One Angry Hillary

Obviously, Hillary is angry about accusations that she has a lot of anger.

Clearly, she's addressing the issue because Americans do view her as angry.



I doubt that Hillary's strategy to alter her image will resonate with Americans. We've had so many years of Hillary already. I don't think all the pink blouses and pearls in the world could help soften her sharp edges at this point. Her image is cast in stone, very cold angry stone.
NEW YORK -- Responding to Republican claims that she may be too angry to win national office, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told an audience Monday to wear such criticism as "a badge of honor" and suggested that gender played a role in the attacks.

Democrats, particularly Democratic woman, who run for public office are "going to draw some unfriendly fire," Clinton said at a breakfast fundraiser hosted by black and Hispanic women supporters. "People will be attacking you instead of your ideas, they may impugn your patriotism, they may even say you're angry."

I'm surprised that strong, backbone of steel Hillary is taking on the role of victim. First, it's really not very believable. Second, I don't think American Presidents are elected on sympathy votes.

Poor Hill is being attacked by nasty Republicans and drawing "unfriendly fire."

This queen of vitriol is in no position to be lecturing anyone on the inappropriateness of personal attacks. Moreover, I'm sure Hillary would be challenged on her ideas rather than her style if she would present some original thoughts to the people.
"If they do that, wear it as a badge of honor, because you know what? There are lots of things that we should be angry and outraged about these days," she said.

We need a strong leader in the White House -- someone rational and thoughtful, not emotionally crazed.

The President should be clear-headed. I don't think the majority of Americans are comfortable with the idea of an outraged maniac occupying the Oval Office. Howard Dean's implosion in 2004 verifies that.



The country needs someone with vision and ideas, not anger management issues.

...Until now, Clinton had not said she considered the criticisms gender-based, although many observers have done so. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd said Republicans are casting Clinton "as an Angry Woman, a she-monster melding images of Medea, the Furies, harpies, a knife-wielding Glenn Close in 'Fatal Attraction."'

Hey, if the shoe fits...
Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University, said he agreed with Clinton's assessment but questioned whether she should have said anything.

"I think she's right, but whether or not it was prudent to acknowledge it this way is another thing," Baker said. "I think another politician might have dealt with it more humorously, to defuse its influence."

Hillary is humorless. How could she possibly use humor, something she doesn't have, to defuse the anger label? That's like telling a fish to live on land.
Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tara Wall declined to address the suggestion that gender played a role in the attacks.

"When you vote to consistently raise people's taxes, vote against common sense judicial nominees and use Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday to divide Americans along racial lines, you're likely to encourage criticism of both your ideas and temperament," she said.

Gender is irrelevant.

The fact that Hillary is playing the gender card shows a real weakness on her part.

Rather than confronting the criticism, she chose to depict herself as a victim. If anything, Hillary is the one playing into gender stereotypes.

Claiming that she's being attacked because she's a woman is silly and will likely hurt her more than her anger issues.

Brittle Hillary's spine definitely has cracks.