Hardball just showed a poll that Hillary is found the most ego

driven.

and she won in a landslide. Also the likeability numbers went against her. That is why I am shocked at her using character and ambition as slams against Obama.


On Ego driven it was 52% Hillary 10 or 11% Obama, and 9% Edwards

Likeabilitity was 33% Obama, 26% Edwards, 14% Hillary

Rudy wins the Repub side for ego 34%

The Huckster and Mitt for likeability.

saw them again .. thanks.

How cute!

Where is the data from the prior Hardball polls?

that.

At times he seems as obsessed with her as Dick Morris. They're not the only ones. The Freeper men go so ballistic by the sheer mention of her name that a female Freeper once posted: Ahhhhh, men and their Hillary fantasies........

"Some people say...."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101204.html?nav=emailpage

The conventional explanation for why female leaders are widely perceived as mannish, conniving and ruthless -- not just by men but by other women, too -- is that politics is tough, and the only way for a woman to survive in a male-dominated field is to have sharp elbows.

Women who do become leaders get stuck with Label B, because if leadership is unconsciously associated with manliness, cognitive consistency requires that female leaders be stripped of the caring qualities normally associated with women.

Then there's Leonard Pitts:

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/story/310595.html

Consider one of the many anti-Hillary smears now circulating online. It purports to be a compendium of profane, ill-tempered tirades she has unleashed upon subordinates. Your first thought is, what an unlikeable person. Your second is, or should be, wait a minute. Does George Bush never use potty language? Was Bill Clinton never brusque? Does Dick Cheney always say thank you and please?

But it's different, isn't it, because she's a woman? With the men, toughness reads as leadership, authority, getting things done. With her it reads as ''bitch.'' There is a sense -- and even women buy into this -- that a woman who climbs too high in male-dominated spheres violates something fundamental to our understanding of what it means to be a woman. Indeed, that she gives up any claim upon femininity itself.

And never elect one to the presidency. Of course, a good, unambitious woman wouldn't run...and then all would be right with the world.

:eyes:

While concurrently, they find her least likeable of the top three.

Hmmm...

Do the ones who believe this also have their head up Matthews ass. Far far up his ass.

.....know their places.

But, then we wouldn't have this:

I just saw this flash on the screen on the 7pm hardball.

Who cares who's ego is highest?