<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you. I’ve been trying to get to that point for years and you’ve helped me clarify it. I viscerally dislike the Clintons because they are the modern Democratic version of Richard Nixon – competent and paranoid.</p>
<p>On the main topic, I occasionally listened to Limbaugh’s program in the early years of the Clinton presidency. When he started making fun of Chelsea (who was then 13 or 14) I stopped, and I’ve never listened to him again. It’s not as distasteful now that she’s an adult, but it was horrible to talk like that about a kid. By campaigning for her mother, Chelsea has made herself a public figure and is fair game. I personally find the comment pretty bad, but Chelsea is an adult who has chosen to play the game. Insults come with the territory.</p>
<p>I’m sure the tears and her answer to the question swayed some and didn’t sway others. The woman who asked the question wasn’t swayed since she said she voted for Obama. What it did for some voters, I imagine, was allow them to see Hillary as a person and not as an ice queen or wonkish automaton and it made them decide to vote for her in that particular election. I just disagree with the implication that those who voted for her were gullible dolts who were tricked into it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Forgive me, Coureur, but why do people who dislike Clinton have to be blind, mindless, irrational, or a number of other negative qualifiers? </p>
<p>For many, this is just part of the arrogant attitude that drips down from the Fuhrer all the way down to the lowest apparatchik of the Clintons. It is always about how smarter they are than the bubbling and hating idiots who did not see the Clinton bright and shining light and do not support her!</p>
<p>What happened to simply be allowed NOT to like her, and for any number of reasons that are important to the one who judges? </p>
<p>And, for what it is worth, it’s the extreme polarization she deliberately creates that will ultimately doom her campaign, and if not that, our country for a number of years.</p>
<p>Please no more of Bush-Clinton… 20 years already. Let it stop. Obama.</p>
<p>ibtelling…in many ways I think this may be the most important reason not to vote for her. Two families controlling this country for the past 20 years is awful, particularly since both, yes BOTH, have created a climate of such ugliness and divisiveness that we can do nothing anymore and are rapidly deteriorating economically. Think about if it becomes 24, or 28 years.</p>
<p>Maybe that is why so many of us seriously think about voting for McCain if Hillary is the nominee. I am certainly vacillating at this point (although in fact his positions on Iraq and his apparently woeful inability to understand the complexities of the economy are downright scary, to say nothing of his vow to appoint “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court. I am guessing the next president will have 2 or 3 appointments.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s the Clinton’s fault that a reporter called their daughter essentially a street whore! Why should they get so riled up about it – everything they do is entirely political!</p>
<p>Give me a break, 1sokkermom. What if a reported said Laura Bush was “tarted up and ready to get pimped out” for George W? Would you blame it on Bush if he complained? What an asinine statement you’ve made.</p>
<p>I am an Obama supporter, not a Hillary supporter. But this makes me feel sorry for her. On the other hand, it’s about the level of discourse I’ve come to expect from a lot of so-called political analysts.</p>
<p>I’m trying to stay away from the “politics” thread, but this one really got to me. There is a very strong tradition in this country of having family members support a political candidate…including but not limited to our current president. Come on…look at all the past candidates who have had offspring assist on their campaigns. Seems to me that MSNBC must have had a “short news day” for this to become an issue. And while I don’t agree with Hillary in some cases, she is right about this one. MSNBC ought to be ashamed.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but that comment was low. You don’t use the word, “pimped” when it comes to talking about a woman, unless you intend to imply something distasteful. There’s nothing wrong with Chelsea campaigning for her mother—in fact, I would be suspicious of a child who didn’t campaign when her parent was running for President. It would imply that she didn’t believe in her mother’s ability to do the job, that she wasn’t proud of her mother.</p>
<p>I also do not believe Hillary’s tears were staged. I think running for office, no matter who you happen to be, has to be like riding an emotional rollercoaster. Extreme fatigue heightens emotions. I just think the woman was probably exhausted, and someone’s words of sympathy simply caught Hillary off-guard. I think tears are hard to turn on at will. Most people can’t do it. If they could, a heck of a lot more people would be professional actors. I don’t trust Hillary, and may well not vote for her, but some of the meanness that people aim her way is well…extreme.</p>
<p>Now, concerning tax returns, it appears that the 5 million Hillary loaned her own campaign is more than all of Obama’s net worth. Interesting…</p>
<p>re: equivalent of “pimped out” - How about “duded up”?</p>
<p>Geez, they kept Chelsea under wraps when she was a kid. She’s an adult now.</p>
<p>More telling was the fact that Giuliani’s kids weren’t campaigning for him.</p>
<p>xiggi: </p>
<p>Perhaps “blind and mindless” hatred is unfair to those rational, thinking individuals who simply don’t like her. How about “hyperbolic” hatred? I mean, “Fuhrer”…? C’mon.</p>
<p>WasdDad- I agree</p>
<p>mathmom- I agree</p>
<p>I don’t think “pimped out” is that big a deal. I’ve used pimp as a verb. But he’s a professional and shouldn’t have said it on the air.</p>
<p>For the record, I believed Hillary’s tears. As someone who has cried in front of a boss, I know it’s nothing you’d do willingly. It’s humiliating.</p>
<p>Still, I think I’m voting Obama.</p>
<p>The link has entire email exchange</p>
<p>-----Original Message-----
From: David Shuster
To: Philippe Reines
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 8:51 p.m. </p>
<p>Nice to hear from you, philippe. </p>
<p>It is a fact that chelsea has made calls to superdelegates, as your campaign colleagues have acknowledged. It is also a fact that the campaign has reacted quite harshly to any media who have sought to interview chelsea. That was the point. By slamming any reporter who seeks to chat with chelsea while simultaneously having chelsea do campaign tasks such as trying to convince super delegates to support her mom, that’s the reference. </p>
<p>Chelsea is polite and does a fine job of saying “I don’t want to talk.”. But for campaign staff to then jump down the throat of a reporter who seeks to talk to chelsea…that’s an issue. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8408_Page2.html[/url]”>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8408_Page2.html</a></p>
<p>Bedhead,</p>
<p>I didn’t say that it was Clinton’s fault that the reporter used unacceptable language. However, you turned my words. The fact is that the Clinton campaign has blown this comment totally out of proportion in an attempt to garner some sympathy for the Clintons. </p>
<p>You said, “I am an Obama supporter, not a Hillary supporter. But this makes me feel sorry for her.”</p>
<p>Apparently the sympathy strategy is working. Maybe it is not such an “asinine” thought after all. Think about it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Iron my shirt,” called out by a heckler to H. Clinton, was considered funny and covered in a light-hearted way by every news outlet I encountered.</p>
<p>But,</p>
<p>What if someone had yelled “Polish my shoes,” to B Obama? Does anyone think that the various media heads would have made light of that?</p>
<p>And why is Obama usually referred to as “Senator Obama,” But Clinton is frequently called “Mrs. Clinton?”</p>
<p>Splitting hairs, you may say. I don’t think so. We have a loooooong way to go.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well, of course their hatred of Hillary Clinton doesn’t “have to be” blind and mindless, but unfortunately for a surprising number of the Hillary-haters that I know, it is.</p>
<p>It’s qualifies as “blind and mindless” when they cannot come up with any reasons for disliking her that are even remotely in line with the degree of venom in their hatred. They hate her because “she rode her husband’s coat tails instead of achieving everything on her own” or “she didn’t throw Bill out when he cheated on her” or even more vague reasons such as “she just rubs me the wrong way.”</p>
<p>These may all be valid reasons for not liking someone or refusing to support them politically, but what we actually see all too often goes waaay beyond that. We do see people criticizing other politicians for their marital behavior or for having ridden the family coat tails to high office. But generally they are not <em>hated</em> for those shortcomings. No, we reserve the black-hearted hatred for Hillary Clinton.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Would “emotional leader” or simply “leader” have been more acceptable? The beauty of a bon mot that it does not always have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. And here I thought that it was “apparatchik” that would be the term of endearment driving a dull stake in the red bleeding hearts.</p>
<p>Olbermann isn’t a Hillary hater, he sucks upt o them at every chance he gets. He even quit his job in the 90s so that he didnt have to report on the Lewinsky scandal.</p>