What utter nonsense. When she's strong - oh so she's cold, calculating, polarizing......... When she shows her feminity - oh she's playing victim, she's weak, she's emotional.... PLEASE... Feminists are a whole lot of BULL-CR*P. I am a woman and i define the way i live, the way God has made me. Not to live up to feminist ideals of a woman. Just plain silly.
Tuesday March 4, 2008

Jemal Countess/WireImage.com
On Monday Usmagazine.com exclusively interviewed feminist author Camille Paglia about the state of the presidential primary.
The day after Clinton jokingly described her appearance on The Daily Show as "pathetic," she faces tight primaries in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Below, in the second excerpt from the interview, Paglia discusses how Hillary Clinton presents herself as a victim.
Click here to read the first part of Us' interview, in which Paglia says Clinton has "egg on her face" because of her 60 Minutes interview, and here to see Clinton's Fashion Police slideshow.
Us: Do you think it’s a good idea or bad idea for her to play the victim?
Paglia: I hate any woman playing a victim at any time. I hate this vision projected of woman as victim, I think it’s low for Hillary to play it, but they discovered that many women seen to respond to it. Obviously any shrewd political operation is going to go where there is a response or where a strategy succeeds... The whole thing is an act.
I think its kind of a disgrace. I certainly don’t want a commander-in-chief who will feel overwhelmed and go, 'Oh pity me. Oh, this is so hard.'
I want a stronger – much more resolute – woman, who’s commander-in-chief. To me, it’s [an] embarrassment... We are in a period now of strong and competent women governors, strong and competent women mayors. Hillary doesn’t have to do this. It is just a matter of manipulation where she has to be really tough and then be really soft.
That is not what you want at 3 a.m. in the morning answering the phone because you don’t know who is going to answer the phone. Is it going to be fine Hillary or is it going to be Hillary on a rampage? You don’t know what you’re going to get.
Categories: Camille Paglia | Hillary Clinton
Do you seriously think they're asking her questions first because they're courteous gentlemen? Have you even seen the debates? Have you heard the questions they ask her? They've been going after her since day one--Tim Russert and Chris Matthews are the worst perpetrators. Get real.
And there is absolutely NO evidence that she posted those pictures or spread any rumours about Senator Obama. In fact she flat out denies it. She even fired one of her top staff members for making what was interpreted to be an unfair remark about Obama. Know your facts.
Hillary plays the victim card on one hand, and then the manipulative, dishonest, person putting out false rumors and inuendos on the other hand. She is playing a game with the American people, and some people are actually buying it. If Hillary is in the White House, and things are NOT going her way, is she going to start crying about how it's everyone else fault. When she is in a meeting with international leaders, and they do not all agree with her, or keep asking her questions first, is she going to start crying and moaning that she is being ganged up on. She will look like a damn idiot! The fact is if you want to be president, answer the questions that are asked of you, stop crying, and moaning about being asked first, or even being asked last. (I guarantee that if Hillary had been getting asked all the questions LAST, she would have been crying, and complaining about that)
Seems to me that Hillary was most likely being asked first because she is a woman, and perhaps the natural instinct of the "mostly" male interviews was to adhere to the "ladies first moto".
And EVEN if this is not the case, for someone who sure has a lot of negative, and sacrcastic things to say, about her opponent, Obama, younwould think she owuld love going first so she could spew all her venom on him.
I notice that Hillary sure didn't hesitite to start spreading false rumors, and outright lies, about Obama. She has done it by sending out false emails, posting pictures of Obama, intimating that he was a muslim, when she KNOWS that he is NOT! She sure did not mind being the FIRST, and ONLY one of the two candidates doing dirty, dishonest, work.
Which Hillary is going to run our country, becasue she doesn't seem to have it all together upstairs!!!
Exactly how is she not handling herself in the debates or in her campaign? Apparently she's handling things quite well, given last night's significant wins in Texas and Ohio. There is a difference between "playing the victim card" and standing up for oneself, but somehow the two seem to get confused when it is a powerful and intelligent woman who is at issue.
Yes, Hillary plays the victim card.
Yes, it's pathetic.
Yes, it's sending mixed messages.
As a woman, I believe that if Hillary (or any woman for that matter) decides to put herself in a position of power that is dominated by men, she'd better be up to the task.
No exceptions, no pity, no leniency, no special treatment.
Hillary playing the victim, as a woman, gives her male counterparts more ammunition against her; as in "she can't even handle the campaigning/debates/criticism, how is she supposed to handle the presidency?"
Good question.
4:41 -- Hillary Clinton's spokespeople said today that Hillary Clinton has not released her tax papers as yet, and she does not intend to release them until April.
- You are saying that Hillary is waiting until she wraps up the nomination before she releases her records, DOES HILLARY NOT BELIEVE IN TRANSPARENCY, as McCain, and Obama do. These two candidates did not hesitate to release their tax records, they actually did it last year.
Hillary Clinton has been a president's wife, she knows how it all works, so she should be the first one out there handing over papers so the public can make an INFORMED judgement about her. But she refuses to do it. Her actions of refusing to release her tax records, and to sccount for where she is getting her money from, makes her seem like she has something to hide, and that she is just part of the same old, shady politics, that everyone hates in Washington. Voters want their presidential candidates to act as though they have nothing to hide, and Hillary is acting like she does have something to hide. If Hillary Clinton cannot be transparent about something as simple as her taxes, how are we to trust her to be transparent when she is President? How can we trust anything she says.
Everyone knows that if McCain, or Obama had been the ones refusing to hand over their tax papers before they were named the candidate of their party, citizens of America would be outraged! AND Hillary Clinton would have been the fisrt one on EVERY news channel talking about their lack of transparency. But somehow Hillary Clinton does not want to play by the same rules. I find that disappointing, and disingenuious.
Tina:
As I explained before, the docket in Superior Court says "pending" because this case is still pending against BILL Clinton. If you go to the link that you cite and enter the case number that you have, you will get what is called the docket of proceedings in the case. If you scroll down to April of 2006, you will see the following entries:
05/10/2006 Notice of Appeal
Filed by Plaintiff
04/19/2006 Notice of Entry of Judgment (AS TO DEFTS HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON AND HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE, INC. )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
This means that on April 19, 2006, a notice was filed that judgment had been entered in Senator Clinton's favor. Since you are likely not an attorney, I will explain to you that, loosely translated, this means that she won. The next entry shows that Paul appealed the court's decision. As I also explained earlier, if you go to the appellate court's website, you will see that Mr. Paul lost his case against Hillary in the appellate court as well. If you don't believe me, show the link that you cited to any lawyer you know. They will explain it to you.
1:50 - There is NO superior court ruling that has dismissed Hillary from the her FRAUD lawsuit in the superior court of California, and no amount of spin, and lies, is going to change that fact. As you suggested I have googled: Hillary and Superior court, and I have NOT found a Superior court website which backs up your claim. What I still have found when I go to the Superior Court of California website, is that Hillary Clinton still has a FRAUD CASE PENDING in the Superior Court Of California. [CASE#BC304174]
ww.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummary/index.asp
ENTER:[CASE# BC304174]
Tracy:
With regard to the fraud case to which you refer, see below. There is no fraud case pending against Hillary. The case against her was dismissed two years ago.
As for the $5 million, since he left office, Bill Clinton has made $5 million to upwards of $10 million a year for speaking engagements, royalties from his books, etc.
As for her tax returns, 20 years of Clinton's tax returns and 15 years of financial disclosure statements are already public, and Senator Clinton has stated publicly that she will release last year's returns once she secures the nomination. If she really had all that much to hide, don't you think she's want to hide it from McCain in the general election?
There are no issues here. If you want to vote for Obama or McCain, go ahead, but please stop spreading these lies, or at the very least check your facts.
1.HILLARY CLINTON WHY DO YOU HAVE A FRAUD CASE (CONCERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCING FRAUD) PENDING AGAINST YOU IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA?
2. HILLARY WHERE ARE YOUR TAX RECORDS? WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO RELEASE THEM? (BOTH McCAIN, AND OBAMA HAVE ALREADY RELEASED THERE'S MONTHS AGO, WHAT ABOUT YOU? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING HILLARY?
3. HILLARY DO YOU THINK YOU ARE GOING TO WIN AN ELECTION WITH THE REPUBLICANS WITH A FRAUD CASE PENDING IN COURT, ONE WHERE THERE IS PROOF THAT YOU LIED, AND STOLE FUNDRAISING MONEY. THE YOUTUBE VIDEO " THE SHOCKING VIDEO HILLARY DOES NOT WANT YOU TO SEE", IS ALL THE PROOF THAT IS NEEDED TO FIND YOU GUILTY OF FRAUD IN A COURT OF LAW. YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T BECOME PRESIDENT WITH A FELONY RECORD.
4. HILLARY WHEN YOU LEFT THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2001, BOTH YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND WERE $2 MILLION DOLLARS IN LEGAL DEBT. SO WHERE, AND HOW HAVE YOU BEEN MAKING YOUR MONEY? (HOW HAVE YOU MADE SO MUCH MONEY THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO LEND $5 MILLION DOLLARS TO YOUR OWN CAMPAIGN)?
-- HILLARY YOU KNOW THAT AS A CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY YOU HAVE TO REVEAL WHERE YOU GET YOUR INCOME FROM (BOTH McCAIN, AND OBAMA HAVE ALREADY DONE IT), WHY HAVEN'T YOU HILLARY? SEEMS TO ME THAT AS A PRESIDENT'S WIFE YOU WOULD KNOW THE RULES, YET YOU IGNORE THEM, WHY?
-- HILLARY IT SEEMS YOU HAVE PARTICIPATED IN ALOT OF SHADY, AND ILLEGAL BEHAVIOUR! THE FACT IS NO RESPECTABLE, HONEST SENATOR SHOULD HAVE A FRAUD CASE PENDING AGAINST THEM IN COURT, YET YOU DO! NO RESPECTABLE HONEST SENATOR SHOULD REFUSE TO RELEASE THEIR TAX RECORDS, AND ALSO REFUSE TO REVEAL WHERE THEY HAVE GOTTEN THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT FROM, YET HILLARY YOU DO REFUSE!
-- HILLARY YOU WILL NEVER BECOME PRESIDENT! THE REPUBLICANS ARE JUST WAITING FOR YOU TO WIN THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION, SO THEY CAN DERAIL YOU AND THE DEMOCRATES, GET ANOTHER REPUBLICAN BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE, AND CONTINUE GEORGE BUSH'S FAILURES, FOR THE NEXT 8 YEARS. HILLARY THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY WILL SUFFER WHILE YOU AND BILL CLINTON GO OFF TO LIVE IN YOUR MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR HOMES, WITH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN YOUR BANK ACCOUNT
.HILLARY CLINTON WHY DO YOU HAVE A FRAUD CASE (CONCERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCING FRAUD) PENDING AGAINST YOU IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA?
2. HILLARY WHERE ARE YOUR TAX RECORDS? WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO RELEASE THEM? (BOTH McCAIN, AND OBAMA HAVE ALREADY RELEASED THERE'S MONTHS AGO, WHAT ABOUT YOU? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING HILLARY?
3. HILLARY DO YOU THINK YOU ARE GOING TO WIN AN ELECTION WITH THE REPUBLICANS WITH A FRAUD CASE PENDING IN COURT, ONE WHERE THERE IS PROOF THAT YOU LIED, AND STOLE FUNDRAISING MONEY. THE YOUTUBE VIDEO " THE SHOCKING VIDEO HILLARY DOES NOT WANT YOU TO SEE", IS ALL THE PROOF THAT IS NEEDED TO FIND YOU GUILTY OF FRAUD IN A COURT OF LAW. YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T BECOME PRESIDENT WITH A FELONY RECORD.
4. HILLARY WHEN YOU LEFT THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2001, BOTH YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND WERE $2 MILLION DOLLARS IN LEGAL DEBT. SO WHERE, AND HOW HAVE YOU BEEN MAKING YOUR MONEY? (HOW HAVE YOU MADE SO MUCH MONEY THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO LEND $5 MILLION DOLLARS TO YOUR OWN CAMPAIGN)?
Amen- 1:50
I am so distgusted that people such as these are voting for the next president. Unfortunately it is your right, but know your facts, watch debates, read(carefully) before you accuse someone of an unlawful act.
Hillary/ Obama/ McCain- it doesn't matter to me who you vote for but have good reason for it and know what you are talking about.
I say go Hillary and kick the next Jimmy Carter's ass!!!
Obama will not do what Hillary will do for this country. He is all talk.
As I have already explained at least twice, Hillary is still listed as a defendant on the docket because that is the caption of the case as it was filed, and the caption does not change even when individual defendants are dismissed. And the same docket that lists her as a defendant states that judgment was entered IN HER FAVOR in April 2006. Don't you think that if there were still a fraud claim pending against her it would have come up in at least one of the many Democratic debates? I've watched every single debate, and not one mention. Also, newsflash: in this country defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Spurious lawsuits are filed every day--just because someone is accused of something doesn't mean that they actually did it. How many reliable sources (including the docket of the very case that you're all so excited abotu) so I have to cite AND quote for you people to believe that she was dismissed as a defendant TWO YEARS AGO? I know it's fashionable to hate the Clintons, but this is ridiculous. Do a Google search for yourself if you don't believe me. Try "Hillary Clinton" "Superior Court" "Los Angeles" Paul dimissed.
12:33 -- Hillary is still listed as a defendant in the FRAUD CASE, and her video taped actions, regarding her US Senate campaign fundraiser, and the $1.2 million dollars that was given to her by Peter Paul, that she never reported to the Federal Election Commission, and which instead went missing, shows that Hillary Clinton violated the law, and committed fraud, perjury, and obstruction of justice.
12:36 -- OBAMA SAID HE IS A SUPPORTER OF THE JEWS, AND THAT HE DENOUNCES AND REJECTS FARRAKHAN!
12:05 -- Hillary doesn't even know when to quit exagerrating, and outright lying, she has done it so much, that it just comes naturally to her now! The facts are: OBAMA has been in government 4 years longer than Hillary Clinton. Obama served 8 years in the Illinois Senate, before he was elected to the US Senate, where he has served 4 years. Obama has been in government for a total of 12 years.
Hillary has only been in government for 7 years.
Obama said he denounced and rejected Farrakhan's endorsement--not Farrakhan himself. And he only did that when pushed. And it took a full year for him to do even that, when he has been called upon to denounce Farrakhan in the past. And why does he still attend (and take his children to) that church?
Ann:
As I explained before, the docket in Superior Court says "pending" because this case is still pending against BILL Clinton. If you go to the link that YOU provided and enter the case number that YOU have provided, you will get what is called the docket of proceedings in the case. If you scroll down to April of 2006, you will see the following entries:
05/10/2006 Notice of Appeal
Filed by Plaintiff
04/19/2006 Notice of Entry of Judgment (AS TO DEFTS HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON AND HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE, INC. )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
This means that on April 19, 2006, a notice was filed that judgment had been entered in Senator Clinton's favor. Since you are not an attorney, I will explain to you that, loosely translated, this means that she won. The next entry shows that Paul appealed the court's decision. Now, as I also explained earlier, if you go to the appellate court's website, you will see that Paul lost his case against Hillary there too. If you don't believe me, show the link that you cited to any lawyer you know. They will explain it to you.
Now please stop calling me a liar and get on with your day.
12:18 --
1. Obama says he denounces and reject Farrakhan.
2. It is BILL CLINTON, himself in 1995, who praised, and endorsed the Farrakhan, for his message, and efforts at organizing the BLACK MILLION MARCH.
Yes. thank you, I am aware of Whitewater. I was simply correcting the original commenter's citation to Watergate.
1:43 -- People who visit the court website, ww.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummary/index.asp), and ENTER the CASE#BC304174, will see all they need to see about the FRAUD CASE, STILL currently PENDING for Hillary Clinton, and her husband William Jefferson Clinton.
My eyes don't lie, maybe yours do, but it is clear to anyone who can read, that the case on the court's website says FRAUD, and that it says PENDING, and it lists Hillary Clinton, and William Jefferson Clinton as defendants. And it also lists Peter Paul, as the plaintiff. This FRAUD case has NOT been closed, it is STILL PENDING, so says the superior court of California. And as recently as February, 28,2008, documents were still being filed by the parties involved in the case. If this case had been closed back in January, as you falsely claim, it would say closed, and it DOES NOT!! So the case goes on, as does the fraud charges againts Hillary Clinton. THOSE ARE THE FACTS!!
"Lou" Farrkhan is well-known to be a racist and an anti-Semite, and the church that Obama has attended for 20 years (and that he and his family still attend) named Farrakhan "Man of the Year" in a church publication. Obama's pastor and "spiritual mentor," Jeremiah Wright, is an unabashed Farrakhan supporter. Wright stood beside Obama when he announced his candidacy for the presidency last year. That is why Obama must denounce Minister Farrakhan. Not because he is a Muslim.
11:47 -- that would be WHITEWATER, or WHITEWATER GATE, the resort land scam, set up by hillary, and Bil Clinton, when they back in Arkansaw. Because of that scam many people, many of them seniors, lost their property.
I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for yet, but I agree with the sentiment behind a question Senator Obama seems to be beginning to raise: exactly what experience is it that Sen. Clinton claims that makes her vastly superior to Obama? She hasn't been in elective office that much longer than him? IF EXPERIENCE IS TO BE THE MAJOR FACTOR, THEN McCAIN BEATS BOTH OF THEM HANDS DOWN ... Sen. Clinton doesn't measure up to McCain in terms of experience, it's not even close. She really doesn't have that much experience at all in governing ... no where near what she implies.
1. Hillary, you did not have to resort to dirty politics to win the nomination. The American public only wants the best person for that job.
2. Barack's decision not to run a negative campaign is commendable. However, the dirty politics worked for Hillary. What are you going to do about it, Barack?
3. Nevertheless, the issue of Nafta must be resolved. Tell the American public what transpired and who is responsible.You do not have to fire an over-zealous supporter, but you must set a guideline for campaigners.
4. As charity begins at home, Barack has to let the Canadians know that his first priority is the American workers. We appreciate their support in Afghanistan and Iraq, but re-negotiation has to take place on Nafta.
Nafta is the worst economic policy ever made by Bill Clinton.
5. Though America is mostly a Christian country, there are law-abiding citizens that are of other religious persuasions. Why does Barack have to denounce Lou Farrakan for supporting him? Lou Farrakan is an American who has a right to support any candidate. Does Barack have to agree with Lou Farrakan's ideologies to win his support? No.
6.What about all the law-abiding Muslims in this country? Does Barack have a right to woo them for their votes, represent them in this election and be their president also?
7. Why is Arabic name connoting Islam? There are millions of people, all over the world and in this country, with Arabic names that are Christians. Barack's view of talking to, not only our friends but also our enemies, will probably bring peace to the Middle East and the world as a whole.
8. Everyone has to sift through any negative campaign and seek the best candidate for this job.
11:42:
Watergate had nothing to do with the Clintons. Watergate was the scandal that led to President Nixon's resignation from office.
Ann: Why are the insults necessary? It seems to me that the person you are shouting at on this page is only offering facts that contradict your statements. He or she is not insulting you.
11:28 -- that's interesting that you think that Hillary can beat McCain, especially since she is currently facing fraud charges in court. Fraud charges which are related to Campaign financing Fraud, totally $1.2 million dollars. Hillary will not beat McCain, HE is not in court for fraud, he doesn't have a record of shady business dealing like Hillary Clinton (look up Watergate). There is no way, with her credibility problems that Hillary will beat McCain. Only corrupt people vote for corrupt people, and most Americans are decent human being who want a President who is not in court facing fraud charges.


