On Dec 7, 12:20 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Renata wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:44:48 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:

"Charlie Self" wrote:

One thing has baffled me about Clinton's critics: most are
conservatives (small and capital C) who staunchly defend family
values
(with the occasional exception such Giuliani, Gingrich, Craig and
a
few thousand others), standing by one's man and so forth, yet for
years, they've criticized her as a bitch for not divorcing her
husband
when he drops trou in the wrong places.

I get the impression that as a group they are scared s__tless of
her
and what, as a woman, she represents.

What, exactly, as a woman do you think she represents?

Rugged individualism and rising to status on her own? The only
reason we even know who she is comes as a result of her association
with her husband.

Great achievements? What exactly has she done? Rose Law firm?
First Lady? Moving to one of the most liberal states in the US in
order to get elected Senator? -- a donkey could have been elected
as long as it had a (D) by its name.

Look, we know past achievements aren't a prerequisite for holding
the
highest office in the land, or the current occupant would've been
laughed outta town, what with his string of business "successes" and
fine "governance" of the "great" state of Texas, not to mention his
"youthful indiscretions".

People who think that conservatives are down on the idea of a female
President don't remember Maggie Thatcher, who most conservatives would
have voted for if she had been eligible to and chosen to run for the
office of President. The singular lack of success of female
candidates in the past has been because they came across as "woman
candidates" and not "candidates who happen to be women".

Now, that said, I'm probably going to end up voting for Hillary if she
gets the nomination (and that will be the first time going back to
Nixon that I vote for a Democratic candidate for President), unless
the Republicans pull a rabbit out of their hat. The reason is
simple--I've always thought that the wrong Clinton got elected and I
am curious as to what she would actually do. She comes across as
tough, conniving, determined, willing to do whatever's necessary to
achieve her objectives, and so likely to be very effective. And I
have every confidence that the Islamists will do something stupid that
will set her off.

Besides, it would be kind of fun to see Rush Limbaugh's head explode.



Oh, man! I'd pay to see that. A blast and a whiff of pent up hot air.

I tend to agree with you about Clinton: I have always said that Jimmy
Carter failed as President because he's a nice guy, thinks other
people are nice, and, basically, doesn't have enough soon-of-a-bitch
in him to do the job. I believe Mrs. Clinton qualifies, except for the
'son' part. And I think she'll do a good job. Of course, anything
short of a total collapse of the Republic is going to look good with
the mess goofball is leaving behind.