Do you think Bush or any other Republican would get a writeup that nice they did anything like that, or even appeared to?
My psycho liberal mother-in-law still insists that Nancy Reagan always mouthed the answers in press conferences to Ronald Reagan because he was too stupid to formulate the answers. Whenever I try asking her about the Hindenburg that Hillary is in a press conference, which is why she hasn't given one in 15 years, the subject changes faster than Hillary diving for a five dollar bill.
Fact is that she is the kind of lawyer who is helpless without a brief. She was lucky to get into law school at a time when the profession was just opening to significant numbers of women. Before, only the top women could get in. Afterwards, women had to be head-to head competitive with male applicants. She was what they claim that Clarence Thomas was, an affirmative action type.
What a great description!
I really think that this idea of Hillary being tough to beat is all wrong. If anything, she or any of the other Dem candidates right now (you don't know who might show up later) are amazingly vulnerable to defeat. Overestimating Hillary is every bit as dangerous as underestimating her. Whoever our Republican nominee is (and I hope it's Thompson), it would need to be a candidate who would buck the MSM establishment and staunchly and solidly insist on a free and open spontaneous debates, and refuse loudly, clearly, and eloquently any other terms of debate.
Certainly in that environment, Hillary would catch fire and blow up in such a way that the "Dean Scream" would be a whimper in comparison. I like the idea of Thompson being the one to so challenge Hillary because while the other Republican primary candidates were allowing themselves to be manipulated by so-called "moderators" Stephanopolis and Chris Matthews, doing everything on the liberal MSM's (and probably Hillary's) terms, Thompson remained aloof. The candidates who participated in those "debates" lost stature in my eyes for letting Liberals set the terms when they could have, and should have told those Liberals to pound sand if they didn't run them the way they as Republicans wanted to appeal to their Republican base. I like that Thompson calls his own shots.
Doug, our HERO! -- is certainly right, however, in that Hillary will have an insanely efficient (and corrupt) vote machine, including the solicitation of young stupid airhead college kids. She knows that the ONLY chance she has of not losing is through a third-party entry of a candidate that could take from Republicans, or massive vote mechanics and fraud (which isn't beyond the pale). The only other hope for her, IMO, lies in Giuliani, a candidate for whom many Republicans would never vote.
The MSM whines that Bush rarely has press conferences and when he actually does, all they do is hammer him. But with Hillary it's just a "perception" that she doesn't have real press conferences.