Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Soft Power


That conversation sounds staged. It reads worse than a phone conversation in a movie.

Who waits for their turn to talk now, anyway? Interrupt that shit. I'm always right, and everybody else is always wrong.

Like, duh.

Posted by Mr. Poe | December 26, 2007 1:45 PM

Creepy. Can't women have a conversation without some perv taking notes and putting it on his blog?

Posted by elenchos | December 26, 2007 1:51 PM

the moral: old ladies are gullible and easily cowed.

Posted by bing | December 26, 2007 2:02 PM

Too bad those old ladies are more thoughtful and knowledgeable than the average voter . . .

Posted by Levislade | December 26, 2007 2:08 PM

that's nearly word for word what i hear from my wife & my stepdaughter.

hillary's "experience" in the white house, and "like bill is president again".

and they're both smart. humanity is doomed.

Posted by max solomon | December 26, 2007 2:15 PM

And what exactly do you mean by 'old ladies?' Were they in their forties? Fifties? Etc.?

Posted by Lola | December 26, 2007 2:24 PM

Why on earth would they be saying her power is soft next november? What makes you think those old ladies are so easily mislead by the media?

I think Hillary's experience is as good as or better than Obama's. It's better than being the CEO of something or other, too. That's irrelevant.

Posted by Tizzle | December 26, 2007 2:26 PM


Posted by Tizzle | December 26, 2007 2:28 PM

personally, i'd like to have a prez who can turn foes into friends. seems like a nice little skill to have at the moment.

that article was silly. does anyone have any reason to have been thinking until now that she had national security clearance? what first lady has ever had access to those things?

all she's said is that the experience she had in the white house would prove beneficial. i don't think that article really countered that in any way.

Posted by kim | December 26, 2007 2:30 PM

Huh?? You can say that being first lady isn't really experience (you'd be wrong), but even then, how does she have less experience than Obama? Even if Hillary Rodham married a truck driver and spent 1993-2001 in rehab, she'd still have more experience in every relevant field than Obama (except in racial minority issues, maybe).

Republicans will target and spin any democratic candidates' strengths. Does that mean we should pick a weak candidate?

Posted by jamier | December 26, 2007 2:39 PM


One looked to be in her mid-60s and one looked to be in her late 70s.

Posted by Josh Feit | December 26, 2007 2:48 PM

Oh my god. Oh my god. Oh my god. I just DON'T CARE ANY MORE. You know what? Everyone kept saying, "Dean's not ELECTABLE. Dean's not ELECTABLE." And so then we got stuck with God Damn John Kerry? And it turned out? He wasn't freaking electable either.

Well you know what? Screw it. I don't care if the media claims that Hillary is "soft on experience," or whatever the hell else they want to say. I don't care if the media freaking claims that "America isn't ready for a woman."

Screw you all. I'm voting for Hillary because I like her. Because I think she's brilliant. Because I like her health care policies. Because I think she will expand the family and medical leave act. Because she's a democrat. And damn it. I'm voting for her BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN.

So you know what? The New York God Damn Times can wring itself in circles about Hillary and her "experience" or her "non-experience" or her "soft experience."


Vote for whoever you damn well want. But don't try and convince me to vote for someone else because Clinton's going to have a hard time in the general election and she might not survive and oh no! who knows if Hillary would get elected in November. Because you know what? They're all going to have a hell of a time in the general election. The Republican Machine will do their best to rip any candidate to shreds. And I am no longer going to spend any more seconds on second-guessing stupid CRAP like who will be ripped to shreds the MOST.

Posted by arduous | December 26, 2007 3:22 PM

Thanks, Josh. At 48, I was getting paranoid.

Posted by Lola | December 26, 2007 3:23 PM

lola. when you were my age, i was still in diapers.

Posted by some dude | December 26, 2007 4:18 PM

Hillary is a junior senator as well. What do they think junior senator means?

Posted by keshmeshi | December 26, 2007 4:25 PM

Really...? Are we ready for Hilary? I like her, but she comes across as such a shrew...I think she could be good for us, but I doubt she'll be the first female President.

I also think Obama and a couple of others might be good for us. I'm just so nocommital and confused this time.

I do hope we've learned to not even dare to elect someone who can't pronounce "nuclear" correctly. What a laughingstock. But hey--you got who you voted for...

Posted by Wolf | December 26, 2007 4:40 PM

Obama is great and he may well be the best candidate, but thinking he has no negatives (and no strengths that can be "made" negatives) is wrong.

Obama's negatives include (a) very little experience, almost none in foreign policy, he's barely served in DC (b) suggesting he would invite Fidel to the WH with no preconditions, (c) supporting drivers licenses for persons not legally present in the USA (opposed by 75% in liberal NY State), (d) writing at age 34 that as a teeneager pot "helped" and he did lots of blow (more admitted felonies than any other candidate for Pres, ever), (e) proposing a health plan that leaves out millions of people who need health care, and so on.

Hit ads will be used on these issues to drive away swing voters in Fla., OH, MO, and Iowa, in the general election.

The raw material the right wing already has to work with opn him is stronger than what they ever had with Dukakis or Kerry.

Better than implying only Hillary will draw negative ads would be a frank discussion of pros _and_ cons of all 3 top Demo candidates.

Posted by Cleve | December 26, 2007 7:14 PM

What does the GOP need a machine for when they've got you, Josh, doing all their work for them? And when Hillary is the nominee, will you re-enforce the anti-Hillary message every time you helpfully point out that we shouldn't have nominated her because, as you predicted, they would use your anti-Hillary message?

Posted by bobbo | December 27, 2007 12:57 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).