Little Miss Muffet

If she can not handle being called out for lying and/or criticism How is she going to be a President? How is she going to respolve the middle east issues when they think women are second rate people?
She is a socialist pandering liberal!

Can you imagine the headlines if Senator Obama had tried using the “their picking on me” line following the debate in Iowa where he was the target of the other on stage.
Senator Clinton has a choice to make, either she’s confident of her capabilities, ready to defend her positions and is prepared to have others very publicly disagree with her, or she’s a vicitm and not ready to be a presidential candidate. Which one is it? She can’t have it both ways.

She can not campaign without her husband Bill by her side and sitting by the podium as she speaks. She doesn’t tout her experience (because she has no real accomplishments) but claims her husband’s presidency as her accomplishments. Her main role in her husband’s presidency was to discredit the females who claimed her husband has sexual discretions with them. Is this the best that the Democratics can nominate for President for their party? This is very sad and it is sad for women, that this woman does not represent women, but she thinks she does. No to Hillary in 2008.

Poor picked on Hillary — if she isn’t in the game we wouldn’t have more partisanship — I am sick of it!! Let’s bring out politics out of the dregs and get back on track — The Democratic and Republican parties both owe it to the country to pick honest and fair minded candidates with wisdom to replace the sound bites.

<>
Simple, Hillary will just – “WHAAAAAA, THEY ARE PICKING ON ME AGAIN”!

Beautiful art work!! What are the chances I could get someone to print it on toilet paper for me??

I never thought I’d ever write anything like this, but I agree with Mr. Thompson’s statement. It’s a classic case of Sen. Clinton’s trying to have her cake and eat it, too. She can’t play both sides of the same issue: either she considers gender a non-issue and stays away from it, or she brings gender issues into the race and confronts the many stereotypes and myths–like a woman crying wolf when she’s outfoxed (ouch!)–in her campaign. In either case, the gender issue should be of no more importance than, say, a candidate’s religion.

Hillary doesn’t have a tuffet to sit on, but she’s the democrat party nominee. That’s a done deal. She doesn’t have to try to win the nomination. She’s a Clinton and nothing matters more. The rest are playing to see gets to baby sit Bill. It’ll be the Hill-Bill run for the White House supported by all the Hill-Bill-ies.

Greasemonkey,
Printedtp will do it. Think Jake will let the art be used? What a wonderful idea

Voting Hillary Clinton into office is one of the worst things this country can do at this stage in history first off just because her husband was President doesn’t make her qualified to become Madame President and it surely doesn’t make her the best choice for office because of all of the rhetoric she’s been spreading around the campaign trail about hitting the ground running come to think about it aren’t just about all of the canidates campaigning in the 2008 elections Washington insiders? plus she’s never been in the military and neither has her husband former President Bill Clinton and we all saw how hesitant he was to use military might, so hesitant to use military force that we as Americans are still embarrassed as a nation globally, citing only one of the many incidents requiring a military response that never occured for example while Bill Clinton was in office two passenger planes were shot down flying over Cuban air space with no retaliation what so ever from the Clinton Aministration and not to mention the botch job on Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, come on now how fast do we forget? the fact that Bill Clinton is her husband and was the forty second President of the United States bolstering a reputation as a lame duck President gives her no credibility what so ever,so her in depth knowlege on how to and when to use military force is in question very,especially with the Middle East presently being the region of most concern in the World today a place where women still to this day have little to no rights at all nor respect so then tell me how effective will a Madame President be? I doubt very seriously if elected Madame President that Hillary Clinton will be able to initiate and carry out a political agenda in this theater in other words, how smart can you be? by admitting that you would not consider summits or some type of political talks or conferences with Axis countries like North Korea and Iran in order to draw closer to a plausible agreement as well as to show the American populace you are adamant about National Security,Diplomacy and Americas interest in the regions concerning both of these Countries North Korea and Iran, remember conversation rules the nation and the world without keeping much needed channels of communication open with these two countries of concern there will be no progress but lets switch pace for a second and lets talk troop withdrawl does it make sense or will it cost more tax payer dollars to downsize or withdraw troops in Iraq and Afghanistan only to allow Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups to regain a foot hold over the frail governments of Iraq and Afghanistan and eventually wind up having to redeploy United States Armed Forces to these hot spots if you will of operation only to start the process of expulsion of these rogue terrorist groups all over again because we should have taken more time to consider the pros and cons of down sizing or all out troop withdrawl before proceeding with unnecessary measures,wake up Americans Hillary Clinton is not even the chief executive of a major state, she’s merely the Junior Senator of New York come on folks can’t you see that her only political agenda is this Money, Power and Prestige which is not a political agenda at all wouldn’t you agree?

Well, heck–here we are again, arguing about what Hillary-corp wants us to argue about, instead of the issues. Will some Dem candidate hit her on the divers-licenses-for-illegals flip-flop, or refusing to make Bill release the papers to prove she had White House experience (or culpability), or her non-answers on taking fat-cat lobbyist money? Will someone speak up for Bill’s abuse victims, whose lives Hillary helped ruin? Calling someone to task for evasive or illogical answers–on issues–is the mark of a strong candidate. It is not a personal attack, whether or not Hillary’s spin machine can get the mainstream press to discuss it as such. Will anyone step up, or will they let yet another Clinton get away with dismissing relevant questions as just ‘attacks’? Does she think there’s a ‘vast left-wing conspiracy’ now??
If the other Dem candidates can’t handle Hillary, how are they going to handle the Presidents of Iran, Venezuela, or North Korea?? I guess we know how President Hillary would handle those bullies—-’no fair!!–they’re piling on!!’!!

If you think Hillary’s turn-on-a-dime was swift, just look at how fast the media executed their sea change! And I for one welcome it — because this woman is far too much of a corporate shill and a polarizing vitriol magnet to be a viable or useful Democratic candidate. Here’s hoping that, now that the media is starting to turn on her, someone like Obama or Edwards will have the opening they need to torpedo Hillary once and for all in the early primaries. (Which would certainly be just desserts, given that the Clintonistas used their media allies to torpedo Howard Dean in ’04!)

DKNY–Debates are preposterous??? ONLY WHEN YOU LOSE ONE, like Hillary did, are they preposterous. Debates are preposterous for candidates who don’t have a firm grasp on issues, like VP candidate Quayle didn’t. Debates are preposterous for candidates who come off as shifty–as Nixon did in 1960. Debates are preposterous if a candidate can’t answer a legitimate question about his/her fitness for office, as Reagan successfully on the age issue, against Mondale. Debates could be better, of course, but they are a rare chance to see if a candidate can clearly argue their positions without ghost-writers or spin-doctors helping them. And Hillary couldn’t. The only thing preposterous is her attempt to spin her debate loss as a ‘gotcha game’.

SteveW: I said “these” debates are preposterous, not debates generally, which kind of makes your post a little silly as a response to mine. My point was that these are not really debates, which I take to mean a give and take and a probing of issues that are important to the American public. In these “debates,” the candidates tend simply to deliver reheated stump speeches.
I suspect Clinton was caught off guard concerning the drivers’ license question because she did not know the details of the Governor’s proposal, which is understandable, since she is not in the Governor’s administration and is not part of the New York State government. She probably thought that it would sound phony to say so (“Gotcha!”), so she tried to come up with an acceptable non-answer, which she failed to do.
At the end of the day, however, this “gotcha” revealed exactly nothing about Clinton’s policies, it was just a “gotcha,” which really was my point from the beginning.

DKNY–A debate is, by definition, a clash of opinions. Your claim that debates are preposterous is preposterous. Your spin that you were only referring to ‘these’ debates is transparent. This time, there WAS a clash of opinions on issues, and Hillary LOST. That is what debates are for, no matter how you, or I, wish the debates were formatted. Hillary lost, and revealed some of her true feelings. At last, the public saw how she handled herself without handlers and spin-doctors—and she failed, badly. I am amazed at your feeble attempt to salvage something out of her poor, revealing performance. She wants to be the leader of the free world. My pointing out her failing in this public performance is FAR, FAR from silly. Get used to it. When Hillary is forced to say what she really believes, she FLOPS, and flip-flops. Don’t even try to spin such a revealing moment as ‘silly’. This is important stuff, in an important, far from preposterous forum. You–and your candidate–just blew it.

Ditto what DKNY said.
Also, I vehemently disagree with the premise – that Clinton is playing the gender card. The fundraising email, which appears to be the entire basis for the “woe-is-me” mocking assertion, was benign. Are we not allowed to identify her gender?

Debates that include as many candidates as both the Democrats and Republicans currently have are inherently flawed and problematic. Network time restraints greatly limit the time for answers and rebuttals. If you only allow a minute or two to answer and less than a minute for rebuttal, you well likely get nothing more than stump-speech answers. For the most part these debates are little more than entertainment, with little new information coming from the candidates. But occasionally, a moderator will ask a question that is totally out of the realm of the candidate’s stump speeches and will actually catch the candidate off guard. THAT is when you may actually see the real person, not the polished candidate. THAT is when you may get a better opportunity to know the character of the candidate. Even if in a 2-hour debate there is only one brief moment of spontaneity, it is worth it.

DKNY why are you making excuses for her, she is the senator of NY, she should know what her state governor is trying to do, allow illegals to get driver licenses so they can vote for her.
Also she should know what the other senators/congressman from her state especially other libs about thier introduction of a bill in congress to raise taxes.
The Dems are Socialists in the disguise of Liberals controled by George Soro.

DKNY–You flip-flop and evade almost as well as Hillary does it. In your first post, if you can remember back that far, you said, “the real problem is these ‘debates’ are preposterous.”. In your (hopefully) last post you said, “[debates] should be a part of every political campaign”. Your (and Hillary’s) attempt to say that you didn’t say what you said IS preposterous. You parrot Hillary’s transparent first spin (‘it’s just a gotcha’) to wriggle free of her poor debate performance, so how is anyone to believe you don’t support her? Your claim that you do not support Hillary will now go into my memory bank, which, obviously, is better than yours. BTW (oops, I forgot who I was talking to–that means ‘by the way’), Hillary has now tried her second spin–’the men were just piling on’–and her third spin–’well, I didn’t have a good night at that debate’. Her third spin, more than a week late, is what I was saying all along–SHE LOST THE DEBATE. You, and most of the other Hillary apologists here, are still stuck between spin number one and spin number two. Get over it, and stop trying to wriggle and spin like a bug on a hot griddle—you’re cooked, dude.