April 28, 2008

Hillary Clinton is a schoolyard bully.

Says Michael Goodwin:
It's a gang-girl taunt when she tells a big rally she will go anywhere, anytime for a throwdown.
She offers to [debate] without a moderator, just the two of them asking and answering questions. Stripped of her gauzy spin that it could be like Lincoln-Douglas, she's really challenging him to a bareknuckle punchout. On TV.

It's what a schoolyard tough would do: Knock on a rival's door and dare him to come out and fight on the street. Right here, right now. No rules, just a slugfest, you and me.
And that's a good thing, right? I want this in my President. Don't you?

IN THE COMMENTS: Somefeller said:
The Goodwin article is further evidence of a certain wussy factor among many of Obama's supporters. I don't know if Goodwin is an official supporter, but he sounds like a standard Obama press fanboy. I was going to use another word that ends in "ssy" to describe this phenomenon, but I didn't want Ann to say I was sexist.
I'll say it: sissy. Obama should debate.

Drew W said:
The nastier Hillary gets, the more I like her, I agree.
Me too.

Maguro said:
This is a lot better than the crying schtick. You go, girl!
Exactly.

Fen said:
Iran is a bit of a bully too.

Maybe Obama can ask his teacher to speak with Ahmadinejad's parents.
Owie. That hurt.

35 comments:

Meade said...

In my president? I don't know. It IS what I want in my bitches though. Definitely what I want in my bitches.

Bob said...

A black guy getting aggressive with a white woman? Yah, that'll get the ol' working-class white votes you need.

George said...

We would expect nothing less from the "Hill Rod"—the name she adopted for her WWF appearance.

All the candidates taped videos for the wrestling channel, and there was a mock match in which Bill played an underhanded referee....

-Peder said...

She'll go and talk to him anywhere? It would just be the two of them asking each other questions? My God what a bully!
I'm shocked that anyone would expect a presidential candidate to undergo such a tough process.

Simon said...

"No debate about it: Clinton's a bully." And on evidence presented, Obama's a coward. No debate about that, either. Better a President who's the former than the latter, by far. He has to provide a better reason for refusing to do the debate than the truth (viz. because he's afraid Clinton's going to whup him, a point even Goodwin concedes), on pain of looking ridiculous.

Simon said...

If I were Hillary, since Obambi doesn't want to debate, I'd go ahead and challenge McCain to a debate. Bypass Obama entirely; that way she gets her debate, she gets news, and she looks confident that she will be the nominee. If Obama wants to stay in his comfort zone and sulk, let him; let's have a Clinton-McCain debate. Now!

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

The problem is ... mean and nasty is about all she's got, along with overwhelming hunger for power.

That's not enough to run a country.

Heck, she can't even run a dinky little $200 million campaign that she's been planning for at least fifteen years.

somefeller said...

The Goodwin article is further evidence of a certain wussy factor among many of Obama's supporters. I don't know if Goodwin is an official supporter, but he sounds like a standard Obama press fanboy. I was going to use another word that ends in "ssy" to describe this phenomenon, but I didn't want Ann to say I was sexist.

Drew W said...

The nastier Hillary gets, the more I like her, I agree.

I hope it’s not too off-topic to mention the appearance on yesterday’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos of Hillary supporters Sen. Evan Bayh and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee. Jackson Lee is a somewhat loony Texas leftie, and you’d think Hillary is too cautious to appear too closely aligned with her, but there she was.

Okay, this is really what's been bothering me: Evan Bayh can’t pronounce the word “vulnerable.” Is there some quirky Indiana regionalism that makes Hoosiers remove the first “l” from that word? Every time Bayh called Obama “vunerable,” he sounded like a little kid trying to wrap his tongue around a new vocabulary word. It made him look like a moron.

I hope she sent better people to Meet the Press.

Simon said...

Drew, re Bayh's quirk, I do hear that around Indiana, from time to time. But there's lots of interesting regional issues like that. Many east coasters soft-pedal a leading "H": for example, "human" is pronounced "yooman" with only a ghost of a leading H sound. English southerners who've been brought up well tend to omit a vowel between a hard consonant and "ry"; thus, Secretary and Military, for example, become "Secretry" and "Militry."

Maguro said...

This is a lot better than the crying schtick. You go, girl!

Fen said...

Iran is a bit of a bully too.

Maybe Obama can ask his teacher to speak with Ahmadinejad's parents.

former law student said...

Well duh. But I wouldn't pick the schoolyard metaphor. Hillary is the "My Way or the Highway" type mom. She would epitomize the nanny state, because she knows what's best for us, in a way ordinary people never could.

"If Momma's not happy, ain't nobody happy" would be a fitting t-shirt slogan for her.

In regional language news, my WWII vet friend who says vunerable grew up in Philly.

Cedarford said...

They have the Republican primary the same day in North Carolina. While it would be great Hollywood for McCain and Clinton to square off mano a mano, the only beneficiary would be Clinton, who would spend the debate ripping Republicans instead of Obama, and "showing" she could handle McCain and out-wonk him on a range of her pet issues.

Now McCain might be stupid enough to accept, but his handlers aren't. They want Obama in the general and they want lots of white woman and ethnics to cross over thinking the media gave Black Messiah the nomination gift-wrapped by refusing to vet the guy until he had the nomination all but sewed up.

PatCA said...

"The nastier Hillary gets, the more I like her, I agree."

Me too! Street fightin' girl! Like when she says obliterate...

wgh said...

Heck, she can't even run a dinky little $200 million campaign that she's been planning for at least fifteen years.

You know, that's the sticking point for me. Shouldn't "able to manage" be somewhere near the top of the qualifications for the leader of our country? For me this ranks a bit higher than "able to bully", but YMMV.

Mortimer Brezny said...

Eh. Girls like this were not worth fighting. In the unlikely event that you lose, well, they kicked your ass. If you knock them out, it was expected and "Hey, you hit a girl!" Ignoring her is the best move.

Trooper York said...

So now the election has devovled into Jo from the Facts of Life vs Urkel with Mr. Wilson from Dennis the Menace waiting in the wings. Jeeze can we change the channel already.

Beth said...

Lousy metaphor. Schoolyard bullies don't lay down a challenge then wait for you to respond. They sucker punch. They round up their sycophants and attack in a gang.

Hillary's offering a duel. Obama can meet her at the big oak, or decline. A bully would just shoot him in the back.

Palladian said...

"I was going to use another word that ends in "ssy" to describe this phenomenon, but I didn't want Ann to say I was sexist."

"I'll say it: sissy. Obama should debate."

Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but I think he wanted to call Obama a pussy.

former law student said...

Trooper: With respect and appreciation, no.

So now the election has devolved into Margaret from Dennis the Menace vs Webster, with Martin Frasier from Frasier waiting in the wings. Jeeze can we change the channel already.

Trooper York said...

I bow to your good sense former law student but with the caveat that Obama really gives off and Urkel-ly vibe to me.

Frederick said...

Well, I don't find it appealing at all, I really see it as a change in America, in one of the worst ways. It is almost like a role reversal.

Hillary is acting just like most of the black thugs I see on the streets in my neighborhood. Yes, I am black.

Obama is acting like Hillary should because a woman in power should show compassion, stability, a professional demeanor, and honesty.

I am not shocked about her attitude because she is a Clinton. She lies constantly and yet every word that comes from her mouth, people seem to believe for some reason.

If Obama were to go after her like she goes after him, he would have an even greater problem with white people than she is having with many blacks. So, I think he is doing what is best and may God bless him through this delicate situation. At least he shows respect and love for the democratic party, Hillary doesn't do that because she appears as a loose cannon, when she feels she is losing.

Many people think this is great but the hell if I want my President acting like this, how would she ever get things done with those that she needs to be able to negoitate with? This is the reason her first health plan in the 90's did not get the pass it needed, she is too devisive and to ghetto for me, and I live in the ghetto, but I have overcome the mentality of the ghetto. I guess it must have stopped at Hillary and Bill's home for revival.

I personally will never vote for her regardless. I am first ashamed as a business woman and secondly, ashamed at her lack of character.

Frederick said...

You know it a sad state in America when something so important as our very livelyhood is on the line and Americans everywhere are attempting to insite a fight between candidates. We have a fool in the White House killing thousands of Americans in this unprovoked war, our economy is collasping, people are losing their homes, and all you all can think about is a debate refusal.

Hillary should have accepted the debate for April 19th that she claimed was a problem with her schedule. Now she asks for another debate before a growd so that she can get the impact she needs and play on the intelligence of the people as she and Bill are so good at. It reminds me when he looked into the camera, raised hid pointing finger and said I did not have sex with that woman, and his wife protected him from the previous affairs. Was that a lie? Did you not believe him at the time? It is the same thing Hillary is doing right now, playing America and those not smart enough to remember are falling into the trap.

Fen said...

We have a fool in the White House killing thousands of Americans in this unprovoked war, our economy is collasping, people are losing their homes, and all you all can think about is a debate refusal.

You left out the bit about the Constitution being shredded...

blake said...

Beth--

Good call.

Frederick--

If you really feel that way, then shouldn't you embrace this call for debate? Don't we want to see the two mix it up as much as possible (then the winner to mix it up with McCain as much as possible)?

After all, how else to keep a "fool" from the White House, if not through trying to improve the primary process?

Meade said...

Let's review:

Hillary is unlikeable and avoids fights because fighting only makes her more unlikeable. But she WILL fight if she sees that she has an advantage. Especially an unfair advantage.

She hates to lose and will do almost anything to win, just like her husband did when he attacked Iraq in 1998. He'd been cornered with his sex problem and he was ashamed to have the whole world know he had a fixation which obviously caused him to void all common sense.

Still, the Clintons are fighters, albeit dishonest fighters, dirty fighters, schoolyard bully fighters. If you are on their side, they will even fight dirty on your behalf as long as you are willing to become an extension of them, an object for them exploit, a tool. If you're not willing, they'll prefer that you just go off somewhere and die.

Obama doesn't fight at all. He'd rather get high. But not too high because then he'd have to fight in order not to go too low.

So he's not a fighter but he is a lover. He'll dance. He'll juke. He'll give an amazing speech - amazing because it's so boring and yet no one - especially Obama himself - can quite stop listening because his voice is so beautiful even though his speech never really says anything. That's because he doesn't really believe anything. Which is why he doesn't fight.

He's completely unarmed. He's just like Jimmy Carter - he thinks he can win everyone over with his grandiose love. But he's delusional. It's a shallow love, a selective love, a condescending love. It's a false love and it's not worth fighting for. He knows it but can't admit it.

So why debate? They'll both lose.

Frederick said...

Actually, I would like to see a nominee go at it with McCain. I really would not mind a debate, however, the last debate in my mind, was not a debate at all. I found out no more about who stands where on the issues, it was all about an exemployee of the Clintons attacking her opponent on personal issues.

Hillary did not have on a lapel pin, and neither did either of the monerators. I am not interested in Wright, lapel pins, or the color of anyones skin. I am interesting in what they are going to do for this county, my life. That debate did not tell me one single thing about those issues. So, if that is what a debate is going to look like, not I do not want to see another one of them.

Also, I have sat through every debate they have had one on one and I have made up my mind to whom I will give my vote.

I am not interested in a fighter, I see that in Bush. I am interested in someone that can be calm in the mist of the storm and think issues through throughly to find the best solution.

If Hillary can never catch him in the pledged delegates, then I am not especially interested in hearing aother debate between her and Obama. I would be more interested in hearing a debate between Obama and McCain, which Obama has offered four times.

This is my life and I do not have time to play these games with a nomination.

Hillary is a better debater, I will give her that, she's learned how to fight through the years, but that does not make her a better candidate for President.

Obama is a better orator, more geniune, more believable, better executive level manager, which we need in the White House. If someone from no where can come out and get ahead of the person with 35 years experience, handle their funds and campaign management much better, superior to that of the one who claims all the experience, that is something to sit back and think about, seriously.

Obama is the only choice for me, I am voting for Obama not Wright. Hillary has her own FRAUD issues to deal with soon and it is an example of what their lives have been about since Bill's governship in AR. I do not want to see this in the White House again. It is too much to risk.

somefeller said...

Palladian is right about the word I wanted to use. It wasn't sissy, that's for sure. However, I was referring to Obama's pearl-clutching fanboys, not Obama himself.

Fen said...

Frederick: Also, I have sat through every debate they have had one on one

Cool. Can you explain how Obama plans to execute the war against radical Islam? Or how he will stop Iran from getting nukes?

Fen said...

Here's a clue to how Team Obama would handle the WMD threat:

Obama adviser on nuclear proliferation, Joseph Cirincione "in response to reports that the site in Syria that Israel bombed was a potential nuclear facility being established with the help of North Korea, insisted that the site was no such thing. "This story is nonsense"

It seems, wrote Circincione, “to be the work of a small group of officials leaking cherry-picked, unvetted ‘intelligence’ to key reporters in order to promote a preexisting political agenda.” What exactly was that political agenda? “[I]t appears aimed at derailing the U.S.-North Korean agreement that administration hardliners think is appeasement.” There was also a dose of Zionist mischief thrown in: “Some Israelis want to thwart any dialogue between the U.S. and Syria.”

/and now for the reality check...

"CIA Director Michael Hayden said Monday that the alleged Syrian nuclear reactor destroyed by an Israeli airstrike in September would have produced enough plutonium for one or two bombs within a year of becoming operational... The Syrian site, they said, was within weeks or months of being operational."

Frederick, you were saying something about "risk"?

Fen said...

Stoli shots for everyone in the house - to toast the Israeli pilots who saved everyone's ass. Again.

Bravo Zulu.

Fen said...

Obama/Wright: Damn. I was really counting on those chickens coming home to roost

Frederick said...

Fen said...
Here's a clue to how Team Obama would handle the WMD threat:

Obama adviser on nuclear proliferation, Joseph Cirincione "in response to reports that the site in Syria that Israel bombed was a potential nuclear facility being established with the help of North Korea, insisted that the site was no such thing. "This story is nonsense"

It seems, wrote Circincione, “to be the work of a small group of officials leaking cherry-picked, unvetted ‘intelligence’ to key reporters in order to promote a preexisting political agenda.” What exactly was that political agenda? “[I]t appears aimed at derailing the U.S.-North Korean agreement that administration hardliners think is appeasement.” There was also a dose of Zionist mischief thrown in: “Some Israelis want to thwart any dialogue between the U.S. and Syria.”

/and now for the reality check...

"CIA Director Michael Hayden said Monday that the alleged Syrian nuclear reactor destroyed by an Israeli airstrike in September would have produced enough plutonium for one or two bombs within a year of becoming operational... The Syrian site, they said, was within weeks or months of being operational."

Frederick, you were saying something about "risk"?
Yes I did, is this like the WMD in Iraq, or is this the next setup for pushing the agenda? You tell me. I will not believe anything coming from the Bush Administration. He has fooled us on so many issues.

I still think Obama is the best candidate for POTUS, period.

Fen said...

Yes I did, is this like the WMD in Iraq

What are you trying to say here? That Saddam didn't have WMD programs? Just because we didn't find stockpiles?

Detective Frederick: "Well, we found bunsen burners, beakers, precursor ingredients, meth recipes... but no actual Meth. Back to the station boys, false alarm. We've cleared the house, this neighborhood is safe...."

or is this the next setup for pushing the agenda?

So you agree with Team Obama that there was no Syrian WMD research facility.

I will not believe anything coming from the Bush Administration.

What about Israeli intelligence?

Or statements from a Dem President and Dem members of Congress re Iraq? Resolutions from the United Nations? Reports from the IAEA and two weapons inspections regimes that confirm Saddam would RESTART his WMD development once sanctions were lifted? All a clever plot by Bush?

He has fooled us on so many issues.

You've got your head in the sand. As does Obama. Its now obvious that an Obama administration will lead to unchecked WMD proliferation in the Middle East.