Archives
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Hillary Goes Rosa Klebb
on Russert
It
was touch and go there for a while, but fortunately
Hil's top campaign adviser squeezed off the last word.
Hil's top campaign adviser squeezed off the last word.
YTW. It's a tough old world out there when all the men are ganging up on you. That's why a girl needs to be heavily armed at all times. As you might expect, Hillary was ready for the onslaught at last night's debate -- in fact, she was the only who came in costume for Halloween, unless you count the unconvincing macho masks of Russert, Obama, Edwards, and Dodd.
Hillary rules.
When, predictably, the nancy boys of the surrender party and the MSM tried to make her look bad for being on both sides of the New York driver's licenses for illegals issue, she showed them all. Nobody can stop her from being on as many sides of an issue as there are sides. See for yourself (h/t Ace of Spades).
(Click on image for video link.)
And if there was ever any doubt about who was in the right, Hillary's Girl Friday removed it with her unlinkable shot at the villain of the piece via the Drudge Report:
That's right. Russert's mask has been ripped off his smarmy face. He's no hero. He's belligerent, that's what he is. As if that has any place in a presidential campaign.
At least we've solved the mystery of the ugly shoes.
What?
We could have sworn somebody mentioned ugly shoes. It's possible we could be mistaken, but we almost never are. Happy Halloween.
P.S. For much more of YouTube Wednesday, go here.
UPDATE. So you think we overstate things here? Here's an excerpt from Thursday's edition of The Hill:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.)
top advisers, doing damage control after the candidate’s debate
performance Tuesday, told supporters on a conference call Wednesday
that the campaign needed more money to fight back....
One caller from Oklahoma City said that “the questions … were designed to incite a brawl,” and that Russert’s and Brian Williams’s moderating was “an abdication of journalistic responsibility.”
Another said Russert “should be shot,” before quickly adding that she shouldn’t say that on a conference call.
Penn and Mantz said they were hearing a lot of the same sentiment from other supporters, but they do not plan to engage the media or the debate’s moderators.
“We’re not challenging the media on that, but the sentiment you’ve expressed is obviously one I’ve heard,” Penn said.
Penn added that he conducted polling before and after the debate — a focus group, perhaps — that saw Clinton as the winner. Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) “had a good night” and John Edwards “did better,” Penn said, though he added Edwards’s numbers have been going down. “Obama did not have a particularly good night,” Penn said.
Those results diverge sharply from the assessment of most analysts who watched the debate, and thought Clinton did poorly. Her campaign appeared to be in full damage-control mode Wednesday.
One caller from Oklahoma City said that “the questions … were designed to incite a brawl,” and that Russert’s and Brian Williams’s moderating was “an abdication of journalistic responsibility.”
Another said Russert “should be shot,” before quickly adding that she shouldn’t say that on a conference call.
Penn and Mantz said they were hearing a lot of the same sentiment from other supporters, but they do not plan to engage the media or the debate’s moderators.
“We’re not challenging the media on that, but the sentiment you’ve expressed is obviously one I’ve heard,” Penn said.
Penn added that he conducted polling before and after the debate — a focus group, perhaps — that saw Clinton as the winner. Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) “had a good night” and John Edwards “did better,” Penn said, though he added Edwards’s numbers have been going down. “Obama did not have a particularly good night,” Penn said.
Those results diverge sharply from the assessment of most analysts who watched the debate, and thought Clinton did poorly. Her campaign appeared to be in full damage-control mode Wednesday.
Shot? Hmmm. Where have we heard that before?
