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?
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)?
Point taken, though I was working from the assumption that she did not because she chose not to make civility a priority in that encounter, whereas she would (I assume) choose to with someone with influence.
I don’t actually have anything invested in defending her. I just feel that a lot of the rhetoric in politics about people being cold or warm or faithful spouses or staying married for calculating reasons or what-have-you is just distracting us from the things that really matter. We want to feel we can trust our intuition about a person, but I think history shows us that we can’t, actually, and that our role in a democracy requires us to work a little harder – to really listen to what candidates say. To demand that they say more than sound bites. To investigate what choices they’ve made if they’ve held elected office. To find out who their big donors are. Etc. A person who says “I oppose them because they signed this horrible legislation” – more power to you. Really. People like you should get an extra vote. “He’s boring” or “She’s cold” – that makes me worry.
Here’a a question: Is she a leader? Can she lead people regardless of their personal feelings for her? I don’t necessarily see her as an inspiring person and, frankly, I don’t want to live through four more years of vicious divide in this country. I’m not saying another president would make that disappear, but there is ZERO chance of that happening with Hillary. Zero. Are republican congressmen going to get behind a big plan of hers if it puts them in danger of being “Pro-Hillary”?
I’m not saying the next president has to be “nice.” I’m saying there has to be some chance of the person rising above the fray to LEAD this country. Even if Hillary wanted to rise above it (and i’m not sure she does), there are too many factions who would wouldn’t let that happen.
She fights hard, she fights dirty, and she fights to the death. We need more Democrats like that.
I have to say that I find it very fascinating to see someone that seems to identify themselves as a Democrat say that. It seems to me that those traits could all be applied to Karl Rove and all I’ve heard from the left was how he was the spawn of Satan. Is it ok for a politician (or adviser or whatever) to be those things as long as they are on your side? Is it preferable that someone on your (and I’m referring to the general “you” now after having quoted SB hubs – this isn’t directed at him – just some inspired musings)has those qualities?
FTR, I tend to skew third party. I have major problems with the Dems and the Repubs and have NO idea who I will vote for in Nov. I don’t like having to compromise and pick someone who I don’t wholeheartedly support, but I may have to if the alternative is some wackjob. Ugh. I find myself growing more and more disenchanted by the day.
My son points out that I’m for Hillary for all the wrong reasons. And he’s probably right. Her story is a version of the story of my baby boom generation: ambition, but the social pressure to put it all to the use of one’s husband, the logical realization that going it alone wouldn’t work anyway, the betrayals by same husband, sticking by him anyway, and always, being disliked for wanting to be somebody in one’s own right. And then being called a lesbian.
I want Hillary to be president because when we were both young, women did not stand a chance at being president. Full stop. It was a different world. Since then there have been a pitiful few nationally successful female American politicians, and most of the well known ones gave up on politics or are dead. Or both. To every person saying she could have done this on her own, I say, not so. Maybe today, starting from scratch at college, she could. But she can’t start over, can she?
So she did the next best thing. She followed the program that says if you do your societal wifely job, then eventually you get your turn. But now people say, no, you’re just a woman, you do not deserve a turn and you are worthless because you did nothing on your own. It’s infuriating that so many people say that she got this far because of Bill. And that because she is a wife, she does not know anything and has not done anything and has no merit of her own. To me, this exposes the utter hypocrisy of our conventional social system. It reveals how demeaning and patronizing we still are about the worth of women and of women’s work. Because Bill wouldn’t have gotten what he did or where he did without Hillary. They are a team.
But as my son says, these are not good reasons to elect Hillary. And he is right. The reasons to elect her are:
1) She knows the job
2) She knows the people
3) She’s tough
4) She’s reasonably liberal in that she is pro woman, pro environment
5) She’s smart
6) She’s not likely to arrest me for exercising my First Amendment rights
7) She would close Guantanamo. I hope.
I don’t believe that she will be elected. Al Gore, who would have made a very hard-working, intelligent president, was not elected because he was seen as “too intellectual.” And that was enough to damn him. (Or, was he?) So I don’t expect that Hillary, with her legions of haters, will make it. In fact, I am waiting for her enemies to release details of Bill’s latest sexual imbroglio (and I am sure there is one) at a key moment before voters go to the polls.
If we define bitch as “ambitious woman,” then Hillary is a bitch. But then so is every woman who yearns to do or be something more than a sex object, an abuse object, and a second-class citizen.
Whew! Glad to have gotten that one off my chest. Thanks again for a forum where we can talk as women.
1) “bitchery” is an art form, something to be cultivated. Not to be confused with ‘shrew’ – Margaret Thatcher was one, and a cool customer at that. Hillary is more likely just a shrew. sorry.
2) we need a female president, if only to shatter once and for all, that glass ceiling.
3) pls remember, hilary is a 20th century fox – meaning she only knows how to get power the old fashioned way – by riding her man’s coattails. but she’s taking that power as one for the team…so that the 21st century foxes will only be measured by own achievements.
4) believe this – there are enough chauvinists, bigots and shitheads out there to vote to keep the presidency male. it won’t be because she’s a bitch, my friends, but misogny so deeply ingrained, we’re inured to it. tighten those thongs, girls, and git out the vote.
5) before you vote for hillary, just remember, she and billy boy sold their souls in the backroom a long time ago – we just don’t know who was buying. we will be getting what they paid for. i still haven’t forgiven bill for making blow jobs a family conversational subject at the dinner table. schumer is light years better as the new york senator that hillary. she’s a hard working woman. but we know it’s been mostly self-serving.
6) but i still think we need a woman president. now. maybe, though, our best bet would be Condoleeza Rice. She’s a woman, she’s brilliant, she’s very hardworking, she’s got no baggage bill-wise, and she’s got class. she’s definitely not a shrew.
we all just have to decide what we really want.
She’s a woman, she’s brilliant, she’s very hardworking, she’s got no baggage bill-wise, and she’s got class. she’s definitely not a shrew.
I don’t know. I’d say accidentally calling Bush “my husband” (even though she’s never, ever been married) is some serious man-baggage. Also it makes me giggle like a mofo.
Why is it the only conservatives anyone defending Hillary refer to are wingnuts like Rush and Coulter?
I hate both of them. I also hate Hillary.
The bizarre thing is that the second I identify myself as someone who doesn’t trust Hillary and would never vote for her, immediate assumptions are made about who I must be.
I voted for a liberal black man to replace Romney in my state. I have worked on the campaigns of men, women, liberals, conservatives, and moderates of no left or right distinction.
I prefer to actually think about the individual. And honestly… dodging the character stuff is just naive. JFK is so OFTEN cited, yet nobody talks about how easy he was to blackmail. How much covering up is STILL the subject of speculation. And by the way they shot him. Which they? Does it matter? His secrets and skeletons made him vulnerable. And that was THEN.
Plus I DO count character. Not so much the “moral value” crap but actual honesty. My big dilemna in this upcoming election is finding a candidate who has not lied outright, repeatedly, in front of cameras. Like… dude, it’s on B-Roll, so you’re busted.
At this point it’s a choice between white liars and habitual liars. Not a thrilling prospect.
I may write in my dad.
I want to vote for a leader who will actually fight for economic justice and social equality. Not just talk about it when it is convenient.
In Ny , we have a housing crisis that needs leadership and action. Because people in affected communities took action – various elected officals stepped forward and went to the federal gov’t. Hillary wasn’t one of them. She has remained silent. She didn’t fight! She wasn’t tough! Our other Senator from NY was a leader.
The clintons talk a liberal line when they want to lure the traditional base during elections. When it is time to do something concrete, they maintain the status quo. They are not progressives.
During the Clinton administration, he succeeded by coopting all the Republican issues. He was more conservative than they were. Who else could have abolished welfare with so little oppostion? When the Clintons are at their best – their rhetoric is dazzling. I just don’t think there is anything real behind it. I wish I could be happy and excited about the possibility of a woman winning the presidency. I will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination, of course. I’m just tired of settling for the same old politics as usual.
If she wins the nomination – I will vote for her of course.
I agree that Hillary has not been a particularly strong politician for NY. Her flip-flopping drives me nuts.
It’s symptomatic of what drives me insane about the Democratic party today. It’s become such a wishy washy party. The Republicans don’t hesitate to present themselves as the party of family values and patriotism. The Dems have an opportunity to get a lot of centrist voters who are perhaps not comfortable with the war or with the increasing influence of the religious right on the Republican party. But they never seem to present themselves as a strong, united alternative. What is it? They don’t want to seem too mean? Too liberal? Unpatriotic? I don’t know why they can’t set themselves up as the party for most Americans, concerned with real American concerns. Instead we get wishy washy GOP lite, trying to please everybody and pleasing no one. Am I making any sense? 🙂
Yes, you’re making sense. It’s the difference (as in baseball or chess) between a good offensive game or merely a good defensive game. You can’t win with only a defense.
It’s going to be very interesting to see who the Democratic party puts up for Vice President. A heartbeat away, and all that.
Devon, you make a lot of sense. To me, so take that with a grain of salt 🙂
In the last election I felt like the Democrats sole position was been “Republicans suck, their ideas suck, their Moms suck. I feel like they didn’t present any alternative ideas. Just “vote for us because we aren’t them.”
Whew. That was extensive.
This is exactly what I meant. The intense, vituperative, gender-specific hatred of Hillary staggers me. And when people call her a bitch, or say she’s unlikable or unfriendly, I think of John McCain, who I rather like for a number of reasons. He’s a crotchety old bastard (and I think he, like John Murtha, has earned the right to be one) but no one thinks that’s a bad thing. I don’t think Arizonans (Arizonians? Arizonites?) consider having a beer with McCain before they vote for him, they consider what he can do for them and his service to the country and his high ideals. (It makes me sad that campaigning for president has lowered those, but that’s politics.)
But when it comes to Hillary (or Martha Stewart, or any other prominent, powerful woman) the issue becomes whether or not she’s likable, or motherly (remember Pelosi surrounded by ankle-biters when she was sworn in as Speaker?), or a cookie-baking, apron-wearing, DARE-starting, happy homemaker who just smiles at her husband and … ok, stop.
I don’t hold Hillary’s riding on Bill’s coattails any more than I held John Kerry’s using his wife’s ketchup fortune to run for office against him. Plenty of men have used their wife’s social positions; wealth; or willingness to stay home, create, and maintain that wholesome family image as a stepping stone to public office in American history, or the connections of family members (Kennedy, Roosevelt, Adams…).
God, where was I? Oh, Victoria, I liked your point about leading. I too have reservations that Hillary could engender any sort of coalition behind her. It would be incredibly difficult to pass legislation with her as the face of the Democratic party because there are still frothing maniacs like Sam Brownback and John Cornyn and the right honorable David Vitter in Congress.
As an aside, I would love to see the crotchety old man ticket of John McCain and Chuck Hagel run. If they could refrain from making laws regarding women’s health or gay rights for four years, I bet they could fix the war and debt and shit like that.
Chuck Hagel. Is. So. Hawt.
And I do think there are successful women who are totally bitchy and very likeable at the same time. Helen Thomas comes to mind. I lurve her.
Chuck Hagel – I would so vote for him.
Personally, I can’t stand her because she strikes me as exactly the sort of issues-waffling, eye-on-the-polls, infighting, slimy, do-anything-say-anything-to-stay-in-power jerk that makes so many of her male counterparts despicable.
In short, I loathe her because of her character, not because of sex.
I used to be wary of Obama’s lack of experience, but now I’m beginning to see that it may be the only thing preventing him from being exactly the sort of war-hardened, favors-beholden weather vanes that the rest of them seem to be.
It seems to me that those traits could all be applied to Karl Rove and all I’ve heard from the left was how he was the spawn of Satan. Is it ok for a politician (or adviser or whatever) to be those things as long as they are on your side? Is it preferable that someone on your side has those qualities?
I am probably in the minority on this, but right now, yes, it is OK for a politician to be those things if they are on my side. I probably should clarify one thing, thought, that when I say “fights dirty,” I don’t mean illegally. There is a distinction between, say, the Willie Horton ad and the Watergate break-in (or illegally releasing the name of a covert CIA operative, in Rove’s case).
Would I like to move away from the partisan warfare that our politics has become? Sure. But that isn’t going to happen unless both sides simultaneously agree to abandon those types of electoral strategies. So, given the rules of the game, I would rather have someone who maximizes every advantage under those rules in which to win. Most Democrats dislike Rove because we wish we had one like him.
I dunno, Gobo. that’s the attitude that keeps us divided. If my people do it, it’s okay. But if anyone else does it…Wasn’t there some doubt about the whole Rove thing? Didn’t Scooter Libby go on trial for that fiasco? Both sides are so desperate to paint the other as the illegitimate-homsexually-conceived-child-of-Satan that we waste millions on stupid “special investigators” and worthless trials.
After the caucus, I’m thinking that Edwards is the most electable Dem. The other side is still up for grabs.
because Hillary is a shark in the water. You don’t see her except small signs and disturbances in the water and then the almighty fin pops up and the jaws theme comes on and all anyone can do is run for cover or be eaten alive. Only, she not just a shark in the water, but a snake in the grass as well, which means she doesn’t just get you while you’re swimming frantically away from her jaws of death, but she’s hiding out on shore and playing small and insignificant, safe for all, until she bites you in the ass.
FFS. Clinton didn’t make this country “partisan.” The right, religious and otherwise, made this country violently and sickeningly partisan by creating their juggernaut of hatred, financial contribution, and skullduggery—from Rush Limbaugh to Bill O’Reilly to Rupert Murdoch.
There’s hatred for Hillary because of one thing: she’s not being the Quiet Little Woman. (Her health-care plan might have worked if the Republicans hadn’t gotten hold of it and used it to browbeat the public with fear like a dog uses a chew toy.) I think it’s true what someone mentioned above—there is more sexism than racism going on in America, though both are pretty rampant. The “trouble” with Hillary is the “trouble” with any powerful woman in Western history—if she’s not barefoot and preggers, or lacquered and smiling behind some man, she’s a Threat and we must Trash Her Roundly. Content-free vilification of Hillary (like the comment just above mine) just underscores how knee-jerk and emotional this reaction is.
My only problem with Hillary is a policy problem, i.e., her support for the Iraq War and her habit of voting in favor of entrenched money interests. I don’t know if someone so steeped in Washington DC’s toxic culture can provide an alternative, either, which is part of the platform she’s running on.
But I won’t cry if she gets the nomination. It’s about goddamn time we got a mother in the White House.
Nothing wrong with being a bitch. Doesn’t mean I want one running the country for me. Doesn’t mean I trust her to make good decisions.
I think it’s way too simplistic for you to say “Oh people don’t like Hillary because she’s a bitch!” I think the quick response may be that but dig a little deeper and you’ll find people dislike her, or just don’t feel like voting for her, for other reasons. Ones that aren’t couched in sexist rhetoric.
I don’t want a woman in the White House just because she has a vagina. I want her in there because she would be damn good at it. I don’t think Hillary has those qualifications. In fact I think NO ONE running has it. But I’m tainted by the bitter media and being in the military for awhile. None of those people will do the military any good. And without a military we’re just a bunch of fat sitting ducks.
Funny… my word is progress64.
I just want to say “thank you” for providing this forum. I enjoyed voicing my opinions & reading everyone else’s, & appreciated that it didn’t become an unpleasant name calling experience. Politics can be fun!
Okay, just a quick note, although I know that this topic is fading-
I’m alarmed at how many people who said they’d vote for Hillary because “we need a woman president” or whatever…
Um, isn’t voting for someone because they’re a girl similar to voting for them because they’re a boy? Not quite the same, but similar?
I think it’s way better to just make gender a non-issue than to try to stick it to the right wing or showcase the power of one gender or anything like that.
I can think of (and posted some above) about a million reasons NOT to vote for Hillary. Her sex is just one.
Oops. Big mistake there.
I can think of (and posted some above) about a million reasons NOT to vote for Hillary. *Her sex is just one reason to vote for her.*
Didn’t mean to say her sex is a reason not to vote for her.
It’s funny, this election seems to be the bias driven election.
Don’t vote for Obama, he’s black and has a Muslim sounding name.
Don’t vote for Hillary, she’s a woman and her hormones will run the country.
Don’t vote for Romney, he’s a Mormon and those people are nuts, might start marrying every woman he sees.
Don’t vote for Huckabee, he’s a right wing religious nut and will impose his religion on all of us.
Don’t vote for Rudy, he’s a crazy Italian and must be in with the mafia.
Don’t vote for… maybe the GOOD thing about all this is it will make some of our dumber citizens realize how limited your choices can get if you start applying stupid criteria like race, gender, religion and nationality to your list of demands.
Prolly not, though.
To be fair, it isn’t ‘people’ who hate Hillary, it’s Americans. Everyone I’ve spoken to about it in Ireland seem to think Hillary would be the best thing that could happen to America right now.
If Obama gets the nomination, does he really have the experience to go head-to-head with established Republicans who – despite being good at very little else imo – are damn good debaters?
Yes, Hillary’s a bitch. She will get things done, and she’s a Demcrat. It’s GREAT. From Europe’s POV, unclouded by the non-stop barrage of political messages you guys are probably being assailed with over there, the idea appears to be that there is nothing at all wrong with Hillary.
Please, PLEASE do not let ridiculous assumptions spoil this election! All this oh-no-women-have-hormones-and-act-all-emotional is off the wall ludicrous. If your choice of President affected only your country, no doubt nobody outside of the US would care, but just look at what happened last time!!!
Also, I would just like to state for the record that the President of Ireland is a woman. She is our second female president, and is curently serving out her second term in office.
Nobody cares that she’s a woman; nobody has ever accused her of being hormonal/overly emotional, and her husband is, by and large, ignored because we didn’t elect him and he’s really none of our business. I think he might be an accountant or some such. Nobody accuses him of being spineless.
She is a beautiful orator (unlike certain other presidents I could mention *grumble*) and we like her a lot. Sure, she’s tough; don’t you want that in a leader? I’ve heard her described as a ‘bitch’. Not always negatively. Power to the bitches, I say!
You know.. it’s funny, in a world where pushy bitches hate other pushy bitches even more than the men they endlessly blame for the need for such behaviour, the best that women can do when the leadership of the free world is within reach of a woman, is to try and act like her gender is the issue.
It’s not.
Being the figurehead for the most powerful nation on earth and the issues of economy, foreign poilcy and the BUSINESS of a nation, are.
If she didn’t have a vagina, would you vote for her?
Would you complain if she lost.
I’m all for equality and feminism has no interest in equality because eqaulity means “That’s nice, whatever, just do the job”.
Not much drama in that, is there?
“Bitch” is the feminist equivalent of “nigga”. “We can say it and you can’t, nayh nyah!”
You certainly can, dear. But.. nothing really interesting happens, ya know?
What’s wrong with being a bitch is that it’s annoying, insulting, cheap behaviour and if you can’t get the job done without that crutch, put down the application.
What’s wriong with being a bitch is the whole notion of “You better do what I say and defer to my gender regardless of what a jerk I am” is something that nobody with any dignity will put up with. Or need to. Not even other bitches.
And that’s all for belabouring the obvious 101, today.