Hillary Rages at Yet Another Senate Colleague

For the second time in a week, New York Senator Hillary Clinton reportedly "blew her top" at a Senate colleague, prompting concern that she's no longer able suppress the notorious temper that left more than a few White House underlings and campaign coworkers scarred by her blistering tirades.

Sen. Clinton "hit the ceiling" last week over her fellow New Yorker, Sen. Chuck Schumer's highly publicized gubernatorial endorsement of state comptroller Carl McCall, reports the New York Post's Albany correspondent Fred Dicker.

McCall's bid to become the state's first African-American governor has Democrats torn over whether to support him or Andrew Cuomo, the ex-Housing Secretary who recently told the New York Times that Bill Clinton was his hero.

Sen. Clinton has reportedly complained that Schumer's McCall endorsement was nothing more than a "cynical effort" to curry favor with African-American voters at her expense, a senior New York Democrat with firsthand knowledge of the situation told the paper.

The short-fused ex-first-lady is said to be "doubly furious" over the timing of Schumer's endorsement, coming just before a unity dinner for state Democrats was scheduled to take place.

While Hillary's latest tirade occurred behind her target's back, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold wasn't so lucky, getting a face-to-face dressing down from his New York colleague the week before. Clinton was said to be angered over fund-raising restrictions imposed by the recently passed McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law.

Witnesses say she "screamed" and "shouted" at her Wisconsin colleague at the closed door meeting a week ago Thursday, shattering the collegial atmosphere that normally prevails in the Senate.

The outburst against Feingold was said to be Mrs. Clinton's first targeting a fellow senator since taking office in Jan. 2001.

But it follows a long string of similar incidents over the years that have been largely ignored by the press.

In 1996, for instance, when Mrs. Clinton was upset at the burgeoning Travelgate scandal, she lashed out at then-White House Counsel Abner Mikva. According to the late Barbara Olson in her landmark Clinton biography, "Hell to Pay," Hillary unleashed "such a vicious streak of humiliating profanity that he resigned."

"She is angry. Not all the time. But most of the time," revealed author Gail Sheehy in her more forgiving biography, "Hillary's Choice." One target of Hillary's anger, longtime aide Carolyn Huber, told Sheehy, "The person on the receiving end of it never gets over it." According to the author, Huber "shivered" as she related the insight.

Campaign aides Paul and Mary Lee Fray describe a 1974 Hillary meltdown where she called Mr. Fray "a f - - king Jew bastard" to his face.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton attributes Mrs. Clinton's campaign finance-related outburst to pressure brought to bear by the watchdog group's client Peter Paul, whose account of illegal Clinton fund-raising practices is being taken more seriously by the Bush Justice Department in recent months.

"I guess Peter Paul is getting to her," Fitton told NewsMax.com last week, when asked about her Feingold tirade. "The Justice Department recently told us that his information on Mrs. Clinton is checking out," he added.

Paul has told investigators that he donated over $2 million in cash and in-kind contributions to the Hillary 2000 campaign, most of which she failed to report as required by law to the Federal Election Commission.

With the Justice Department's dropping its New Square Pardongate case against Mrs. Clinton, Paul's complaint is the only area left where she has any legal exposure.

Negotiations between the Justice Department and Paul, who had fled to Brazil after being indicted on stock fraud charges, are going well enough that he's expected to return to the U.S. in the coming months - a development which could signal a full blown federal probe into his allegations.

Consider what a pig Hillary is. Then recall the cosmetic hate attacks the left flattened Tripp, Jones, Flowers... Considering their love for "hate crime" bills, why does it seem hypocritical to bash selective women for their personal attributes in order to forward a cause?

Thanks. Your comment reminds me of a book review on Ann Coulter's book Slander. Check this out!

Slander

Excerpt:

Will the liberals dare to sneer at Ann Coulter as an 'ugly' woman, as they rushed to say about Linda Tripp, Paula Jones and Katherine Harris? Coulter says: "More than any of their other hate speech, the left's attacks on women for being ugly tell you everything. There is nothing so irredeemedly cruel as an attack on a woman for her looks. Attacking a female as being ugly is a hideous thing, always inherently vicious."

Women on the left, such as Maxine Waters, Janet Reno, and Madeleine Albright, are never characterized by the liberals as "Howard Stern in a fright wig," "ugly and evil", having been beaten with the "ugly stick", neither "attractive nor possessed of human DNA" or "looks like a bloated carcass and whatever's pecking at it." These are only a few of the ugly sneers about Tripp, Jones and Harris by supposedly serious, anti-hate-speech, (feminist!) liberal journalists, in print and on television. And all because these three women were conservatives who dared to (1) expose corruption in a Democratic administration, (2) seek legal redress for having been sexually harrassed by a sitting Democratic president, and (3) fulfil her legal duties by obeying state and federal laws in Florida following the last presidential election (thus preventing the planned theft of that election by Democrats).

< snip >

It is not so surprising, really, that the mainstream media, without fail, attacks Republicans and other conservatives as "evil," rich," "homophobic," or "just not getting it," and consistently praises the most pathetically inept and/or corrupt Democrats as "fighting for the little people", or perhaps as "the most intelligent woman in the world". Many of the liberal media stars are former Democratic party workers, or were on the staffs of Democratic politicians. Several pages of the book are required for a partial list of them. Liberals insist that disclosing these political ties to the public is not necessary, since their reporting and commentary is always "fair" and "balanced!"

Having a lock on the mainstream media means the liberals never have to question their devotion to what is, in most respects, a religion -- socialism, which is a two-class system of government comprised of superior, elite (rich) rulers and grateful, adoring (not rich) servants. Since they refuse serious debate and are frequently successful in silencing conservative voices, liberals don't think anyone will (or should) notice when their arrogance finally becomes news. After all, they are rich not because they worked for their wealth, but simply because they are "good" and deserve not only the finest life has to offer but they also deserve not to have contact with the unwashed poor or that hated, soon-hopefully-to-be-taxed-out-of-existence middle-class who aspire to life's amenities and pleasures themselves.

Early this year, Coulter tells us, David Geffen, Barbra Streisand, Steven Spielberg, and other of the fabulously rich Hollywood elites, erected illegal chain link fences to keep normal citizens from using public beaches that happened to be next to the liberals' beachfront homes. "The California Coastal Commission was forced to intervene to demand that the Hollywood left stop blocking access to the beach." Like their favorite, though impeached, president, the left considers themselves above the law.

Despite the liberal media's years of propaganda and role-modeling for us on television and in the movies, drumming into the minds and hearts of America the image of the left as the true reflection of America -- intellectually, culturally and politically -- not many of our citizens buy into it. Slivers of the East and West coasts, enclaves in Florida, dependent government bureaucrats, and fearfully deceived minority members, are all they can count on. America's interest in liberal newspapers and television programs continues a downward spiral. The reason for that is that Americans are generally a hard-headed, can-do, practical, sometimes religious people who have the sense to recognize that when someone lies to you a lot, probably they want something from you they have no right to possess.

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.