Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
HRC's Crying Jag
Hillary Clinton's show of emotion struck me as so calculated you've got to wonder if the questioner was a plant.
Let's go where a gullible and compliant -- Clinton chokes up, is applauded, at campaign stop -- national press corps refuses to go -- to HRC's history.
Monday's performance was not the first time she played the victim card, oh, no. In fact, in January 1992 it was very much Hillary the victim who saved the Clintons' political dreams. The pair's "pain in our marriage" sit-down on 60 Minutes stopped Bill Clinton's free-fall caused by the Gennifer Flowers scandal.
The interview told voters that Bill was sorry, Hillary was sad, but that the couple was together, resilient, and remade. A few days later, Bill "won" the New Hampshire primary by besting low expectations and finishing second to Paul Tsongas. Thus was born the "comeback kid," got Bill out of the Northeast with momentum and on to blacker and bluer-collar electorates. The rest is history.
Jump to 1994 - the Whitewater, cattle futures, and infamous pink suit press conference.
With a pinch of fake bottle-blonde self-deprecation -- she just did whatever Jim Blair or Jim McDougal said -- a dollop of amnesia -- Hillary could not remember just how the darn money got there -- and heavy closer of persecution and guilt-tripping -- "We don't fit easily into a lot of our pre-existing categories . . . And I think that, having been independent, having made decisions, it's a little difficult for us as a country, maybe, to make the transition of having a woman like many of the women in this room, sitting in this house" -- further reporting on the topics was ruled out of bounds. The DC press swooned.
By 1998 it was "the vast right wing conspiracy" at work against her and Bill. Today it is not widely recalled that phrase was initially deployed to pre-empt the wild notion that the President of the United States had bukkaked an intern in a White House butler's pantry.
In 2000, the on-the-rebound and righteous Hillary was running a Senate campaign so buttoned-up and repressed that reporters openly doubted a candy basket from Hillary was really meant as a gift and not some dark manipulation.
Yet when making the press rounds for her 2003 autobiography, everyone was more than willing to help Hillary wallow in her victimhood. It all started at Wellesley, you see, where she just did not fit in.
And a year ago it was the VRWC Mk. II messing with the phone lines in New Hampshire. To the extent the sneak-and-peak Bush administration was involved, we are all victims here -- but Hillary especially so, because those were Democratic phones, dammit.
In short, it is impossible to have been even slightly aware of politics in America the past 15 years and miss this trend. As such, the tears, properly understood, were far from "an uncharacteristic display."
Just more of Hillary Rodham Clinton saying and doing anything for power.
Rotter|1.8.08 @ 2:07PM|#
Who thinks the "Iron My Shirt" guy was an HRC plant? The only thing that makes me doubt it is that she didn't have a snappy comeback ready.
|1.8.08 @ 2:10PM|#
I'm no Hillary supporter, but "crying jag?"
She welled up, probably for real, when contemplating her "woe is
me, the men are picking on me" shtick after losing badly in Iowa.
It will work with some and not with others. No where near as phoney
as the time Bill was laughing and chating until he saw a camera
trained on him.
ed|1.8.08 @ 2:13PM|#
infamous pink suit press conference
I believe it was later coined the "Pretty In Pink" news
conference.
Episiarch|1.8.08 @ 2:13PM|#
I think we're reading too much into this. Maybe she had just asked one of her staffers "do I look fat in these pants?" and they didn't respond with "no, you look great" quickly enough.
|1.8.08 @ 2:14PM|#
She seems really manic-depressive right now. Getting unquestionably shrill and angry at the debate, and then crying two days later.
VM|1.8.08 @ 2:19PM|#
Episiarch | January 8, 2008, 2:13pm | #
I think we're reading too much into this. Maybe she had just asked one of her staffers "do I look fat in these pants?" and they didn't respond with "no, you look great" quickly enough.
11/10. for the win! woo hoo!
Cesar - actually, she just hired Rick Santorum's daughter as a
media coach!
|1.8.08 @ 2:22PM|#
as long as we're talking about candidates emotions, why all this fuss over HRC and no mention of that priceless look on Romney's face at the facebook debate when his opponents were picking on him? He looked like he was about to hit someone. I found it very telling about his temper.
|1.8.08 @ 2:29PM|#
HRC is the ultimate rosarch test for crazy people. I do not support Hillary, she takes way too much corporate money for me but there is something really sick about the way she is treated. I think she is an opportunist who thought she could take the tired DLC talking points and win like her husband, she likely won't, but assigning her every move as being motivated by malice and crass political maneuvering seems to be a bit overblown.
ed|1.8.08 @ 2:29PM|#
Oh, and kudos, Mr. Taylor, for using bukkake in such a delightful way and reminding us that it wasn't the famous dress that, er, took it on the chin.
Franklin Harris|1.8.08 @ 2:33PM|#
Just more of Hillary Rodham Clinton saying and doing anything for power.
That's actually why I think HRC's Ed Muskie moment was
genuine. A woman who has spent her entire adult life lusting after
power might very well cry when she realizes she might not get
it.
|1.8.08 @ 2:39PM|#
The reason this doesn't work, Jeff, is because absolutely none
of the victim cards she played before involved tears.
Thanks for the listing of all the times Hillary Clinton claimed she
was being done wrong. Good job showing that she doesn't get weepy
while she's doing that.
|1.8.08 @ 2:42PM|#
A is a B. Therefore, all Bs are A.
Hillary Clinton does calculated things. Therefore, everything
Hillary Clinton does is calculated.
jet|1.8.08 @ 2:42PM|#
In live in Portsmouth, NH. The questioner (Marianne Pernold Young) was not an "undecided voter." She is a prominent Hillary supporter.
|1.8.08 @ 2:45PM|#
The questioner (Marianne Pernold Young) was not an "undecided voter." She is a prominent Hillary supporter.
Thats the biggest non-surprise of the year.
|1.8.08 @ 2:49PM|#
I'm hardly a Hillary fan, but this really seems like a stretch (though not as big a stretch as the "iron my shirt" guys being plants).
ed|1.8.08 @ 2:50PM|#
Hillary Clinton does calculated things. Therefore,
everything Hillary Clinton does is calculated.
Nah, it just goes back to the idea that, even when the Clintons are
innocent, they seem guilty.
|1.8.08 @ 2:50PM|#
Hillary used the female version of the nuclear bomb in the argument, she turned on the tears. If it works, by God she'll do it again, you bet.
|1.8.08 @ 2:50PM|#
joe, Hillary is a calculating person, therefore, given
the evidence of this that Mr. Taylor highlights, he's made a
decision that this, too, is calculated.
I don't agree with him, however...after all, is this crying things
making her look, well, bad?
Franklin Harris|1.8.08 @ 2:51PM|#
All of a sudden I miss Michael Young's posts on the Middle East.
That's just cold, man.
|1.8.08 @ 2:52PM|#
All of a sudden I miss Michael Young's posts on the Middle
East.
I second this emotion.
You know, personally I don't care much for or support Hillary or
the Clintons, but people like Jeff Taylor really make me feel
sympathy towards her.
After reading this pathetic attack by Mr Taylor, I think I'm gonna
cry.
|1.8.08 @ 2:52PM|#
So you have a bunch of links reminded us of famous incidents
where HRC was calculating. Huh.
The question you ask if whether the questioner was a plant, and you
ignore it entirely. And that is the only timely question,
unless you believe HRC was just preparing to well up at any moment
there were cameras and just the right question happened to
occur.
Also, I say "timely" above because, of course, you may feel that
HRC's use of victimhood is a relevant issue -- I'd
probably agree with you -- but until there's any evidence that this
incident had any calculation behind it, I think Kerry's
observation is more on point here.
I mean, you don't need to know anything about the Romney-bot's
history to know his welling up when talking about Mormon opinions
about African Americans was calculated -- I don't even need to
provide a YouTube link. So why dredge up 10 year old links about
HRC that don't tell us anything we didn't already know. And yes,
regardless of what one thinks of HRC, it is impossible not to know
she faux-emoted to save her husband's career. I know no one across
the entire political spectrum who doesn't know that. And those that
did forget were reminded by the sad performance of Mrs. Larry
Craig.
Anon
Gilbert Martin|1.8.08 @ 2:57PM|#
"Monday's performance was not the first time she played the
victim card, oh, no"
Indeed not - in fact that's been her tactic from the very beginning
of her advance onto the public stage when Bill ran for
president.
And of course the reason she kept doing it over and over again is
becauase she continued to get away with it.
And the reason she kept getting away with it was that the liberal
mainstream media was ready, willing and eager to support her spin
in each instance that came along.
Hillary was as phony as a nine dollar bill in all of those earlier
instances and she is just as phony on this one.
|1.8.08 @ 2:59PM|#
Randian,
joe, Hillary is a calculating person, therefore, given the
evidence of this that Mr. Taylor highlights, he's made a decision
that this, too, is calculated. But given that none of this
evidence demonstrates that she acts like THIS while playing the
victim card, he's engaging the fallacy I've identified.
I don't agree with him, however...after all, is this crying
things making her look, well, bad? Actually, given her
reputation, I'd saying showing some softness and emotion helps
her.
R C Dean|1.8.08 @ 2:59PM|#
After reading this pathetic attack by Mr Taylor, I think I'm
gonna cry.
Review of Hillary media-manipulation performances = attack?
Questioning whether a politically convenient show of emotion by a
politician might be less than sincere = attack?
Man, that's some thin skin you got there.
|1.8.08 @ 3:01PM|#
The Clintons have played the victim card against Republicans
since 1992.
Problem is, its just not working against a Democratic primary
opponent.
And no, I'm not going to feel sorry for someone who has been
planning to run for President her entire life. Watching it slip
away from her gives me great pleasure, not sympathy towards her. It
actually makes me think maybe, just maybe people aren't
that stupid after all.
Episiarch|1.8.08 @ 3:04PM|#
It actually makes me think maybe, just maybe people aren't
that stupid after all.
How does this observation square with Huckabee's popularity?
|1.8.08 @ 3:04PM|#
Your comment is sick and hateful. This woman has devoted 30
years to public service, not making money, and stood up for Dem
causes and worked hard every day for her party. If I were her I
would be crying too to think that not only the Right Wing nut bags
hate my guts but Dems too? And not only hate me but are prepared to
make constant misogynistic comments that make EMINEM look like a
sensitive man? I dont know how she keeps going but she sure
deserves better coverage than she has received, and that this
disgusting post typifies.
Read Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly people if you want to read
something more intelligent than this pile on crap. I swear Hillary
haters are going to alienate boomer women and men who like Hillary
into doing nothing for Dems in the GE. Keep it up. I have sworn
from the start to support any Dem who wins the nomination, but my
anger, and the anger of her supporters who think she has received a
historically unprecedented raw deal is rising the longer you creeps
keep attacking her.
|1.8.08 @ 3:05PM|#
It actually makes me think maybe, just maybe people aren't
that stupid after all.
well, don't count us out yet. The Demkids are still falling all
over themselves to support Sen. Empty Suit.
|1.8.08 @ 3:05PM|#
While Bill accepting Monica's blowjobs was not part of the rigt wing conspiracy, the legal machinations that turned it into the impeachment crisis certainly were. Seriously now, was this something worthy of that process given what Bush and Cheney have done so far?
|1.8.08 @ 3:08PM|#
The reason this doesn't work, Jeff, is because absolutely
none of the victim cards she played before involved
tears.
So, if Bush said he needs an AUMF to go into Iran, and backs it up
by saying we know they're currently making suitcase nukes, you'll
believe him because he's never talked about suitcase nukes when
he's lied in the past?
|1.8.08 @ 3:08PM|#
I think the way to look at it is the Little Hilary That Cried
Wolf. If you are caught doing calculated things often enough, you
lose the benefit of the doubt. The same sentiment as ed, just
without the sympathetic nod.
Recognizing a pattern for what it is does not constitute an
attack.
|1.8.08 @ 3:10PM|#
I'd have much more respect for her had she divorced Bill. She
stayed with him for purely political reasons, which makes
me ill inside. Watch for a divorce after her campaign flames
out.
Read Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly people if you want to read something more intelligent than this pile on crap. I swear Hillary haters are going to alienate boomer women and men who like Hillary into doing nothing for Dems in the GE.
Oh noes! Anything but hurting Team Blue! /sarcasm
well, don't count us out yet. The Demkids are still falling all over themselves to support Sen. Empty Suit.
Yeah, but better a nieve empty suit than a calculating power monger
who refuses to divorce a serial adulturer because he might help her
become President.
|1.8.08 @ 3:12PM|#
Bill Pope,
Clinton's lying under oath and abuse of his presidential power to
try to cover it up were absolutely grounds for impeachment. If
there was a VRWC against Clinton, they must have been absolute
dolts to go forward with it when the popular opinion was heavily on
Clinton's side...the Republicans lost a bunch of seats in Congress
in 1998 in the middle of the impeachment, yet they continued to go
forward with it.
Bush & Cheney's behavior is irrelevant, though if you ask me
they should've been impeached long ago (Cheney first to make sure
he never becomes Prez).
|1.8.08 @ 3:13PM|#
I have sworn from the start to support any Dem who wins the
nomination
Run along, little tribalist. No one cares about your pro-Hillary
tiny-person's rage.
HRC is a sucky, sucky human being. There you go, Jammer...I hope I
don't feel the full brunt of your internet anger! *trembles*
|1.8.08 @ 3:16PM|#
crimethink,
First of all, he has talked about suitcase nukes in the past.
Second, crying is not merely an extraneous detail here.
|1.8.08 @ 3:18PM|#
She stayed with him for purely political reasons, which
makes me ill inside.
How the hell do you know?
Do you have any idea how many men cheat on their wives and don't
get divorced?
|1.8.08 @ 3:18PM|#
Questioning whether a politically convenient show of emotion
by a politician might be less than sincere = attack?
In this particular instance, yes it is. It's a hit piece by someone
who obviously dislikes HRC. You can choose to be naive or downright
dumb about it, but this post wasn't really "questioning" anything.
It was making biased assertions to portray Hillary in a negative
manner.
You aren't a fool RC, so please don't play the fool. You know damn
well that this post was an attack. Don't pretend it wasn't just
because you agree with the sentiment. You're normally better than
that.
As to the thickness of my skin, it's quite thick. Calling someone
out on their hit piece (even when it's directed at someone I don't
like) doesn't make one thin-skinned, it makes them intellectually
honest, unlike yourself.
|1.8.08 @ 3:19PM|#
Do you have any idea how many men cheat on their wives and don't get divorced?
Among self-proclaimed feminists? I bet shes clearly in the
minority.
Episiarch|1.8.08 @ 3:19PM|#
I think Jammer has a crush on Hillary. That makes me feel funny inside, and not "ha ha" funny.
|1.8.08 @ 3:19PM|#
kinnath|1.8.08 @ 3:20PM|#
Nah, it just goes back to the idea that, even when the
Clintons are innocent, they seem guilty.
A classic Doonesbury from that time had Bill directing his staffers
in a cover-up. The staffers said something to the effect that it
would be easier to cover things up if they knew what they were
covering up.
|1.8.08 @ 3:21PM|#
joe,
Whatever, you know what I'm saying. If Bush found a new and
inventive way to lie us into a war, would you believe him just
because he hasn't done it that way in the past?
ed|1.8.08 @ 3:21PM|#
As much as I despise the Clintons, I think maybe Hillary's angst was genuine. Nobody will ever know, but until somebody pulls her head off to reveal the wires and circuit board, I'll keep assuming she's actually human.
|1.8.08 @ 3:23PM|#
Just more of Hillary Rodham Clinton saying and doing
anything for power.
This criticism generally comes on the heels of an example where
someone does something bad. All Hillary did was well up a
bit. She showed some emotion, therefore she will do
anything for power?? Please.
How is her welling up any different from Edwards' pretense of anger
or Romney's attempts at humor? It's all an act at every moment by
every candidate. Hillary is not special in this regard.
fyodor|1.8.08 @ 3:23PM|#
So, if Bush said he needs an AUMF to go into Iran, and backs
it up by saying we know they're currently making suitcase nukes,
you'll believe him because he's never talked about suitcase nukes
when he's lied in the past?
Lying is lying, but crying takes another level of acting ability.
Unless maybe she had peeled onions planted in her blouse or
something? I wouldn't put it past her, but I dunno. I don't doubt
Hillary is even slimier than the average politician, but I think
this certainty that her tears were insincere is a little silly.
That said, I don't especially care one way or another, especially
since there's no way to ever know for sure so all the commentary on
it is inevitably empty speculation that tells us more about the
speculator than what's being speculated on.
Though I do mildly enjoy the cheesy drama of it all!!
Episiarch|1.8.08 @ 3:24PM|#
SugarFree:
Today I was driving in my car with my windows down, and some
young white male pulled up next to me at a red light and referring
to my "Hillary: for president" sticker made the clever comment,
"Excuse me, Ms. Someone vandalized your car by putting a sticker on
the back." I was so caught off guard I didn't even know how to
respond. He then continued with, "You're joking right, that's a
joke." I just gave him the thumbs up and drove away.
Fucking awesome. "Young white male."
R C Dean|1.8.08 @ 3:24PM|#
You know damn well that this post was an attack.
I guess I was reading your complaint as being that it was an unfair
attack, even, as you say, a "hit piece."
I didn't see anything unfair or unwarranted in it at all. A
straight review of her highlight reel, and a couple of perfectly
legitimate questions. If you think that's an unfair attack or a hit
piece, well, I think your skin's a little thin for Presidential
politics.
See, where I come from, speculating that Obama is a drug dealer (as
an HRC operative did) is an attack. Pointing out the factual
background for doubting a candidate's sincerity, while perhaps an
"attack" in some weak sense of the word, is neither unfair nor a
"hit piece."
But that's just how I use the terms. YMMV, depending on whose ox is
being gored.
Gilbert Martin|1.8.08 @ 3:28PM|#
"Calling someone out on their hit piece (even when it's directed
at someone I don't like) doesn't make one thin-skinned, it makes
them intellectually honest, unlike yourself."
Hah - if calling someone's opinion of Hillary's faking this
incident and citing incidents of her prior behavior a "hit piece",
then all the posts of people claiming she was being genuine can be
classified as "shilling for Hillary".
None of you can prove that she WAS being genuine any more than the
other way around.
|1.8.08 @ 3:30PM|#
Cesar,
I've known plenty of self-described feminists who couldn't quit men
that were bad for them, even when they would have been much better
off with someone with the decency and treat them right and a bright
future in urban planning.
crimethink,
Bush's efforts to lie us into war follow a pattern. The Iran and
Iraq pushes had some difference in the particulars, but their basic
form was the same.
Hillary's victim-card-playing, same thing. There is a cohestive
pattern to all of the examples Taylor mentions, and working up
tears and making herself look less-than-completely-in-control isn't
it.
Rye-guy|1.8.08 @ 3:32PM|#
Is this crap any better:
"Today you can make your voice heard-you can insist that change
will come," Obama told a crowd Tuesday at Dartmouth College. "The
American people have decided for the first time in a very long time
to cast aside cynicism, to cast aside fear, to cast aside
doubts."
No need to have a personality, just let me do your thinking.
I loathe Hillary's positions, but the schadenfraude from seeing the
Robamats' candidate lose would be so much better.
VM|1.8.08 @ 3:32PM|#
"How is her welling up any different from Edwards' pretense of
anger or Romney's attempts at humor? It's all an act at every
moment by every candidate. Hillary is not special in this
regard."
or a candidate appealing to creationist supporters? or the same
voting for DOMA or what not? or appealing to the Oprah crowd? all
politicians in the race will do anything to expand their power. the
HRC hatred turns it into some unique position to her?? She's bad
enough to have her fall on her own policy merits.
kerfwango|1.8.08 @ 3:33PM|#
Well, I'll be darned. The woman who ostensibly caused Hillary to
choke up (see this story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/07/eveningnews/main3684135.shtml)
worked for Jimmy Carter's campaign.
See here: http://www.pernoldphoto.com/history.html
|1.8.08 @ 3:34PM|#
Good Lord, Gilbert Martin actually wrote something
intelligent!
Hah - if calling someone's opinion of Hillary's faking this
incident and citing incidents of her prior behavior a "hit piece",
then all the posts of people claiming she was being genuine can be
classified as "shilling for Hillary".
Quite true. It is not the subject matter of the piece that makes it
a hit piece, nor the subject matter of Jammer's comment that makes
it shilling. One can speculate on Clinton's insincerity without it
being a hit piece, and rebut such an attack without it being
shilling.
It is the manner in which these things were done that makes the one
a hit piece, and the other a bit of shilling.
Xanthippas|1.8.08 @ 3:35PM|#
This post is ridiculous.
In 2000, the on-the-rebound and righteous Hillary was running a
Senate campaign so buttoned-up and repressed that reporters openly
doubted a candy basket from Hillary was really meant as a gift and
not some dark manipulation.
What the article you link to actually says is that the
reporters were "incredulous", but it's so much sexier to call it a
"dark manipulation" isn't it? And that's characteristic of the
writing about Clinton, where the worst is assumed and then promptly
flayed. But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at all that someone
can write an entire column displaying their HDS for all the world
to see, without at all mentioning any actual policy position she's
ever had.
Britney Spears Guy|1.8.08 @ 3:38PM|#
How friggin dare anyone out there make fun of Hillary after all she has been through. She lost her free house, she went through an impeachment. She has one friggin kid. Her husband turned out to be a user, a cheater, and now shes going through a political battle. All you people care about is..... readers and making money off of her. SHE'S A HUMAN! What you don't realize is that Hillary is making you all this money and all you do is write a bunch of crap about her. She hasn't performed on stage in days. Her song is called "give me more" for a reason because all you people want is MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE. LEAVE HER ALONE! You are lucky she even performed for you BASTARDS! LEEEAVE HILLARY ALLLLLONE!.....Please. Paris Hilton talked about professionalism and said if Hillary was a professional she would've pulled it off no matter what. Speaking of professionalism, when is it professional to publically bash someone who is going through a hard time? Leave Hillary Alone Please.... Leave Hillary Clinton alone...right now! I mean it. Anyone that has a problem with her you deal with me, beacuse she is not well right now. leave her alone!
|1.8.08 @ 3:39PM|#
RC Dean,
I think Jeff Taylor was writing in code. Unfortunately, some of us
lost our decoder rings at the laundromat.
Kolohe|1.8.08 @ 3:40PM|#
after all, is this crying things making her look, well,
bad?
When they first were showing the clip yesterday, I thought this was
Clinton's Dean scream. It first looked bad, especially the way both
fox & cnn were showing the tightly editted clip over and
over.
However, 24 hr later, the coverage and commentary on cnn/fox as
well as the mainstream left or leaning blogosphere seems to have
framed this event in a way mostly favorable to Clinton.
This event seems to be coming out as a net positive for the
campaign.
|1.8.08 @ 3:41PM|#
Hugo Chavez in a pants-suit.
On Meet the Press on Sunday, the recurring Republican strategist
character said that if Hillary loses NH, she'd become "Ed Muskie in
a pants suit." I wonder if he reads H&R...
|1.8.08 @ 3:45PM|#
Unfortunately, some of us lost our decoder rings at the
laundromat.
I think mine is lost somewhere in my mom's basement among cases of
booze, my huge stash of pot, all of my gaming equipment, my porn
mags, my Dungeons and Dragons game...
|1.8.08 @ 3:46PM|#
Great post, Jeff! This is why I read Reason -- because I can't
watch Sean Hannity while I'm at work.
So, really, you think Hillary is calculating. Interesting.
Tell me more!
|1.8.08 @ 3:50PM|#
I can see how this could play out well for her. I mean, not this
specific incident, but in general the whole losing thing. If she
has something real up her sleves to turn this boat around, it will
be seen as a collosal achievement, she'll look more human, and a
greater portion of the population will have warmed to her more.
It'll make her victory actually look like a victory.
The major question for me, of course, is "can she do it?"
|1.8.08 @ 3:54PM|#
ed,
Maybe she should start wearing a dress. That would blow
everyone's mind.
Bad idea. The tentacles would hang loose, and you and I both know
they have a mind of their own...
|1.8.08 @ 3:55PM|#
None of you can prove that she WAS being genuine any more
than the other way around.
Yes but the people who believe she was being genuine aren't the
ones asserting anything as fact.
It's the people who are stating unequivocally that she was being
disingenuous/faking it that have to prove something, not the people
who merely take her at face value.
I don't know if she is faking, but I do know that anyone stating
with any authority that she is faking is full of it.
|1.8.08 @ 3:55PM|#
Anybody who actually believes Hillary has EVER been sincere is a fucking idiot. That people here are so deluded, it scares the shit out of me. JsubD, this post really felt gooood.
|1.8.08 @ 3:57PM|#
This is the kind of hyperventilating piling on and overdoing it attacks on HRC that make people want to defend her. It's actually what her and her husband count on. Jesus Jeff, take a pill.
|1.8.08 @ 4:01PM|#
Is Jeff Taylor someone they keep in a box at Reason headquarters
and release periodically to make Michael Moynihan seem objective
and measured?
"Hey Nick, MM just did his 8,000 post attacking Al Gore and Michael
Moore, and people are staring to question if he's a conservative
shill."
Better get the gimp."
|1.8.08 @ 4:02PM|#
Episiarch,
You forgot the kicker!
And I'm not running for president. I can't even keep my windows
down anymore. Imagine what she's going through.
Oh, fuck! Oh, Jesus! If I keep my windows down someone might
playfully engage me in a political discussion! Oh, the oppression,
the oppression!
|1.8.08 @ 4:04PM|#
Jammer:
Your comment is sick and hateful. This woman has devoted 30
years to public service, not making money, and stood up for Dem
causes and worked hard every day for her party.
Stuff it, Jammer. She supported the war, then opposed it, then
supportd it, and now the slimey polititian says she opposes it.
She's been the beneficiary of two Ruppert Murdock fundraisers, and
she plants questions!
|1.8.08 @ 4:04PM|#
You know what scares me about her losing actually? That Obama will make her Attorney General.
|1.8.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Does anyone think HRC's vote on the Iranian Guard bill hurt her?
I sure do.
She's had a few votes and positions like this, where she knew it
would be unpopular with Dem primary voters but figured hell she had
it wrapped up and these votes/positions would help her in the
general election when the GOP attacked her on national security or
what have you. Now they are so coming back to bite her in her
roundy rump...
VM|1.8.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Cesar - that would be consistent with the type of person that's been in the AG office for... well, years and years...
|1.8.08 @ 4:09PM|#
This is the kind of hyperventilating piling on and overdoing
it attacks on HRC that make people want to defend her. It's
actually what her and her husband count on. Jesus Jeff, take a
pill.
Hear Hear! Well Spoke Mr Nice Guy
|1.8.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Episiarch,
Did you miss this one?
My first
thoughts about Knocked Up always go to when the star of
the movie "misinterprets" a whine of "Hurry up and do it" to skip
putting on a condom on altogether instead of hurrying up with
putting it on. As far as I'm concern, rape by
negligence. She didn't want unprotected sex and he
purposely made it into unsafe sex.
(emphasis mine)
No one in the rest of the long thread challenges that notion at
all. No one.
--Last of the off-topic--
|1.8.08 @ 4:24PM|#
Going to Femministing posts is a step above posting Freeper quotes. Fish in a barell.
R C Dean|1.8.08 @ 4:28PM|#
None of you can prove that she WAS being genuine any more
than the other way around.
Of course not. But, given her history, I think I know the smart way
to bet.
Gilbert Martin|1.8.08 @ 4:28PM|#
"Good Lord, Gilbert Martin actually wrote something
intelligent!"
Good Lord, joe actually thinks he's an authority on
intelligence.
Episiarch|1.8.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Going to Femministing posts is a step above posting Freeper
quotes. Fish in a barell.
But the Feministing posts are vastly more entertaining and more
pathetic and less creepy.
|1.8.08 @ 5:00PM|#
But the Feministing posts are vastly more entertaining and more pathetic and less creepy.
True. Its kind of funny in a pathetic way how every little bit of
everyday American life they see through the Liberal Holy Trinity of
Race, Gender, and Class.
|1.8.08 @ 5:22PM|#
My 4:04 post with proper spelling...(Excuse me, please.)
Stuff it, Jammer. She supported the war, then opposed it, then
supported it, and now the slimy politician says she opposes it.
She's been the beneficiary of two Ruppert Murdock fundraisers, and
she plants questions!
|1.9.08 @ 10:59AM|#
Keep it classy, Jeff. Just remember, when Rudy cries, it is all about 9/11, and he only cries in a manly way.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245