Hillary: Terrible temper, holds grudges forever & emotionally fragile

[Ban Hammer 13,361]

Not bias against women, just b!tches.

No impressed by name calling.

Oh, you musta missed it.

Gary says 'live with it'. Kinda like a playground bully.

Mrs Scandal doesn't impress to many people. You should just give it up Dev.

Gary, this page is about about your comments, not her. READ THE WORDS ON THE PAGE. Pathetic how all you can do is resort to name calling to distract from your mistakes. Your arguments mean nothing when you can't even call a candidate by her name.

oh the sheer horror of it all

[Caladan 19]

Is not Bush rumored to have a temper? And McCain? Guiliani? Does that make them 'classic conservative men'? (Or are they allowed to be individuals?)There does seem to be a double standard. An angry man is strong and imposing; an angry woman is too volatile to lead.

Of course, if she were soft spoken, then she'd be too weak to lead.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Is not Bush rumored to have a temper? And McCain? Guiliani? Does that make them 'classic conservative men'? (Or are they allowed to be individuals?)There does seem to be a double standard. An angry man is strong and imposing; an angry woman is too volatile to lead.

Of course, if she were soft spoken, then she'd be too weak to lead.

Indeed - personal opinions about HC aside - what's being said in this thread? That it's ok to be sexist if you don't like the person?

[Geist 0]

Is not Bush rumored to have a temper? And McCain? Guiliani? Does that make them 'classic conservative men'? (Or are they allowed to be individuals?)There does seem to be a double standard. An angry man is strong and imposing; an angry woman is too volatile to lead.

I'd say it makes them all poor choices to be president. Shouldn't a president be able to keep his/her cool, even when dealing with people they don't like?

Edited September 10, 2007 by Geist

[GaryC 7]

[Caladan 19]

Is not Bush rumored to have a temper? And McCain? Guiliani? Does that make them 'classic conservative men'? (Or are they allowed to be individuals?)There does seem to be a double standard. An angry man is strong and imposing; an angry woman is too volatile to lead.

I'd say it makes them all poor choices to be president. Shouldn't a president be able to keep his/her cool, even when dealing with people they don't like?

I don't much care what they do in private if they manage to control their game face.

[no name 1]

Is not Bush rumored to have a temper? And McCain? Guiliani? Does that make them 'classic conservative men'? (Or are they allowed to be individuals?)There does seem to be a double standard. An angry man is strong and imposing; an angry woman is too volatile to lead.

Of course, if she were soft spoken, then she'd be too weak to lead.

Indeed - personal opinions about HC aside - what's being said in this thread? That it's ok to be sexist if you don't like the person?

The double standard is Gary can rip on Hillary all her wants, post rude pics, call her names, attack her personally but god forbid anyone do it to his candidate.

Shows his lame debating skills if all he can do is personally attack the candidate.

[GaryC 7]

Is not Bush rumored to have a temper? And McCain? Guiliani? Does that make them 'classic conservative men'? (Or are they allowed to be individuals?)There does seem to be a double standard. An angry man is strong and imposing; an angry woman is too volatile to lead.

Of course, if she were soft spoken, then she'd be too weak to lead.

Indeed - personal opinions about HC aside - what's being said in this thread? That it's ok to be sexist if you don't like the person?

The double standard is Gary can rip on Hillary all her wants, post rude pics, call her names, attack her personally but god forbid anyone do it to his candidate.

Shows his lame debating skills if all he can do is personally attack the candidate.

:lol:

The problem is that there is no debate. Mrs Scandal is a joke.

[no name 1]

The double standard is Gary can rip on Hillary all her wants, post rude pics, call her names, attack her personally but god forbid anyone do it to his candidate.

Shows his lame debating skills if all he can do is personally attack the candidate.

:lol:

The problem is that there is no debate. Mrs Scandal is a joke.

And you proven my very point, once again.

[joelunchbox 0]

September 7th, 2007 by Chase.Hamil

Three recent biographies on Hillary Rodham Clinton, each by widely separated and totally diverse authors, have come to the same conclusion: Hillary has a terrible temper, holds long-lasting grudges, and has a fragile emotional state that can be traced to her childhood. The question these biographical accounts pose is: how will these flaws affect the country, should she win the White House?

The first biography of note was written by Carl Bernstein, one of the journalists who broke the Watergate scandal. In A Woman in Charge, Bernstein notes that Hillary Clinton has had bouts of depression and melancholy since she was a youngster, and experienced an especially severe episode a year after Bill Clinton was elected president in 1994.

Bernstein then recites published accounts of Mrs. Clinton’s temper, her tendency to label people as friends or enemies and, in the latter case, to bear lifelong grudges. Since her election as senator, Hillary has formed what is called her “war room” from which emerge strategies to deal harshly and mercilessly with her critics and opponents. Some insiders say Richard Nixon’s “enemies list” would be a fair comparison.

Bernstein manages to weave some compassion into his narrative, especially when detailing Hillary’s emotional turmoil brought about by Bill Clinton’s “bimbo eruptions” and the smarmy coverage of the Monica Lewinsky affair. Still, the conclusion Bernstein reaches is that Hillary is ruthless and willing to take on any opponent who dares to cross her path.

The second biography of Hillary, Her Way, comes from Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, Jr., both Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists for the New York Times. While acknowledging that Hillary is currently one of the most influential figures on the political scene, the authors say she is also “the single most divisive individual in our political landscape.” Gerth and Van Natta also bring up Hillary’s “war room” from which she and her staff plan savage attacks against her foes.

The authors remind us that she and Bill Clinton planned in the early days of their marriage how they would devise a path for him leading to the White House. Now it is Bill’s turn to accommodate Hillary.

In a piece contributed to Blogger News in July of this year [”Bill Clinton’s role in Hillary’s campaign”], I wrote that the former president will be the secret weapon in his wife’s bid for the presidency. His role as a master strategist could even evolve to the point where Bill Clinton has his own campaign plane, press corps, and separate agenda for visiting crucial states.

With Bill’s help, say Gerth and Van Natta, Hillary may be able to “reinvent herself,” as she practically has done already, portraying herself as an antiwar candidate without refuting her previous position in 2002 when she voted to support Bush’s invasion of Iraq. The authors conclude that Hillary is “a meticulous architect of her persona with an almost scientific devotion to self-creation.”

The third book is more about Bill Clinton’s life in retirement, although the pages devoted to his wife are certainly biographical. The Clinton Crack-Up by R. Emmett Tyrrell also focuses on what the author calls Hillary’s “dreadful temper” and how first-hand accounts tell of her throwing objects at her husband and staff. Yet many of the incidents were never reported by the media, even though several reporters witnessed her rages first-hand. Tyrrell, who founded and edits The American Spectator, tells how for years Hillary had demanded that Secret Service agents carry her bags - despite rules that prohibit them from doing so. Tyrrell wonders how Hillary’s awesome temper would influence America’s destiny, should she ever be in control of the military and the Justice Department.

Some Republicans claim that Hillary may be “too angry” to be elected president. In response, Hillary retreated to the “war room” and emerged with the accusation that her Republican enemies are attacking her because of her gender, and were practicing political sexism. Hillary said she would wear the comment on her anger as “a badge of honor.”

It is too early, too soon, to predict a winner of the 2008 presidential election. But should Hillary Rodham Clinton be the successful candidate, America will have to learn how to deal with a president who may alternately be depressed and volatile, while being manipulated from the sidelines by the 42nd president of the United States.

http://www.bloggernews.net/110001

Sounds to me that if you like the current administration, Hillary is for you. She sounds just like the bush/cheney/rumsfeld, ad infinitum bunch in power how....