Why Hillary's Iowa Misstep Can Sink Her:Missus Clinton's Saturday Night Live Problem(Part 2 @ 156)

hillary clinton, FoxNews, Washington Post | 01.29.07 | Mia T

[FlyVet]

Miabump.

Hmmmmm. It seems the mediots are questioning Hillary!'s credibility a bit. Well, at least Fox News is. Let's see if they draw her out of her "Let's chat, let's have a dialog" obvious phoniness, and dare to ask her some hard questions. What are they afraid of? She got some FBI files on them, too?

Excellent work, Miss T, as usual.

[Mia T]

I suspect enough people have her number... but we must make sure.

[Mia T]

Thanx, FlyVet.

The NYT and Washpost are covering for her. No surprise.

Will be analyzing that and this whole issue in greater depth in next post....

[MHGinTN]

Let's see, if she was joking about degenerate bill as an evil man and we see how she fulfilled her enabler role, does that mean hse has the enabler experience to deal with the other evil men in foreign affairs? And if she was clueless that her comment was construed as meaning bill, does that mean she will remain just as clueless in dealing with foreing evil men? ... What a maroon she and her minions are, each.

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

Why Hillary shouldn't be President--
(my latest reason):

1. She doesn't know the words to the Star Spangled Banner.

[FlyVet]

Will be analyzing that and this whole issue in greater depth in next post....

I knew that. <);=}>

You relentless thing, you......

[Mia T]

been there, done that. (finish carpentry, not siding) ;)

[Mia T]

;)

[Smokin' Joe]

With a Q score—a measure of celebrity likability among the hoi polloi—in the toilet, missus clinton can win elections only by running virtually unopposed...

Which is why the MSM is shilling Rudy and McLame. The less obvious the difference, the less energized/more disenfranchised the Republican base, the more likely her hindness is likely to be within election stealing range.

[Mia T]

I would argue that on the decisive issue of our day, prosecuting the war on terror, the difference between missus clinton and Rudy Giuliani couldn't be more stark.

[PGalt]

Great segment by FOX NEWS and Carl Cameron.

As the audience behind her nervously fidgeted, she confidently re-phrased the question. She then created her own quagmire by witlessly alluding to her pathetic personal life. The audience laughed . Somewhat startled (not realizing her own stupidity) she sensed the mood had changed from serious subject to laughter. She painstakingly decided to blend in (as chameleons are apt to do) by laughing with them.

She then dodged follow-up questions by the press.

Pathetic.

The propagandists better line up the bucket brigade to put out this self-igniting fire.

[Mia T]

Why Hillary shouldn't be President--
(my latest reason):

1. She doesn't know the words to the Star Spangled Banner.

 

She doesn't know the words to her own spiel. (HILLARY 'the smartest woman in the world' CLINTON USED GYP SHEETS IN DEBATE WITH SPENCER AND BOMBED ANYWAY)

Frank Rich took hillary apart the other day, bit by bit. An interesting piece, with some memorable turns of phrase,¹ but with one major error: Rich excoriated clinton for the 'patently synthetic play-acting and carefully manicured sound bites' of her 'out of touch' campaign as though the campaign were fixable, not understanding that, given the candidate, the clinton machine had no other option.

With a Q score—a measure of celebrity likability among the hoi polloi—in the toilet, missus clinton can win elections only by running virtually unopposed...

And then only with the help of protheses, props, poses, PR machines, scripted appearances, screened audiences, vetted questions, Secret Service barracades, secret police, softball settings and sycophantic hosts... fictionalizing, 'humanizing,' digitizing and otherwise hiding the real hillary clinton.

And then we have the baggage....

Anyone else but a clinton would have been summarily laughed off the stage.

HILLARY CLINTON'S Q SCORE
Hollywood take note
(WHAT THE HELL IS THIS MORIBUND LOSER DOING IN THE POLITICAL ARENA ANYWAY?)
by Mia T, 01.26.07

Patently synthetic play-acting and carefully manicured sound bites like Mrs. Clinton's look out of touch. (Mr. Obama's bare-bones Webcast and Web site shrewdly play Google to Mrs. Clinton's AOL.) Besides, the belief that an image can be tightly controlled in the viral media era is pure fantasy. Just ask the former Virginia senator, Mr. Allen, whose past prowess as a disciplined, image-conscious politician proved worthless once the Webb campaign posted on YouTube a grainy but authentic video capturing him in an embarrassing off-script public moment.

The image that Mrs. Clinton wants to sell is summed up by her frequent invocation of the word middle, as in "I grew up in a middle-class family in the middle of America." She's not left or right, you see, but exactly in the center where everyone feels safe....

This how she explains her vote to authorize the war: "I would never have expected any president, if we knew then what we know now, to come to ask for a vote. There would not have been a vote, and I certainly would not have voted for it." John Kerry could not have said it worse himself. No wonder last weekend's "Saturday Night Live" gave us a "Hillary" who said, "Knowing what we know now, that you could vote against the war and still be elected president, I would never have pretended to support it."

Compounding this problem for Mrs. Clinton is that the theatrics of her fledgling campaign are already echoing the content: they are so overscripted and focus-group bland that they underline rather than combat the perennial criticism that she is a cautious triangulator too willing to trim convictions for political gain. Last week she conducted three online Web chats that she billed as opportunities for voters to see her "in an unfiltered way." Surely she was kidding. Everything was filtered, from the phony living-room set to the appearance of a "campaign blogger" who wasn't blogging to the softball questions and canned responses. Even the rare query touching on a nominally controversial topic, gay civil rights, avoided any mention of the word marriage, let alone Bill Clinton's enactment of the federal Defense of Marriage Act....

This, in other words, is a moment of crisis in our history and there will be no do-overs. Should Mrs. Clinton actually seek unfiltered exposure to voters, she will learn that they are anxiously waiting to see just who in Washington is brave enough to act.

Hillary Clinton's Mission Unaccomplished
By FRANK RICH
January 28, 2007
The New York Times

[Mia T]

fyi

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Pong! : )

My take: Hillary and Gore destroy each other trying to get the nomination. Pretty boys Edwards and Obama can't define themselves beyond "I hate the war" and "I'm whomever you want me to be", respectively. In the end either Bill Richardson or dark horse Tom Vilsack gets the nomination.

[Smokin' Joe]

I would argue that on the decisive issue of our day, prosecuting the war on terror, the difference between missus clinton and Rudy Giuliani couldn't be more stark.

While I agree on that count, Guiliani's stances on other issues will likely scuttle him. In particular, gun control, abortion, and gays.

At that, many will view a vote for Rudy as 'burning the village to save it'.

If the Democrats succeed in de-funding the war in Iraq, Rudy's stance may be moot. Despite the obvious support of northeastern 'moderates', he will divide the party, and could well lose.

Surely we can find a candidate who will prosecute the war on terror and is acceptable on other issues as well.

[highlander_UW]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't find any jokes about a rapist all that funny.

[Mia T]

If the Ds defund the war, Rudy's position is strengthened. The more feckless the Ds demonstrate themselves to be, the more this country will crave a strong leader, one who has actually accomplished what he set out to accomplish.

All the social issues you mention are beside the point if we lose the war. We need a candidate who can prosecute the war, will prosecute the war, will win the war, someone who is acceptable to enough of the people to get elected. If you think an ideological candidate can win in '08, you haven't been listening to the country.

Letting a D win isn't an option. Just look at them. In 08, we must focus on one thing, electing someone who will win the war. And to do that, we must remain united.

[jla]

been there, done that. (finish carpentry...

Carhartt or Dickies overalls?

[Smokin' Joe]

In 08, we must focus on one thing, electing someone who will win the war. And to do that, we must remain united.

Check out Duncan Hunter.

I agree we must remain united, which is why I cannot see Rudy as POTUS.

This war will not be won in 2 years or even 10, but will be an ongoing thing. Iraq is only one component. The enemy is radical Islam, and things will get bloodier before they get better.

When there is already a significant number of people here who are idealogically aligned with the enemy, and I am not including the usual mere leftists, there is no way I will vote for a presidential candidate who would strip me and my extended family (enough adults to form a couple of fire teams) of the very arms we might need to defend our homes, schools, children or neighborhoods--especially not with a Democratic Congress which is already falling over itself to adopt new gun control measures.

While Rudy might attract a significant urban vote, he will not play well in the hinterlands or the rural areas.

I think we can find both the idealogy and the will in the same candidate, but that is not Rudy. YMMV.