<p>“(Other posters understood me.)”</p>
<p>Sorry, I’m dumb and senile.</p>
<p>just affirming post 100 here. And it wouldn’t matter so much if she didn’t change her speaking pace when speaking to more “select,” shall we say, audiences? That is just amazingly condescending & presumptuous of her. The other female senators & reps (both parties) do not change their speaking pace between/among audiences. It’s the same. Feinstein always speaks more slowly, including on the Senate floor itself.</p>
<p>I didn’t say you were dumb & senile.</p>
<p>But I actually am. ;)</p>
<p>{epiphany: jack is a not a “he”. Do you really think a guy would be so fashion minded ?} </p>
<p>I think Hillary speaks slowly because she is pretending she has a southern drawl. Key word here: “pretending”. :D</p>
<p>Thanks, sokkermom. correction noted, and with embarrassment. Could have fooled me. Some guys are more fashion-minded than others (yes, including straight guys). Nothing wrong with that. 
I have been gender-corrected.</p>
<p>No, you’re still not stupid & senile, weenie.</p>
<p>that was a good point about the drawl, whoever brought that up. She has some authenticity about that, given her background, but I noticed the same overly deliberate affectation in that regard, which some commentators also noticed, which she brings to southern audiences & I think especially religious southern audiences. To me, this is just really sad about the whole political system we have, which emphasizes marketing so much. Who can escape it? Both genders, all parties. They’re told to say this, appear that, inflect this, pretend that. I wish the job of ‘handlers’ were outlawed. The movie, “The Candidate,” starring Robert Redford: that was the theme.</p>
<p>“mini, thanks for 88. I happen to agree, too.”</p>
<p>And maybe if her husband had spent more time actually MEETING with and talking to Saddam Hussein, instead of killing Iraqi children and then concocting the big lie to cover it up, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in today.</p>
<p>Women who speak quickly scare the bejesus out of some people–that’s why those who get away with it have to add quick wit and humour to their game.</p>
<p>Iv’e seen some of that from Hillary–but not in that debate. She was WAAAY inside of her own head.</p>
<p>sokkermom: Wait. Have we ever met? How do you know what my gender is? Joe Biden certainly seems to be fashion-minded, and he’s a man. I think.</p>
<p>By the way, I didn’t notice a drawl with HC at all. Must have been completely lost, standing next to Edwards. What I did notice, too, was her posture. She holds herself well, but I think it doesn’t look natural. Maybe it was the jacket, but she needs to work on that</p>
<p>Sorry jack. I thought you came out of the closet once and admitted you were a mom. Maybe not. I am certainly not ashamed of being a mom. In fact, I’m rather proud. ;)</p>
<p>Gender identity is not my occupation. But, I do have pretty good intuition sometimes. I’m comfortable with my own gender too. It’s not even a secret in an anonymous chat room.</p>
<p>Wow. Four pages on fashion and speech tips for…let me guess…the female candidate. Have we put a stop watch on the speech speed of Fred Thomspson, or Dick Cheney, or gasp, Ronald Reagan? </p>
<p>I was stunned to see the depths the Washington Post has sunk to with last week’s feature story on Senator Clinton’s cleavage. Have they no shame? What’s next? Obama: boxers or briefs? And this from the paper that was asleep on the job for most of the last 7 years. </p>
<hr>
<p>On the question about Obama’s debate “gaffe”. You are watching the work of a top-notch, brass knuckled Presidential campaign in action. Obama’s answer could have gone unchallenged and nothing would have come of it. But, Clinton immediately saw an opening to hit him with a roundhouse left hook and he still hasn’t gotten up off the canvas. He’s getting clobbered on his big vulnerability, inexperience.</p>
<p>He’s getting clobbered in Florida where two days of Miami Herald headlines have read, Obama to talk with Castro. A Presidential Summit with Castro kills him with the Cuban vote, a Presidential Summit with Ahmadinejad kills him with the South Florida Jewish vote. Oh, yeah…Florida is the biggest January primary.</p>
<p>He was so eager to jump right into his (very good) stump speech on diplomacy that he completely overlooked the trap. Alas, that’s what “presidential experience” means…the ability to see the trap when answering questions on the fly. I doubt that he even stopped to think who the leaders of the five countries rattled off were and the implications of his answer.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Clinton is getting praise from all quarters for being commanding, poised, and presidential, including begrudging respect from half the right wing pundits up and down the dial…always prefaced by “it certainly pains me to say this, but…”</p>
<p>Those right-wing pundits are hoping that she will be the candidate. They think she can be beaten.</p>
<p>Am I the only one disturbed by the way this thread is focusing on style rather than substance? Whether someone has been botoxed or is wrinkled; how he or she dresses; how fast he or she is talking. and so on. </p>
<p>Are we voters or PR handlers?</p>
<p>Well, I’m definitely a parent of one amazing kid and very proud of that. Hmm . . . Perhaps I should get a bumper sticker made up? :)</p>
<p>mini: Let’s put the blame where it really belongs. We are in the mess we are in today because of George Bush and his cohort.</p>
<p>Interesteddad said: "Wow. Four pages on fashion and speech tips for…let me guess…the female candidate. "</p>
<p>EXCUSE ME… HOW SOON WE FORGET THE $400 HAIRCUT… Hmmmmm…:
</p>
<p>I think the Edward’s “Hairgate” press trumps all the fashion notes to date on Hillary.</p>
<p>interesteddad: We criticized the men, too. But men have so fewer clothing options than women. I mean, there’s the suit, and then there’s the other suit. For men, it basically comes down to color and tailoring. And the better body you have, the better and more tailor-made the suit will look. </p>
<p>As far as the speech patterns, I despise the way Fred Thompson looks and the way he talks. I think Cheney has the speech thing down to a science. I despise him, too, but his way of talking is very smooth–comes across so relaxed and confident that you forget about what he’s actually saying. (Well, I don’t, but I think that’s his goal–and he’s very good at it.) I thought Reagan was like that, too. I hated him also, but he sounded so much like a kindly old grandfather, that it was hard to focus on what he was saying. Great way of talking. I could go on and on, but obviously people aren’t enjoying this. So . . . back to substance.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton admitted publicly that she could easily be used as a propaganda tool by the leader of North Korea. </p>
<p>Now that’s what I call leadership. </p>
<p>I voted for a Clinton once 'cause I thought I couldn’t stand the other guy. I won’t fall for that trap again.</p>
<p>“Have we put a stop watch on the speech speed of Fred Thomspson, or Dick Cheney, or gasp, Ronald Reagan?”</p>
<p>No. They weren’t on the stage on Monday night. Different crowd, I-Dad. Also, lost your sense of humor? Also, take credit for almost a full page of those 4 pages, with your statistical tables.;)</p>
<p>same reply to marite, as to I-Dad. This is <em>humor</em>. We were having fun, at least I thought. (past tense)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No way. She is the last candidate they want to face. Her campaign is too aggressive in rapid response; she’ll won’t sit back and allow herself to be swiftboated like a normal Democratic candidate. Ask Obama. He’s tried to attack her twice now (the Punjab memo and yesterday morning) and gotten pummelled both times.</p>
<p>We already know the Republican theme for the general election: “The Democrat is for big government, higher taxes, and waving the white flag in the global war on terror”. A candidate like Edwards has already walked into the punch by advocating $120 billion in new taxes for universal health care and calling the war on terror a bumper sticker. Obama is easy because he has no national experience. They’ll just use the scare tactics about being soft on security and throw in a little Republican race-baiting smear for good measure. Clinton, however, has positioned herself for seven years to sidestep that punch. She will own the Clinton balanced budget theme in the election. Every time the word tax and spend comes up, she’ll point to the Bush deficits. And, she’s carefully, brick by brick, built a hawk foundation on military affairs.</p>