That's why Ron Rosenbaum likes Hillary. Mark Steyn, meanwhile, says yes, but that she's mean to the wrong people:

My problem begins when Rosenbaum expands the proposition to argue that, in a field of Democrat wimps, Hill’s the one to back to stick it to the jihadists. I yield to no-one in my respect for the Clintons’ ruthless brutal demolition of Newt, and that guy who succeeded Newt for 20 minutes, and Gennifer and Kathleen and all the rest. But there’s no evidence to suggest either Clinton has any interest in applying these techniques to tougher adversaries beyond these shores. There’s a world of difference between the politics of personal destruction and the geostrategic kind. Beating up breast-cancer survivors is no indication you’ll do the same to Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il.

Tom DeLay seemed to hold the patent on mean.

Considering his highest priority was protecting
slavery and forced abortion and prostitution on
the marianas.

You mean Pelosi don't you?

Her exemption from the minimum wage of American Samoa was telling.

A J-H,

When are you going to call for Ronnie Earl to be disbarred and tired before the world court for his travesty of justice?

Semms like he might soon be sharing a cell with Mike Nifong.

http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_21260148.shtml

Not surprising. To Democrats, foreign terrorists are not enemies. Opposing them (after 9/11) or surrendering to them (today) are just means to the real end, which is domestic political power.

So stated on their own website:

> what the party needs are men and women who ardently support and defend the Constitution
> from ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. (It's the domestic kind, the GOP, from whence comes
> the greateast threat)

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/11/false_alarm.php

from what I see, Samoa, has been wrapped into the
minimum wage bill

I briefly coverd the Clinton White House as a reporter when I was in DC. I'll vote for the Easter Bunny before even thinking about her or her infantile semi-hubby. Mean doesn't even begin to describe them.

I recommend this short movie mocking Kim Jong Il and his secret agent buying Hennessy XO wine from Chinese black market :=)

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=EE52D9ED01495685

I recommend this short movie mocking Kim Jong Il and his secret agent buying Hennessy XO wine from Chinese black market :=)

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=EE52D9ED01495685

I recommend this short movie mocking Kim Jong Il and his secret agent buying Hennessy XO wine from Chinese black market :=)

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=EE52D9ED01495685

There is a difference between "mean" and "stern" and "powerful."

A Drunken father waiting for the chance to kill himself because he endures his hateful wifes for "the childrens sake" tends to be "stern."

The mother who drives a father to become a drunken postponed Suicide idententy, tends to be "mean"

Happy people who know what is right and what is wrong, and is willing to sacrifice their own joy in exchange for the best of others tend to be "powerful."

The clintons satisfy two of those.

I think we should just call her Eva Peron.

I'm not sure how "mean" translates to wielding Presidential power. If we can gage by her reported rantings while she was First Bitch, she's too flighty and mouthy to be President. Her actions as Senator show her to be as wishy washy as he husband, if not more so. She wishes to be everybody's everything. It can't be done, you can't be super liberal, moderate and conservative all at the same time. Especially when you're cussing and throwing furniture at the press or at the citizens.

Unless our nations enemies can be taken down by someone screaming obscenities and throwing lamps, Hillary isn't up to the job.

Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il aren't threats to her power. Newt and the Slick Grope Vets were. Of course she'll get tough on the latter and not the former.

I wonder if she would continue her husband's policy of furthering the North Korean nuclear program, with more light water reactors or whatever.