Profits from the sale of this shirt should cover the cost of Pelousy's plane! ;-)

Posted by chrys at February 12, 2007 02:02 AM

Classy.

Posted by e. nonee moose at February 12, 2007 12:22 PM

Why do Republicans fear strong women? I am by no means a Hillary backer, but the venom you guys have for her is kinda scary. Was mommy really that tough?

Posted by Bishopdic at February 12, 2007 03:48 PM

Bishopdic, it has nothing to do with her being a woman. It has to do with her socialist vision for America. It's interesting, though, that you would try to bring up her womanhood to defend her, as though we're not allowed "to hit a girl." It's time for women in the political world to grow up and take it like a man and be responsible for their actions if they want to lead us.

Posted by Woody at February 12, 2007 04:06 PM

B. you misunderstand, we aren't afraid of her at all my friend, we see through her and her policies, lies and hypocracies... I would have LOVED to see Jeanne Kirkpatrick run for the Presidency back in the day, Condi Rice would be good, I could even respect Barbara Boxer running or maybe even someone of the stature of Margaret Thatcher or Golda Maier, all of whom by the way (except perhaps Boxer) are celebrated by the Republicans... by the way, I'm conservative who has decided that the Repubs are a lost cause for the present.... how about a ticket of Gulianni/Rice?

Posted by GM at February 12, 2007 04:15 PM

Say Guy, what part of character assassination is so appealing to you republicans? Does it really get you off? Is there any limit that a republican will observe?

Posted by James S Melbert at February 12, 2007 06:15 PM

Hi Uncle Jimmy... you know, I've already said a dozen times I'm a conservative and not a Republican. Besides, as you WELL KNOW the Democrats have mastered the art of Character Assassination far beyond what the lilly livered Repubs can do, in fact, Republicans (at least those in congress) bend over backwards to "be nice" much to their own misfortune (see the last election results for proof of that). One other point, you cannot assassinate the character of someone who has no character... and Shrillary qualifies for that one in spades.

Posted by GM at February 12, 2007 06:44 PM

James: "Does it really get you off? Is there any limit that a republican will observe?"

Engaging in a bit of character assassination yourself are you?

Posted by GM at February 12, 2007 06:46 PM

Kirkpatrick for pres, huh, GM? That's just a little too wacky to take seriously. As for Rice, what are her principle qualifications, other than the ability to lie straight faced to Congress?

Posted by jim hitchcock at February 12, 2007 06:56 PM

...as well as to the American people.

Posted by jim hitchcock at February 12, 2007 06:58 PM

jim, the word "lie" drops easily from your keys.

As to the more general substance of the comments, I have some agreement with the left on this one - not that Republicans are afraid of strong women, which I think you answered nicely - but that the focus on Hillary does seem to become personal more than I'd like. My original objection to her was her elevation to sainthood by the left in the early 90's, and my distaste may have been counter-reaction. But she has remained in focus as an object of dislike, and I think her ambition, politics, and ruthlessness are only part of it. Much as I hate to admit it, there does seem to be additional factors driving the animosity.

I don't say that she's a bitch - it's not a political term so I find it vague - but if she were one, that wouldn't bother me in the least. My greater worry is that she is a weathervane.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at February 12, 2007 07:18 PM

James, remember this little tidbit from Owlgore?

He betrayed this country! He played on our fears! He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!

Given Gore's participation in pushing the "Iraq Liberation Act" in '98 and his calls for the removal of Saddam based on Saddam's possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction, I'd say that was a bit of character assassination woulnd't you? And from your hero too!

Posted by GM at February 12, 2007 09:44 PM

Do you really classify a question as Character assassination? Oh I suppose a twisted mind (Not yours Guy) could make that connection. This is not meant to be a character assassination of anyone. I refer to no body either politic or otherwise.

Posted by James S Melbert at February 13, 2007 12:39 PM

Is there anything that Hillary won't do to become president? Is Bill Clinton the real father of Anna Nicole's daughter? Will Hillary ever develop a sense of humor? How many interns did Bill really have sex with? What is the meaning of the word "is"?

Do you understand now understand how a question can be character assassination?

Posted by DADvocate at February 13, 2007 01:09 PM

James - other jim on my comment. Sorry if there was offense taken, as none was intended.

Now that you mention it, however, the phrase "get you off" seems into the realm of pure insult, implying a sexual pleasure in being insulting. That is unwarranted.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at February 13, 2007 05:48 PM

GOOD GRIEF!!! It's just a shirt. Is it tacky? Sure, humorous things are often tacky.
Is it true? Matter of opinion, and frankly I don't know if Hillary is a bitch or not. I couldn't care less either.
What DOES concern me is whether or not she will be a good leader for our country. I don't believe she will be. And a shirt wouldn't change my mind.

It's just a freaking shirt, boys. Get over it.

Posted by Jennifer at February 13, 2007 06:24 PM

AVI, what part of the "we never could have imagined being attacked by airplanes" comment to Congress do you find truthful?

Posted by jim hitchcock at February 13, 2007 07:15 PM

False question. Some of us prefer discussion.

Even so, it's hardly unlikely. I think the percentage of people surprised by the type of attack was very large, even among those who think about such things for a living. But you knew, of course.

Let me put the whole lying question another way. If you go into every situation determined to find evidence that a particular person could theoretically be lying, you will find that nearly every event provides you with a possible explanation that there might be a lie there. That applies in political situations, work situations, family situations, courtrooms, everything. It is a very poor type of evidence, as it is so susceptible to confirmation bias. If you don't even suspect that your preconceptions might have something to do with your conclusions, then no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient for you.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at February 13, 2007 09:21 PM

I don't know how many of the commenters to this blog are psychologists, I only know that George is, I suspect that AVI is also a member of that group. Now please don't take offense (Guy is a member of my family, and I love him with no "buts")
I think that psychology is a science of how people think, and what stimulates their emotions. So. how can you ever think that the populace can be brought together if there is nothing but derision and hateful statements between them? I know that the Democrats are also guilty of this type of communication, and I know that historically it has always been the rule that denigration is the way to peoples hearts politically.
Without charging me a fee for consultation, just what is the end game?

Posted by James S Melbert at February 14, 2007 10:41 AM

James, that is a good question. By the way, though my degrees are in psychology, I'm a Licensed Professional Counselor. When my student's ask "What is the difference?" I laughingly tell them... "I know what I'm doing..." (that is a JOKE folks, just a joke.)

Slamming political thought of the other guy is a national pasttime James, it has gone on for at least two hundred years in this country, back to at least the arguments that ended in the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton in his writings, attacked Burr relentlessly and after some choice remarks at a dinner party, was challenged to a duel by Burr. Oddly enough, Burr was a member of the (get this) Democratic-Republican Party.

So, at least we are holding up traditions. :-)

For those of you not in the know, James Melbert is my beloved Uncle. A finer man and more intelligent man can seldom be found in this universe, his only drawback is that he is a liberal and a democrat... but, loving the sinner and hating the sin, I still love and admire him... ;-)

Posted by GM Roper at February 15, 2007 01:05 PM

James, a fair question, and you will note from my original comment that I generally agree.

I originally left the Left for exactly those reasons. I was tired of the unrelenting sneering of the folks around me (I am a psychiatric social worker at a state hospital - it's an extremely liberal field). It was some time before I could even objectively consider the claims of conservatives, and I was largely apolitical during those years.

However, there are variations of stinging comment which I do believe are acceptable in political discourse. When someone makes an illogical, unfair, or bigoted statement, it is not unfair to point that out. I have also seen people be so indirect and overpolite that they are more likely to be misunderstood.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at February 15, 2007 05:31 PM