Hillary Clinton

Jeri Thompson: Boldly Going Where Hillary Clinton Went Before

|

When Kathryn Jean Lopez says something like this:

In their interview with Sean Hannity tonight, Jeri Thompson brought up the treatment of women in the Islamic world.

The prospect of a First Lady who challenges the liberal feminists to care about women who are actually oppressed is an attractive one.

…it makes me wonder how much attention she, and other conservatives of the XX* persuasion actually pay to this sort of thing. From the Associated Press, April 29, 1999:

Hillary Rodham Clinton urged Americans not to become apathetic about the predicament of women suffering under tight restrictions imposed by Afghanistan's Taliban government.

"We cannot go into the 21st century without doing everything within our power to try to stand against such human rights violations and against the perils of indifference," Hillary Clinton said Wednesday at a Capitol Hill luncheon honoring Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

"When women are savagely beaten by so-called religious police for not being fully covered by the burqa or for making noises while they walk, we know that it is not just the physical beating that is the objective," the first lady said. "It is the destruction of the spirit of those women as well."

"The women of Afghanistan, while other women are moving forward, are being pushed brutally backward in time," Clinton said. "The opportunities they once enjoyed are being trampled by the iron rule of the Taliban, creating one of the clearest examples of the systematic violations of women's rights in any nation in the world anywhere today."

If the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, conservatives aren't going to win the "who's more serious about women's rights in the Muslim World" argument. They really won't. They'd be better off fighting over which party likes Fleetwood Mac more. There would be very, very few benefits to a Clinton II administration, but her attitude towards extreme Islamic repression of women would be one of them. (And "liberal feminists" have cared about this stuff for a while. It's more convincing to argue that the Bush doctrine liberated women that feminists had no idea how to liberate than it is to assert that they didn't care.)

*fixed.

NEXT: Kids Are Asked the Darndest Things

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There would be very, very few benefits to a Clinton II administration, but her attitude towards extreme Islamic repression of women would be one of them.

    You’re saying this as if Hillary genuine cares about this issue. I posit that Clinton took this position for political expediency, not unlike all of her other positions…

  2. Wow. A cameo by Jacko in that Fleetwood Mac video at the Clinton Inaugural. How times have changed.

  3. It’s more convincing to argue that the Bush doctrine liberated women that feminists had no idea how to liberate than it is to assert that they didn’t car

    And that’s not very damned convincing at all.

    Re: “Bish Doctrine”
    What is it? Really, I can’t discern one at all.

  4. There would be very, very few benefits to a Clinton II administration, but her attitude towards extreme Islamic repression of women would be one of them.

    From the Associated Press, April 29, 1999: “We cannot go into the 21st century without doing everything within our power to try to stand against such human rights violations and against the perils of indifference,”

    Coming from a woman who voted for the invaion of Iraq, has stated support for a military solution in Darfur, and never once publicly objected to her husband’s many dubious foreign crusades, I’m not convinced that her attitude qualifies as a benefit.

  5. *yawn*

    K-Lo said something stupid. Nothing new to see here.

  6. Lazy link, btw.

  7. Once the gut-checkers at NRO get hold of an ideologically-appealing idea, they’re like a dog with a bone.

    Only Republicans have ever said a word about the oppression of women in fundamentalist Muslim socieites, and no amoung of fancy-shmancy “evidence” is going to prove otherwise.

  8. I don’t know about HRC getting all up in the T-ban’s face. But I do remember her going to China and badmouthing the West over the way it treated women. It was that International Womens Conference thing. It wouldn’t surprise me if I’m remembering it wrong, but that is the way I remember it. Score one for the vast right-wing conspiracy.

  9. KLo: a pioneer of the non-reality based community.

  10. You mean she donounced bad treatment of women regardless of where it occurs?

    That BITCH!

  11. Hillary has no bearing to stand up for womens’ rights considering how she enabled Bill’s womanising and helped to try to destroy all those women who dared to speak out against him.

  12. “and never once publicly objected to her husband’s many dubious foreign crusades”

    In fact, from what I’ve read, it was Hillary who talked Bill into bombing Bosnia.

  13. Wait wait wait, K-Lo is of the XY persuasion? Is there something she’s not telling us?

  14. K-Lo has her head up her ass again. Didn’t I have to post that on the last item from her? Does it ever change?

    Who is she blowing for that NRO gig?

  15. It’s always amusing to hear American conservatives complain that people in other countries adhere to old fashioned values regarding gender roles. Just a little too much.

  16. “You mean she donounced bad treatment of women regardless of where it occurs?

    That BITCH!”

    Yes obviously when you’re in China, the most logical topic of discussion is women’s rights in another country. God knows there’s nothing more to be done in that regard in China itself.

  17. Timothy:

    ha ha. what a cute spoonerism. What you wanted to say is “X-Lo is of the KY persuasion”.

    oh, yeah, joe! um. well, like double dumb ass on [points dramatically at passer by] him!!!! neener neener. so there.

    oh yeah!

    ARGH! *yelp of pain as rotator cuff gets damaged in patting self on the keester*

    **what… it’s pleasantly firm**

    ***oh, never mind. hrumph. kicks pebble***

  18. I’m waiting for the day when NRO publishes a daily summary of articles discussing the oppression of women, labor activists, and political minorities in Saudi Arabia, the same way they publish one about Iran.

    I think I’ll wait a long time.

  19. What does opposing womanizing have to do with women’s rights?

  20. “I’m waiting for the day when NRO publishes a daily summary of articles discussing the oppression of women, labor activists, and political minorities in Saudi Arabia, the same way they publish one about Iran.”

    To be fair NRO has taken shots at the Saudis. What they have steadfastly ignored is that Saudis own the Bush family.

  21. …it makes me wonder how much attention she, and other conservatives of the XY persuasion

    She’s probably of the XX persuasion, but I pity the fact-checker who has to verify that.

  22. OMG! Fluffy. @10.23

    How incredibly insensitive of you. You don’t get it, do you.

    Typical. Flesh-eating, military-industrial pornographic industry thinking.

    huff.
    *walks off, heavy footsteps slowly echo away*

  23. “What does opposing womanizing have to do with women’s rights?”

    A woman’s rights are being violated when she resists a womanizer’s advances and the womanizer continues to persist in his unwanted behavior.

  24. She’s probably of the XX persuasion, but I pity the fact-checker who has to verify that.

    There has to be some modern Robert Ripley-type that we could give that job to, for curiosity’s sake. He’ll just need a map to find the right location.

  25. Fluffy wrote: “What does opposing womanizing have to do with women’s rights?”

    Can you say sexual harassment in the workplace? He boned state employees while Gov. of Arkansas. He got bl*w j*bs from federal employees while President. And those are ones who went public versus taking the shut-up-money.

  26. Who reads Ms. Lopez anyway? By far the worst of the current crop at NR.

  27. meh to “Ignorant”.

    that type of behavior was rampant on both sides of the aisle back in the free and easy 90s…

  28. “Can you say sexual harassment in the workplace? He boned state employees while Gov. of Arkansas. He got bl*w j*bs from federal employees while President. And those are ones who went public versus taking the shut-up-money.”

    Don’t forget Juanita Broaderick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones.

  29. Can you say sexual harassment in the workplace? He boned state employees while Gov. of Arkansas. He got bl*w j*bs from federal employees while President.

    Neither of which in and of themselves qualify as sexual harassment.

  30. “A woman’s rights are being violated when she resists a womanizer’s advances and the womanizer continues to persist in his unwanted behavior.”

    Bah. You’re barking up the wrong tree arguing that case to me, Snakey.

    If I ask you out every day for ten years and every day you say No, I’m not violating any right of yours if I try again tomorrow. Title IX or no Title IX. The current state of sexual harassment law is monstrous.

    Free Isaiah Thomas!

  31. If I ask you out every day for ten years and every day you say No, I’m not violating any right of yours if I try again tomorrow.

    It depends on the context, doesn’t it? If your relationship to the woman is just social, then you’re probably right (although at some point general harassment charges might come into play).

    But if you’re a boss, client, or co-worker, clearly you are in the wrong in that scenario.

  32. K-Lo said something stupid. Nothing new to see here.

    Agreed. Furthermore, Derbyshire is the only interesting writer there. Everything else is shite.

  33. What if the Governor has a woman who works for the state government meet him in his room and shows her his penus? Is that not sesual harassment, Fluffy?

  34. I visit the corner from time to time and, like x,y above, find Ms. Lopez’ posts to be standard, doctrinaire, socon posturing. She brings very little to the table over there.

    The moral posturing both sides take on various issues would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

    Weigel gets it right, Repubs won’t get much traction trying to make this an issue against Sen. Clinton.

  35. What if the Governor has a woman who works for the state government meet him in his room and shows her his penus? Is that not sesual harassment, Fluffy?

    Which has what bearing on the womanizer’s wife comments on the plight of women in Taliban era Afghanistan?

  36. JYIS –
    Can you say sexual harassment in the workplace? He boned state employees while Gov. of Arkansas. He got bl*w j*bs from federal employees while President.

    Dan T –
    Neither of which in and of themselves qualify as sexual harassment.

    You’re right Dan T., it doesn’t make it sexual harrassment. Of course, the Left, Demos, feminists (redundant, I know) in late 80’s, early 90’s said beahviors like President Clinton’s constituted sexual harrassment because of the subordintate power position of the women in the workplace. Consent from the woman was impossible because of the subordinate position. Of course, when these same people learned of President Clinton’s sexual exploits, all of a sudden consent entered into the picture and Pres. Clinton was excused.

    Sexual harrassment, like so many issues coming from either side was merely political theater. The Dems beat the sexual harrassment drum so as to paint the Repubs as neanderthals when the Repubs oppose the legislation. When the Demos learned that one of their own qualified as a sexual harrasser, as they had defined it, they changed their definition.

  37. Jeri Thompson: Boldly Going Where Hillary Clinton Went Before

    WTF does this have to do with Bill’s sophmoric sexual exploits? Oh yeah, not a damned thing!

  38. “Which has what bearing on the womanizer’s wife comments on the plight of women in Taliban era Afghanistan?”

    My point is her hypocracy. How can she be a spokesperson for womens’ rights when she has enabled and covered up Bill’s rape and acts of sexual harassment.

  39. “Which has what bearing on the womanizer’s wife comments on the plight of women in Taliban era Afghanistan?”

    My point is her hypocracy. How can she be a spokesperson for womens’ rights when she has enabled and covered up Bill’s rape and acts of sexual harassment.

    I drank a beer once when I was 17. Can I call the cops if I witness a murder?

  40. never once publicly objected to her husband’s many dubious foreign crusades

    Never once publicly objected to any damn thing he did, no matter how much he humiliated her.

    Still and all, she was at least talking about the problem way back when, so it’ll be tough to claim ownership of it from her.

    And K-Lo brings enthusiasm to The Corner, unlike Derb and most of the other posters there, at least on the rare occasions when I visit.

  41. David, the fact that Hillary! talked about women’s rights in Afghanistan eight years ago does not particularly make up for her willingness to see women (and men, for that matter) be sent back to those days for her current political purposes.

    When she says something current about how we can’t leave Afghanistan or Iraq because women will be persecuted if the Islamic Fascisti take over, call me.

  42. You mean she donounced bad treatment of women regardless of where it occurs?

    Umm, no. She denounced bad treatment of women by Islamists in very limited and couched terms (in Afghanistan, by the Taliban), so as to avoid confronting the chauvinism endemic in Islam and maintain her PC bona fides.

    Then she went to China, where the women have fewer rights (forced abortions, anyone?) than just about anywhere in the developed West, and criticized the developed West without mentioning the much worse state of affairs in China.

    Hardly a profile in principle, joe.

  43. “There would be very, very few benefits to a Clinton II administration, but her attitude towards extreme Islamic repression of women would be one of them.’
    Are you that stupid Weigel? You really have shit for brains you stupid motherfucker.
    It should, IS, obvious, but not obvious to schmucks like you, that Clinton would do absolutely NOTHING for those women. Nothing.
    Asshole, understand that? No you don’t because you are a shithead.
    “(And “liberal feminists” have cared about this stuff for a while. It’s more convincing to argue that the Bush doctrine liberated women that feminists had no idea how to liberate than it is to assert that they didn’t care.)”
    NO, THEY don’t care. When the solution is in front of they’re fucking faces and they ignore it that means they don’t care. All they care about is looking good on the issue, now and always.
    By the fact that the solution is right there, and they ignore means the always want to have the problem handy to they can use it to divert attention when they fuck up.
    God you’re a dumb fuck.
    And I paid 100 dollars for three years of this horseshit.
    And about my language, FUCK YOU.

  44. From the Associated Press, April 29, 1999:

    Hillary Clinton has been a Senator since 2002. I am not saying she is not serious about women’s rights in the Middle East, but if she is, I can’t believe there isn’t a more recent and relevant quote. The Taliban isn’t in power anymore and hasn’t been since early 2002. Yeah, I know the original point was about first ladies and Clinton hasn’t been a first lady since early 2001. But Weigel’s response was “If the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, conservatives aren’t going to win the “who’s more serious about women’s rights in the Muslim World” argument. They really won’t.” Maybe so, but not because of something Clinton said eight years ago. Considering that she has been a Senator for nearly six years now and during that entire time the US has been at war with a decent part of the Muslim world, if Mrs. Clinton hasn’t said anything since 1999, I would say Mrs. Clinton isn’t very serious about it, regardless of what she said as first lady. Is that the best you have Weigel? Are you that dumb or do you just think your readers are?

  45. “But if you’re a boss, client, or co-worker, clearly you are in the wrong in that scenario”

    I don’t agree. Get another job.

    Sexual harassment law boils down to a single assertion: that it’s illegal to offer terms of employment that are unpleasant. I just don’t agree.

    I think it should be legal to say, “We will pay you $400,000 a year to work for the Knicks, but if Isaiah Thomas wants to nickname you ‘Crack Bitch’ he gets to, because he’s worth more to the organization than you are.” Being called “ho” by Isaiah is part of why you’re earning your salary.

    I don’t think you have the legal right to damages if your boss is mean. Find another boss if that boss is so impossible.

    And frankly, if prostitution is made legal – a staple of libertarian politics – then it would be perfectly legal to offer terms of employment that said, “OK, you’ll be responsible for filing, answering the phones, and checking the fax machine – and oh yeah you have to fuck Cletus over there.” How could it not be?

  46. “I drank a beer once when I was 17. Can I call the cops if I witness a murder?”

    Not a very good analegy.

  47. Fluffy that is a really good point about the effects of legalizing prostitution on sexual harrassment law. I had never thought of that. If it is legel to be a prostitute, why isn’t it legal to make prostitution part of a job description? As long as it is stated up front and no one is ambushed by the expectation of sex, I really don’t have a good answer to that.

  48. Not a very good analegy.

    Granted.

    But your assertion that Clinton cannot possibly comment on the plight of women in another part of the world because she stayed married to a womanizer is not a very strong argument either.

  49. Eagle,

    Yes obviously when you’re in China, the most logical topic of discussion is women’s rights in another country

    It was a UN forum on women’s rights. Yes, that is an appropriate place to talk about women’s rights in one’s own country, and anywhere else in the world.

    Oh, yeah. Bill Clintons “rapes.” Those are the ones he committed in the back of that plane in Mena, right? Right after he killed Vince Foster?

    BTW, how do any of you know what passed between Bill and Hillary Clinton in their private lives?

  50. Charlie (Colorado),

    Islamic fundamentalists came to power, and began throwing acid in women’s faces et al, in Iraq ON OUR WATCH. You don’t get to pose as the defender of women’s rights for support the policies that lead to their violent oppression.

  51. “Islamic fundamentalists came to power, and began throwing acid in women’s faces et al, in Iraq ON OUR WATCH. You don’t get to pose as the defender of women’s rights for support the policies that lead to their violent oppression.”

    Unless of course your opponent wants to abandon those women to said fundamentalists by pulling out of Iraq, then perhaps you might want to say something. If you care so passionately about those women Joe, why are you so gung ho to leave Iraq and why don’t you object to someone like Obama saying they aren’t worth one American life? Further, last I looked there was a constitutional elected government in Iraq and Al Quads didn’t control one inch of territory since the surge. Is the Iraqi government really fundamentalist and we just not being told so by the right wing media. Please elaborate.

  52. David, the fact that Hillary! talked about women’s rights in Afghanistan eight years ago does not particularly make up for her willingness to see women (and men, for that matter) be sent back to those days for her current political purposes.

    What planet are you on?

    Here on Earth, she’s the most loudly pro-staying-in-Iraq Blue candidate. Desperate Blues and raging Reds have convinced themselves she’s really a secret peacenik, but what’s your excuse?

  53. “But your assertion that Clinton cannot possibly comment on the plight of women in another part of the world because she stayed married to a womanizer is not a very strong argument either.”

    I’m just saying that it’s hard to take her seriously that she is really interested in the well being of women when she was willing to run all over them in order to save Bill’s and her political careers.

  54. “Here on Earth, she’s the most loudly pro-staying-in-Iraq Blue candidate. Desperate Blues and raging Reds have convinced themselves she’s really a secret peacenik, but what’s your excuse?”

    Very true. I almost hope she wins just to hear Joe, twenty minutes after the inaguration get on here and start talking about how great things are in Iraq and how we need to stay. No, Clinton is not a secret peacenik by any stretch. But I don’t think she is that concerned about women’s rights in the Middle-East either.

  55. John,

    Unless of course your opponent wants to abandon those women to said fundamentalists by pulling out of Iraq

    You mean like when we pulled out of jihadist-controlled Anbar?

    Three years you’ve been hitting that note, John, and as usual, the facts have proven you wrong. It is your invade/stay the course policies that allowed these nightmares to happen in Iraq, and it was the military’s decision to cut and run that led to their perpetrators’ downfall.

    You just don’t understand the military, security, and political situation regarding Islamic fundamentalism in the 21st century, John, and you never did. Until you start putting facts ahead of ideological ass-covering, you never will.

  56. “Oh, yeah. Bill Clintons “rapes.”

    According to Juanita Broaderick and Bill never denied it. If he did, I would still take the word of Juanita Broaderick over a proven liar like Bill Clinton.

  57. John obviously fears pulling out.

    Who hier wants to bet that he had some issues at last year’s Iowa State Fair?

    the world doesn’t wonder[s]

  58. I almost hope she wins just to hear Joe, twenty minutes after the inaguration get on here and start talking about how great things are in Iraq and how we need to stay.

    I see your determination to make convenience predictions about politics and Iraq is as strong as ever. Sadly, your record is somewhere south of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. But that doesn’t stop you, does it?

    You just don’t ever learn, do you?

  59. Oh, well, if a married woman reports being raped immediately after a political magazine reports that she had an affair, then I guess that’s that.

  60. “Is the Iraqi government really fundamentalist”
    (Changing sides now)
    I have read that women do have less rights under this new government than they did under Sadam Hussein.

  61. “Very true. I almost hope she wins just to hear Joe, twenty minutes after the inaguration get on here and start talking about how great things are in Iraq and how we need to stay. No, Clinton is not a secret peacenik by any stretch.”

    I think anti-war Democrats are in for a rude awakening if Hillary gets elected. John, it will be interesting to see if Democrats start changing their tunes about Iraq then.

  62. And let’s not forget, the formal structure of the government and the text of its legal system are not the only variable to consider here.

    We took that country from no lawless terrorists maiming and killing women to enforce archaic ideas of gender to a whole lotta lawless terrorists doing that.

    We have found one, and only one, effective method of denying them the freedom to operate.

    And some people decide to pose as Susan B. Anthony, because they OPPOSE doing what has to be done to deny those jihadists the ability to operate.

  63. If Hillary does win (shudder), which will be more annoying: Hillary or Arkansas Project II?

  64. Hillary is certain more hawkish than I’d like, but she is also 1) not an idiot and 2) subject to political forces pushing her to end Bush’s war.

    A more likely scenario is that the next President Clinton will end the war, pull out 95% of the troops, end the mission to prop up the Baghdad government and secure the country, and leave a small force in Kurdistan and Kuwait to carry out counter-terror missions – just like John Murtha was saying years ago.

    And John will shout “A-ha!” and pretend that this represents staying the course.

  65. “I drank a beer once when I was 17. Can I call the cops if I witness a murder?”

    Nope.

  66. Neither of which in and of themselves qualify as sexual harassment.

    actually you’re wrong on that. if you work in a joint and the boss is nailing the staff, that can be construed as “creating a hostile work environment.”

    i would like to believe in joe’s scenario, and if she comes to pass, i sincerely hope he is correct.

  67. Joe writes, “but she is also 1) not an idiot”
    If she isn’t an idiot why does she have all her public appearances scripted in advance to allow zero chance of spontannity or an unscreened question?
    Why did she appear on five Sunday shows from her home where she can control the agenda and not from the studios?
    When was the last time she had a one on one on those shows?(Please not; three of those shows are very biased in her favor too)
    We saw what happened when she went off script in front of the black auidence, the 5k baby bonus, a truly asinine idea.
    Socialists by definition, are not smart.
    She is a socialist.

  68. Terry, she is heavily scripted because she is afraid of saying something that might hurt her. She is way out in front in the Democratic race for president and is trying to hold on to her big lead. Some pundit said the other day, she’s like a quarterback falling on the ball towards the end of a game where she has a big lead. As the pundit said, she may be being too careful. People see her as not a very strong president if she’s afraid to answer questions. How can she expect people to vote for her when she keeps it a secret on how she will rule as president. It’s like she’s saying, “Wait till I’m elected, then see what I do as president”.

  69. IT IS A BIT INCONSISTENT TO TAKE UMBRAGE AT OTHER NATIONS’ VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS WHEN THE US GOV’T HERE AT HOME SPIES ON ALL OF US, TURNS LOOSE THE IRS TO STEAL EVERYTHING WE’VE GOT, FAVORS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS OVER NATIVE-BORN CITIZENS, AND THEN PATS ITSELF ON THE BACK AS THE SAVIOR OF THE WORLD. JUSTICE, LIKE CHARITY, BEGINS AT HOME.

  70. Rattlesnake jake posted, “She is way out in front in the Democratic race for president and is trying to hold on to her big lead. Some pundit said the other day, she’s like a quarterback falling on the ball towards the end of a game where she has a big lead.”

    Since the game hasn’t techanically started, but even still, the game isn’t even half over at least. And she is playing like she has already won it.
    You confirm my point, she is not that smart.

    I don’t think she will win. I think it will be Bill Richardson on the fact he is not Hilary.
    People really don’t like her.

  71. Don’t try to confuse me with your facts: Dems bad, G.O.P. good. End of discussion.

    I will now clap my hands over my ears and sing God Bless The USA as loudly as possible…

  72. SORRY. THOUGHT THIS WAS THE JERI RYAN THREAD. CARRY ON.

  73. Terry,

    If she isn’t an idiot why does she have all her public appearances scripted in advance to allow zero chance of spontannity or an unscreened question? Because she’s not an idiot. Because that works.

    Why did she appear on five Sunday shows from her home where she can control the agenda and not from the studios? Because that’s smart.

    Socialists by definition, are not smart. I don’t think you’d know smart if it smacked you in your narrow forehead.

  74. Since the game hasn’t techanically started, but even still, the game isn’t even half over at least.

    Yes, Einstein – THAT’S WHY SHE DOESN’T HAVE TO GO INTO GREAT DETAIL ABOUT HER AGENDA YET.

    Terry, watching you lecture a political candidate about her intelligence and strategy is like watching a guy in a bird suit get ready to “fly” off a roof.

  75. All right Joe, lets bet.
    Hilary won’t win the nomination and even if she does, she won’t win the election.
    And the main reason for both loses, SHE PLAYED IT TO SAFE.
    As for the agenda, NOTHING. You have to have something to beat something and something to beat nothing. She is offering NOTHING.
    No, that is not smart.
    Her problem is she has been around too long. Supposedly one of her bragging points, experience. Well, yes you have been around a long time, what do you stand for?
    The American people are not as dumb as you or Hilary think.
    I will be proven right on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 2008, but I don’t think I will have to wait that long.

    Wanna bet Joe?

  76. I am curious, is Reason on Hillary Clinton’s payroll, or do they just like to act like it? I see more positive press for her on this site than on her campaign site. Give her policy positions, its truly sickening.

  77. It’s great to talk but what action did Hillary do? I know her husband bombed an aspirin factory is going to bomb a Midol factory?

  78. Terry,

    I’ll bet you on the nomination, but not the general.

    If she is still offering little substantive next summer or fall, you’re right, she’ll likely lose the election.

    But that has nothing to do with right now. She doesn’t have to show her cards, as it were, for another six months.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.