Here’s one from an interview on ABC around the NH primary

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4097786

Quote:

“And during Saturday’s New Hampshire debates, Clinton became noticeably agitated as she responded to a statement made by former Sen. John Edwards, in which he defended Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s pledge for change and suggested Clinton was the candidate for the status quo.

“Making change is not about what you believe or about making a speech, it’s about working hard,” Clinton said after Edward’s statement, in which he said, “Anytime you speak out for change, this is what happens. The forces for status quo are going to attack.”

Then, a little bit louder, she said, “I want to make change, but I’ve already made change. I’m not running on a promise of change. But on 35 years of change. … We don’t need to raise false hopes of people in our country about what can be delivered.”

“I think that having a first woman president is a huge change,” said Clinton, raising her voice. ” “

She has?? Where and when?

Deb – what I would say to your SIL is: “You’re an idiot.” I know, I need to work on the kindler and gentler thing…

I agree with your point about the language of strength and gender, but both words have problems. Hillary Clinton has made being a woman a central thesis of her campaign. For some voters that is a reason to vote for her, a much smaller number would never vote for a woman, but I think for the largest group her gender is irrelevant.

It’s not the strong part that bothers me. I expect strength in a presidential candidate and I’ve never doubted that Clinton has it. But if being a woman is relevant to deciding between two candidates for president, you have to show me why. What about having ovaries will make you a better president than these male candidates?

The only answers I’ve heard for that question are that there has never been a woman president, therefore if everyone is qualified it would be sexist to not choose the woman candidate. Or, as Clinton has repeatedly put it in her only attempt at reasoning on this question that I’ve heard, “It’s about time we had a woman president.”

Sorry, that doesn’t wash. So far as I know it didn’t wash for Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher, either. It’s not about being twice as strong or hawkish as a man in order to be taken seriously, it’s about being so competent and confident in your abilities that your gender doesn’t matter. “It’s about time we had a woman ____________” is poison. You need to be able to say “I’m the best candidate in the field. Period.”

I am absolutely convinced that a woman will be elected president of the United States in the immediate future. But I’m even more certain that when she does run, she will make her gender as much of a non-issue as Barack Obama made race for his campaign.

One more thought for y’all. This fighting is much more generational than it is about gender.

Sorry. I have women come on to me ALL the time, but I’ll have to say to you the same thing I say to them: I’m married, and too cowardly to cheat. I do, however, have a waiting list, just in case my wife accidently eats some poison mushrooms. Or if she suffers a crushed skull from refusing to eat her mushrooms.

Oh, you’re talking about voting for me for president? That’s different. My wife says it’s OK for me to cheat on her if I get elected president.

I must warn you that I would be running on the Whig ticket. The Whigs are pro-progress, which is pretty much a meaningless campaign pledge these days, but they are known for two things.

One is that it was in a Whig administration that the first bathtub was installed in the White House, (defined as a permanently-installed tub with running hot and cold water, and a drain.) Therefore, my first campaign pledge is to take a bath each and every month I am in office – and I note that NONE of the other candidates have made that pledge.

The other thing is that Whig presidents have been so serious about term limits that a full 50% of them have died in office. Therefore, my second campaign pledge is to die in office. I hope to arrange it so that it involves a jealous husband of a voluptuous intern, and none of these immature little nymphs, either, but a mature woman who knows what she’s doing.

But I have to admit that if I run and win, I am so earnest and honest about my campaign pledges that I will probably be assassinated before I actually take the oath of office, thus setting a new record for Whigs.

But I thank you for your kind compliment, and, as i say, I’ve added you to the waiting list. You will be notified if a suitable opportunity arises.

Right.

She is a media trollop.

I forget. Isn’t that pretty much the same thing as a fucking whore? (grinning, ducking, and running)

Obama needs to have a new speech, made up of various things he’s been saying, only rearranged a little bit. He needs to say “Those signs don’t say ‘Yes, he can’, they say ‘Yes WE can’. And that’s the whole point. It’s going to take everybody, and if you beat someone up, they will vote exactly the opposite way you want them to vote, just for spite.

“Maybe you hear a joke tomorrow about Senator McCain, or Senator Clinton. I don’t care how funny it is, don’t pass it on. Senator Clinton is a great Senator, and we need her in the Senate, working with us. Senator McCain is a great Senator, and we need him in the Senator, working with us. Burning bridges is a really dumb idea, and it’s an idea we can’t afford.

“A couple of decades ago, the most hated Republican in the Senate was Dan Quayle. You’ve probably heard some jokes. And the most hated Democrat in the Senate was Teddy Kennedy. You may have heard some jokes about him, too. But Dan and Teddy got together and created the Jobs Partnership Training Act, which was probably the most important legislation the Senate passed that session.

“Democrats like jobs bills, and Republicans prefer that private enterprise get involved, because they think government wastes money when they do things. And we need to admit this: the Republicans are right about that. But Dan and Teddy created a bill in which unemployed people got exactly the skills employers were seeking, and by involving private enterprise, we minimized the burden to the taxpayer.

“Now, do you think that would have happened if Dan Quayle had been insulting Teddy Kennedy, or if Teddy Kennedy had been insulting Dan Quayle?

“The old style of politics calls for people who are good fighters, but the old style of politics isn’t working. Doesn’t matter if you have even 35 years of experience at fighting. We don’t need to do the same old things better; we need to do something different. Like negotiating, so that people on both sides of the aisle are working for the same thing.

“Elizabeth Edwards says that Senator Clinton’s health care plan is better than mine, because it’s more inclusive. I don’t argue that a bit. The difference is, I can get my health care plan passed. Senator Clinton has been trying to get universal health care passed for fifteen years, and she hasn’t accomplished anything.

“So remember two things when you leave here tonight. It’s not about me, it’s about us. Yes WE can. And be civil to the opposition, because we’re going to need their cooperation in order to accomplish anything meaningful.”