(Before answering, I must say I'm surprised that you would stoop to ad hominem. So unlike you.) But do you see hillary's flat affect? Her physicality? Do you see the harridan we've all come to know and love? No. What you see is a Condi "shell." You see a President Allen who is idealistic, is accomplished in her own right, does not crave power, has a nonpartisan streak, is an intellectual, was plucked from the chancellorship of a great university, speaks with a quiet strength. (Sound like hillary to you?) You see a President Allen who even looks like Condi Rice. The strong bone structure, the wideset intelligent brown eyes, the full lips, the brunette, retro flip, (aka 'power flip' post-Condi), the great figure. And perhaps definitively, the legs.
So why is this? It would be naive to think that this wasn't a precise clinton calculation, what with her main man the lead writer 'n all. At first I thought it was a feint. If "Commander-in-Chief" is a too-transparent hillary infomercial, ABC's agenda will certainly backfire. Perhaps that was the initial reasoning and explains why, for example, gorgeous Geena Davis and not some squat bottle-blonde matron, was cast in the lead. But in the end, in my view there are two reasons for the Condi shell, (corresponding to the two relevant cities, Hollywood and DC). The first is that Hollywood typecasts. Condi is presidential and hillary is a fishwife. And the second is the thesis above, that hillary clinton and her agitprop machine have determined that missus clinton, the construct, (missus clinton, "as is,") is unelectable, and so they will
. |
Where do you get off using all this web space supplied by Free Republic - why don't you get your own website to post your important messages?
You stun everyone's computer too it would seem....
You have a lotta nerve using another's "residence" to hold your Hyde Park soliliquies.