|
|
|
January 09, 2008
Balls
Hillary is considered to be a woman who has 'em. She's rough, she's tough, she'll stand up to the right wing attack machine, and she stopped the "unstoppable" Obama right in his tracks. Right? Was it all balls? Or might it have been something else? ....Clinton's voice quavered at one point when asked how she coped with the rigors of the campaign. That unexpected moment of emotion became the talk of the final 24 hours of the campaign.I think the crying worked in New Hampshire. It's really not for me to say whether it was sincere or not, as there's no way to know. But there's more than one way to look at the crying, or whatever you might call Hillary's display of emotion. If it was sincere, it means that Hillary necessarily lost (or, lacks) something in the balls department. Whether this partial emasculation is real or not depends on whether the emotion was genuine. Those who believe in the traditional view that a president needs balls ought to hope that Hillary was putting on an act, and that if there were tears, they were Machiavellian crocodile tears. I knew a leftist politician in Berkeley who could turn the tears on and off at will. She was a Communist, but a mom, and could talk the mom talk like you wouldn't believe. One time she wanted me to vote a certain way at a commission hearing, so she went into a spiel how she was up all night washing the clothes and taking care of the kids and had to take them to school and as she talked faster and faster she looked up towards the ceiling, and actually started to cry... I was shocked (and I have to admit that I felt guilty), but I told her I had already made up my mind how I would vote -- and it was not her way. As soon as she realized the tears were wasted on me, she instantly switched gears, and gave me a cold-as-ice look. The look that said in no uncertain terms, "OK, pig. Your attitude has been noted for the record." I thought this was a little chilling, but then, I've known truly dangerous psychopaths, so I'm hard to shock. (Ordinary people do not understand this stuff, and they are clueless when they serve on political commissions in places like Berkeley.) Anyway, the ability to turn the tears on or off is what we need in a president. For the country's sake, I hope Hillary's tears reflected her balls, and not her heart. I mean, she'll be dealing not only with the right wing attack machine, but if she's elected, she'll be up against guys like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who's probably not moved by tears -- not even from women sentenced to be stoned to death for dating. Of course, if he thinks Hillary's just an emotional woman when she's really not, so much the better for our national security. So, at the risk of sounding like an insensitive sexist pig, I hope for the country that Hillary was putting on an act. What's less clear is whether I should hope for the Republicans that she was not. posted by Eric on 01.09.08 at 09:50 AM
Comments
Slarty, the exit polls jived with the results. I realize you are just being a smartass but how is having an easily hackable voting machine a laughing matter. I can forgive you for allowing yourself to be manipulated into voting against your own best interest(and mine), but advocating voter fraud is unconscionable. If the Diebold CEO came out and said he would do everything in his power to make sure a Democrat wins the election, you would be so smug. BTW rightwing operatives like FOX NEWS have wised up to the point where they manipulate their exit polls to cover the crime. Google exit polls/red shift and learn something. Most of the articles are too technical for the innumerates here, but the evidence is compelling. YogiBarrister · January 9, 2008 02:17 PM Clinton's performance came as a surprise even to her own inner circle. Horsefeathers. I noticed it right away while listening to the Hillary crying jag on the Rush show. There is a gong sound giving the Hillary aparachik the cue to appaud. Papertiger · January 9, 2008 03:28 PM If Ahmadinijad thinks Mrs. Clinton's just an emotional woman, whether or not she is, could be a dangerous situation for the US as it might cause him to be reckless and provoke a crisis. And of course, if she isn't and crushes the fool in that event, I wouldn't be too upset. However, in my opinion I wouldn't want that scenario to play out in the first place. Is it me, or is Yogi just another a smug, arrogant, lefty dickhead? Lovernios · January 9, 2008 04:46 PM how is having an easily hackable voting machine a laughing matter. Assuming that was a question, it's not a laughing matter. The conspiracy-theorizing, though, is pure spectator sport. advocating voter fraud is unconscionable Someone's reading skills could use some honing. You might want to start with a bastard file just to get something resembling an edge, before you consider the coarse stone. Most of the articles are too technical for the innumerates here, but the evidence is compelling. Know your audience is always good advice, but I don't expect it to be paid any heed. Slartibartfast · January 9, 2008 04:50 PM Lovernios, I'm sure the majority of the dimwitted rightwingers who comment here agree with you. Believe me, I'm not smug, annoying perhaps. I'm a former corrections officer and I believe wholeheartedly in the Constitution to which I swore an oath to uphold. It's a crying shame that so many Americans are more loyal to the Republican party than they are to our nation. You have a lot of tolerance for corruption and other criminal offenses so long as it's one of your own doing the dirty deed. Your depravity is evidenced by the fact that your party is endeavoring to supress voter turnout this year. I'm sure your all in favor of the Indiana voter ID law that is coming up before the Supreme Court. You also take comfort in having hackable voting machines as your ace in the hole. Do not mistake my righteous indignation for smugness. YogiBarrister · January 9, 2008 11:06 PM Don't know about Hillary, but I know that for myself -- and most of the women in my family -- that the uncontrollable urge to tear up is more often in response to anger than some more "feminine" emotion. Donna B. · January 9, 2008 11:58 PM Nope. It's not me. Lovernios · January 10, 2008 08:50 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
January 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2008
December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Let there be blood (and there was)
• Validate your identity at the polls! • And the 60 million have no groceries within 5 miles! • Virgins For Iranians • Werewolves of London • Poor, Poor, Pitiful, Me • Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Science • Don't make me burst into tears! Join the blogburst! • Holy morula! (But how many souls does a morula contain?) • Fueling Obamamania with Obamaphobia? (A modest proposal...)
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I wonder if there was any exit polling done, to see whether Diebold stole the election?