« MDE EXCLUSIVE: NEW COMMITTEE CREATED BY DFL HOUSE LEADERSHIP RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT CONNECTION BETWEEN SPEAKER-DESIGNATE AND LEGISLATIVE LIASON #2 | Home | MDE ON THE RADIO: SHOWTIME! »
ROWLEY BLAMES LOSS ON HER LOOKS, VOWS NEVER TO RUN FOR OFFICE AGAIN
By Michael B. Brodkorb | December 1, 2006
"[Coleen] Rowley, who scolded Kline for 'blindly' supporting Bush and the war, blames her plain looks for the loss.
'For politics, you do have to have a certain amount of prom queen appeal,' she said.
'I'm never going to run for a political office again,' vowed the former FBI agent, who billed herself as the 'Agent of Change,' a play on her former law enforcement experience and Democrats call for change of course in Iraq." Source: WorldNet Daily, November 10, 2006
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 19 Comments »
19 Responses to “ROWLEY BLAMES LOSS ON HER LOOKS, VOWS NEVER TO RUN FOR OFFICE AGAIN”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:59 PM
“I’m never going to run for a political office again”
Thank goodness. It’s the first smart thing she’s said all year.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:19 PM
‘For politics, you do have to have a certain amount of prom queen appeal.’
Then how does Nancy Pelosi keep getting elected?
December 1st, 2006 at 5:01 PM
I can’t believe she said that. Has she not heard that politics is an ugly man’s hollywood…and it is so true. AKlo, Mark Kennedy, Ellison, Pogamiller, Kelliher, Ramstad are all not the most attractive bunch.
December 1st, 2006 at 5:02 PM
‘For politics, you do have to have a certain amount of prom queen appeal.’
Solid proof that this statement is 100% wrong….Amy Klobuchar
December 1st, 2006 at 5:57 PM
while Klobu is no MiBach, Rowley is pretty f’ugly. i’d switch teams to Kline before i’d touch that.
December 1st, 2006 at 8:48 PM
Betty Mccollum, Becky Lourey, Patty Murray from the state of Washington, maxine Waters, the new Speaker of the Minnesota house , Phyllis Kahn for crying out loud, the Dem. party is loaded with hard to look at women….no she lost because she is a radical lefty.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:06 PM
You forgot Hillary Rodham Clinton. She must have had some surgery over the years and gotten a little better, but still it proves Rowley’s statement is rediculous. She lost because she’s a liberal lunatic.
December 2nd, 2006 at 1:22 AM
No, she lost mostly because of the highly Republican makeup of that district.
I’m sorry to hear she won’t be running again. We need more good law-and-order Democrats running.
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:07 AM
While John F. Kennedy did prove that one could win with looks over substance, that was not Rowley’s problem. Colleen, like John Kerry, ran as something she was not… a hero. And behind that facade, voters saw a shallow, simple candidate that didn’t really share their values much less demonstrate competence to represent them.
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:08 AM
Wait so no Republican women are ugly? We can only come up with examples of Democrats?
December 2nd, 2006 at 4:37 PM
Hey Brian Hanna,
Thank you. Finally a Dem – Liberal who is realistic about the makeup of the 2nd Distirct. I agree it is a good GOP District.
Maybe you can also educate the biased media like the Strib, MPR, and Almanac who have been calling it a “swing district” for the 3 election cycles since its creation after the last redistricting.
As for looks, I believe ugliness won’t necessarily kill a campaign (and Klobuchar is a great example of this) but good looks also can help a person get over the hump. How else can you explain the media’s mutaul orgasm for Obama, who while i think is an up and comer, certainly has not done anything remotely sufficient yet to be getting the presidential accolades he is.
December 2nd, 2006 at 4:38 PM
Now let’s address Coleen Rowley. She lost for two main reasons. One Kline is a good Congressman who fits the district and two, Rolwey is a phony.
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:30 PM
MrMustang… refresh my memory, what did Dubya do before he was elected to be “sufficient” enough to be President? losing his Congress run? his “great” business ventures? his 5 years as the governor of Texas, in which they saw pollution rise to the highest levels in the US, due to his environmental laws that benefited power & oil companies? that bankrupted the Texas Treasury?
if that’s the kind of “experience” Obama needs, i think i’m ok with him not being “sufficient” enough…
December 3rd, 2006 at 3:29 PM
Rowley, Wetterling, Wilde even Aklo. You’re all missing the point they have no bench. It’s pathetic yet Aklo won meaning MN is really pathetic.
December 3rd, 2006 at 4:01 PM
‘I’m never going to run for a political office again.’
Actually, I wonder why Ugly Duckling Rowley ran for political office to begin with. Principled people are not deterred by setbacks or initial defeat. Did Rowley expect a cake walk of some kind? Having her picture on the cover of Time magazine seems to have gone up to her head. She expected to win based on name recognition, rather than hard work and sane positions on the issues.
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:21 PM
Jeff,
W did just that. He was Gov. of Texas for 5 years. That is certainly more than being a Senator for 2-4. A Governor runs a state and Texas is the country’s 2nd biggest. Obama is a Senator — 1 of 100. Whether you like W or not, he had already run a state and served as an executive.
I am not suggesting he might not be a good future candidate, just that he is way to green to turn the country over to with terrorism and nuclear Iran on the way. Yes, i said i, nuclear Iran. It’s too bad neither party will do anything about it either. We have 2 choices. One, let them have nukes – which unofrtunately is the plan for both Democrats and Republcians right now. Then we’ll let them give the nukes to terrorists to blow up on US soil. Nice plan. The GOP is as much to blame as the Dems on this.
Plan B is to invade and stop them. I know it is not a sexy option and is a difficult choice, but those are the 2 options. If you think Obama has the balls to do what is necessary you are sadly mistaken. But, I am sure, you would be against that anyway. You plan might include just giving them nuclear weapons so they like us.
December 3rd, 2006 at 10:04 PM
while i wouldn’t mind him waiting until 2012 or later, the other alternatives on either side so far… i dunno…
December 4th, 2006 at 6:47 AM
I agree with Rowley a little bit here…she probably could have bathed and brushed her hair a few times, and worn some clothing that didn’t look like she just pulled from the dirty clothes pile.
At least the Alice-the-Goon-Klobuchar wore clean duds.
December 10th, 2006 at 4:12 AM
WTF???
Rowley got another letter published in the strib today ripping Kline?
Give it up, woman…please…