[2ndDivisionVet]

Professor Susan Estrich, who brought us the entertaining Dukakis campaign, shares her political wisdom on the subject of Senator Hillary Clinton.

[NickatNite2003]

So says the seducer of the neighborhood boys.

[singfreedom]

Well, Susan, now that you bring it up, she really isn't attractive enough to be President. Ann Coulter she'll never be, but I realize that's setting the bar awfully high! To be perfectly honest though, she just does not meet most people's expectations.

YOU honestly think Americans will settle for an angry, overgrown chipmunk, with the voice range of a fishwife? Personally, I think we can do better, and that's probably the understatement of the year!!

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

If Her THighness Hillary Rotten Clinton needs a little sympathy vote to put IT over the top, BJ Clinton better hire a food taster.

[sd-joe]

Boy, Estrich is treading on dangerous ground by bringing up "ugly".

[Caipirabob]

Newt says she's nasty.

Geffen says she's ambitious.

These are compliments as compared with the truth. What's her beef?

[cb]

"Is this really the best the Clinton critics can do"

Well, actually "mean-spirited" is a well used criticism used by the left. Of course it is out of line to use it ON the left........

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Number one: Newt didn't call her nasty... He was responding to a question about "Nasty Rudy's" electability and he made the obvious comparison.

Second: likeability has always been a critical component of a presidential candidate's prospects -- maybe the MOST critical. Tom Dewey's campaign suddenly started sinking when he let his anger show at a whistle-stop event in his campaign in 1948. He showed his nasty side.

Richard Nixon wasn't likeable in 1960 and the dark personality was reflected in his debate personae. After 8 years of stumping for Republicans and showing a "sunny disposition", he was more likeable and elected in 1968.

Even Jimmy Carter seemed homespun and likeable -- once we got to know the small, nerdy, control-freak amateur in the White House, nobody wanted anything more to do with him.

Yes, Hillary may benefit from any "victimizing" she can claim -- but we also don't elect victims to the Presidency. Imagine this country enduring 4 (or 8) years of Hillary's screeching, whining, and demagoging along with her speeches which put people to sleep.

Dems may idolize her -- shows what idiots they truly are. The great American populace will not, I don't think, put the power of the presidency into the hands of this shrew.

[rod1]

It is a wonder that Susan can remove her mouth long enough from other Clinton-related activities to expound on such things.

[sauropod]

How about dishonest, Susan?

Just like you.

[NewLand]

Is this really the best the Clinton critics can do?

Not by a longshot.

BTW Ms. Estrogen, any thoughts on the 'name calling' attacks on then candidate and eventual President Ronald Reagan or then candidate and now President George W. Bush?

[jackv]

Geffen called her a little bit more than just ambitious, Susan. Unusually good liar is what he said.

[sergeantdave]

"Newt says she's nasty."

Newt needs to apolgize immediately. Go to a re-education camp. That statement might alienate voters who plan to vote for Hillary.

[BluH2o]

Professor Susan Estrich ...

What you can take away from this article ... Estrich is concerned that much of what is being pointed out by conservatives concerning the 'Beast' will stick. Some eighteen months from now when the 'Rats have their convention ... Hillary will be so marginalized she won't get the nomination.