Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Humility regarding what man does. Faith in what God does. That means skepticism about politicians' plans to run health care.
Click to Print
Include Comments
What’s Hillary’s problem?
Columnist Kathleen Parker has little sympathy for Hillary Clinton’s plight:
When you’re leading the Democratic presidential race, as Hillary Clinton is, you might expect other candidates to focus their sharpest criticism your way.
Yet the spin coming out of the Clinton campaign is that the men were ganging up on Hillary. Sorry, but when girls insist on playing hardball with the boys, they don’t get to cry foul — or change the game to dodge ball — when they get bruised.
Instead, Parker attributes the real problem back to the source:
Getting a straight answer from Hillary is consistently challenging, as other candidates noted — hence the many “Hillary” references. Their “attacks” weren’t only because Hillary leads the pack, but because she’s cagey to a fault.
At times, Hillary’s relationship to nuance borders on compulsion more than wisdom. If her husband triangulated, she pentagonates. She’s been working so many sides for so long that she seems incapable of yes or no.
Hillary can handle the men just fine. What’s giving her problems is Hillary.
What do you think of Parker’s conclusions?
back to top36 Comments to “What’s Hillary’s problem?”
The introduction to this topic is too precious.
I’ll try an alternative.
I can’t stand that *#!@ &$!ch. How about you?
Report comment to moderator
Nothing makes it harder on women in the workforce than other women in the workforce who act like big, sissy, babies. When ever the young girls I used to work with would complain about how they were being treated by the men, I would invite them to observe how they treated each other. They usually realized they were getting off easy.
And no, Random I really don’t like her, but I hope she is the their candidate.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, if a woman is going to be elected President, she should be an evangelical thatcher.
Howe about Laura Bush?
Report comment to moderator
I have always had trouble trusting her or responding to her with liking or respect. And I’ve even tried to appreciate her. Doesn’t work.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, if a woman is going to be elected President, she should be an evangelical thatcher.
That would be great.
Report comment to moderator
Of course, I assume you are referring to Margaret and a “thatcher” isn’t some cool hip word like “slacker” for something I wouldn’t like.
Report comment to moderator
I like Laura Bush. And I like Margaret Thatcher. Either one would work.
Report comment to moderator
This time around it must be some vast LEFT-wing conspiracy that is attacking Hillary!
Doesn’t she know? There is no CRYING in politics!
Report comment to moderator
#6
Evangelical Christians hate the word “feminist” because they associate the word with liberal, pro-abortion, atheist, etc.
I regard the word as meaning a strong woman who, capable of demonstrating leadership, and who doesn’t take crap. There are evangelical Christian women who demonstrate these traits.
There is no useful point in arguing over words that have been drowned by their connotations, so I tried to invent a new word (hence the lower case) that represents a “feminist” woman who can’t stand being called a “feminist.”
Hence: thatcher.
Alternatives could be coulter or schlafly.
I try not to sweat the details. Those ladies don’t sweat; they perspire.
Report comment to moderator
#9 I like it. I shall strive to become more of a “thatcher”.
Report comment to moderator
“THERE’S NO CRYING IN BASEBALL! No crying!”
Report comment to moderator
Random,
A proper southern understanding is that horses sweat, men perspire and ladies “glow”….
So I wonder which one Hillary does?
More to the point, ever notice the press’ penchance for taking unflattering photos? Despite the botox, she has a very mobile face, and is given to extremely wild eyed facial expressions…
Hillary is nothing if not a politician. She cannot say yes, or no. If one really “knew” where she stood, no one would vote for her. But that’s just posturing at this point. We all really do know she’s firmly on the left as the record shows. She’s fooling no one.
Report comment to moderator
#12
I stand corrected. I am a non-southerner hick.
I believe what you refer to in terms of Hillary’s positions is known as “running between the raindrops.”
Hillary will be the answer to a trivia question:
Who was the first woman candidate (besides small-time flakes) to lose an election to be President. (aka “Big-Time Flake)
Report comment to moderator
#9 Random:
You’re right on. I associate “feminist” with the anger movement I was part of in the sixties and seventies. I got kicked out of N.O.W. because I never would “give” on abortion, even as a then agnostic. But I really appreciate the kind of woman you are describing, and if Margaret Thatcher, for example, were running for president I would have no problem voting for her. I will happily adopt “thatcher” as a descriptive for all such women–strong, self-assured, reasoned, not carrying “baggage” having to do with “women as victims”, just very competently doing their jobs. There are thousands of such women in every walk of life, and they are eminently worthy of respect.
Report comment to moderator
Ah Hillary, like it or not she’s married to a master politician. So it is not Hillary who is crying foul it is “her people.” Other than the Wellesley line–which comes off well if you see the footage–it is her crowd saying it. Politics is perception. And the perception we are all getting is that she’s the frontrunner. Everyone is picking on her because she’s the one they have to beat. She’s playing the gender card and playing it well. She’s got her opponents and everyone else talking about her. Good press or bad press she’s got us all shaking hands or wringing hands and telling each other she’s have way to the White House. Smart woman.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t like or trust Hillary as a candidate. Here’s my bumper sticker in the too-likely event of a Guiliani-Clinton race in 2008:
I also think election law should be revised to stop our recent penchant for American dynasties. If Hillary wins and gets re-elected: Bush – Clinton – Clinton – Bush – Bush – Clinton – Clinton. That’s 28 years with the same two families in the executive. And I would not be at all surprised to see Jeb Bush make a run in 2012 or 2016 when Republicans are no longer hated.
Report comment to moderator
here’s that link (to t-shirts, not bumper stickers):
Report comment to moderator
Nicely said, ADIOS.
A few weeks ago I listened to the entire Republican debate on the radio. (As an aside, I highly reccomend listening to these debates instead of watching them). I was struck by two things: first, how often the candidates spoke of Hillary Clinton during their response, especially Rudy Giuliani. Out of nowhere, he’d just start rambling about Hillary. They were speaking about her as if she were an incumbent President running for her second term.
My second impression was: President?? Sheesh, how did Fred Thompson even get elected to be a Senator?
Report comment to moderator
If Hillary wins and gets re-elected: Bush – Clinton – Clinton – Bush – Bush – Clinton – Clinton. That’s 28 years with the same two families in the executive. And I would not be at all surprised to see Jeb Bush make a run in 2012 or 2016 when Republicans are no longer hated.
Good grief, JJF, I hadn’t even thought of that! So much for there being no political dynasties in this country!
I wonder what the political landscape would look like with a Hillary/Huckabee face-off (probably not going to happen, of course) in the next election. Arkansas v. Arkansas…oh, excuse me, I forgot the Senator is a “New Yorker” (does she still own property in either state, btw?).
Report comment to moderator
JJF, I just clicked on your link: Cthulhu 2008! Lesser evil! I love it! I wonder how many folks get the Lovecraft reference, though? I’ve still got a Miskatonic University (”Home of the Fighting Cephalopods!”) t-shirt somewhere, although it’s seen better days…
Report comment to moderator
Good grief. How many politicians give straight answers? Other than an occasional Ron Paul, these guys (and women) don’t give straight up answers to questions. They either filibuster, evade, partially answer, or completely ignore direct questions, and give their pre-rehearsed talking points.
As for Hillary’s campaign team using the “piling on” tactic, I’d say that if the other candidates could use the tactic to their advantage, they would do it in a heartbeat. Feigning “unfairness” or “piling on” is a time-tested campaign tactic. Yes, it would be nice if politicians would just be honest and real. But in today’s media driven, image conscious world, that’s not going to happen. Most people can see through this stuff though.
As the first viable female candidate for President, Mrs. Clinton does have a fine line to walk. The expectations and scrutiny are much higher for her. So far, I’d say she’s done fairly well. She’s a cagey politician, that’s for sure! Her and her husband represent a formidable “tag team”.
I’m not exactly enamored with Mrs. Clinton, and I won’t be voting for her in the primary. But I can’t dismiss the fact that she is probably going to be the party nominee.
While Kathleen Parker’s comments are interesting, we should remember that she is a columnist and has her own biases and prejudices. She is but one small voice in a huge cacophony of pundits. Get out your i-pods folks, because it’s only going to get louder.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
I can hardly wait… [/sarcasm off]
Report comment to moderator
By the way, I find the “nepotism” cry coming from conservatives and Republicans to be quite disingenuous. Where were these people when the current Bush was running for office?
I’m totally against nepotism in politics and I do find some merit to the current argument of “not another Clinton”. I just find it totally hypocritical coming from the Bush crowd.
Report comment to moderator
It’s one thing to not give a straight answer, Anlir, but quite another thing to respond to the illegal licenses the way Hillary did in last week’s debate: To answer in the affirmative and then in the negative in back-to-back responses!
Report comment to moderator
BTW, it would be totally against the U.S. Constitution to prohibit people with the same last name (even in the same family) from winning the WH in concurrent terms.
But when did that ever stop a liberal from trying?
Report comment to moderator
“By the way, I find the “nepotism” cry coming from conservatives and Republicans to be quite disingenuous.”
Who did that?
Report comment to moderator
RN, #3 suggested Laura Bush which started a big discussion of new “Lady Thatchers”. It would be nice, but there are no more Thachers nor Reagans.
But concerning Laura Bush. She isn’t decisive enough. She probably makes GW stand around, but that isn’t what I mean. She has to be a tough leader. Condi Rice doesn’t fit that either.
She would never run, but Karen Hughes would be ideal. Everyone talks about the influence the Chaney and Rove have (had), but now that Karen is going back to Texas, bush has lost a major asset.
Report comment to moderator
KBells,
There have been a number of conservative commentators of late (William Rusher and Cal Thomas come immediately to mind) who are suddenly decrying “nepotism” n regards to Mrs. Clinton. They had no qualms about Bush.
In regards to politicians not giving straight answers and “flip flopping” – they all do it. That would include liberals and conservatives.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I made a little progress, getting a couple of wmb participants to consider adopting the “thatcher” level. As I develop skill in repackaging and repositioning, perhaps I can deem myself a rove.
In a thousand years or so.
Report comment to moderator
The Iron Lady would be a great presidential choice, except that she cannot run since she is not US citizen. Laura Bush? I would vote for her!
Report comment to moderator
Laura, like the other Bush women, is pro-choice. She also smokes. Of course, if I was married to George I’d smoke like a fish just to annoy him.
She seems like an awfully nice lady though. I don’t know if that qualifies her to run for office, but it’s as good as anything else I suppose.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir – 31
Laura Bush does not smoke, she gave it up long before her husband became President -
Report comment to moderator
Laura Bush is pro-choice? I didn’t know that.
Report comment to moderator
Thatcher
http://www.goneruralswazi.com/acompany.html
Report comment to moderator
“By the way, I find the “nepotism” cry coming from conservatives and Republicans to be quite disingenuous.”
Conservatives and Republicans are smart enough to know that getting elected to a position of authority in one’s own right is not nepotism and aren’t making any such cries. Presidents are elected by the people, not appointed by their relatives. Nepotism, from the Latin for nephew, describes the practice of giving plum positions to relatives by the person in power, eg Robert Kennedy being appointed Attorney General by his brother, the president.
Report comment to moderator
hmm after Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Clinton Clinton and then Jeb making it Bush Bush and perhaps Chelsea would be old enough.
Chas
Karen Hughes???? the utter flop in pr for the middle east ???
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!