Ann Coulter takes on the Hillary-Margaret Thatcher comparison
Bookworm on Jan 25 2007 at 9:58 am | Filed under: Hillary Clinton
Ann Coulter gives short shrift to the Hillary party claim that Hillary is another Margaret Thatcher:
Mrs. Clinton’s acolytes are floating the idea of Hillary as another Margaret Thatcher to get past the question, “Can a woman be elected president?” This is based on the many, many things Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher have in common, such as the lack of a Y chromosome and … hmmm, you know, I think that’s it.
Girl-power feminists who got where they are by marrying men with money or power
Email This Post To A Friend
11 Responses to “Ann Coulter takes on the Hillary-Margaret Thatcher comparison”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You made me laugh! Funny, I was just writing about Hillary on my blog today too.
It is incredible to me that anyone could consider Hillary and Margaret Thatcher to be anything alike, let alone trying to convince others of this! What strange universe of unreality do these people live in? Do they think we all have no memories, no education, no access to the internet to research things? Maybe that’s the constituency the Hillary campaign is playing up to. Scary thought.
Well, I don’t know who Kevin Federline may be, but I can guess what he is from the context.
The rapier-witted Miss Coulter is, as usual, squarely on target.
They’re both white.
An Anne Coulter is no Margaret Thatcher . . nor Hilary Clinton.Isn’t she hilarious when she’s running at the mouth(gotta have the tough act going or no one will take me serious especially my Republican friends) allowing no one to enter the conversation. Class act baby ! Isn’t she a liar one way or the other through plagarism and voting fraud? Just asking.
Shock and guffaw. Go Ann.
Kevin Federline is Mr. Brittany “no underwear” Spears.
Another. Thatcher…. Really.
Amazing. I must have been teleported to Earth 2. Must be.
I’d not actually heard that comparison, but I don’t doubt that it’s been made.
While I think many people are chomping at the bit to try to get her name on the ballot, I think that in reality, Hillary is unelectable as a presidential nominee.
Her attempts to move to the middle and her attempts at taking every side while not saying anything to the side, I think enough people will remember her First Lady days to want to seriously consider voting for her, and I think her name recognition alone would drive many people to the ballots simply to vote against her.
Hillary would be a bad choice for the Democrats to front as their nominee.
I think you’re right, Steve. Hillary has tried to be too many things to too many people. Lacking charisma, she can’t pull it off. She’s left herself in a position where people neither like nor respect her. In other words, she’s neither Obama nor Thatcher.
Right now, two years ahead of the election, she’s leading in the polls, but I think that’s nothing more than name recognition, and strongly doubt that as other, more stable or likable contenders appear, she’ll fall behind, despite her full coffers.
I think that Rush Limbaugh is right – the moment she raises her voice into that awful piercing screech, she will remind too many men of their first wives and too many women of their bosses from Hell. She’ll be toast.
I remember Fox News showed a feed from her answering questions about whether she would run for President. The audio quality was very staticy, and the voice distortion sounded like kittens being mauled.