“Is the secretary of State lugging around a Palin-size grudge about having to play a subservient role to the man who humbled her at the polls?”

“I am a mother first and a candidate second, and I found the remarks incredibly offensive,” Clinton said. “I can take whatever comes my way, that’s part of what I signed up for as a candidate, as an office holder. But I think that there’s been a troubling pattern of comments and behavior that has to be held accountable. So I have sent a letter to the head of NBC expressing the deep offense that I took and pointing out what has been a troubling pattern of demeaning treatment and I would expect appropriate action to be taken.”

Hillary Clinton said Saturday that the remarks made Thursday on MSNBC about her daughter Chelsea being “pimped out” by the campaign were “incredibly offensive,” and she expects “appropriate action” taken.

NEXT!

I would sit out the election or go third party if she was the nominee.

MaximusConfessor on June 16, 2009 at 4:52 AM

A maximumconfession of a willingness to turn his/her back on their country by actively giving the Whitehouse back to an anti capitalist, anti American, anti Constitution, tyrannical marxist. Support for such descriptions through complicity. Shame.

Apologies for the play on user name. I generally try to avoid it but it seemed appropriate.

Rhymes with “eggs.”

Yet, despite buckets of criticism constantly flung her way, she’s got a lot going for her. Just like George W. Bush, people and the media constantly ‘misunderestimate’ her. No matter what you think about her politics, this woman is tenacious, fearless, and savvy. John McCain’s former chief of staff, Mark Salter, said it best: ‘What she knows, you can’t teach. And what she doesn’t know, she can learn.’

The second quote is correct! Whatever is “Nixonian” about her? Nixon never had to deal with personal attacks on his daughters, but Nixon HAD major issues with covering up for criminals, and even being a “sore loser” in his “Checkers” speech after losing the California gubernatorial election.

Sarah Palin is glassy-eyed–she wears glasses, but so what? Unlike Nixon, Sarah Palin tells the truth. Which may not be what voters always want to hear, but she tells it anyway. She told the truth about the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, thereby losing her job, but then upset a sitting Governor in the primary and won the Governorship, because she knew the issues in Alaska.

Does she need to read some books? Maybe, although she already reads technical journals of the oil and gas industry. Does she need to go away? Hardly. There are many national issues about which she is already knowledgeable, and Obama will probably give her a target-rich environment to make her points.

Coming from Republican-friendly Alaska, she was unprepared in 2008 for the vicious and personal attacks from the liberal national press, and she got an education. She’s also a fast learner, and won’t be unprepared the next time. Next time, she will be out from under McCain’s shadow, and won’t have to distance herself from George W. Bush. Obama will be the status-quo, and all Republican candidates (including Palin) will represent “change”. Sarah Palin has about three years to prove that she is the “change” the voters can believe in.

They didn’t believe Ronald Reagan in 1976, but they did in 1980. They didn’t believe Sarah Palin in 2008–they might in 2012.

I don’t want ANOTHER Republican president focusing on social issues while the country falls apart (causing a further loss of small-government credibility).

Animator Girl on June 16, 2009 at 11:52 AM

What Republican presidents have ever focused on social issues? No offense here, but I think you’re accepting the media-generated myth that Repubs are obsessed with social issues. Despite majority Republican rule in the White House for the past 40 years, social conservatives have gained little if any ground policywise. That would not be the case if Republican presidents had been “focused on” social issues. Most Repub presidents pay lip service to social conservatism and throw an occasional bone out to that constituency (think Terry Schiavo), but for the most part they do not spend much of their political capital on social concerns.

I was a Mitt guy in the primaries and I adore Governor Palin. I don’t see why we have to tear each other down. We have no idea what the country will need in 3 1/2 years.

DrSteve on June 16, 2009 at 7:56 AM

Right on. I don’t understand why this is such a difficult concept for people. We have several potential leaders in the Conservative movement, and they all have differing strengths – depending on how events unfold over the next few years, certain strengths may be more necessary than others come 2012.

In order of my own preference:

Palin – Great instincts, quick learner, genuine charisma, and a tenacity lacking elsewhere in the party. Stack some more experience on that pile and Sarah will be a formidable force. Those who hate her do so because they believe the media caricature, which bears no resemblance to the original.

Romney – After the election, I realized that he does change his stripes a bit often for my comfort, but I trust his economic experience, which will be invaluable in the coming years. I also think that too many Mormon-haters will trip him up.

Guiliani – Fantastic executive, has a clear record of achieving exactly what he sets out to do, and succeeding, at that. Since I think that the pro-life battle must be fought in the culture before we can reverse the policy, his abortion views do not worry me. His presidential ambitions are probably finished, but I’d love to see him in a high cabinet position one day.

Sanford – Integrity, integrity, integrity. Slight misstep with trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement for his own gain, but forgivable. Lacking in the charisma necessary for a national run, but excellent on substance nonetheless.

Perry – Lay off the succession rhetoric for a bit, and I’m all there. Tough and unapologetic, though whether he’d retain that outside of Texas is questionable. Tried to use the Tea Party movement with Sanford, again tactless but forgivable.

Jindal – Seems to be the real deal, substance-wise, but needs some more experience (and practice in front of a camera) before he can become a major player. Am watching closely to see where he stands his ground.

Gingrich – Too Beltway-politician for my taste. Backpedals too frequently and is quite cooperative with corrupt politicians on different issues, which smacks of McCain-like moderation to me. Would be a great cabinet member, though, with long experience.

Huckabee – not a fan at all: I think Huck has his priorities all backwards. It’s great that he used to be a preacher and all, but I don’t want ANOTHER Republican president focusing on social issues while the country falls apart (causing a further loss of small-government credibility). Also, I have an innate suspicion of leaders who come from a tradition of “end-times” obsession. I don’t want you running the country if you think the world is ending. There’s probably a place for him, just not at the top.

*drops gavel, puts pom-poms away*

Plucked off the street, my butt. This is mythmaking 101.

Palin was interviewed by McCain months in advance of being selected. She’s now been in the national eye for close to a year. Were she serious and up to the task intellectually, she’s had plenty of time to “read some books”.

And yet she’s still being marketed as “good potential, if only…”. At what point does the realization there’s no “there” kick in?

That’s the Republican moderate point of view. The Democratic position is still, no doubt, “Please nominate this woman!”.

sanguine4 on June 16, 2009 at 7:10 AM

Isn’t if funny how people criticize one of the few Republicans in the country who has not only balanced her state’s budget, but actually cut it in time of recession?

Isn’t it funny how these “moderate” Republicans are the kind of people who want to nominate a waffler who was a liberal in the Nineties when he had to run against Teddy for the Senate, but morphed into a True Blue Conservative by 2008?

Strange that these same people ignore Palin’s achievement in bringing together the forces in Alaska that needed to put the largest construction project in Alaska history since the Transalaska pipeline?

While other Republicans talked, Palin acted and achieved.

I’d say there’s some there there. And no, Democrats don’t want us to nominate this woman. They are frightened of her.

I think those who disrespect what Palin is and what she has accomplished are afraid of Truth. Truth is about keeping it simple and doing the right thing. One need not read a thousand books to “get it.” That’s something which comes naturally. It’s called common sense.

O/T you have to check out the headline on Drudge. heshtesh on June 16, 2009 at 9:29 AM

E gads. I guess the Fainess Doctrine is needed now more than ever.

Ultimately, there is no way in hell that the country is going to elect a candidate who knows less about the world and less about things in general than your average college educated 26 year old.

The Final Cut on June 15, 2009 at 10:39 PM

Sorry, Michael Steele but we aren’t buying your load! Mitt Romney is a RINO and we aren’t voting for one during the next election. You can try to denigrate Sarah all you want but those of us who are actual conservatives get it. Now go back to your party “bigs”, you know the ones who write your daily script and tell them to suck it!

Ultimately, there is no way in hell that the country is going to elect a candidate who knows less about the world and less about things in general than your average college educated 26 year old.

The Final Cut on June 15, 2009 at 10:39 PM

You didn’t learn much much from 2008, did you?

Your piece was a big yawn.

Not only that, it shows signs that the Palin attack machine is impotent.

Here’s something you can learn from a man. Palin is not impotent.

Have a nice day.

The rest of us will get down to business, unite behind Sarah Palin and take back the White House and our country. Actions speak louder than words.

shomegirl on June 16, 2009 at 8:32 AM

With all due respect, the reason why we have the quasi-dictatorship we do is from people uniting behind an individual and establishing a cult following. The experience, ability, or views of the filthy liar in the White House were less important than personality.

I want social and fiscal conservatives to rally around a fundamental set of beliefs. If the spokesperson ultimately turns out to be Sarah Palin, so be it. Nevertheless, we must not make the mistake of voting for a person instead of the ideas he/she represents.

No one thought we would elect a peanut farmer from Georgia, but we did.

an actor
a womanizer
another Bush
a black man

You get the picture.

Ultimately, there is no way in hell that the country is going to elect a candidate who knows less about the world and less about things in general than your average college educated 26 year old.

The Final Cut on June 15, 2009 at 10:39 PM

Anyone wanna bet this moron is exactly 26 years old?