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.
Especially at this time in our history with a billion psychos drooling to kill all of us unless we convert to their death cult. The CIC can NOT be a pathetic, weak, little victim or doormat to her Svengali.
Unfortunately poor Susan seems to equate Hillary's mean, nasty viciousness with strength and "toughness". They are NOT the same thing.
I hope you are right that voters are intelligent enough to see through Hillary when she attacks and then retreats right back behind her own skirts trying to make the opponent look like a "meanie".
We cannot afford a nasty, weak little victim for a leader. Not now.