Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Pretty in Pink - Continued
"CLINTON INNER-CIRCLE BLAME 'UNFAIR' MODERATOR TIM RUSSERT. 'HE BORDERED ON THE UNPROFESSIONAL,' TOP HILLARY ADVISER CHARGES. 'HE BROKE DEBATE RULES AND WAS BELLIGERENT'"
After all the "unprofessional", nasty and "belligerent" questions and asides asked of Republican candidates by Chris Matthews and his ilk, this takes the cake.
We are asked to take "the smartest woman in the world" and give her the Democrat Party nomination and then elect her President of the United States, but we must respect her gender and not ask her tough questions. Sorry, Toots. Politics is not beanball.
This is the same thing that happened in 2000 when Rick Lazio, a late stand-in for Giuliani (sidelined for medical reasons), dared to approach her on stage during a debate to hand her a piece of paper. He was chastised for "invading her space". What he did might not have been in line with debate protocol, but he in no way was threatening. If she had done the same thing to him, she would have been credited with a crafty move, showing her toughness and political savvy.
Hillary has always been able to have it both ways, the attention of the press, but no tough questions; political input and decisions in the White House, but no accountabiility; appeals to women's feminist desires for a woman President, but no fair treating her like the men are treated.
By the way, a few weeks ago, one of Mrs. Clinton's hired pollsters declared that women will come out of the woodwork to vote for her because she's a woman, or words to that effect. That was a truly insulting remark to the female electorate. I believe that most women will vote along party lines, just like most men. There are always those unpredictables who will make up their minds for whatever reason. Some votes will be cast for Hillary because of her womanhood. Some votes will be cast against her because of her womanhood. Both positions are wrong, but not surprising.
The majority of women who vote for Hillary will really be voting for her promises to take other peoples' money and give it to them. John Edwards has been promising the same thing, but Hillary has said it over and over again. She and her husband have the same philosophy. After Bill Clinton's huge tax increase in the 1990's resulted in a surplus, he admitted that he had thought about giving some of it back. He decided not to because he thought we might not spend the money the right way. Is it not our right to decide how to spend our money?