Hillary’s temper shows? – UPDATED


Folks are all abuzz about Hillary’s testy declaration that she can make change and they’re linking to this video.

I’ve got all sorts of comments in my email ranging from “If you need change for a hundred, Hillary can make it,” to “If George H.W. Bush reminded every woman of her first husband, Hillary is going to remind every man of his first wife.” Kathryn Jean Lopez got one like that too.

Well…I dunno.
I watched the video and didn’t think she came off too shrewish. A little incoherent, desperate sounding and clearly angry – she must so ticked off that she is finding herself in this position when she was pretty sure she was gliding to a coronation – and I think I read somewhere a while back that her claims about insuring National Guardsmen are a stretch, but stretching is what Clinton’s do, so no one will care. Perhaps it played worse in the context of the whole debate, but to me this video does not seem like the “moment of implosion” which many are waiting for. I think she’s going to get a lot angrier before that happens.

Ann Althouse says she thought Hillary sounded hesitant and yelly.

Buster – not a Hillary lover – is home from school I played the video for him and he agreed with me, pretty much. “She doesn’t sound shrewish; she’s sounds like she’s a little pissed off and making her case. Not really convincing, but not offensive, either.” We both think this video is more dramatic. And it re-inforces what I’ve been saying for a while – that we’ve been seeing the same damn faces for too long.

Lorie Byrd takes strong issue with Obama’s assertion that yes, the surge in Iraq is working, but only because the Iraqis see the Democrats are going to “end the occupation.” My feeling: if the White House disagrees, they’d better address it, otherwise, that’s the narrative the left and the press will run with. More on that here.

:::UPDATE:::Fred Barnes thinks Obama’s narrative is off a bit, timing wise as explained here (Via).:::END UPDATE:::

My emailers
are also telling me that they thought Fred Thompson won on issues – Freeman Hunt agrees – but still needs to show some passion besides the Bid Daddy tone. I rather like that tone, myself.

Newsweek is coming out with a valentine to Obama. It’s certainly a flattering portrait, and every candidate should probably get one of those at some point – in fact, here is one on Thompson.

As I said yesterday, there is lots of time to get to learn about Obama’s votes and ideas – I do recall him saying he’d negotiate with Iran, so there certainly are questions. My concern is – now that the press has a new love – (and they are completely besotted with Obama, who has rescued them from their abusive marriage to the Clintons) will the press allow us to see Obama fully, or will they block our views as they did with John Kerry? It’s a serious question.

I’m totally willing to look closely at Obama – doubt I’ll like his social or economic stands, and I disagree with him fundamentally on our action in Iraq, but I’ll look. My fear is that the press will only show us the man’s sweet cheeks and none of the warts, because they’re clearly IN LOVE. I’m glad they seem to be waking up from their Clinton slumber, but we the people need the press to show us full portraits of the candidates, with both the good and the bad; otherwise all the media are doing is shilling. Whores do that.

Great line about the Clintons from Bill Hobbs.

Blue Crab says Bring Forth the Relic!

Mary Katharine Ham has has a lot, keep scrolling.

Rudy is making commitments.

Slightly O/T, it cannot be said enough: both parties better address the looming problem of voter fraud.

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Pingback: The Moderate Voice

  • http://bornavol.blogspot.com DADvocate

    The second video is very enlightening. The Hillary can’t be trusted theme is strong. In the first video, Hillary claims she’s been making change for 35 years. That would be since she was 25 years old.

    Obviously, she’s using a broad definition of working for change. A definition so broad that any of us over the age of 35 could use to claim to have been working for change for 35 years. I suspect the change she’s worked for most, and failed, is to get Bill to stop womanizing.

  • KIA

    I sure hope you do look “closely” Anchoress at Obama. For the LIFE OF ME, I can’t understand what everyone sees in this “new savior.” For starters, Obama has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood of IL and supports (via his wife, he’s too much of a wimp to take a real stand), partial birth abortion. Note how many times he voted “present” (which simply means no backbone in my book). Maybe this article (which can all be verified), will be an eye opener.

    I even relistend to his victory speech. It’s all fluff; albeit eloquent! All I see is a smooth taker who is going to take the country into a cesspoll. To have this guy in office with the oversight of judges makes me wake up in a cold sweat.

    Just the simple fact that he has no regard for life in the womb, clearly demonstrates his true character and explains how he could endorse sex ed for K-5. As for his “church going.” Come on, everyone serious about a presidential ambition “joins” a Christian Church. It’s on the “to do check list.”

    Call me off the charts paranoid, but I think he and anti Christ Oprah have their own agenda.

  • http://postmodernpapist.blogspot.com Kyle R. Cupp

    I suspect that the various news networks will show us the aspects of candidates based on what they want us to know given their (actually complex) ideological and corporatist agendas. Arriving at a fuller picture of who these candidates are requires much more blood, sweat, and toil than watching the drive-by biased theatrics of the news networks. What is requires is, in a word, research.

  • Pingback: Brutally Honest

  • Pingback: Giving credit where credit is due — not « Bookworm Room

  • stephanie

    I’ve got to agree with you, anchoress- I don’t think she sounds shrewish. Angry, like the kid who’s trying to answer the teacher’s question while everyone else talks over her. Desperate to get her answer out there, to be heard. But not really shrewish, more declarative.
    I like what one of the observers in the second video said “She doesn’t represent change to me”. I think that sums it up. Her ideas may be different from the status quo-but her trying to change things isn’t refreshing, new, or different. We want to move beyond the same old players- and she’s been a player on the big screen for way too long now. She’s not new, different, or “a change”-and, if she has a significant record of implementing changes (as she was trying to get at) then her ideas aren’t fresh or new, are they? They’re just the same things she’s been trying to implement for years.

  • joeh

    She says everything you need to know about her right in the beginning. “Making change is not about what you believe”

    The issue is not belief with her but getting power, looking at polls. If you fight for change, should it not be based on your beliefs? Reagan had core values and they did not change with polls or focus groups. Everything about the Clintons screams out for an answer to “What is the core belief” with these folks.

  • Pingback: The Anchoress » Blog Archive » Bill Clinton’s “victim” delusion - UPDATED