested race was Pat DeWine v. Kathy King for Judge.  I voted for Pat, since he's pro-life, and Kathy is not.  For most of the other judicial races, I refrained from voting for the party's endorsed candidates.  Most of the people they put up are total chuckleheads--though it was a nice reminder of how glad I am that I litigate almost entirely in federal courts these days. 

And of course, I voted against the Cincinnati public school levy and the zoo levy.  The only way I'd get behind either of those two organizations would be if they switched missions.  Let the zoo put the CPS students behind bars, and let the schools educate the animals.  We'd end up with a safer community and a more intelligent workforce.

I'm kidding of course.  Well, slightly kidding.

McCain Refused to Condem Supporter for Calling Hillary Clinton a B****

February 28, 2008 03:27 PM

Let's go back in history, shall we?  Waaaaaay back to November of last year.  The scene?  Hilton Head, South Carolina, and a woman at a Q&A who asked John McCain:

"How do we defeat the bitch?"

And what did Senator McCain say in response?  Here was the take of his frenemies at The New York Times:

Mr. McCain was obviously uncomfortable, trying to deflect the vitriol with humor and offering to give a translation. But he did not condemn the questioner, instead calling it an “excellent question.”

Here's what I think is an excellent question:  Why the hell should I help John McCain get elected President this November?

Political Confusion Breaks Out in Ohio 02

February 23, 2008 11:09 PM

So I was on the way to Lowe's to buy air filters because we're on a pre-baby cleaning binge, and I see right there on Marburg Avenue that there is a house with two signs out--one for Jean Schmidt and the other for Barack Obama.  What the hell?  I almost pulled over to take a picture for the blog, but I realized commenters--probably CincyJeff--would immediately chime in with "See, I told you she was a liberal!  It makes perfect sense!"  Or words to that effect.  So I was going to keep it to myself.  Until I got a little further down the road, and passed a business that has signs up for both Tom Brinkman and Hillary Clinton.   Again, what the hell?  What is wrong with these people?  Who are they going to vote for when they get to the polls on election day, and realize they can only get a Republican ballot or a Democrat ballot?

And what to make of all this?  There is only one conclusion I'm drawing from this political confusion, and it's that come November, the Republican presidential candidate is going to be in a world of hurt.  It's a good thing we have a candidate the party can rally behind.  Oh.... wait.

The neighbors have Barack Obama signs out too.  We're not surprised by the people next door--they accused me of stealing their Kerry/Edwards sign four years ago.  We've had kind of a North Korea/South Korea relationship ever since.  There's like a DMZ and everything.  But what explains the nice couple across the street?  Today they put their Barack signs out.  And they went to Furman.  The only explanation I can come up with is that it's a Baptist school, and they must be susceptible to good preachin'.  Lawd have mercy.

Hillary Clinton's supporters are SOOOOO COOL.

February 17, 2008 08:14 PM

HT: The Llama Butchers

They say everything's bigger in Texas

February 13, 2008 02:43 PM

I don't know why, I just love that photo.

HT to Tammy Bruce, who says "It's Miss Tijuana!"

Hillary, Obama and Ted Kennedy at the State of the Union...

January 29, 2008 08:52 AM

..and the photo that's an instant classic:

Evaluating the candidates' bumper stickers

January 27, 2008 08:16 AM

I've already said I can't imagine putting a Huckabee sticker on the back of my car.  That's mostly because it's such a hill-jack name, backed up by a hill-jack personality.  Graphic designers have a problem with the aesthetics, too:

Huckabee has the most inexplicable selection of typography and graphics, from the six floating stars to the white stripe seemingly stolen from the Coca-Cola logo. The overall effect is clutter. The main typeface, used to set the candidate's name, is very tightly spaced, or tightly tracked, as typographers like to say. Some letters, like kab, are actually touching each other. Then "Mike" is tucked in between the H and k as if "we almost forgot to tell you his first name." Setting FAITH. FAMILY. FREEDOM. in such a thin weak sans serif feels as if it was added as a committee compromise or an afterthought. The type is too light, too small, and does not have a real voice.

They're right.  It definitely has an "I've never done this before" kind of look to it.  Kind of like he stopped by a Minuteman Printing on the way home one afternoon and said, "Shirley, what can you come up with?"

At the opposite end of the extreme: John McCain.  I have my problems with him on the issues, but his campaign graphics are fantastic.  Mrs. NBS and I actually discussed this a few weeks ago, and when you have people actually discussing how much they like the bumper stickers for someone they're not going to vote for, it means the designers hit a home run.  Here's what the experts say:

McCain uses type that is a perfect compromise between a sans and a serif, what type geeks call a "flared sans." Not quite sans and not quite serif, sort of in between, moderate, not too far in either direction. The strokes have contrast between the thick and thin, creating the feeling that the ends are going to have cute little serifs, but they just flare out a little, not forming actual serifs but wanting to. The military star centered and shadowed is a not-so-subtle touch. And McCain just says "President," as if to say he's already been elected. Everything about this logo says you can buy a car from this man. From the perfectly centered star to the perfectly spaced type, the entire design looks like a high-end real estate company. McCain has done something no other candidate has done, he uses all blue, no red - not even a dash.

And the blue he uses is almost a black.  With the white star, it looks very, very crisp.  Lean.  Trim.  Fit.  Very "I'm more than Harrison Ford in Air Force One could ever even dream of being."

On the Democrat side, the graphic designers say the winner is Obama.  I'm actually not wild about his design.  Doesn't it look...too liberal?  John Edwards got the (supposed) working class mantra right with his simplistic "my shift ends at 1:00 a.m. and I'm pissed" look.  And Hillary's graphic?  Exactly like bumper stickers always look.  Boring.  What's she running for, state rep.?

The Candidates' Homes, an NBS Tour

January 17, 2008 02:59 PM

Of course, Mother Jones put these photos up because they want you to think we're ruled by monied, hypocritical, gas guzzling aristocrats, no matter which party wins.  I'm putting them up because real estate is porn for married people.  So let's begin!

Here's Huckabee's house.  Not surprisingly, the candidate that I like the least has the house I like the least.  It's weighs in at 5,124 square feet, with a deck and a swimming pool.  It's also boring, and has atrocious landscaping:

huckabeehouse-big.jpg

Here's Rudy's pad in New York.  I really can't relate to it, but it's got a Walnut-paneled dining room and a cigar room.  I don't smoke, but I like the sound of that.  There's no rule that says you can't use your cigar room as a drinking room.

guiliani.jpg

The McCains do the tall building thing too, but theirs is a $4.7 mill condo in Phoenix.  They also have a ranch in Sedona, which was profiled in Home & Garden.  I think I also saw it in Architectural Digest a few years ago.  It was nice.  Better than their condo, anyway:

mccains-condo-500x389.jpg

Turning for a minute to the other side of the aisle, here's Hill and Bill's place in Westchester County.  I have no problems with it, and it certainly comports with whatever their pollster told them to buy.  I just wonder if they've ever seen it themselves?

clinton-large.jpg

Can't you just feel the love radiating off of the Clinton's house?  You know it's just a place of intimate diners for two, and passionate, romantic interludes.  When Hillary's in D.C.

The Obamas' place in Chicago is also nice.  And, it has a 1,000 bottle wine cellar.  Me like the sound of that!  Party at the Obamas!  They need to learn to bring the trash cans back up promptly though.  How rude.

obamas-house-500x375.jpg

You've already heard me opine in the hideousness of the Edwards home in North Carolina.  It is too big (21,000 square feet).  And it has an indoor basketball court.  They also have a beach house in North Carolina.  Presumably it's more suitable to his "Two Americas" crap than this is:

edwardshome-500x333.jpg

Here's one that's big and tasteful.  It's the Romney's ski retreat in Park City, Utah.  Looks like a house the Bushes would own.  Mitt has residences in several states, I believe.  Mrs. Romney must do a lot of dusting.  Of course, when you don't smoke or drink, what else is there to do?

romney-house-500x333.jpg

NBS is ready to call the winner in the taste department, though.  This is the Thompsons' house in McLean, Virginia.  A seven bedroom, five bath stunner with a real Presidential air.

thompson-house.jpg

Gorgeous.

Does anyone actually believe Hillary Clinton's favorite tv shows are Grey's Anatomy, Antiques Roadshow, American Idol and Dancing with the Stars?

January 16, 2008 03:34 PM

I mean seriously.  What campaign aide made this shit up?  Dancing with the Stars?  You know she spends her nights throwing popcorn at Chris Matthews.  I mean come on.  You know she does. 

I do see her watching Grey's Anatomy and Idol, though.  They're probably the training videos she uses to teach herself to cry on command.  And Antiques Roadshow?  Probably reminds her of the White House furniture she and Bill stole when they were on their way out the door in January, 2000.

No way she watches these shows to be entertained by them.  No way.

And on the Republican side...  John McCain.  Prison Break?  Are you kidding me?  The reason he gives:

"...because as a fellow prisoner, I always dreamed and plotted how I would break out of the Hanoi Hilton."

Ridiculous.  Surely, he must think we're idiots. 

Big girls don't cry...

January 7, 2008 06:23 PM

...when faced with adversity.

Do they, Hillary?

So who's actually in the lead where it matters (the delegate count)

The Green Papers is keeping track, and trying to make sense of the ridiculously complicated rules. After Iowa and Wyoming, we've got:

Romney:  17

Huckabee:  13

Fred:  8

McCain:  5

Paul:  4

Rudy:  1

You need 1,259 to get the nomination, so nobody is even close.  For the Dems, Obama's got 16, Hillary's got 15 and Edwards has 14.  That's just after Iowa.  The Dems didn't do Wyoming yet.  Bet you didn't know Hillary got more delegates from Iowa than Edwards, even though she finished with fewer votes.  Further proof that the system makes no sense.

The comments are not working.

January 5, 2008 09:32 AM

I know.  Thanks for your emails, I am trying to fix the problem.  It's kind of a crazy weekend at Chez NBS, so it could be a little while.

In the meantime, what's not to love about this:

If the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s 100 Club dinner is any bell weather – Barack Obama will handily win here. When Obama, the dinner’s last speaker, took the stage the crowd surged forward chanting “O-bam-a” and “Fired Up, Ready to Go!” So many people pressed toward the stage that an announcer asked people to “please take their seats for safety concerns.”

By comparison Hillary was twice booed. The first time was when she said she has always and will continue to work for "change for you. The audience, particularly from Obama supporters (they were waving Obama signs) let out a noise that sounded like a thousand people collectively groaning. The second time came a few minutes later when Clinton said: "The there are two big questions for voters in New Hampshire. One is: who will be ready to lead from day one? The second," and here Clinton was forced to pause as boos from the crowd mixed with cheers from her own supporters. "Is who can we nominate who will go the distance against the Republicans?”

The dinner held in the Hampshire Dome in Milford is the largest political dinner in New Hampshire history, Republican or Democrat. More than 3,000 people attended.

I was worried it might be premature to post the "Ding, Dong the Witch is Dead" video.  Don't want to jinx it, you know.  And it still might be too early to officially declare her "most sincerely dead" in the words of the munchkin coroner.  But things are not looking good for her, now are they?  Sing it high, sing it low!

"And Iowa she says is the name of the star"

January 4, 2008 11:48 AM

More reaction to Hillary's third place finish.

Turn your speakers up high, and dance with the little people. Dance!

HT: The Llamas

Can you imagine putting a sticker that says "Huckabee" on the back of your car?

Me either.

The Iowa Results

January 3, 2008 11:00 PM

Hillary in third?  A dream come true.  True, I'm not being astute, because she's the easiest to beat in the general election, and all good Republicans should root for her in the primaries.  I'm not one of that crowd.  I want her, and him, gone. 

As for the Republicans?  Bad, bad, news for conservatism tonight.  There is now a real possibility that we will be dealing with three major Republican candidates--Huckabee, McCain and Rudy--and not have a conservative among them.  That's a sad, sad day.  And a recipe for disaster in November. 

Maybe it's just time to tune out, drop out, and make as much money as possible with the real job, since Edwards and Huckabee want to redistribute such a huge proportion of it. 

Iowa. So what's the dream scenario for tonight?

I'd just love the Republicans to poll as follows:

(1) Romney, (2) Huckabilly, (3) Ron Paul, (4) Fred Thompson, (5) McCain and (6) Rudy.

Why?  Because Romney is the well-rounded conservative in the case (other than Thompson, who can't win).  Huckabee at No. 2 because well, that's just where he's going to be if he doesn't get No. 1.  I'd like Huckabee to poll lower (last, actually), but that's just not possible.  I'd like Ron Paul at No. 3 because I will delight at the gnashing of teeth.  Fred at 4 because that's the only way Paul gets the 3 slot, and because Fred needs to drop out.  McCain at 5 because we want to burst the latest "we love John McCain" media bubble before New Hampshire gets out of control (if it is not already).  And Rudy at 6, just because he's not trying in Iowa at all.

As for the Democrats, I'd love to see:

(1) Obama, (2) Edwards and (3) Hillary. 

Why?  Because OH MY GOD if Hillary Clinton finishes third it would be just about the happiest day I could possibly ever have.  Obama in first because he's not John Edwards and because if Edwards finished first he may actually win the nomination and that would be a disaster because he could actually be elected President.  And we do not want that.

Can you imagine what tomorrow morning will be like if Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul both finish third in their respective primaries? 

So I'm ready for a glass of wine, a spot on the couch, and Henry (the black lab) in his wing-back chair.  Hopefully Shepard Smith is still on vacation.  His annoying face is the only thing standing in the way of a great evening.

Is it really a gift if you had to buy it for yourself? With your own tax dollars?

December 20, 2007 12:41 PM

It's enough to make your stomach churn. And Mom NBS, don't show this to Dad NBS. He'll blow a gasket.

Bonus question: What losing Democratic primary candidate once proudly declared "I don't want to be Santa Claus?" Triple Bonus points if you can explain why Hillary does.

Upon leaving the Arkansas Governor's Mansion, the Huckabees Registered for Gifts

December 11, 2007 09:26 AM

At Dillards and Target.  Tacky.  Can't a former Governor's outfit his own private sector home?

The Clintons did this too when they left the White House (as you may recall, they also stole took White House furniture and household items with them).  Not that acting like the Clintons is any excuse.

"It is not known if the Clintons shared any of these sentiments with each other."

December 10, 2007 12:18 PM

Hillary's people are complaining to the press about what Bill tells the press, and Bill's people are complaining to the press about the poor campaigning coming out of Hillary's camp:

Top Clinton campaign officials were privately furious at the former president, saying he had revived the complaint that the Clintons lack credibility, unfairly tarnishing his wife in the process.

For his part, the former president, one close associate says, has been bouncing off the walls at the campaign's ineptitude in the past few weeks. (It is not known if the Clintons shared any of these sentiments with each other).

Well why would they?  Why talk to each other when you can just have an aide call a reporter and communicate your dissatisfaction with your spouse to your spouse via a news story?

New Poll: Top Five Republicans Can All Beat Hillary

November 27, 2007 09:07 AM

It's a Zogby poll, and a lot of people have trouble with his methodology.  But still:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.

Clinton's top Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, still lead Republicans in hypothetical match-ups ahead of the November 4, 2008, presidential election, the survey by Zogby Interactive showed.

Clinton, a New York senator who has been at the top of the Democratic pack in national polls in the 2008 race, trails Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee by three to five percentage points in the direct matches.

Democrats, please nominate her!

And now here's a Hillary ad that I absolutely hate. Big surprise!

November 23, 2007 03:03 PM

It's basic theme? Call me up, and I will give you shit, FOR FREE! Talk about encouraging the wrong kind of relationship between the people and their government.

Peggy Noonan Compares and Contrasts: Hillary and Margaret Thatcher

November 9, 2007 11:37 AM

Big suprise: Peggy doesn't think Hillary stacks up very well:

The point is the big ones, the real ones, the Thatchers and Indira Gandhis and Golda Meirs and Angela Merkels, never play the boo-hoo game. They are what they are, but they don't use what they are. They don't hold up their sex as a feint: Why, he's not criticizing me, he's criticizing all women! Let us rise and fight the sexist cur.

When Hillary Clinton suggested that debate criticism of her came under the heading of men bullying a defenseless lass, an interesting thing happened. First Kate Michelman, the former head of NARAL and an Edwards supporter, hit her hard. "When unchallenged, in a comfortable, controlled situation, Sen. Clinton embraces her elevation into the 'boys club.' " But when "legitimate questions" are asked, "she is quick to raise the white flag and look for a change in the rules."

When the past president of NARAL is criticizing you for playing the "sexism" card, there's a problem.

And what's not to love about this anecdote?

The story as I was told it is that in the early years of her prime ministership, Margaret Thatcher held a meeting with her aides and staff, all of whom were dominated by her, even awed. When it was over she invited her cabinet chiefs to join her at dinner in a nearby restaurant. They went, arrayed themselves around the table, jockeyed for her attention. A young waiter came and asked if they'd like to hear the specials. Mrs. Thatcher said, "I will have beef."

Yes, said the waiter. "And the vegetables?"

"They will have beef too."

Perfect. 

Giuliani will protect us from alien attack

October 23, 2007 10:23 PM

Well that's a relief.  He's talking about the outer space kind, though, not the South of the Border kind (remember they used to be called aliens, before they were called "non-citizen residents").

But anyway.  At least we can agree that defending us from space invaders is a good thing.  If Hillary is elected President, she'll probably embrace them as her own kind.

New Poll: Thompson and Giuliani are tied with Hillary in Ohio

September 24, 2007 03:54 PM

Per Survey USA.  Romney trails Hillary by 10 points. 

If the Democrats nominate Obama (which they won't), Thompson, Giuliani and Romney are all ahead or tied.  The stats are there for John Edwards, too.  Not that you care about him.  No one does.

This is all good news, in my opinion.  It feels like all of our potential nominees are 10 points behind Hillary.

HT: Ohio Daily Blog

What the heck is Fred Thompson doing?

September 19, 2007 08:51 AM

Dick Morris has a scathing column out in which he summarizes the news Fred has generated in the few short weeks he has actually been a candidate.  And it's not a pretty picture.

•He refuses to take a pledge not to raise taxes;

•He lobbied for an abortion advocacy group before becoming a U.S. senator;

•He employed his son in a no-show job for $170,000 for four years at his political action committee after leaving office;

•As a lobbyist, he helped the attorney representing the Libyan terrorists who blew up Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, to fight requests to extradite them to the U.K. to stand trial;

•His other lobbying clients included Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the leftist Haitian dictator who, but for a lack of oil, would have been the Hugo Chavez of the last generation;

•He skipped and is skipping the first two debates of his presidential candidacy and said he was looking forward to attending the Oct. 14 New Hampshire debate -- the one that was cancelled weeks ago;

•He is taking this week off from presidential campaigning;

•He does not know enough about the details of the Terry Schiavo case to comment;

•He said that Iraqis were supporting us because of al Qaeda's ban on smoking;

•He's run through three campaign managers and as many communications directors in just three months.

Ouch, ouch, ouch.  Half of those I didn't even know about.  Has Fred gotten any positive press?  And he doesn't even mention my number one concern about Fred, which is that people will tire of the folksy talk.  And get very, very annoyed.   

Don't get me wrong, I like Fred.  I want to believe in Fred.  I just don't understand why he's not giving people a reason to.  Come on Fred, make your case!

And if you want more food for thought consider Morris's next point:

Hillary is probably the next president anyway. But there is only one way to defeat her -- to nominate a candidate whose anti-terrorism credentials are so deep that if Americans return to their senses and grasp the nature of the dire and continuing threat we face, he can prevail in November. There are two candidates who fill that bill: Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Neither Thompson nor Romney approach it.

Rudy and McCain are hardly my preferred candidates.  But I think Morris may be right about the political realities.

Deleting spam comments and listening to Bloggingheads.tv

August 13, 2007 08:54 PM

How fun is that for a Monday night?  More so than you might think: This episode of Bloggingheads has supreme legal blogger Ann Althouse talking to Robin Givhan of the Washington Post about Hillary's cleavage, Al Gore's earth tones and Jeri Thompson's being hot and over 40.  Fast forward if you're short on time to their discussion of crocs--they hate them, as do I.  Please, people.  Do not wear crocs.  Up until the croc discussion, though, it's a fascinating commentary about fashion and how people in the political spectrum chose to present themselves.

I completely agree with both of them that these topics are fair game.  This has been an issue since the famous debate between Nixon and Kennedy.  Nixon refused to wear make-up, because he thought it word of it would get out, and it would make him appear unmanly.  Kennedy, of course, wore make-up and looked fantastic (obviously he had other advantages over Nixon in this regard).  After the debate, people who had watched on tv thought Kennedy had won; those who heard it on the radio though Nixon prevailed.

It's a long episode of Bloggingheads, but it's well worth it.  For the record, I thought Hillary wasn't showing too much cleavage.  It's just the thought of Hillary showing any cleavage that I have a problem with.  It's just too weird, too un-Hillary.  It's so much of a departure from what we expect from her that it is disarming.  It is pretty unfortunate that the first major female presidential candidate is so unfeminine.  She could have been feminine while she was first lady.  Then it would have been natural.  Dolly Madison had a decent rack, and now there's a whole line of cookies names after her.  By today's standards, she showed a lot of cleavage.  But Hillary refused to be feminine as first lady, because it just wasn't her.  She wanted to be taken seriously, and thought she needed to look like a man to achieve that.  Now she's the first woman to have a real shot at the presidency, and she can't take advantage of her feminine wiles.  Does she have any?  Or because it's Hillary Clinton, are we just too skeptical about being manipulated? 

With Hillary, you have to ask whether she's wearing something low-cut because of some political calculation.  Is she channeling Eva Peron now?  She used to be channeling Eleanor Roosevelt.  What gives?  Is it just too hard to believe Hillary would do something because it's what she wants to?  With Hillary, do we assume there has to be a reason?  Hillary and her mind games!

Mind games, manipulation.... maybe she is feminine!!

As for the comments I'm deleting, I've noticed that I've gotten a lot of bowflex spam since I started posting about the elliptical machine.  Do the bowflex people think someone's going to buy their machine after reading a post about how I can't even carry my elliptical machine up the stairs?  What's up with that?

And I'm still getting lots of spam comments that advertise Cialis.  Who would buy Cialis off a website called Nasty, Brutish & Short?  That's what I'd like to know. 

And in the Washington Post, they talk about Hillary's heaving bosoms

July 20, 2007 03:15 PM

Pulitzer prize winning columnist Robin Givhan writes:

There was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2. It belonged to Sen. Hillary Clinton.

She was talking on the Senate floor about the burdensome cost of higher education. She was wearing a rose-colored blazer over a black top. The neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape. The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn't an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.

And they run a picture:

 The presidential hopeful revealed a changing fashion sense in the Senate.

Now if that isn't enough to get you to turn away from the computer screen for the weekend, I don't know what is.  Go.  Outside.