Before you all go, “Who is Sean and why is he rambling?” let me preface by saying, I know Sean personally from back in high school, I think. I’m not sure when I met him but he’s one of Hubby’s friends from way back and he’s in our rotisserie baseball league. Sean, like everyone who engages in aerobic respiration, has a blog. I really like his blog, mostly because I know him personally but had NO idea all these thoughts were going on in his head. Sean’s blog, it is some funny shit.
Sean asks a pertinent question, and garners an answer from Robert Bluey, author of the Bluey Blog and “director of the Center for Media & Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, a think tank whose mission is ‘to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.’”
Why do people hate Hillary Clinton?
Bluey’s answer, from Sean’s site:
Americans began to dislike Hillary during the 1992 campaign and only grew more hostile throughout her husband’s eight years in the White House. I think part of the problem stems from the fact she had no intention of following the typical role of first lady, preferring instead to be a political bulldog. This partisanship alienated a large number of Americans who won’t soon forget the Hillary of old no matter how hard she tries to remake herself.
Keep in mind that during Bill Clinton’s eight years as president, America became a country deeply divided along partisan lines, leading to the contentious 2000 election. This wasn’t entirely Clinton’s fault, but because Hillary was so closely identified with his political and policy objectives—beginning with her failed health care plan—Americans were left with a bad taste.
Now that it is officially 2008, and the election year, it’s time to pay attention to the candidates running for president. I’ve been ignoring them until now because it was too damn early for half of them to start campaigning in my never-humble opinion. Hubby is a political junkie, and considers following politics like following baseball or football. It might be his favorite sport (though he won his fantasy football league this year so maybe politics is #2 in light of his win). I personally try to avoid paying too much attention to any political ads, because they are so nasty I feel unwashed when I’m done watching even a 10 second spot.
I’m also completely turned off by American politics on the whole, because somehow there’s this bizarre expectation or demand that one candidate is supposed to satisfy every ideal I possess, and so the candidates are trying to appeal to a slate of requirements, regardless of their actual preference or voting history. Candidates cease being “real people” and start molding themselves into electable models – because it’s more important to get elected rather than doing the job you’re ‘hired’ by the voting public to do.
But the question of Hillary is fascinating to me because I realized I was dreading her run for president not because I had anything against her as a candidate, but because I was dreading the negative and horrifically awful attacks that would be leveled against her. There’s this virulent hatred of all things Clinton but especially things Hillary that makes people absolutely batshit insane about her, even if they know jack crap about her voting record as a senator. I’ve heard it from radio personalities, random people in conversations, even people whom I suspect make decisions about candidates based on facts and information. Hillary Clinton provokes a knee-jerk gut-level abhorrence that I do not understand, and to which I so do not want to bear witness during this year’s onslaught of political ads.
But why is there that knee-jerk rejection of all concepts Hillary?
The one line of Bluey’s response says it all:
“I think part of the problem stems from the fact she had no intention of following the typical role of first lady, preferring instead to be a political bulldog.”
So the explanation is: people hate Hillary because she didn’t embrace the traditional role of a First Lady by serving as quiet fashionable hostess in the White House and instead carved out a new role for herself as First Lady/political playah. She was aggressive (or assertive, depending on who you ask) and wasn’t content with a traditional gender role, so she’s therefore evil.
This isn’t news. I am betting that the democratic nomination will be based on the question of whether the US is more racist or more sexist, but still. I didn’t expect the reason for the hysteria against Clinton to be spelled out like it was political wisdom: “She’s not demure. She’s a bitch. Therefore we hate her. Pass me some steaming American family values, please.”
Here at Smart Bitches, we’ve only endorsed one candidate who was running against Bill Napoli, and sadly, she didn’t win. It’s not like we’re in the business of endorsing presidential candidates, but any candidate who is called a bitch as often as Hillary Clinton is obviously going to catch my attention. Personally speaking, I think she’s just fine as a senator and would likely be an exceptional president – except that the knee-jerk revulsion she inspires would get in her way at every moment and she’d have a hell of a time getting anything done.
In my mind, just for the sheer comic value of watching people trip over themselves to throw battery-stuffed snowballs of hate, the most ideal ticket for people’s heads exploding would be a Hillary Clinton/Martha Stewart political ticket. I would throw a ticker tape parade made of the shredded remains of traditional gender expectations, to be sure.
But Sean says it right: “‘Because she is a bitch’ is not an acceptable answer.” In the microcosm of the online romance community, some folks hate Candy and me because we don’t play nice, we don’t give buttery soft and friendly reviews of romance novels we hated, and because we aren’t going to shy away from naming names and titles and saying, “This blew savage donkey cock.” The play-nice expectation of the romance world means we Bitches are a special kind of naughty evil because saying, “I didn’t like this romance novel” is somehow a rather explosive statement. But even that’s a viable reason for disliking us: we aren’t always kind when we say we don’t like something. We named ourselves Bitches because that’s what we are. But in the grand scheme, is what we do important on a world stage? Not hardly.
However, if you’re talking about running a country of over 300 million people, a country currently engaged in at least two active military conflicts with a growing national debt and a few significant problems in the way of poverty, human rights, and a growing housing crisis, wouldn’t having a bitch on board be a good thing? Don’t you want an aggressive person in the White House? If people dislike Hillary because she’s a bitch… my question is, so what’s wrong with being a Bitch?
Heh, I like how I contradict myself in my previous post. Oh well. The longer version is too long and boring to go into.
I’m glad that I helped inspire some discussion.
My question was why do people hate Hillary Clinton and I did not and do not feel that “because she is a bitch†is an acceptable answer. If you don’t like her politics, her votes or many of the things previously mentioned here, that seems like a logical explanation.
Am I the only male commenter?
This discussion is bringing out my ebil side.
“I despise any woman who will let a man shit on her to borrow his power. I despise any man who would let a woman shit on him to borrow her power. I despise any human being who will completely discard his or her dignity, worth, or grace in the interest of attaining power.”
I say, if you’re power-hungry, the end justifies the means. Willing to endure some years of shit to become leader of the free world? I respect that kind of grit yer teeth endurance.
Anyone willing to sacrifice themselves for power is not going to do anything I want them to with it.
Anyone not willing to put themselves out a bit for power isn’t going to put themselves out to do much with it. Why waste it on someone who couldn’t be bothered?
“3) because a colleague of mine was treated like sh*t by her. I’m not talking, “Oh…she voted against blah blah blah…and that caused…†No. Hillary was an out and out Bee-atch and Queen of Hearts’d him because the video screen at her birthday party wasn’t big enough. This was after the production company had the okey dokey on the smaller size screen and a signed contract.”
Who says people can’t treat individuals like sh*t and not make sound policy? Sheesh. These people aren’t running for Prince(ss) Happycakes of Sugar Candy Mountain.
Name a great leader of the 20th century, and I’ll bet you $50 (not really, because I’m cheap, but in principle) that he was a farting drunk pig. Name a great leader before that, and odds are good he was a murdering farting drunk pig with imperialist pretensions. Don’t you want a president who’s willing to piss people (other countries) off to protect American interests?
I’m slightly exaggerating, but really, why attack a political candidate for not being nice? Personally, I don’t think that a person has to be admirable as an individual to be a good (or great) leader. They’re there to make tough decisions, not be our friends.
I disagree with Hillary’s politics; also I am uncomfortable with her running on Bill’s coat-tails. That’s why I wouldn’t vote for her.
Now, on a personal note, she does rub me wrong. Nothing I can put my finger on. It’s not that she’s a strong woman, ie. Bitch. I always admired Geraldine Ferraro who is no shrinking violet.
Equal rights for women has to mean we choose our elective officials because of how we feel they will do the job, not because of their genitalia.
Who says people can’t treat individuals like sh*t and not make sound policy? Sheesh. These people aren’t running for Prince(ss) Happycakes of Sugar Candy Mountain.
What she said.
I don’t know why people are so worried, Clinton wont win a damn thing, even if she is the best candidate. It’ll be like Mel B losing out to whatshisname in Dancing With The Survivor American Idol stars.
Everbody knows she should have won, but those damn pesky women voters went for pecs and a tight arse, rather than ability and talent.
And on that bombshell, I’m off to bed.
Several point out that Hillary stayed with Bill despite his infidelity. I’ve always found it odd that no one ever condemns Jackie O for staying with a man who flagrantly cheated on her with a series of skanky hos. Well, Jackie was so pretty and fragile, wasn’t she? Jackie wouldn’t have been snide to reporters asking for her favorite cookie recipe.
I don’t believe Hillary is riding on Bill’s coattails. Their marriage seems to be one of equals who have made a plan together to support one another in their political careers.
Hillary lacks Bill’s charm. She comes off as hard and humorless. You don’t want to sit around and have a cosmopolitan with her. Remember that that was seen as George W. Bush’s main qualification for the position of leader of the free world—“He seems like the kind of guy you could have a beer with.”
But most people seem to want a buddy for president, instead of a leader.
I don’t like Hillary for the same reason I dislike most politicians: they must compromise ideals in order to garner the financial backing to get elected. On the flip side, idealists are frequently incapable of working with others, inflexible, shortsighted, and generally a pain in the butt.
Chingao! I don’t know what to say here. I’m probably going to be one of those geeky loyalists and vote for Bill Richardson (if he lasts). I’m from New Mexico. I kind of like Edwards but not that much. Obama doesn’t do a thing for me. I’m one of those that don’t like Hillary – to much of an opportunist for my tastes. But I do wonder if I would feel the same way if she had come into the political arena as a politician rather than first lady. Will I vote for her in the end? We’ll see. I’m not saying no.
But I would have loved the opportunity to vote for Geraldine Ferraro or Shirly Chisholm or Barbara Jordan.
I think I’m showing my age….
A lot of good points here. I’m increasingly “meh” about Hillary. Honestly, this coming election is filling me with dread. No one is standing out strongly to me as the next leader of our country. Or even particularly electable.
But on the subject of crazy Hill hate, I was driving behind a car the other day which had a bumper sticker that said, “I’d rather see my sister in a whorehouse than Hillary in the White House.” Wh-what? She’s that awful? What’d she do to you? Could you imagine bumper sticker with the same kind of vitriol aimed at Barack Obama or Rudy or one of the other guys? I can’t help but feel that some of the hatred is tied to gender.
C’mon, peoples – this one is so easy.
First of all, only some people hate her. Lots of people like her.
Second, the fundamental reason for the *hate* (as opposed to rational disagreement with her policies – there’s a difference) is sexism – aided and abetted by a well-funded right-wing propaganda machine.
I think Hillary C. is a courageous, cool woman, but she’s a bit too much of a centrist for me, so I will be voting for (and campaigning for) John Edwards.
I’m all for having a female President,especially if she’s bitchy. Just as long as Hillary isn’t the one.
The main problem with Hillary’s run is the sense of entitlement that she exudes like a cheap perfume-the”Look at what I’ve been thru,you HAVE to vote for me!” Her personal life is between her and Bill but it does show what kind of character she has and frankly,I have no respect for someone who is willing to put up with such pathetic philandering and squawk about “right wing conspiracies” when her husband lies under oath in a legal hearing and then expects me to show some “sisterhood” by voting for her. As Judge Judy says”You picked him!”
As a New Yorker,I also resent her using my state as a stepping stone for her Presidential run(which she swore up and down that that was not the case.)And no,I did not vote for her. I don’t expect alot from politicians,it’s a messy game but I refuse to hand over my vote to such a coldly ambitious person who believes that they should be given whatever they want because of who they are. That attitude is why we rebelled against England in the first place,people!
If the Democrats want a real shot at the White House,they should back Obama,bigtime. I’ve heard him speak and have seen folks who were for Hillary in the beginning decided to support him instead after listening to the both of them. He’s more of a uniter than she is,which is what we really need in a leader right now.
I feel for you SB Sarah. Our recent elections were called 6 weeks before the day, and I am sure I saw at least 2 ads before having to vote. At any rate, we were lucky to have the incumbent party do a great show of foot shooting during the campaign, giving the winners with their wonderful slogan-Kevin 07-a runaway victory.
Yes, we have a Prime Minister called Kevin.
The fact that Hillary is called a bitch doesn’t bother me. The way that word is thrown around these days I would be more afraid to vote for a woman who was not characterized as a bitch because that woman probably wouldn’t have the bal…ahem…ovaries to get the job done.
I agree with Sarah that this year’s Democratic nomination will come down to a decision between the lesser of two evils. Are we more sexist or more racist? I have to disagree with MlpsGirl. I think racism is a bigger problem. Sexist asshats may be thick on the ground but the roots of racism run deep in this country.
Ultimately, for me, it comes down to this question. Will the Democratic Party make the right choice or the safe choice? IMHO Obama is clearly the right choice but it is also clear (to me)that Edwards is the most electable candidate. I also wonder if, this year, when we so desperately need to elect a democrat to the White House, if the fact that Edwards is the safe choice doesn’t automatically make him the right choice. I don’t know. I am ultimately an idealist. If I had to vote tomorrow I would vote for Obama.
What is REALLY going to be interesting will be who the GOP is going to throw at us. I have to admit, as much as I dislike her I would love to see Condoleeza Rice run against Obama in November. The redneck population would fucking implode trying to figure out which way to vote, lol. The Independent party might actually stand a chance.
“Second, the fundamental reason for the *hate* (as opposed to rational disagreement with her policies – there’s a difference) is sexism – aided and abetted by a well-funded right-wing propaganda machine.”
Ohhhh goodness. That’s the only explanation? And what about all the people that *hate* George W? Is that sexism? How would you explain it? It’s certainly more than a rational disagreement with his policies.
One reason that I may hate Hillary- because I generally feel pretty strongly about people that have no principles other than advancing their own political careers. Period.
Also, I actually don’t blame her for sticking with Bill. I would commend a woman who stands by her man. Why she married him in the first place…???… But whatever. I don’t want to critique her personal life too much
I already wrote this on Sean’s blog, but here’s my take:
I think she’s too ambitious. It has nothing to do with her gender! Absolutely nothing! Intelligent, ambitious women are great as long as they also have principles and a conscience. (Margaret Thatcher, anyone?)
I’m from NY, and when she came to our state and ran for senator, it was such a clear political move it made me sick. Of course she’ll choose one of the largest and most powerful states- why run in her own state when she can more to NY?
Also, just look at her record! She flip-flops on every issue, from the war in Iraq to the recent debate in which she changed her stance on driver’s licenses for illegals in a matter of minutes! Is it even possible to agree with her policies since she changes her mind every other day? Heck, even Hillary disagrees with her policies, and tries to change them!
Another thing, and this is what really angers me personally. My brother went to a military academy, and you need a “nomination” from a congressman. You just e-mail one, and they review you (I guess your resume or something) and nominate you or not. My brother emailed Clinton several times, and she never even responded. It’s a little thing, but what makes her so high-and-mighty that she can’t even respond to the needs of her constituents! Is it because my brother’s a white male, or just because she can’t be bothered with the people?
“Who says people can’t treat individuals like sh*t and not make sound policy?”
Uhh… that might be one thing if you’re talking about a senator or a town council member, but we’re talking about the President of the United States! I think it wouldn’t be too much to ask for a little civility. This is a person who is going to have to deal with all sorts of people (important delegates, foreign politicians, etc etc), she should certainly be equipped with good people skills. Many countries already think we’re rude. Do we want our president encouraging this opinion?
So those are some of the reasons that I hate Hillary.
I’ve never been sure why the right wing hates Hillary so much. However, I do think that Lady T hit the nail on the head with the comment about entitlement as a major reason that the left is unhappy with Hillary.
My mother (a staunch feminist) is just a little older than the baby boomer generation and felt, during Hillary’s time as First Lady, that Hillary encapsulated the navel-gazing tendencies of baby boomers. She was not good at acknowledging the struggles of professional women who had come before her, and a lot of people really resented that.
Which isn’t to say that everyone who come from a group that has been repressed needs to constantly acknowledge the history of their population. But when people in the spotlight fail to do so they can gain a lot of enemies.
I’m a little more positive about Hillary than my mother is, but am a much bigger fan of Barack Obama, who used to represent me on both the local and state levels.
In contrast, when Obama was asked, on winning his seat in the senate, why he identified so strongly as African American, when he grew up knowing mostly his Caucasian parent, his response was something to the tune of (and this isn’t an exact quote because I can’t remember exactly)- If I was in prison, people would be saying, “Oh, just another African American in prison.” So if I’m in the senate, I want people to be seeing an African American in the senate. And realizing that maybe some of those people in prison, they could be here if they had had the opportunities that I have had.
I find the whole Troll Hillary Under the Bridge portrayal tiresome—so tiresome, in fact, that I won’t bother addressing the issue. (It’s not that I’m an avid supporter, I just get sick of shit real fast.)
What I find infinitely more fascinating, from an “only in America” standpoint, is the snerky little shuffle Pat Robertson did in endorsing Giuliani. Transparent or what? The Born-agains, I strongly suspect, are in a foaming sweat over Romney’s success and will do anything to keep his Mormon ass out of office. Buggers will never admit it publicly, but they must certainly view the Latter Day Saints as an insidious, heretically unbiblical cult.
Now that’s my political cuppa!
And in the UK, the king isn’t regarded as spine- or ball less, so I like to believe the US would get over it in time.
Um…Nathalie, do you mean Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh? There is currently no king.
(Sorry, don’t mean to hijack, but this confused me.)
I think it’s really time to stop judging politicians on the basis of their sexual preferences. A man or woman can be brilliant, hard-minded, and just what the country needs—but be a total fruitloop about their mating practices. Presidents who make poor decisions about their sex lives is NOT a new thing! Not many hold President Kennedy’s sleaze-ball ways against him when judging the power of his presidency. So, if Hillary wants to sleep with an untrustworthy sexual idiot, well, that’s her business. Judge her on her political record, her speeches—her books for goodness sake!—but remember all of us can get a bit goofy when it comes to matters of the heart. As long as it’s not illegal, let it be!
Oh, and one more thing: if Obama or Clinton do get the Democratic nomination, be sure and take a close look at their RUNNING PARTNERS! I think we have enough crazy nutballs in the States still, there’s a good chance either one might be the target of assassination attempts.
Maybe Oprah Winfrey could be persuaded to run?
Sally said:
My mother (a staunch feminist) is just a little older than the baby boomer generation and felt, during Hillary’s time as First Lady, that Hillary encapsulated the navel-gazing tendencies of baby boomers. She was not good at acknowledging the struggles of professional women who had come before her, and a lot of people really resented that.
Along these lines, Andrew Sullivan recently wrote an article for The Atlantic on how differently the Baby Boomers and younger generations view politics and the upcoming elections, called “Goodbye To All That.”
Girl get out of my head or pay rent…
One of the reasons I don’t like Hillary because she is an elitist snob.
Her brand of feminism is based upon emulating and accessing white male privilege to the exclusion of others… it has little if anything to do with the empowerment of women… unless of course you are wealthy and white.
But mainly my dislike is simply because I don’t find her likeable in the least.
I don’t think that I am alone in that sentiment nor do I think that it has anything to do with gender I think its just her personality.
I don’t like her politically because I don’t think she believes in anything personally… I think she just wants to be in charge.
I think that if she believed it would be better for her politically she would be in lock step with Bush… hence her stance on the war, flipping opinion as the wind blows.
For example… I think that she doesn’t really care if socialized medicine is good or bad for the country, I think that her focus is to be able to change something big and memorable.
But what I really don’t like is the way he is very high handed in opinion but has absolutely no interest in taking personal responsibility… she is all spin.
And I don’t want someone like that as a leader ~W
If you’re looking for a conservative person to give you some insight, I would say that Hillary leaves a bad taste in my mouth because she is part of the Clinton ‘team.’ And that’s what it is from my perspective, this aggressive husband/wife team that will say or do anything to get back into power. She has changed her tune since the 90s to try to make her appear more centrist, but she isn’t underneath it all. And as a conservative, I find that really scary.
I’m someone who never liked Bill, so there is *no* way you can get me to like her.
I hope that sheds some light on someone from the ‘other side.’
I have to say, that I find Hillary not progressive enough, so even if she was liked, I wouldn’t be thrilled to vote for her. I also think she panders to the right too much, and that annoys me. I like Edwards and Obama, but, considering the world today, the US needs a leader with a lot more experience than they have. So, to me, Biden is the best choice, at least, on paper.
But yes, I also dread what may happen if she is the Dem’s candidate. I think, the hate factor, just may make me sick. I cannot imagine how bad that is going to look to other nations. If things get as bad as I am sure they would, it will make international news. As an American living OS, I get enough shit, to not have that heaped on my head too.
I doubt it will happen though..I actually hope it doesn’t. Mainly because, the right hates her so much, she won’t be able to get a damn thing done if elected. Not that she would, because, so many moderate Republicans, who would vote Dem, per their disgust over Bush and how sucky all their own candidates are, wouldn’t do that, and Conservative Dem’s just may cross over and vote for whomever is running against her, just on principal. (now that, was one hell of a run on sentence!)
RE: Shirly Chisholm….I LOVED HER! I almost cried when I learned she had passed on…she was so fab!
I am sending my sister over here…she sure had some things to say to me, about a town hall she saw with John McCain, and his response, or lack thereof, when a woman asked him how, they could, “take the bitch out”, referring to HC. The Oregonian ran an OP-ED bit about that…but I’ll let her bitch about that.
I claim it shows irrational behavior. An irrational person has a disadvantage when dealing with delicate matters such as foreign policy. A “my way or the highway” attitude will not help our country in the long run.
Treating people like sh*t is an indicator of personal control. Ms. Clinton showed little emotional control in that situation. Why? IMO it was because my colleague was a “little person.” He held no value to her agenda therefore his livelihood was of no importance to her. Her vitriol flowed outward and attacked a person I consider a friend.
If that is how she treated just one voter she came in contact with, how do you think she feels about the rest of us?
Thanks Alice for putting it so nicely.
My guess is that some people resort to “because she’s a bitch” because when they come up with a specific reason why they dislike her (the staying with a serial philanderer or because she treated someone badly – for example), people who like Hillary crap all over the reason. Look no further than this thread to see it in action. When pressed for a reason as to why people dislike Hillary, people have responded with reasons, only to be told that their reasons are petty. I’m guessing that for some people, it is much easier to say “she’s a bitch” than be belittled for your feelings.
I have all but decided that I will not be casting a vote for president this year. The entire crew is a bunch of jokers. I’m casting my lot with the Ralph Wiggum ‘08 crowd.
“When pressed for a reason as to why people dislike Hillary, people have responded with reasons, only to be told that their reasons are petty. I’m guessing that for some people, it is much easier to say “she’s a bitch†than be belittled for your feelings.”
Did anyone really say that their reasons were petty? I thought this was a rather, well, reasonable discussion in light of how explosive politics usually are. People said they disagreed or argued with other posters, but I didn’t see anyone belittled for their feelings or for their position. Most of the time around here, we agree to disagree, and do that disagreeing with vehement loudness and frequent (and OMG long comments) sometimes, but I don’t often see belittling or accusations of pettiness, unless we’re beset by trolls.
Sorry for the long comment, but I have a tendency to be flippant, and I’m trying not to be (sort of).
â€I claim it shows irrational behavior. An irrational person has a disadvantage when dealing with delicate matters such as foreign policy. A “my way or the highway†attitude will not help our country in the long run.â€
I agree it would be ideal to have someone who is consistently civil and wise, but I don’t think there is a cause and effect relationship between rude manners and bad leadership. I also have strong doubts about whether you could seriously, in the political climate of at least the last 50 years, get anywhere close to the top without trampling on “little people†regularly. Would anyone put up with the process of becoming president without at least a touch of megalomania with a side of egocentrism?
As a Canadian, I have to say, the “my way or the highway†attitude is pretty common in the way assorted American governments have treated Canada (I can’t really speak for other countries), many led by presidents who are greatly respected. I don’t have any intention to go down a blame-America road; my point is this: America’s power is so great that, as long as the person in charge has a brain and/or is not overly corrupt (I’ll allow a small amount of corruption as being probably not too damaging, and let’s be realistic about politicians), the arrogance is not going to hurt your interests in the long run. If anything, as a Canadian, I think a president who cared too much about what the rest of the world thought would hurt your interests.
Sometimes, interests simply conflict. Then what? Your president has to make the decision of who to piss off. He can take the high road of being strictly fair according to agreements made, or he can be “irrational,†and rude and just go for what he wants, strictly fair or not. Had any of your presidents taken the high road (for example, during the softwood lumber dispute) with a stance like “You know, you’re right, those tariffs were out of line. I’ll get right on fixing that,†he would have been the target of contempt and loathing for being wishy-washy or being more concerned about being a friend to the world, rather than looking after the economic interests of Americans (and rightly so). So no, I don’t think that consistent civility is a necessary tool in the leadership toolkit. I think a skilled politician can create the appearance of it (to protect our sensibilities), but I don’t think a real statesman can make it a priority.
Aside from whatever disagreements people may have with her ideology, I think Hillary’s problem is that she isn’t as good at maintaining a façade; she should maybe show her contempt like a good ol’ boy does, by giving demeaning nicknames. Hillary Clinton is a smart woman, which is a key asset. Hypocritical marriage, compromised ideals, looking down on lesser mortals – all that just makes her seem like she’s a bit overqualified for a leadership candidate.
I have to say that, regardless of how I feel about Hillary, I’m SO THRILLED that not only are a woman and an African-American in a serious race for the White House… But it feels entirely normal!!! It’s not hopeless or a long shot or even surreal. It just feels like a normal presidential campaign. Love it!
To me, when someone replies to your reason with a response that is dripping with sarcasm, it is in an attempt to belittle your opinion.
Maybe I’m ascribing an illegitimate intent to some of the responses on here. This is the interweb after all and we lose many social cues that I would pick up on in person. If I gave the impression that I thought people were being petty, please be assured that is not the case. I just think it might be easier to say “she’s a bitch” than be made to feel that your opinion is invalid.
I think part of the problem is that for someone that supports candidate X, any criticism of candidate X may not be valid to them, KWIM? I think a larger part of the problem is that for some people “I don’t like them” isn’t a valid response when asked why you wouldn’t vote for someone. Some people can easily look at someone’s job performance as the sole deciding factor when electing a person, while others (myself included sometimes) have a harder time separating the person from their achievements.
So I’m rambling now and none of this makes sense because I seriously lack that ability to express myself with words, but my main point is that I DON’T think the SB are petty, so please don’t beat me with sticks now.
No worries. I don’t have a stick. Well, I do, but I keep it- oh never mind.
I do know what you mean about the degree of hostility that can be created in political discussion, especially now that there has been a decided pressure from the current administration to declare that you are either on board 100% with the policies of that administration or you are a traitor/unpatriotic/pro-terrorism/evil/smelly
/bad/stupid/unAmerican, etc. The “All or Nothing” attitude bothers me on so many levels, but especially when it is applied to candidates for president.
Thus the idea that dismissing a candidate because you don’t like his/her personality seems unfounded to me – it’s not about whether you want to have a beer with that person. “She’s a bitch,” doesn’t address any mention of qualifications.
I’m sorry to say, but I have no idea what candidate to vote for.
What I do know, is I will probably NOT be voting for Clinton, barring something spectacular on her part. She is the type of candidate I despise; a political chameleon who mouths whatever she thinks the people want to hear at the moment.
Also, I think Jessica brought up a good point a long time ago. Bill was voted into the whitehouse, not Hillary, and for her to excercise political power at that time did not sit well with me. No, I don’t expect a mamby-pamby spouse, but their participation in the country’s politics SHOULD be limited.
The overstepping of that boundary, by any family member, is something that has gone horribly wrong in this country. On a local politics level, if a mayor padded his office with entirely friends and family, the local papers and citizens would go into an uproar, especially over the family bit.
Now we are seeing this trend in the whitehouse, and it needs to be stopped. NOW. Voters across the country have elected individuals they send to Washington to represent their interests. These should not be tossed aside in favor of an heirarchy.
The presidency of the USA is NOT like a family business. Or, should I say it SHOULD NOT be like a family business. Mom, Dad, sisters and brothers should not be calling some of the shots.
Hence, for me, both the Bushes and the Clintons need to go. I’m tired of getting the whole clan when voting. And with Hillary, I’ll get Bill.
Yeah, this post was not eloquent, but politics touches a nerve with me that steals my words.
Oh, and my word to submit is plan76, how fitting.
I’m not picking on you, but I do disagree. IMO, being President is the most visible representation of the “good” that America has to offer. He or she is the face of our country. Bad manners exhibited by a potential or existing President is simply a handicap that can and should be avoided by not voting for them and/or by voting for a person that exudes more grace and dignity. The job is almost 24/7. The bearer of it must be able to maintain at minimum an act of civility because of the scrutiny and the workload.
Whether or not they stepped on “little” people to get there was not my sole reason for thinking Hillary unsuitable. It was just one of them.
As far as prior leaders go, having Bill near the White House again could be an asset in Hillary’s favor. A friend of mine noted that as President, he was a diligent advocate for both domestic and foreign policy, could correct his advisers when they were wrong, woke early to wade through briefs, news, trend reports and other information sources to keep him informed on the influences that would affect this country, AND he was often referred to as an “amicable man” well liked by both his peers and underlings. Heck, just look at how loved he was by his interns….oh, my bad.
But, Bill will not be President again, and, honestly, I do think Hillary’s a bitch.
Honestly, I’d have less of a problem having Bill along if next year we’re gearing up to swear in another President Clinton. Bill is intelligent and a half-decent foreign policy expert, and having that kind of expertise in your corner—no matter what your personal relationship to it—has to have some value.
I think people hate Hillary because for twenty-odd years they’ve been *told* to hate Hillary. Rush foams at the mouth whenever her name comes up, as do his buddies Ann Coulter, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the parade of cable-tv/hate-radio wanks that scream across the airwaves on a daily basis. Beat a drum long enough and enough people will have heard it enough to internalize it.
I am finding interesting that most of the reasons for folks’ dislike of her here are reasons that are very much symptomatic of the current administration—arrogance, absolutism, nepotism/cronyism, riding on the coat-tails of one’s family name.
This time around, I’m a yellow-dog Democratic vote. If she wins the nomination, I will gladly vote for her (if only to watch wingnut heads explode when she gets her hands on all that Executive branch power that dubya worked so hard to steal), even though she’s not my first or second choice (she’s not progressive enough).
One of the things to remember here is that you’re not just voting for a person – you’re voting for a party. As you can see from politics in the past six years, most votes have been right along party lines. More important than the face on the ticket, American voters need to understand the philosophies that drive their political parties *in their current state.*
As for me, thanks to my kids’ dental work, I’m a single-issue voter this year. I don’t care if you eat babies and crush helpless peasants in the cleavage of your (wo)man-titties—if you have a viable plan for affordable universal health care, you have my support.
But the man-titty helps, too. Hey, SBs – any chance on a special political sidebar – rate your candidate and caucus for most electable man-titty?
As far as prior leaders go, having Bill near the White House again could be an asset in Hillary’s favor. A friend of mine noted that as President, he was a diligent advocate for both domestic and foreign policy, could correct his advisers when they were wrong, woke early to wade through briefs, news, trend reports and other information sources to keep him informed on the influences that would affect this country, AND he was often referred to as an “amicable man†well liked by both his peers and underlings.”
I agree with you on this, actually, but two things stand out for me. One is that these virtues didn’t save him from being very widely reviled for actions that (while obviously reprehensible) didn’t stop him from making good decisions. The second is that, yes, he’s lucky to have a certain magic, or charisma, to go with his brilliant mind, but not every capable person does.
I won’t claim that I’ve never felt revulsion towards a political candidate (or artist, for that matter) because of some non-work-related behaviour. Certainly, my feelings towards a person’s accomplishments have been coloured by my knowledge of their unrelated sins.
My issue with focusing on personality is that I think if you look closely enough at anyone, you’re doomed to disappointment. Too many people will feel disillusioned, saying, “they’re all scum, I can’t/won’t vote for any of them.” At the risk of sounding melodramatic, this is dangerous for democracy. When you think they’re crap on a personal level, it’s even more important to look past that to evaluate their ideology and abilities.
I definitely do not feel an appearance of friendliness is an adequate substitute for intellect. A Bill Clinton may have the whole package (brains, charm), but some people only have the brains (Hillary) and some only have the charm (certain others in politics). I think it’s not safe to assume that a civil demeanor guarantees moral and wise actions in office.
Along the lines of a fellow Canadian’s earlier remark, at the very least, we have the important responsibility to vote for the one we think will do the least damage.
Hey, SBs – any chance on a special political sidebar – rate your candidate and caucus for most electable man-titty?
Wait, does that mean I’d have to post pictures of all the candidates with their shirts off?
Bad leadership? No. Ineffective leadership? I think so.
IMHO, politics is about all parties walking away from the table satisfied. Not that they got everything they wanted but that an amicable solution where all parties were taken into account was developed. Master statesmen have their opponent walking away thinking that everything decided on was their idea.
Does it often happen that way? Nope, hardly ever. Does that mean I should settle for someone who’s going to stomp their foot and throw a temper tantrum? I don’t think so.
See, you practically said it yourself. If a candidate (not just Hillary) cannot maintain at least the facade of manners and control when dealing with a “regular” person, what will happen should they actually come face to face with Kim Jong Il (for the most out-there possibility I can think of right now)?
My guess is that some people resort to “because she’s a bitch†because when they come up with a specific reason why they dislike her (the staying with a serial philanderer or because she treated someone badly – for example), people who like Hillary crap all over the reason
That’s true, I suppose, but I was reading “dislike” as “find her unsuitable for politics/the presidency.” Part of my whole argument is that her marital choices should have *nothing* to do with politics. Period. Or, if they do, then the people who offer those reasons for not voting for her should bloody well better not have voted for Bill Clinton or, assuming they were alive, JFK.
How she treated someone…that I could see as having a legitimate impact on your voting choices. Because it may indicate how a candidate will treat the people s/he needs to work with.
Now, if we’re just talking about straight-up feelings, then, yeah. Personal life choices are a perfectly valid reason to dislike someone, I suppose. I’m just sick of Hillary’s—or any candidate’s—personal choices having any bearing on their politics. Hate her personally for it, but don’t let it bleed over into your evaluation of her politics. Or, if you do, make sure that you’re consistent in those feelings.
Am I making sense? I really think she’s been held to a higher standard than most male candidates, and I hate that. I don’t care how people feel, as long as they’re consistent with male and female politicians.
I am a NYer who doesn’t understand what Hillary Clinton has done to give her the rep of being such a “good” Senator. I hear this repeated endlessly. Actually, she stays clear of Ny and all our local communities – no matter what crisis or problems we are having. This is not true of Chuck Schumer (our other Senator) who is very responsive, pro active and visible.
I spent the 90’s defending her and her husband and I have to say I am just tired of the both of them. He is the better actor and charmer of the two and hence he is better liked. I know this is a quality that is thought to be essential for political success. But I cannot believe a word either of them say. Bill says it in a more sincere and convincing way. Hillary is stiff and appears inauthentic. Have you heard her laugh? She reminds me of Nixon in that way. The more she attempts to appear “human” and warm – the more she comes across as empty, cold and controlled. They both will say and do anything to win and attain power.
I don’t think my dislike of her has anything to do with her being female. But as a Feminist, I don’t understand how she can justify her role in enabling her husband’s taking advantage of womenwho did not have her privilage, power and status. I don’t think she really believes in anything. Case in point – as President her husband signed the “Defense Of Marriage Act” a piece of anti Gay legislation that they both defend to this day. Hypocrisy doesn’t explain this kind of cynicism. I am going to vote for Obama or Edwards.
Hi, Sarah’s Hoff-loving Hubby here. I normally don’t comment here, but I want to address a few things. First, a disclaimer. I am a Democrat, I like Hillary just fine, and at this time I would vote for Edwards in a primary but would happily vote for Edwards, Obama or H. Clinton in the general. I am trying to be non-partisan here, but I will be happy if I sound only slightly partisan.
1) I do think that the vehement Hillary-hatred was spawned by the conservative talk radio/media in the early days of the Bill Clinton administration. That said, her personality as shown in public does nothing to refute that.
2) The idea that she wielded undeserved power as first lady is historically inaccurate. To the extent that she did wield actual power (i.e. chairing the healthcare task force), she only did so because she was appointed by Bill who, as president, is allowed to appoint anyone he wants to any one of thousands of positions. JFK appointed his brother Bobby, who had never held elective office, to be Attorney General. He later was elected to the Senate and ran for President before being shot and killed. President Bush (and everyone before him, D or R) have appointed friends, relatives and cronies with no elective experience to offices where they wield power. Should Hillary have been disqualified from this solely because she was the President’s wife?
3) Since she was elected to the Senate, Hillary’s behavior as a legislator has belied the public perception of her. By many accounts, both D and R, she has been a diligent, hard-working, behind-the-scenes dealmaker (ironically, a reason many liberal Democrats who once revered her don’t like her anymore).
4) The main reason I like Hillary is actually the reason may don’t: because she’s a Bitch. She fights hard, she fights dirty, and she fights to the death. We need more Democrats like that.
“If a candidate (not just Hillary) cannot maintain at least the facade of manners and control when dealing with a “regular†person, what will happen should they actually come face to face with Kim Jong Il?”
Ah! That is exactly what I think about civility in rulers! We are dealing with sensitive issues and even more sensitive foreign relations. Grace and manners can go a long way.
(I think that’s a pretty good rule for life, but it’s also important in politics.)
Grace and
manners can go a long way.
Being too nice and graceful is exactly why tyrants such as Robert Mugabe and his cronies have been allowed to rape their countries, and commit some truly heinous crimes, without intervention for years.
There is no place for nice in politics, and being charmning isn’t the same as being nice.
If I want nice, I’ll go and have tea with my mum. As far as politics goes, I’ll take a hard-ass anyday over somebody who is able to lick arse like a good ‘un.
I really think she’s been held to a higher standard than most male candidates, and I hate that. I don’t care how people feel, as long as they’re consistent with male and female politicians.
Totally agree.