Hillary, Front and Center

Have you noticed that after each Democratic debate, Hillary's numbers rise in the national polls?

The reason is simple.

She enters center stage, in the brightest most fluorescent color possible on the color wheel. She is aglow in bright coral, bright orange, bright yellow; while surrounded left and right by a chorus of dull looking men in seemingly identical dark suits all appearing indistinguishable from one another.

What an entrance. Bob Fosse couldn't have done it better.

As the moderator outlines the rules of the debate it feels as if for the opening number is about to begin. The men are ready to take a step back in the shadows while Hillary steps towards the microphone. With all eyes front and center, she begins singing, "Everything's Coming Up Roses" to unanimous applause.

Yes, I agree, she's getting better and better in answering the questions. She also answers in a softer tone; her manner is less aggressive, more appealing. But she's winning over some of her critics primarily because the male frontrunners simply just don't shine.

Yes, with the camera up close they get their moments, but when the camera goes wide, there's only one candidate.

"Hello Hillary, yes Hello Hillary", high kicks and all. Can you honestly even see anyone else?
On Broadway, female stars rule. Female stars shine. Female stars are strong; Very strong. Was there one person watching a single member of the chorus when Barbra Streisand sang, "Don't Rain On My Parade?"

Thanks to the televised debates, the American people got to see Hillary Clinton on stage, her blonde hair shiny, eye makeup, rouge and lipstick in place, standing next to a chorus of men in black -- glistening.

Hillary will always be the only woman in a sea of men in black.

On Broadway, when there's a chorus line, it's always the woman who comes though the center (think politics) and gets the standing ovation, the bouquettes, the Bravos, The Tony. In Hillary's case, The Nomination!

It may be serious business, but it's still show business.

Comments

[accountability]

Thanks Carol. I have to agree in some ways with what some are saying. We can't afford show "business as usual" right now. But I also think you aren't saying that exactly.
I don't quite know what to make of Hillary. I am actually more open to her lately than I have been in years. I think its the rebel in me, the more people scream about her the more I start looking to see what all the fuss is about.

Thanks for the article.
Say hi to Bob, I'm under his spell!
(one of my favorites by the way.)
LOL

[beholder]

Dear Ms. Sager,

Stick to love song lyrics.

Political debates are now show biz extravaganzas. There should be real debate going on about real issues that effect real people in the real world. That is the world where we are embroiled in a five year fruitless war, where we created 1.5 million refugees, killed over a half a million innocent civilians and totally destroyed the infrastucture of a sovereign country--- this is the war Mrs. Clinton voted for. It is the world where in the last six years the average American's take home pay has declined. It is the world where the value of homes have decreased for the first time since the Great Depression. This world contains an increased danger of terrorist attacks mainly because we have fed their cause with a disastrious foreign policy. And in this world America can no longer pay its bills. We can't afford to repair New Orleans. We can't afford to repair roads and bridges that collapse for want of the funds for real maintenance. We are running tripple deficits that will begger the next two generations of Americans while the middle class sinks deeper in debt just to live the life they were promised for working so hard and taking so little vaction.

You can dress Hillary up in whatever colors you care to---she still represents a shoddy political past, a past to which we can not afford to return.

[punkingale]

According to "Blinded By The Right" author, David Brock, the neocon Republicans "made up" Hillary's past. He wrote for the conservative magazine, The Spectator. The sub-title of the book is "The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative". For ten years the Arkansas Project, funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, tried to dig up dirt on the Clinton's. When nothing could be found, they made things up. Then Rush and all the right wingers would repeat these things until they became "facts" in people's minds. The book came out in 2002, so Rush has had another divorce and Arianna was a neocon. I highly recommend this to anyone who thinks Hillary hasn't been fighting the "vast right wing conspiracy."

[gmike]

Hillary Clinton’s comments to New Hampshire voters that she is the best candidate to deal with a possible terrorist attack, that would give Republicans an advantage before the 2008 election, is ridiculous. I don’t believe any terrorist attack would give the Republicans an advantage since their case has been that the Iraq war has made us safer as evidenced by the fact that we have not had an attack on our soil. For those who support Hillary, let’s not forget about her great judgment in 2002. To this day, she continues to justify her actions by saying that she was mislead and did not know that George Bush would misuse the authority Congress gave him in 2002. Everyone new the vote was for war, and on top of that she had just left the White House and knew that Saddam Hussein was not an eminent threat. The truth is she calculated her decision to vote based on her ambition to be President. She had to beef up her foreign policy credentials and take a tough and even hawkish stance as evidenced by her comments on the senate floor in 2002. I have a strong feeling that if people continue to let the media skew that fact that Hillary can be beaten, then many Democrats will wake up after the primary season is over wondering what we were thinking.

[accountability]

I disagree, yes that is the rhetoric they are using now, but those bastards can turn on a dime and make it the liberal's fault because the "enemy became emboldened" due to the liberal talk about timetables, a hasty withdrawal, blah blah blah.

Everything terror related works to the Thugs benefit. They are the ones who have framed the conversation... well, not exactly a conversation. They have framed the events, the war in their terms so no matter what happens they can reframe.
We all use those words as well, like all neo-con bullshit, repeat it enough it becomes part of the vernacular and then it is true. Language counts. This is their language, we just use it because that is what they gave us. We should stop using their buzzwords and phrases. Its shorthand for their agenda. "War on terror," "terrorists hate our way of life""terrorists hate freedom," "terrorists... blahblahbl­ahblahblah­blah.
And next it will be Iran. They are already starting and when the get the language right it will catch on. They are just working up to it while they refine the words to use that will scare the crap out of half the population.

Don't ever forget about PNAC.
This is what they are doing, this is what the goal is, this war wasn't a mistake, this is exactly what they wanted. Maybe it didn't go as planned, but they reframe and make the best of it... maybe even better cause now there is even more money to be made, more opportunity to spread fear, to engender hate, and more "terrorists"so more wars and occupations. a self fulfilling agenda.... its what they do.

[accountability]

as far as Hillary goes I think she is not nearly as bad as most seem to think, and not nearly as good as others think. She isn't a demon she isn't a saint. She wouldn't be my choice, and if she wins the primary I'll bitch and moan like everybody else... and then I'll vote for her. I will not let those fuckers win if I can help it. Getting another Republican/neo-con into office because we hate Hillary won't change a damn thing... exceptmake it worse.We can see what not voting for Gore, or Kerry did for us.
I honestly don't think she would be a "bad" President. She may even be a good one. (Stop throwing tomatoes please) Will her agenda be mine? nope. Will she live up to my ideals... nope. Would any of them? nope. Every one of them will piss me off about something. And that is OK, He or She is not going to be my personal President. I'm a stinking idealistic, bleeding heart liberal lefty. None of them will live up to that. Not in a world where abuse, pedophilia, addictions, rampant mental illness, war, corporate domination, globalism, are just the tip of the global realities our government has to deal with. They aren't going to magically disappear because My Obama is now President. AND lets not forget the mess that has to be cleaned up that these criminal bastards will be leaving. That will take a term in itself. Am I patient enough for that?. I don't like it, this reality, but it's the one I've got. So what is my choice?
Using peaceful resistance like Ghandi of MLK jr. would be great but peaceful is the operative word. It worked for them because they had peace on the inside, they were grounded in love and truth. They just did not spend a lot of time bitching, moaning, complaining, and hating... and God knows they had every reason to. I don't see much peace, and I sure have a hard time finding it in myself.

[CLR]

She is also an acomplished liar. Why won't records ,from her time as first lady, be opened to the public until after the election? Why are here writings as a college student sealed? She still hasn't explained the mysterious appearances and disappearances of records from her Rose Law Firm days. She is a liar and will always be a liar.

[Ilovbush]

Republican dictaorship? Man, do you really know what country you are living in? I seem to recall that the current administration was VOTED INTO OFFICE by the American people.

I'm definitely not a Hillary fan, but if she gets voted in, guess I will just have to put up with her b.s., My big problem with Hillary is we get Bill back in the white house chasing interns.

[Pyrum]

I seem to recall the 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court and the 2004 election was stolen by Katherine Harris, Ken Blackwell and Diebold. I fully expect Hillary Clinton to use the same tactics to get into the Oval Office too, but only if she has to.

[blu2purple]

He really wasn't dear...you really must keep up with the news. The voting machines and underhanded dealings that are coming out daily are unbelievable. Why do you think Rove went running for the hills? Bush is not in office because he won. In fact... he needs to brought up on murder charges...many many many cases to be sure. Just think...for thousands of people how different the holidays would be...if the rightful president had taken office...BOTH TIMES!!! Do you realize just how DIFFERENT things would be today? This man did not WIN any election. And as far as getting Bill back in the White House...while I am not proud of the incident you refer to, and I would bet neither is he...it did not result in ONE persons loss of life. That is a hell of lot better odds of getting out alive than with Bush as president...

[Doofus]

'Have you noticed that after each Democratic debate, Hillary's numbers rise in the national polls?

The reason is simple.

She enters center stage, in the brightest most fluorescent color possible on the color wheel. She is aglow in bright coral, bright orange, bright yellow...'

Gosh, we'd be better off, you'd say, with Carol Burnett!

Maybe she's does better in the polls because
it seems she has more of a clue about how to
be President than all those grey-suited guys.

But anyway...

Kucinich/Paul - Tag Team 2008 - Two Wild Or Crazy Guys!

[Pyrum]

I agree with Carole Bayer Sager. Hillary knows her audience, and realizes some, or maybe even many, will respond only to superficialities.

We would be better off with Carol Burnett! Kucinich/Paul will do nicely too. Or Paul/Kucinich. Or either of those guys paired with Burnett. Or with just about anyone else...

[thehuff]

If I were Barack I'd quickly hire Jules Fisher and insist on bastard amber!

[mouselion]

So, what are you suggesting? That the male presidential contenders all get makeovers and look like... Liberace? Elton John? Ziggy Stardust?

"Hillary will always be the only woman in a sea of men in black" is a scary thought, because, truth be told, she isn't really any different than her male counterparts, substance-wise.

And, if this past week is any indication, she's promising to be very good at presidential doublespeak. I'm not interested in what is clearly being revealed as Bush-lite. She'll have to do some serious convincing to change my mind.

For starters: Stay on message about Iraq, quit word-waffling.

[MinerSam]

Hillary is winning the debates, becaus she is winning.
And when I read the critics, can't help but see people revealing things about themselves...
...or who may be propaganda victims of the Republican appeasers: The Talking "Heads" and reporters proving Reagan's cuts to education are coming home to roost.
Am glad that Hillary looks good. Surely can't be something wrong with that... and cause some hear the music, but not the words...
Hillary is articulate, knowledgable, wise, intelligent,mature, a Great Human being, very ethical, justice loving, and thankfully she DOES NUANCE to boot.
Example, when asked why she gave Bush authority to go into Iraq, she answered exactly what it was (hae C-SPAN on almost 20 hours a day for 7 years):
..She voted for simillar reasons to what Kerry did. After listening to conflicting views (including people who wrote the reports) about whether OR NOT Sadam had WMD, AND BASED ON WHAT BUSH SAID WHEN HE ASKED FOR THEIR VOTES..
She, like others, voted to create a united front to INTIMIDATE Sadam into LETTING THE INSPECTORS BACK IN.
However, after he got their votes...whereas Mr. Bush originally said he would go to the UN, **and form a coalition THAT included **Iraq's nieghbors***and ONLY go to war as a LAST RESORT:

1)Only If THE INSPECTORS DETERMNED THAT SADAM HAD WMD,

2) OR IF SADAM DID NOT LET THE INSPECTORS IN.

However, SADAM **DID** LET THE INSTPECTORS back IN. And Surely no **informed* person can blame Hillary for what happened next:

==Mr. Bus BETRAYED that vote
==Had to be forced to show up at the UN
==Mooned key potential coalition partners.
==Pushed inspectors back OUT
==And went to War as a First resport.

But Tim Russerts...And others who seem to have Young Republican for assistants..and who perpetrated exactly the same thing to John Kerry (MADE THE ****CONDITIONS*** for his vote clear)

Now we seem to have a third generation missinformed and those too busy working to pay attention to facts, blame Hillary for the Bush actions!!

And those who equate Hillary w.bUsh...excuse me?

[gcswift2]

You came so close to getting it right, but in the end you're just plain wrong. I guess it's true close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

1)Hillary is articulate, knowledgeable, wise, intelligent, mature, a Great Human being, very ethical, justice loving, and thankfully she DOES NUANCE to boot.
==> Either you are President Clinton or James Carville in which either case your opinion while appreciated is a too biased to really matter.

2) She voted for similar reasons to what Kerry did. After listening to conflicting views (including people who wrote the reports) about whether OR NOT Sadam had WMD, AND BASED ON WHAT BUSH SAID WHEN HE ASKED FOR THEIR VOTES..
She, like others, voted to create a united front to INTIMIDATE Sadam into LETTING THE INSPECTORS BACK IN.
==> If She had read the Bill or the Intelligence report instead of the latest poll she would have known better. If everyone else jumps off a bridge...?

3)However, SADAM **DID** LET THE INSTPECTORS back IN. And Surely no **informed* person can blame Hillary for what happened next:
==> Yes, we can. While she was mugging for the camera trying to show how "tough on terror" she was she missed the point of being a Senator. She had name recognition and position unparalleled in the Senate. If she had raised the B.S. flag the country and the Congress (Senate and House) would have noticed and slowed the rolling ball. She unfortunately cared more about being reelected than all the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Guardsmen in New York State.

4) And those who equate Sen. Clinton w/ President Bush...excuse me?
==> When was the last time Senator Clinton stepped out in front of something against the President? From what I've seen she's usually the 45th Senator to Jump on the bandwagon.

[accountability]

uh oh... duck and cover.You have had it now.
I got your back!
LOL

I watched the debates very closely and went in with a jaundiced eye about Hillary, not a Hill-Hater, but not fan at all. I was surprised. I'm no pushover, I really listen, parse out what's said, look at body language. I agree, she is winning. She is very knowledgeable, she does her homework and is well briefed on what she needs to know.
She is strong, comes off as forthright, stands up straight and talks directly and clearly.

I was sure that Obama was going to wipe up the floor with her, and positive that Edwards was going to chop her up in little pieces.
they didn't and not because she wore lipstick. Obama isn't really good in that setting I guess. that seems to be the consensus. I liked what he said, but it wasn't BAM! I had high hopes for Edwards, but he came off looking petulant.
Querulous or peevish is just as bad as loud or pompous. it It made him seem immature, not ready to play with the big boys. Remember Al's sighs, Kerry's lectures?
I personally didn't care, it didn't bother me, but I remember how everyone jumped all over them, and not just the right wing. I'm not jumping on Edwards, I'm just saying what I noticed and it bothered me because it will hurt him. I like Biden, I like Kucinich, a real liberal! I really like Dodd in many ways, Richardson I wanted to like a lot more than I actually do The thing is, when they are all up there against Hillary they all seem like a bunch of boys... except Obama and ... the crazy guy, begins with a G... ack. Gravell!
Hillary is winning because she's winning.
I still want Obama to win. I support him, I'll be volunteering for him, but I will be voting for whoever wins the Democratic nomination. I don't care if its a yellow dog!

[gtt]

Carole, you may be right. Hillary may come through the center, or more likely the right of center of the chorus line and get the nomination, just like it's done in that Broadway Show that you analogize. But remember, the nomination is just the first act. So many democarts are upset with her for her support of the war and her general shift to the right that if nominated she would be burdened with an uninspirted base that may not turnout in much force. She is also likely to see a high "walk across glass" turnout on the republican side, the group that Molly Ivans described as .. "them that would walk across glass to turn out to vote against a candidate". Sure to be high number in Ms. Clinton's case. I know of too many disenchanted republicans, unlikely to be motivated now, but who would be energized by her nomination.. many would sell their bass boat to have money to contribute to her opponent!
If Hallary is the diva nominated as leader of our troupe it may be a short run election night.

Many of us older feminists see Hillary as the wrong woman for the job. I may be male, but I have always been a progressive for womens'issues. I will not give up the progressive issues just to help a DLC dem get elected. I agree with Ms. Edwards. John Edwards will be a better advocate for womens' rights. Hillary for the Supreme Court.. because it is just too important.. think about it.

[accountability]

"walk across glass" turnout on the republican side,

Not just on the republican side, but also on the left are those who would crawl across cut glass to make sure she doesn't win... who think voting for a third party will teach her a lesson.
It sure taught us all a lesson last time.

[Matt2891]

Don B: Alot of her problems and critics within the Democratic party have come from her own double talk, no GOP help required.

[forestyan]

I bet you the cost of any one session of Hillary's make-up and hair styling dwarfs John Edwards stylish haircut in comparison. Not that this difference has any relevance whatsoever, but I wonder why this has never been noted by any F***s News reporter (sic), or by anyone employed by one of its copycats. Then again, why would they? They contribute to her campaign too...

[FearlessFreep]

"Can you honestly even see anyone else?"

Yes, Carol, I honestly can. With the possible exception of Biden, every other Democratic candidate would clearly make a better president.

[gcswift2]

I am offended by this Article.

She stands out on stage because she is the only WOMAN in a group of MEN. Thats the ONLY reason. I wish we could have a radio debate so the image would not mean as much. As a Woman she has more fashion choices, the men HAVE TO wear a dark suit. I want her IDEAS and POLICIES to stand out from the crowd not just her clothes or sex.

[CountryBeforeParty]

Maybe I'm not watching the debates but I really don't see the appeal of Hillary over some of the other candidates. I would love to see a woman be POTUS, but she's just not energizing me, and it's worrisome that the other side is all ready coronating her as the winner.

The MSM seems to be fixing everything to set up a Hillary win, which is another reason not to vote for her.