Hillbot bombs in the debate. Time to find a scapegoat. Why not a member of the distrusted media?
It starts this morning when one of Hillary’s aides whispers to DRUDGE that moderator Tim Russert was “unfair” and “unprofessional.”
Is it a coincidence, then, that Paul Waldman of Media Matters (founded by Clinton apparatchik David Brock) has a scathing critique of Russert now posted on The American Prospect’s Web site?
Interesting timing, to say the least.
Hands down — sorry for the lackluster video quality, but point made.
Why not former Attorney General John Ashcroft? He’s pious, God-fearing and favors covering women with cloth. Who better to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world?
Via Shelbinator, I came across this tacky rapid response from Giuliani’s flak following last night’s Democratic debate:
Senator Biden’s comments were of particular interest. The good senator is quite correct that there are many differences between Rudy and him. For starters, Rudy rarely reads prepared speeches and when he does he isn’t prone to ripping off the text from others. And, Senator Biden certainly falls in to the bucket of those on the stage tonight who have never had executive experience and have never run anything. Wait, I take that back, Senator Biden has never run anything but his mouth.
Such a desperate attack from Senator Biden is to be expected considering I — Katie Levinson — have a better chance of becoming President than he does.
Ha ha. Rudy’s relevant in the polls and you’re not, you stupid poopyhead!
Sadly, this is fairly typical. Republicans seem determined to turn off all thinking people with their increasing dependence on childish rhetoric.
You hear it when Rush Limbaugh calls the senator from Illinois Barack Hussein Obama (he’s one of those people, in case you didn’t know).
You hear it when Ann Coulter calls John Edwards a fag. Just a joke, she says, and what a funny one.
Rhetorical excess isn’t limited to the GOP; Democrats tend to sound like your typical indignant, self-righteous college freshman. Republicans, meanwhile, seem to be aiming for the GED crowd.
Now Victoria’s Secret is directing some its marketing toward tweens:
Victoria’s Secret’s Pink line, launched in 2004, has bloomed into a $1 billion brand. The company publicly promotes Pink to college kids, but dog prints, slumber party pj’s, sweats aping soccer attire, camis and panties in ice cream-cone packaging suggest a decidedly younger demographic.
Have we mentioned that there are dress-up dolls “plush and pretty for the ultimate girly-girl?” Sure, that’s what every college sophomore desires.
I’ll resist another predictable tirade against sexualizing girls. Instead, I’ll leave you with a challenge.
If you see any little girls dressed up as whores or strippers for Halloween, find their parents and give them a long, unflinching glare. Maybe even a wag of the finger. They deserve it.
And not just for the sake of their children, but yours. Best to thin out the pool of potential “Real World” cast members while you still have some influence.
Plenty of candidates, but the runaway winner is Karen Hughes, Bush‘s choice to lead the fight for the “hearts and minds” of the Muslim world.
Hughes resigned today (actually, it’s unclear why she left, but Bush never fires anyone, particularly if they’re incompetent, so I made the assumption). I doubt she puts this assignment on her resume.
She was doomed to fail, of course. Who puts a flak in charge of diplomacy, particularly one with no experience in the region?
Ms. Hughes plans to inundate Muslims with the four E’s: “engagement, exchanges, education and empowerment.”
I can’t believe that didn’t work.
Maybe Bush figured Muslims would be as easy to fool as Republican primary voters. Or have you forgotten the “reformer with results?”
Sources inside the White House say Bush hopes to replace Hughes with motivational speaker Tony Robbins.
As Obama said, do you really want to endure another secretive administration?
Clinton was asked about whether she’d expedite the release her records from her husband’s term, and she gave an unsatisfying and frustrating answer about the slow archival process. (It made you feel like you were suddenly stuck at the DMV window.)
Watch Hillary try to deflect here.
Lest I be accused of piling on, here’s a welcome respite from The Onion parodying a sorta wild, not really crazy guy:
You know where I really shine? Filling out the memo part of a check. Like, I might be paying my gas bill, but in the memo I’ll write “Meatballs.” I wish I could see the expression on the face of whoever opens up that bill! Of course, I always add an asterisk and an attached note to make sure they know I’m just kidding and don’t return the check uncashed. I may be tastefully madcap, but I also have a credit rating to think of.And you better believe the envelope I send it in will have a colorful stamp featuring some pollinating animals or maybe Jimmy Stewart. Normal? That’s my dad!
Yes, sir. When it comes to me, you never know what you’ll get next, although you can be sure you’ve seen it once or twice before. I swear, you’ll think, “What an eccentric but reasonable guy,” if you think about me at all. And that’s exactly how I like it
By most accounts, Hillbot was the big loser in last night’s Democratic debate.
And not because she was attacked — she wasn’t. She was challenged. Big difference. A personal attack would be something like this: “Hillary is so ugly, you could push her face in some dough and make gorilla cookies.” Lamentably, Fred Sanford is not running for president.
Still, it was refreshing to see Hillbot’s opponents take the gloves off, treating her as if she were any other candidate. She makes for an easy target, as evidenced by her answer(s) regarding issuing drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants.
John Edwards immediately went for the jugular. “Unless I missed something,” he said, “Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes. America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them.”
Barack Obama added: “I was confused (by) Senator Clinton’s answer. I can’t tell whether she was for it or against it. One of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face.”
Hillbot not programmed to handle dissent. Circuit board overloaded. Danger, Will Robinson!
Edwards, in particular, kept pressing the junior robot, er, senator from New York.
“Who is honest? Who is sincere? Who has integrity?” Edwards asked and then provided the answer: Not Hillary.
Obama also questioned Clinton’s truthfulness, though the clear winner was Edwards. As for Hillary, Politico.com’s Roger Simon summed it up best: “she can’t claim that she was stabbed in the back. She was stabbed in the front.”
Hillbot cornered. Commence victimhood:
(via DRUDGE)
CLINTON INNER-CIRCLE BLAME ‘UNFAIR’ MODERATOR TIM RUSSERT. ‘HE BORDERED ON THE UNPROFESSIONAL,’ TOP HILLARY ADVISER CHARGES. ‘HE BROKE DEBATE RULES AND WAS BELLIGERENT’…
Could she be more predictable?
Hillary Rodham Clinton, the pinata of Tuesday’s Democratic debate, is turning the tables on her rivals accusing them of ganging up against her.
In a cleverly edited debate video and in a campaign statement, the Clinton camp is decrying the criticism leveled against her Tuesday night as the “politics of pile-on.” …
“With each attack, Senators Obama and Edwards undermined the central premises of their candidacies,” the statement said. “The sunny speeches and rosy rhetoric that once characterized their remarks has now been replaced by the kinds of jabs one typically sees from candidates desperate to gain traction in the polls.”
Once again we see Hillbot playing the wounded female victimized by heartless men (it’s how she won her Senate seat). Feminists — real feminists — should be repulsed. I’d love to hear from Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama on this (hint hint).
Hillbot bombs in the debate. Time to find a scapegoat. Why not a member of the distrusted media?
It starts this morning when one of Hillary’s aides whispers to DRUDGE that moderator Tim Russert was “unfair” and “unprofessional.”
Is it a coincidence, then, that Paul Waldman of Media Matters (founded by Clinton apparatchik David Brock) has a scathing critique of Russert now posted on The American Prospect’s Web site?
Interesting timing, to say the least.
Why not former Attorney General John Ashcroft? He’s pious, God-fearing and favors covering women with cloth. Who better to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world?
Not sure if I’d call “The Shining” the scariest movie ever made, but it’s certainly among the creepiest, as this clip demonstrates.
Via Shelbinator, I came across this tacky rapid response from Giuliani’s flak following last night’s Democratic debate:
Senator Biden’s comments were of particular interest. The good senator is quite correct that there are many differences between Rudy and him. For starters, Rudy rarely reads prepared speeches and when he does he isn’t prone to ripping off the text from others. And, Senator Biden certainly falls in to the bucket of those on the stage tonight who have never had executive experience and have never run anything. Wait, I take that back, Senator Biden has never run anything but his mouth.
Such a desperate attack from Senator Biden is to be expected considering I — Katie Levinson — have a better chance of becoming President than he does.
Ha ha. Rudy’s relevant in the polls and you’re not, you stupid poopyhead!
Sadly, this is fairly typical. Republicans seem determined to turn off all thinking people with their increasing dependence on childish rhetoric.
You hear it when Rush Limbaugh calls the senator from Illinois Barack Hussein Obama (he’s one of those people, in case you didn’t know).
You hear it when Ann Coulter calls John Edwards a fag. Just a joke, she says, and what a funny one.
Rhetorical excess isn’t limited to the GOP; Democrats tend to sound like your typical indignant, self-righteous college freshman. Republicans, meanwhile, seem to be aiming for the GED crowd.
Now Victoria’s Secret is directing some its marketing toward tweens:
Victoria’s Secret’s Pink line, launched in 2004, has bloomed into a $1 billion brand. The company publicly promotes Pink to college kids, but dog prints, slumber party pj’s, sweats aping soccer attire, camis and panties in ice cream-cone packaging suggest a decidedly younger demographic.
Have we mentioned that there are dress-up dolls “plush and pretty for the ultimate girly-girl?” Sure, that’s what every college sophomore desires.
I’ll resist another predictable tirade against sexualizing girls. Instead, I’ll leave you with a challenge.
If you see any little girls dressed up as whores or strippers for Halloween, find their parents and give them a long, unflinching glare. Maybe even a wag of the finger. They deserve it.
And not just for the sake of their children, but yours. Best to thin out the pool of potential “Real World” cast members while you still have some influence.
