Hillary Clinton's anger issues


PDA






progunner1957
February 6, 2006, 06:41 PM
Ask yourself this: Do we really want a person with uncontrollable anger/rage issues to have access to nuclear weapons as well as the enormous power of the Presidency???

It would seem to be not a good idea...

RNC Chief: Hillary Clinton Has 'Anger' Problem

When Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman told ABC "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos on Sunday that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has an anger management problem, there's a reason Stephanopoulos didn't look surprised.

"Hillary Clinton seems to have a lot of anger," Mehlman insisted. "When you think of the level of anger, I'm not sure it's what Americans want" in the White House, he added.


Though almost never reported by the establishment press, Mrs. Clinton's angry outbursts are legendary among those who know her best - including Mr. Stephanopoulos, who, according to at least one White House insider, had to absorb Hillary's verbal beatings when he was a top advisor to the Clintons.

Interviewed for a PBS retrospective on the Clinton administration six years ago, former White House press secretary Dee Dee Myers described an incident where the then-first lady exploded at the diminutive aide.

"Mrs. Clinton got really angry," Myers recalled. "She attacked George, which everyone knew was coming, which is why I guess nobody was willing to ride in there to the rescue . . . Everyone just sat there and let George take the beating."

While interviewing Mr. Mehlman on Sunday, Stephanopoulos offered no comment on whether he thought Mrs. Clinton has an anger management problem.

If you enjoyed reading about "Hillary Clinton's anger issues" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sindawe
February 6, 2006, 07:04 PM
Hmmmm.... When ever I hear of the Honorable Senator Clinton's anger issues, this always comes to mind.

http://sales.starcitygames.com/cardscans/MAG7TH/raging_goblin.jpg

The flavor text reads: He raged at the world, at his family, at his life. But mostly he just raged. :D

And no, I don't really want another Clinton Presidency.

shaldag
February 6, 2006, 07:24 PM
if you were married to Bill Clinton, you would have anger managemant problems too........

TequilaMockingbird
February 6, 2006, 07:31 PM
"Hillary Clinton seems to have a lot of anger," Mehlman insisted. "When you think of the level of anger, I'm not sure it's what Americans want" in the White House, he added.

I usually don't think of Mehlman as a reliable source of info since he is so clearly partisan, BUT his observation just seems to confirm the vibes I get from her. She has such a fake cheerfulness...just like my congresscritter Sheila Jackson-Lee. You can just tell that in private they love to boss people around and shout obscenities.

foghornl
February 6, 2006, 07:36 PM
After all of Slicky Britches adventures in office, I was frequently surprised that Al Gore didn't become president by sucession, with a bit of assistance from Shrillary....:evil: :neener: :D :evil: :neener:

cbsbyte
February 6, 2006, 07:39 PM
Sounds like more partisan politics against our next President. :neener:

bigbore442001
February 6, 2006, 07:39 PM
If she ever got in, this would probably be a great death blow to the America that we all have known. She is not fit for public office.

308win
February 6, 2006, 07:45 PM
Just hope she doesn't convince all of the soccer moms she has changed her spots. Speaking allegorically, when I was younger and still on the prowl she is - personality-wise anyway - what I would have called 'coyote ugly'.:eek:

carlrodd
February 6, 2006, 07:54 PM
hillary is one of these people that would go to great lengths to hide a character flaw such as having anger issues. which is ironic, because this is the very least of her character flaws. she reminds me of martha stewart.

Standing Wolf
February 6, 2006, 10:14 PM
Speaking allegorically, when I was younger and still on the prowl she is - personality-wise anyway - what I would have called 'coyote ugly'.

I see no reason to insult coyotes.

Malone LaVeigh
February 6, 2006, 10:28 PM
Just hope she doesn't convince all of the soccer moms she has changed her spots. Speaking allegorically, when I was younger and still on the prowl she is - personality-wise anyway - what I would have called 'coyote ugly'.:eek:
Thjis kind of infantile remark (and the sophomoric response) makes us all look bad, and is definitely not the High Road. It's her mind that's ugly.

Hawkmoon
February 7, 2006, 12:15 AM
Thjis kind of infantile remark (and the sophomoric response) makes us all look bad, and is definitely not the High Road. It's her mind that's ugly.
I suspect that's why the statement was qualified to say that personality-wise she's coyote ugly.

Lone_Gunman
February 7, 2006, 08:43 AM
Hillary doesn't look too bad to me, but I am half drunk right now.

Atticus
February 7, 2006, 09:05 AM
Not to defend Hillary (I can't stand her)....but that's really pretty sexist. If a man got mad about something and dressed someone down...he would have 'balls' and a commanding presence. I'm sure that Nixon, Johnson, Teddy Roosevelt, George Patton, IKE, etc. never yelled at anyone.

22-rimfire
February 7, 2006, 09:14 AM
I suspect that Hillary IS an angry person in general. She just looks angry most of the time. It is normal to become angry from time to time. However, people are not the most rational when they are angry. She is concentrating on getting re-elected in NY now and keeping her eye on the presidential race. I don't think it fair to a candidates constituents to run for a higher office while running for re-election. It is not vey genuine. It should be all or nothing. John Kerry did it during the last presidential race. Almost seemed like he thought running for president was a good IDEA, but he suspected he would loose from the outset. He did loose. Al Gore lost too. Thank God!

Lone_Gunman
February 7, 2006, 09:24 AM
Not to defend Hillary (I can't stand her)....but that's really pretty sexist. If a man got mad about something and dressed someone down...he would have 'balls' and a commanding presence. I'm sure that Nixon, Johnson, Teddy Roosevelt, George Patton, IKE, etc. never yelled at anyone.


I don't know that I agree. Howard Dean was pretty much discredited by the media for his outburst during the 2004 Democratic Primary, and he wasn't even mad.

bogie
February 7, 2006, 09:41 AM
/sexist comment on/

You know, even after spending a million bucks on plastic surgery for her, just as soon as she'd open her mouth, you'd want to head for the border.

//sexist comment off//

You can't fix attitude.

She's moderately intelligent, so she assumes that she's smarter than anyone. She's got a moderate amount of power (or for a long time, she was married to it...), so she assumes she's all-powerful.

And she want to help you. Dammit!

beerslurpy
February 7, 2006, 09:44 AM
To quote my sig from another board:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent busybodies. The robber barons' cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~ C.S. Lewis

striker3
February 7, 2006, 09:45 AM
Not to defend Hillary (I can't stand her)....but that's really pretty sexist. If a man got mad about something and dressed someone down...he would have 'balls' and a commanding presence. I'm sure that Nixon, Johnson, Teddy Roosevelt, George Patton, IKE, etc. never yelled at anyone.

It is not sexist. In the case they were talking about, George Stephanopoulos, was her husband's aide, not hers. She was the first lady, not the President.

Not only that, but there is a difference betwen dressing someone down and raging at someone. A dressing down is a controlled outburst used to accomplish a specific goal. Raging at someone is nothing more than using them as a verbal punching bag. There is a huge difference between the two.

markdaniel
February 7, 2006, 10:06 AM
All she has to do is look in a mirror and I bet she is fit to be tied. If my dog was as ugly as her I would shave its butt and make it walk backwards.

BenW
February 7, 2006, 10:11 AM
She was the first lady, not the President.
A big pet peeve of mine during that administration. We're not a monarchy, we voted for A President, not a husband and wife tag team. She should have been spending her time at the White House baking cookies. And if we ever have a married woman as President, the husband should be spending his time unclogging the White House toilets and mowing the White House lawn, not spouting off with, "We are the President."

RealGun
February 7, 2006, 10:12 AM
This topic appears to serve only as bait for low road remarks. To actually address the topic, I think any anger issues on Hillary's part will be offset when she is up against John McCain, who is notoriously prickly himself. At least he is genuine and typically has a point, firing for effect.

Atticus
February 7, 2006, 10:25 AM
Not only that, but there is a difference betwen dressing someone down and raging at someone. A dressing down is a controlled outburst used to accomplish a specific goal. Raging at someone is nothing more than using them as a verbal punching bag. There is a huge difference between the two.


True...but the interpretation of the "raging" is dependant upon persepective.
Let a woman fill in for Lee Ermy, and I'll guarantee the perspective would be different. While Lee is 'cool"....she's a crazy screaming "bitch".

Regardless...I still can't stand her and she isn't fit to be President.

Camp David
February 7, 2006, 10:25 AM
I suspect that Hillary IS an angry person in general... Everyone has bouts of anger but Mrs. Clinton's spats seem different in my opinion... Her recent description of Congress, while speaking in an African-American Church, as a "plantation" seem well charged and directly confrontational... does she have something to prove?

Perhaps it is this => HER CONSTITUENTS:
She knows that New York won't exactly support her strongly....two problems with her NY constituents: #1, she's done exactly nothing politically for her constituents in New York proper and #2, statewide she refuses to travel to northern NY so they almost hate her... so perhaps her political congregation feeds her inner hatred!

Or perhaps it is this => HER POLLING:
New Poll Is Bad News for Senator Clinton; Only 16% Firmly Support Her
Jim Kouri, CPP
January 26, 2006
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=5168
"New York's junior Senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton, got some rather bad news today. According to a Gallup/CNN poll, 51 percent of Americans say they definitely would not vote for Clinton if she runs for president. A mere 16 percent say they are firmly behind her."

Or perhaps it is this => HER HUSBAND:
Nothing needs be said here... it's all been said before!

Or perhaps it is this => HERSELF:
Hillary is a wife of a politician, a lawyer, a shrewd and selfish politician that will let nothing in the world distance herself from her husband's accomplishments and bring national attention on her own attempts at political success...Indeed.

1 old 0311
February 7, 2006, 11:34 AM
Hillary Clinton............Where erections go to die:neener: :neener: :neener:

Kevin

Tequila_Sauer
February 7, 2006, 11:36 AM
I found that "plantation" comment to be very awkward. I genuinely felt embarassed for her.

Either way, both Clintons have well covered, but well known, anger issues. Dick Morris, if I remember correctly, recalls a story in his book about Bill physically attacking him in the White House kitchen. It's very weird, because it comes up every now and again, yet it's always batted away by the press and covered up. I remember there was a story on Drudge a few years back about Hillary telling a Senator to shut up or something to that effect during an actual meeting.

FireBreather01
February 7, 2006, 11:52 AM
This topic appears to serve only as bait for low road remarks. To actually address the topic, I think any anger issues on Hillary's part will be offset when she is up against John McCain, who is notoriously prickly himself. At least he is genuine and typically has a point, firing for effect.

If the next presidential election ends up between Hillary and McCain - after I stop wretching I'm heading for a bunker deep inside a mountain. They're both two peas in a pod - despicable politicians that desire nothing but what's good for themselves - the rest of us be damned! That would just be a choice of awful vs intolerable - UGH!!!!!

Igloodude
February 7, 2006, 12:05 PM
Hillary Clinton............Where erections go to die:neener: :neener: :neener:

Kevin

And the Daily Show stole your line a couple weeks ago... :neener:

engineer151515
February 7, 2006, 12:43 PM
Hillary has been throwing ashtrays, lamps and books in fits of rage since 1996.


Too many agents / subordinates have reported these accounts.

Her supporters seem quick to look the other way. Just like Bill's supporters has always excused the woman-grabbing.

Hillary seems to have had a nasty temper for quite a while. Perhaps always has.

Nasty tempers do not disqualify Presidential candidates. Johnson and Nixon are recent examples.

Tequila_Sauer
February 7, 2006, 12:47 PM
Maybe that's why Hillary is so anti-gun, she knows she can't trust herself with one because of her rage issues.

progunner1957
February 7, 2006, 01:35 PM
I found that "plantation" comment to be very awkward. I genuinely felt embarassed for her.

I am genuinely embarassed for America and the great men who have sat in the Oval Office before them that The American Sheeple were so devoid of integrity and full of greed as to allow Clinton and Clinton to desecrate the Presidency for not one term, but two.

I am embarassed for the Senate Democrats who told Henry Hyde and the House members who presented the articles of impeachment, "We don't care if you have video of him raping a woman, getting up and shooting her dead - we will not convict him in the senate." (Read the book "Sellout" by David P. Schippers on the impeachment).

I am embarassed for the Senate Republicans who did not have the courage, integrity and honor to convict Clinton and throw his pathetic ass out of the White House because making the America live with him till the end of his term would increase the chances of getting a Republican President elected in 2000.

ball3006
February 7, 2006, 04:40 PM
if I had to wake up next to slick every morning..........as far as calling her a "lady", I believe that is exaggerating some.....I am old enough to know what a real lady is......and I agree as posted above.....she is ugly.....no amout of alchol could make that look good enough to take home when the bars close............chris3

NineseveN
February 7, 2006, 04:51 PM
I see no reason to insult coyotes.

+1 :D

UWstudent
February 7, 2006, 05:36 PM
if it came down to clinton vs. rice..

i'm voting clinton

we really need another nixon.. he knew how to handle foreign affairs

dmallind
February 7, 2006, 06:04 PM
"Why do you all hate America so much?"

A common Faux-news talking point whenever Bush or his policies are criticized


"You people will do anything to fit it in with your irrational hatred of GWB"

A common "rebuttal" to any criticism of Shrub's policies on THR


If you cannot see the parallel you are blind. If you think this spewed vitriol is "the high road" I truly pity you.

BTW, since disagreement with groupthink is automatically assumed to be a claim of diametrical opposition on all points, HRC is not exactly at the top of my wish list for 08 either.

308win
February 7, 2006, 07:06 PM
I see no reason to insult coyotes.
If you know the derivation/meaning of the phrase "coyote ugly" you would understand that this isn't an insult at all but complimentary of their sense of propriety and self-preservation.

progunner1957
February 7, 2006, 09:07 PM
Reichmarshall Hillary does not reveal her true ugliness until she opens her mouth and speaks...

Coronach
February 7, 2006, 09:29 PM
1.) All topics and posts must be related to firearms or civil liberties issues.
2.) Multiple user registrations are prohibited.
3.) As a family-friendly board, we ask that you keep your language clean. If you wouldn't say it in front of your dear old Grandma, you probably don't want to say it here.
4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
5.) We cannot provide a comprehensive list of "Things Not To Say".Posts that are contrary to the above policies, or to the mission of The High Road, may be edited or deleted at our sole discretion. Membership may be revoked if such a step is deemed necessary by us. We're a private venture enabled by an all-volunteer staff. Please treat this venue as a polite discussion in a friend's home and respect the wishes of the hosts.We have noted that the civility of L&P has been plummeting of late. Correlated with this is yet another resurgence of political posts that do not meet the criteria as outlined in the rules of conduct. Just because a post is 'political' does not mean it belongs here. It must address firearms issues or civil liberties issues directly. "Civil liberties are in danger because Bush lied, people died!" and "we will lose all of our guns becuase Hillary has anger issues!" will not cut it. Post directly, not obliquely, about how a given topic has an impact on RKBA or civil liberties.

Thank you,

Staff at THR.

If you enjoyed reading about "Hillary Clinton's anger issues" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!