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?

Hillary with a Staight Face

I assume Hillary Clinton had a straight face when declaring that the two US attorney firings were totally different situations. Well, she's right about that.

Her husband fired them all some 93 of them, a month or so after his inauguration. He or Hillary might have had Web Hubbell order Janet Reno to do so. This was an unprecedented move, in spite of Hilary's implication to the contrary. George W. Bush, or Alberto Gonzales or someone else in the administration, waited until six years had passed since the Bush inauguration to fire only eight. I understand that this was only after a year or two of deliberation over the wisdom, political or otherwise, of doing so.

There are more differences, the Whitewater scandal was being investigated, FOB's were in hot water with a couple of the attorneys, and to fire them all was to remove suspicion from firing just the ones prosecuting those cases.

I suppose Gonzales will be thrown to the wolves as was Rumsfeld. This is yet another example of the Bush White House being unwilling, or unable, to play hardball with the democrats. Perhaps Gonzales deserves criticism for handling the situation clumsily. Perhaps he deserves to be fired for not being able to stand up to the congressional bullies screaming about this non-existent scandal. But George Bush himself is no good at standing up against Congress or standing up for himself.

For Hillary to imply that Bill's firing the attorneys was "business as usual" when it hadn't even been done by Nixon is the height of hypocritical nonsense.

Versace Nixes Hill's Pants

She has spoken. Donatella Versace declares that Hillary should give up
pantsuits for dresses and skirts. The length should be to the knee,
preferably black with a short jacket. She needs to show her feminine
side.

What feminine side? The one that throws lamps and cusses like a
drunken sailor? The one that puts up with a philandering husband and
is publicly humiliated by him? The one that doesn't bake cookies and
doesn't stay at home "standing by her man"? The one who has nothing
but blind ambition, who has sold her soul to the devil to achieve
what power she has and sill craves more? Oh. THAT feminine side.

Hillary wears mainly pantsuits, when there is a chance of a
photograph of her making the wires, for one reason only. Her legs.
She has fat legs and unfortunately, there is nothing she, the DNC, or
GOD can do about that. So, she covers them up. Remember back in the
90's when she did wear skirts she often wore dark tights to
camouflage the leg issue?

It didn't work. People noticed her legs and commented on them. She
is hoping that no one will republish any of those old photos of her
legs because she doesn't want to be the butt of any more jokes than
she will be anyway.

I would have more respect for her if she said "Damn it all, these are
the legs God gave me and they work just fine, thank you very much."

Versace is hoping for the best for Hillary in the '08 election. "I
admire her for her determination, which will hopefully take her to
the White House," Versace told Germany's weekly newspaper Die Zeit in
an interview. She hasn't seen her legs or she would be confirming the
pantsuit choice.

This brings up the issue of whether or not such silly things should
be determining factors in people's decisions on whom to select for
any office, much less the office of the Presidency. Of course they
shouldn't. But obviously, Hillary thinks people will look at her
legs and say "Ugh".

Algore thought people would select him if he followed Naomi Wolf's
advice and wore brown suits, also if he styled his hair like Reagan's
in the second debate, also if he had cosmetic facial contouring to
resemble Reagan. It didn't work (or it did in some peoples' minds)
and so we have GWB, a man who wouldn't style his hair on anyone's
advice, a man who wears whatever he thinks is appropriate, at the
ranch or in the oval office.

Wonder what Versace thinks of his wardrobe?