Why the photo of Katherine Zeta Jones?She is used as an antidote for pictures of hideous women. Since I posted Hillarybeast, here's my favorite apology.
Posted on 12/01/2007 7:52:20 PM PST by shrinkermd
Both Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd have columns today.
Rich has little to say about the Iraq War. He stresses Obama opposed it and Hillary did not. Presumably, this is enough for Frank Rich and Pinch to switch sides.
Here is a quote from Rich:
”…But much like the Clinton campaign itself, the Republicans have fallen into a trap by continuing to cling to the Hillary-is-inevitable trope. They have not allowed themselves to think the unthinkable — that they might need a Plan B to go up against a candidate who is not she. It’s far from clear that they would remotely know how to construct a Plan B to counter Mr. Obama. The repeated attempts to fan “rumors” that he is a madrassa-indoctrinated Muslim — whether on Fox News or in The Washington Post, where they resurfaced scurrilously on the front page on Thursday — are too demonstrably false to survive endless reruns even in the Swift-boating era…”
Rich’s article is Who’s Afraid of Barack Obama?
Maureen has a softer and more balanced approach but here is a choice quote of hers:
…Except for panicked Clintonistas, everyone seems eager to see if the young pol can live up to his potential. Responding to his more combative style, the press has relaunched him, giving him a second chance to shine, on this week’s cover of Time, in the pages of The New Yorker, in the up arrow of Newsweek, which now declares him “poised to be the comeback kid,” and at The Times, where young female assistants lined the halls on Wednesday to watch him glide into a second meeting with editorial board writers and editors…
Maureen’s article is O Brother, Where Art Thou?
This is a dramatic change on the part of the NYT. Even if it is brief, they seem to be acquiescing to the idea the Iraq War is going well and progress is being made. Seemingly, now they and others in the dominant media see it is time to think of someone other than Hillary..
For us it makes little difference who their candidate is. What is more and more important is new and novel leadership from our candidates with an ever increasing stress on what can be done not what has been done.
It is also time for our presidential candidates to cease the ad hominems and cheap shots at their opponents. Further, many and perhaps most voters in 2008 will have been born after 1980. This means the Cold War, Viet Nam and JFK are historical not personal remembrances. What is more and more important is we need new and novel leadership from our candidates. The election is about the future--what can be done not outweighs what has been done . This group of younger voters needs and deserves a positive, forward looking approach. Failure to grasp this will result in our failure.
Hillary has done enough to throw herself under the bus.
Funny how Karl Rove knew all this before he left the WH....saying Hillary was unelectable.
Agreed. Most of the population was born BEFORE 1980, not after. And a lot of the population is still under voting age of the block born after 1980.
The number of voters in the 18-28 year range is very narrow, and many of them don’t even vote, and are mostly politically ignorant.
The only hope for our country is enough people who have a political memory of the true cost of socialism to not elect a Democratic President next year.
Thank you ma’am.
Why the photo of Katherine Zeta Jones?She is used as an antidote for pictures of hideous women. Since I posted Hillarybeast, here's my favorite apology.
As I recall, Michael Douglas ditched Maureen Dowd for Zeta-Jones. So any Dowd thread simply must have pix of Zeta-Jones.
Exactly! She’s driving the bus, so how can she be under it unless of course there is a bus wreck. I Don’t see that happening to her bus, maybe to Obama’s, or to Edwards’, but not hers.
It is long overdue for them to throw the whole Clinton machine under the bus. It was the Clintons who basically took the Democrat party and made it about them and perserving them for 8 years. I’d love them to nominate Hillary because she would be a tinder box just waiting to happen. All one has to do is learn to hit a lady in a pantsuit and she would fall apart. She is not a sympathetic figure. I do think she is safer on national security issues than Obama or Edwards who are just off in some land of lakes butter commercial the only difference is the lady is wearing a berka in their version. I wouldn’t trust either of them to stand up for our national interests. Hillary has more nads than either of them.
What scares me about Hillary and all Democrats is their social and fiscal policies which are like Marx dressed up in a tuttu. All Americans who understand what makes our nation great should be disgusted by what they propose to do to America.
I threw the New York Times under a bus once!
They could very well be positioning her for her triumphant “comeback”, too.
Thank you for the explanation.
But .. but .. they think Edwards has MORE experience ..??
I don’t get that logic at all.
You’re welcome ;o)
You’re most welcome.
Younger voters don’t vote, so I don’t see how they can make a diffence.
From long ago, Maureen Dowd was very upset at Catherine Zeta-Jones (spelling?) for “stealing” Michael Douglas. Therefore, whenever MoDo gets mentioned in or writes an article posted on FR, “da rulz” specify that a balancing picture of the far lovelier Zeta-Jones must be posted.
It’s kind of a tradition.
Yeah, right...whatever!
Relatively.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.