Hillary surrounding herself with "girly men"?

  • redheaded_dud...

    Posts: 408

    Apr 09, 2008 1:33 PM GMT
    Camillie Paglia answers the letter I pasted below:

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/04/09/girly_men/

    I would like to get your feedback on the subject of those who end up in Hillary's orbit. Can you conceive of a strong, leader-type male ever working under her? An alpha, if you will. And if the answer is no, then why do you think that is?

    The men you always see under her are to a person passive-aggressive, sadistic, mean, little, petty beta-male pieces of work who would not naturally succeed in a common male-type hierarchy. By that I mean an environment that values straightforward achievement rather than the darker political arts.

    That statement is in no way meant to exclude women. In fact, I work with many women who succeed just as well in this environment. It is just a shorthand for an environment that values achievement and straight talk. Hillary's persona is simply not compatible with another strong will, male or female -- but definitely male, and that itself is a big red flag.

    What kind of person would go to work for a Clinton in the first place? A naive true-believer? Everyone knows what they would be getting into: constant war rooms, personal attacks, spin, daily damage control, a boss prone to temper tantrums, placing your own integrity out on the ledge as a shill for a fundamentally dishonest person. I would argue that nobody who hasn't already sold their soul years ago would ever want to be a part of that mess.

    Your thoughts?

    Chris Richard
    Agoura Hills, Calif.

    Paglia's first paragraph: You have succinctly expressed one of the most unsettling aspects of Hillary Clinton's character and modus operandi. There is a strangely static and claustrophobic quality to the fiercely loyal cult she has gathered around her since her first lady years. Postmortem analysts of this presidential campaign will have a field day ferreting out all the cringe-making blunders made by her clique of tired, aging courtiers who couldn't adjust to changing political realities. Hillary's forces have acted like the heavy, pompous galleons of the imperial Spanish Armada, outmaneuvered by the quick, bold, entrepreneurial ships of the English fleet.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Apr 09, 2008 1:35 PM GMT
    Now I've heard everything. icon_mad.gif

    I think she surrounds herself with talented people, men, women, black or white who are team players, talented folks who can add to her campaign...

    The same with Obama or McCain.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2008 2:17 PM GMT
    Paglia is probably referring to one person, Mark Penn. The man has made so many blunders it is astounding. The most resent one, which cost him his job as her campaign manager but sadly did not result in his ouster from the campaign itself, was working on a free trade deal with Columbia as part of his job at his lobbying firm.

    She spent weeks saying she had nothing to do with NAFTA while first lady and calling for its end. She would hold rallies in rust belt cities like Cleveland and Pittsburgh saying she was always opposed to it. Then her itinerary as First Lady was released, showing her stumping for NAFTA. Then Mark Penn was doing a side job getting an even better deal for the Columbians. And she wont fire the fucker.

    Penn's strategy has also been one of old Roveian wedge politics, which is something I have angrily ranted about before so I will spare you.

    And don't even get me started on her Spanish Armada style. Obama has had more offices open and for longer in more States than Clinton has. Clinton does so well in a states initial polls but that lead evaporates as soon as the Obama shock troopers land a month before Clinton's do and wow all who see them.

    She should have been the nominee. She was the inevitable candidate. But she ran her campaign like she was entitled and has lost because of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2008 2:34 PM GMT
    In my eyes, Hillary lost credibility with all her tall tales, which brings me to this link, which amuses me greatly:

    http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/clinton-stories-yarns.php
  • Muunrakur

    Posts: 169

    Apr 09, 2008 3:22 PM GMT
    I was originally a Dodd supporter. After he dropped out, I watched the 'big three' in debates and came to the conclusion that Hillary would be the best President. Interestingly, what did Obama in for me was John Edwards, who revealed that Obama voted against a cap on credit card interest rates (so now they can charge you whatever they want for any reason instead of having a cap at say... 40%) and who kept pointing out Obama's lack of detail on the issues; he's very Bush-like (calm down, let me finish) in the 2000 sense that he says things most of us like to hear in broad strokes, but never gets down to the nitty-gritty of how he's going to do anything. Also, I worked for a time in the legislature in Massachusetts and have a fair amount of political experience; Illinois is not some magic place where you can vote "present" nearly 90 times and somehow it means something different than it does everywhere else. Votes are "yes" or "no", you vote and you explain. Voting present may be strategic a few times a year, but overusing "present" is really just a way of not having a record on issues.

    That said, if Obama gets the nomination, I think he'd be a heck of a great president and a thousand times better than McCain.

    I'm more and more convinced, though, that the Hillary bashing is really gender bias. The men do much much worse things on the trail than she does, yet people are fixated with her gaffes and blunders and just love to hate her and paint her as a conniving bitch (like Ferraro and Schroeder before her... and even Shirley Chisolm before them, who was doubly guilty as a black woman)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2008 3:27 PM GMT
    Well, that's no surprise. I now know why so many women and gay men support her. Somehow, I always knew this.
    Hillarys-Got-a-Cock.gif
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Apr 09, 2008 3:34 PM GMT
    Camille Paglia? Seriously? Who actually listens to her?
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Apr 09, 2008 3:39 PM GMT
    Yeah, the Dems are in a really tough spot right now. Not only can they not figure out who the nominee is, but Hillary is just too unlikable to so many, and Obama just too inexperienced for these serious times. McCain could likely win if for no other reason than the "change" the Dems are pushing for just isn't that solid.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Apr 09, 2008 4:00 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidPaglia is probably referring to one person, Mark Penn. The man has made so many blunders it is astounding.

    Penn's strategy has also been one of old Roveian wedge politics, which is something I have angrily ranted about before so I will spare you.

    And don't even get me started on her Spanish Armada style. Obama has had more offices open and for longer in more States than Clinton has. Clinton does so well in a states initial polls but that lead evaporates as soon as the Obama shock troopers ,...

    (yeah right)

    She should have been the nominee. She was the inevitable candidate. But she ran her campaign like she was entitled and has lost because of it.



    Clearly Zombie and I have a disagreement as to the fundamentals... I don't think Mark Penn per se was what the intent of the faulty communication here was intended, but the organization as a whole.

    I'm not going to get into a criticism about Zombie's commentary, but I will say this... Clintons's numbers have declined... but when one has twice the money and resources in a small, specific area.. you would expect that to happen.. I find it amazing she still has the lead she does...

    And btw, she hasn't lost...I bet Memphis fans thought KU had lost on Monday night... KU behind by 9 points with 2 minutes left.... and then blunders by Memphis and concentrated play by Kansas.. overtime.. and then the victory. I would NEVER count Hillary out until she does.

    BTW, we have an RJ member who has asked Hillary questions personally, has viewed her in the same room and he is going to give his input as soon as we can arrange it.


    But back on the original question here... so does anyone think that BILL CLINTON is a "girly man"????

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Apr 09, 2008 4:02 PM GMT
    I have a friend in L.A., a die-hard Democrat, who went to see Hillary at THE ABBY several months ago when she spoke in West Hollywood. He came away not liking her at all, said she came off as phoney baloney. SHOCKER!
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Apr 09, 2008 4:09 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI have a friend in L.A., a die-hard Democrat, who went to see Hillary at THE ABBY several months ago when she spoke in West Hollywood. He came away not liking her at all, said she came off as phoney baloney. SHOCKER!




    I think we will see an RJ member who lives in Pennsylvania with a very different, very different perception of Hillary, based on her knowledge, concern, experience and
    empathy...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2008 4:18 PM GMT
    Camille Paglia is just jealous cuz Hillary's is bigger.

    That and I think she's threatened by anyone who she thinks is more alpha bitch than she is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2008 4:55 PM GMT
    Hillary Clinton has not lost yet, but her campaign has been not up to par (to be kind). She should have been the nominee before Pennsylvania, but a combination of blunders, arrogance and an underlying sense she will do just about anything to get and maintain power, has put her in the position she is in.

    She reminds me of the female senator played by Meyrl Streep in the "The Manchurian Candidate".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2008 5:14 PM GMT
    Clinton has lost. In order to tie with Obama on pledged delegates she would need to get 65% of the vote in every remaining state. She has not won over 60% in any state except Arkansas. She of course has ever right to stay in the race. But man...

    Kansan: Ya, she has organization problems by the spadeful. Obama opens offices and begins state-level organization weeks before Clinton does and he has more of them open. Mark Penn's bloated head is just such an ample space to pin the campaigns problems on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2008 5:20 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidClinton has lost. In order to tie with Obama on pledged delegates she would need to get 65% of the vote in every remaining state. She has not won over 60% in any state except Arkansas. She of course has ever right to stay in the race. But man...

    Kansan: Ya, she has organization problems by the spadeful. Obama opens offices and begins state-level organization weeks before Clinton does and he has more of them open. Mark Penn's bloated head is just such an ample space to pin the campaigns problems on.


    I will admit I think the USA's method of selecting presidential candidates would make a Byzantine emperor proud. Horribly complex and long.

    Doesn't Hillary Clinton still have a shot with the superdelegates? Also, she could argue that she has won the big states and swing states that will be so important in November. Obama has won more states but many have been small in population.

    If it is not over by Canada Day (July 1st), watch out. Maybe there is a God and he is Republican! The GOP could not ask for a better scenario then the Democrats beating each other up.
  • Muunrakur

    Posts: 169

    Apr 09, 2008 5:43 PM GMT
    The ultimate, basic fact is that neither can win the primary without superdelegates. So its still a race and, though he's the heavy favorite with a growing lead, Obama can still lose... especially if he implodes.

    I think of George Allen, who was invincible until his 'Macaca' moment. If Hillary pulls it out, it will be because of a massive blunder by Obama.

    I do worry that in the general we're going to see nothing but Rev. Wright in GOP ads, damning America over and over again. Hillary has been using kid-gloves on Obama, the GOP will not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2008 5:49 PM GMT
    She doesn't have a shot with the superdelegates. She is still ahead by 30, but she couldn't win the nomination with them alone.

    And if there is one word to describe the democratic party's nominating system, Byzantine would be the world.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Apr 09, 2008 5:54 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidClinton has lost. In order to tie with Obama on pledged delegates she would need to get 65% of the vote in every remaining state. She has not won over 60% in any state except Arkansas. She of course has ever right to stay in the race.




    Stay in? She has the right to win the race......
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Apr 09, 2008 6:15 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidClinton has lost. In order to tie with Obama on pledged delegates she would need to get 65% of the vote in every remaining state. She has not won over 60% in any state except Arkansas. She of course has ever right to stay in the race. But man...

    Kansan: Ya, she has organization problems by the spadeful. Obama opens offices and begins state-level organization weeks before Clinton does and he has more of them open. Mark Penn's bloated head is just such an ample space to pin the campaigns problems on.



    Definitely would NOT count Hillary out just yet. She will say anything/do anything to win this nomination, and I have no doubt that she and her hubby have a few tricks left up their sleeves. Regardless, ultimately I think it will backfire on them. It's not Obama's time yet anyway...maybe 2012 or 2016
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Apr 09, 2008 7:34 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said[i][quote]


    Definitely would NOT count Hillary out just yet. She will say anything/do anything to win this nomination, and I have no doubt that she and her hubby have a few tricks left up their sleeves. Regardless, ultimately I think it will backfire on them. It's not Obama's time yet anyway...maybe 2012 or 2016



    I don't think I have ever completely so disagreed with a part of a statement, then agreed with the end so hardily....
  • Muunrakur

    Posts: 169

    Apr 09, 2008 7:41 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidShe doesn't have a shot with the superdelegates. She is still ahead by 30, but she couldn't win the nomination with them alone.

    And if there is one word to describe the democratic party's nominating system, Byzantine would be the world.


    The supers can switch sides as often as they want before the actual vote. She can certainly still win this. I read a few articles (which are subject to scrutiny) that said Obama blew his meetings with Edwards by coming across as elitist and detached from the issues, while Hillary impressed him and his wife (who today endorsed Hillary's health care proposal) who actually personally disliked her prior to their meetings.

    If Hillary knows how to work over the delegates better, it may make a difference.
  • redheaded_dud...

    Posts: 408

    Apr 09, 2008 8:26 PM GMT
    4barbela saidIn my eyes, Hillary lost credibility with all her tall tales, which brings me to this link, which amuses me greatly:

    http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/clinton-stories-yarns.php


    Did anyone ever look up the definition of "is"? I think she might be able to get her credibility back if we can just figure out how the vast right wing got to all the dictionaries! LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2008 8:27 PM GMT
    Muunrakur:

    Unpledged delegates can certainly switch anytime they like. In fact, earlier this week a super from DC who supported Clinton just withdrew her support. If Clinton got all remaining supers and somehow got all of Obama's, then yes, she could win it. But things have not been trending that way. Even an Edwards endorsement is becoming moot. He isn't a superdelegate and it is getting pretty late in the game. Heck, I even thought the Richardson endorsement was a bit moot.

    When I say there is no way Clinton can win this. I mean there is no likely way Clinton can win this. By CNN's count, she is down 171 pledged, now up only 26 unpledged, and down in the popular vote. Michigan and Florida's party have both killed attempts to do a revote so many times it is looking like a zombie movie.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2008 8:28 PM GMT
    there is absolutely no way whatsoever i will support obama in the primary. if he wins the primary i'll take him over mccain, but he'll get the nomination without my support.

    his connection to multiple questionable ministers and his abject bungling here in columbia, sc lost me to his rhetoric months ago. there is no way i believe that he isn't a supporter of his minister when he was a member of that congreation for 20 years, allowed the man to marry him to his wife, baptised him and his children, etc.

    obama refuses to speak to the lgbt press, so his one tent fits all approach is ridiculously unbelievable.

    sorry if it sounds racist, but i'm not voting for obama also because he's black. i don't care that obama is black. that's not the issue. that in and of itself won't prevent him from being an excellent president. what i do take issue with is the fact that louis farrakan, jesse jackson, al sharpton, etc. are black. i do not believe that obama will be able to avoid being pulled into racist politics by these homophobic racists and i do not think it's appropriate to vote for a person who has already been shown to have deep connections to hate mongering religious figures.
  • redheaded_dud...

    Posts: 408

    Apr 09, 2008 8:43 PM GMT
    dancerjack said
    obama refuses to speak to the lgbt press, so his one tent fits all approach is ridiculously unbelievable.


    Two examples of Obama's refusals to speak to gay press:

    http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid50021.asp

    http://adhc.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/obama-in-exclusive-interview-with-black-gay-magazine/

    And, that other thing you said? Yeah, that sounds racist. But you apologized for it, so it's okay. I'm a forgiving type.