Hillary's temper shows? – UPDATED

:::SCROLL DOWN A LITTLE FOR UPDATE:::

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.