- Bill Richardson's hair is fascinating. Indeed, it may be as fascinating as Donald Trump's Hair.
- I thought Hillary Clinton was awesome. And I was pissed that she was most often referred to by the other candidates as "Hillary" and, even once by Charlie Gibson, as Mrs. Clinton.
- And I was pissed off at the way that Edwards and Obama ganged up on her.
- And hell yes it would be a huge change in this country if we had a woman president.
- And another thing: what was with the quick cuts to Chelsea by the camera? Mommy President much? Though I suppose they did quickly flash on the spouses of the other candidates, though as far as I could tell not nearly as much.
- And finally, for Charlie Gibson's comment that two professors at St. Anselm College would make around $200,000/year, I join my own BWAHAHAHAHA! to that of the audience.
I believe that's all for now. Now time for the pundits.
9 comments:
I noticed the thing about the salaries, too. Also, the camera zoomed in not only on spouses, but also on John Edwards's parents...though it did seem a little like it zoomed on Chelsea during moments that didn't make sense (it did make sense with the parents of JE).
I thought Hillary was absolutely amazing and wonderful tonight-- passionate and charming and serious and intelligent... and so much better than any of the other candidates. I thought she looked even better up there than Mr. Charisma Obama himself (whom I like, but not as much as Hil). And while the pundits were talking up Edwards, I thought he said very little of substance, and his hair is just about as fascinating as Richardson's or even Romney's.
I will say that I also watched the GOP debates and was surprised 1) at how childish they were (and was grateful that the D's weren't); and 2) at how impressed with Huckabee I was. I've seen him on TDS and some other places, and knew he was funny and charismatic. But tonight he was completely serious and I was impressed. I don't agree with him on anything, but I was impressed with him nonetheless.
I also was very impressed by *Senator* Clinton! Let's hope that she can come through with the nomination in the end.
Thanks for saying this, Crazy.I was up half the night feeling *furious* about how O and E ganged up on Hillary. I DO think a woman in the white house is important, and while I understand people's objections to Clinton, I can't help but think if not now, never. Hell, I think I would have voted for Elizabeth Dole, just to get past this gender barrier once and for all.
I did, however, just watch Edwards' speech after Iowa and It. Was. Amazing. Made me cry.
OMG I love this blog and the readers. I felt exactly the same way after the debates. Completely agree with the comments--Senator Clinton rocked and deserves the nomination. It seemed to me at one point like she was the only one making clear points and not spinning off into cul-de-sac generalspeak (ex: Obama repeating the ". .take democracy to the people. ." blather.
I would also say that Obama has clearly lost/dropped that earnest humility he oozed in his famous earlier speech. Now he speaks with the slow and heavy voice of semi-arrogant AUTHORITY and it actually sort of turned my stomach.
ok, i will leave the unpopular opinion. she is icky. she is part of a machine that has ruled for too long. she is too conservative.
i would love to elect a woman i thought would make a good president. i don't think senator clinton is that person.
that said, i also think the ganging up thing is shitty.
margo: elizabeth dole???? come on....we must have some standards.
The majority of the population of this country is made up of women (150 mil plus).
So why not elect another man for president? After all forty-three (yes 43!) men IN TANDEM have been put there by women.
Ophra Winfrey,a great feminist, tells her audience, "Let's elect another man--a black man."
So who's to blame for not having a woman as president of the United States? Men? I'd say not, since they are a minority.
If either Edwards or Obama is the Democratic nominee, then I will probably defect and vote Republican for the first time ever...
Yo, marciano? Women did NOT actually put all 43 men in office, seeing as how women couldn't VOTE until 1920. That would mean that women only had a hand in electing 15 of those 43. And that's not even accounting for the likelihood that women whose husbands, fathers, caretakers, etc. faced restrictions on voting by people close to them in positions of power that didn't want them to vote. Your comment shows a great deal of ignorance about women's rights and history.
It also shows a lack of knowledge about statistics--women equal 50.8 percent of the current population (2007 Census estimates). That equals 151,963,545 in total population. Men, on the other hand, comprise a quite respectable 49.2 percent of the population, or 147,434,940 in total population. In 2000, men comprised 49.1 percent of the population (138,053,563), while women comprised 50.9 percent of the total population (143,368,343). Are you seriously suggesting that 1.6% percent of the population (less, when you factor in age, as they must be 18 to vote) is responsible for presidential victories? When only 64% of registered voters actually voted in 2004, I'd say your thesis is a bit...shaky, to put it politely.
I'll wager a guess that you're not voting for Clinton.
Post a Comment