After giving a speech calling for civility and labelling some of her opponents as "un-American".  When the reporter pressed her on what she meant by "un-American" she denied ever saying that (although it was caught on video for all to see and hear).  She finally told the reporter to "shove it".
 Is this what we can expect from our new first lady?  Denying the very words she said and being very un-civil to a reporter immediately following her call for more civility?
 Maybe the 700 million dollars she inherited has gone to her head?

For using the F-word.  Now THAT was funny.  

As for Teresa Kerry,  You Go Girl!

not only should she have told him to shove it, she should have gotten a hot poker and shoved it right up his a...
    A person does not have to be a liberal to be disgusted by the antics of Drudge.

Do you take it up ass?

-- Modified on 7/28/2004 6:19:09 PM

She sure did, and the GOPers rose up in indignation over it, and only a week or so after Cheney used the F word on the Senate floor and the GOPers defended it.  I think the GOPers have a double standard here.

The reporter she told to shove it works for Mellon Sciafe who owns and runs the Pittsburg paper. this paper has repeatedly lied about her in numerous articles. this is well known on the eastern corridor. Scaife was the one who mercilessly attacked clinton and others over personal issues. Created the so called murder list and so forth. Scaife is not a very moral person.

Regardless, the GOP and Bush thrall double standard is clear. It's ok by their standard for Cheney to use the F word, but not for Hienz to say shove it.

Even a 12 year old has better morals than Cheney and the Bush collaborators.

She indeed used the phrase "UN-AMERICAN (Which some here hyperventilate about) and it was recorded on film.

She is also seen denying she used the phrase.

"I want you to listen real close now cause I'm gonna say it one more time....I did NOT have...."

Out of the spotlight, I hear she's a real doozy.

Either she is too stupid to remember her speech (which I doubt) or she just didn't want to have to actually explain herself.  So she lied about what she said in front of cameras.  Foolish and arrogant.

And you know what, Big F'ing Deal.  She's not running for office.  And certainly, the Republicans were more than happy to have her when her money was funding THEIR side.  So their protests doth ring hollow.

It seems to be tolerable and even funny sometimes that Madonna and other celebrities can be rude to photograhers and reporters. That's because they don't hold any political power and no one "expects" them to be a model citizens.

Politicians (and their wives) are held to higher standards and fully deserve any repercussions if they are rude.

There are many ways to end an unwanted conversation without losing your temper and telling someone to "shove it."

-- Modified on 7/31/2004 1:04:29 PM

I love how a couple who's net worth is about a billion dollars are the ticket for the "common man".

And would lying be more acceptable if you don't like the target?  I think she is used to having her way, since she can buy and sell just about anybody she wants.
 Too bad we have a free press that might actually make her explain her speech.

More power to her for using her judgement in that manner.  Feel free not to vote for her.  Personally, I could care less what she said, as she's not running for office.

I saw the child and her parents interviewed afterwards.  She was thrilled.  And there is no question that this will help her for her future - both in getting into top colleges, and for simply having the experience of speaking successfully to a packed arena of people - it's great preparation for her future, whatever that may hold.  She surely has benefitted from the experience, and has hardly been exploited.

-- Modified on 8/3/2004 8:36:57 AM

that all first lady candidates are running for office.  Don't like it, but there it is.

Hillary was uniquely qualified to be in a policy position (Irrespective of what you think of the job she did, she DID have the professional qualifications for it).  It was no different than if she had been put into Clinton's Chief of Staff role, a la a James Baker or similar.  Her qualifications and the level of trust Bill had for her abilities is why she got the policy role.  Nobody's suggesting that Teresa Heinz Kerry will be doing anything other than the typical 1st lady tasks of targetted Philanthropy, and dishing spicy comments until her husband's staff manage to get a muzzle on her.