it's a shame you can't crack a couple (overused maybe) jokes about something so obvious without getting a 'you're anti women' return. it was just her legs. hell, she knows they're big.

Please quote me where I said anyone was "anti-woman?"

I just find it interesting-- she's a polarizing figure, no question about it. But the first thing attacked on a polarizing female figure is appearance-- not what she says or does. And the fat calves thing is old, old, old... it was commented on while she was running for senator and that's six years ago. New material, please!

Though in all fairness, I'm hardly an example of avoiding the cheap shot-- I was happy to make "Rush Limbaugh is fat and ugly" jokes on another thread. :)

remember some KFC posting a Hillary special,
2 small breasts
2 jumbo legs
and one left wing

if i was quoting you or anyone, i'd have pasted what i was replying to...it was a response to several posts, and was a generality. so it's old...so are a lot of posts and threads on here.

She seems like an unhappy woman to me....

And nothing is less attractive than that

(regardless of how stocky she is)

I apologize for misunderstanding. :)

I don't know; I give her a lot of credit for being ballsy enough to use her husband's political career to launch her own. Many women would have been afraid of what people would think, but she charged right on ahead. And I think she really loves being a senator.

That said, I'm one of her constituents, and while I'm generally pleased with the job she does (she's certainly one of the hardest working people in the Senate), I think she's maybe focusing on what lies ahead too much-- I dislike her recent trend toward triangulating her positions on things (I was actively embarrassed for her after her ridiculous position on flag-burning). I mean, McCain is guilty of the same thing-- trying to cover all bases-- but I like her, so I expect more from her than I do from him. (Though she and McCain get along very well-- the NYTimes had an article speculating how their working relationship would be affected were they each to become their respective party's nominees.)

... though were that to happen, I think one can at least assume she won't pull the dirty tricks on McCain that Bush's crew pulled on him in South Carolina...

Entertaining thread, as always, guys. And I must admit, the "one left wing" punchline DID make me laugh. :)

[quote=GenuineRisk]I don't know; I give her a lot of credit for being ballsy enough to use her husband's political career to launch her own.

"Ballsy"?? I'd substitute the word "shameless" if anything.

Sorry, the word "ballsy" on a thread with a discussion of those legs is just a little over the top...enough!!! Please, no more!!! LOL

[quote=ninetoone]Because of course, GW got where he is today ENTIRELY on his own, right? Tee hee. Husband or dad, what's the diff?

Out of all of them, Bill Clinton is probably the only one who can claim he did almost all of it on his own-- welfare kid who grew up to be President.

living here in arkansas, i have to say she really didn't do herself a favor by going to new york to run for senator. a lot of people felt slighted by that, and still do. apparently we're not good enough for the likes o' hill....shame she had to slum around down here all those years when bill was gov.

Oh yeah, I remember the "carpetbagger" attacks here when she was running, but honestly, I think she picked the state she thought she could win in-- I don't know that she would have won in Arkansas, do you? It was a smart move, politically speaking.

But as you said, you live there and know the state far better than I do-- so, theoretically, if she'd run in Arkansas in 2000, do you think she could have won it? I mean, in the wake of Lewinsky, things were a mess for the Dems-- Gore couldn't even win his home state, remember?

[quote=GenuineRisk][quote=ninetoone]

Because of course, GW got where he is today ENTIRELY on his own, right? Tee hee. Husband or dad, what's the diff?

That was going to be my next question to ya...was GW "ballsy" for using his dad's career to launch his??? Doubt any liberal would say so....

Ya can't have your cake & eat it too...:)

she'd have won. blanche lincoln is our sr senator, she didn't have problems winning. both our sens are democrats, the other is mark pryor, his father was senator david pryor.

the problem will be when she runs for president. still a lot of old timers here and elsewhere who quote bible verse to explain why women can't be president. you should have been here when the new mill manager for gp showed up, a woman. GASP the horror...i of course thought it was great.

Holy toledo, I enjoy your posts, Danzig. :) Always a pleasure to read.

That's really interesting, and in that case, I wish she would have run in Arkansas because I think Arkansas could have used the political clout more than NY. Ah well, hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it?

You ain't kidding about the "old timer" attitude-- and it's got nothing to do with age. Heck, my Florida friend I mentioned on another thread is 34 and female and says she doesn't think a woman should be President. That's funny about the mill manager-- talk about a Kodak moment... I can just picture it. :)

Argh; I have to go see a play at the Science Museum and then to work and then class and then a movie ("Pirates" even though I know it's going to suck. It is, isn't it? I thought that what everyone here said)... and I would much rather talk here all day... oh well. I'll be back tomorrow everyone. Feel free to Hillary bash in my absence. Tee hee.

Best board ever...

[quote=ninetoone][quote=GenuineRisk]Hee hee. Fair enough, though I will argue that more people are put off by a woman using her husband to further her own career than a son using a dad (or a daughter, for that matter). Maybe it's something about the marriage relationship versus the parental one. What do you think? I just read an interesting article on CEOs that appoint childrent to succeed them and how the companies fare in relation to those that actively search for a successor. Interesting stuff.

some want to be completely their own person, with their own successes, others use any means necessary, even nepotism. i guess everyone has to decide for themselves which way to go. but i think everyone has a bit more respect for those who did it 100% on their own.
would hillary have won all on her own? doubt it.
gw without his pop? doubt it again.

I've seen nepotism go both ways, really...some people just use the name & try to make their way on that alone (rarely works & will not garner any respect from your peers).

The person that, as Danzig said, is their own person w/their own successes and failures will eventually win over most of the anti-nepotism folks, although there will always be the haters...


You are probably right about the husband/wife thing vs. the father/son...

I guess it really depends on the situation, but I personally think that nepotism can be a good thing...I've seen it work out more times than not for sure...