I just don't get it
Can someone please explain to me what's so damning about Hillary Clinton's "heated" response during the most recent Democratic debate? It seems to be burning up the internet, but I have no idea why.
What's the big deal? She's not hysterical, she's annoyed. And why not? I think she showed remarkable restraint in dealing with that smarmy, blow-dried, faux-populist trial lawyer. Trust me, I've seen Hillary shrill and harrying, and this ain't it.
Comments
Most of the videos leave out what Edwards said. It plays quite differently when you don't hear what she is responding to.
Posted by: PE | January 6, 2008 07:26 PM
I would love to see her "making change" in a 7-11 somewhere.
Caught the roundtable with the Republican frontrunners last night. What do you say we just elect them all? Mitt could run economic policy, Rudy- foreign policy, John- military affairs, Huck- tax policy and Fred can deal with Congress.
Posted by: Paul Moore | January 7, 2008 05:08 AM
I don't understand what the big deal is. I am convinced it's because people (including people in the msm) have preconceived ideas about how people will respond to any given situation. They have everyone pegged as this that or the other. Hillary is the shrill one. So...any time she responds to anything she's shrill. Or if she doesn't respond, then she's playing the victim card. I find the whole thing incredibly annoying.
Posted by: K | January 7, 2008 09:23 AM
It isn't so much that she became angry (more like annoyed) but that she responded defensively. And she did sound shrill.
Instead, she should have laughed at Edwards' comment and state how comical it is to label her the "status quo" when she has spent 35 years making change happen... etc.
Posted by: CRB | January 8, 2008 04:17 PM