Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

I recently did an exercise on Washington Post.com. It’s a blind test that has about 25 questions on a variety of issues. They give you the top 6 contenders for either party’s stance on the issue. You then pick which answer most closely mirrors how you feel and you rank the importance of the question to you personally.

I really, really thought that I was going to get Hillary. Turns out, I identify most strongly with John Edwards, followed by Barak Obama. Who knew?

Either way, you wouldn’t catch me crying if Hillary gets the nod. It’s just that I’m worried that this country might not be ready for a woman in the White House (tragic as that is), and I’m MUCH more concerned with getting a Democrat back in the White House, than getting a woman in.

What’s wrong with being a bitch? Well, I think you hit the nail on the head when the word bitch means someone who is aggressive, states her opinion (and usually has a pretty strong argument) and carves her own place versus accepting the pre-made role that makes people comfortable.

Personally, I like being a bitch. In fact I’d rather be a bitch than a spineless man. Kinda like the guy who’s “running” our country now.

Just for shits and giggles, let’s entertain the idea that the first female President is not Hillary.  Madame President X has a non-politico husband.  Let’s even say he has some successful company and ostensibly hands over the reins to someone else for her term in office.  First Husband X does the “typical role” of First Spouses.  Meet and greet appearances, hostings, etc.

Can you imagine the fracas?  I’m envisioning him being called things like “spineless” “ball-less” etc.  It would be just as vicious as the attacks on Hillary.  It’s kind of sad.

That whole argument against Hillary has never held weight for me.

It’s just that I’m worried that this country might not be ready for a woman in the White House (tragic as that is) ...

What does THAT mean? I’m not taking a swipe at MaryKate, but that’s as backward thinking as “because she’s a bitch.” Both imply there is something inherently wrong and unnatural about a woman being in a significant position of power. We simply must get away from that kind of sabotage, for ourselves and the women around us.

I agree that Hillary Clinton is a walking lightening rod, something that I’ve never understood. Personally, I reserve my vituperation for asshats like Bill Napoli. What bothers me is that her candidacy will be dismissed without consideration for reasons that shouldn’t be issues at all. Tell me she’s divisive, that her policies make no sense, but, please, let’s leave this other shit at the curb.

...this country might not be ready for a woman in the White House (tragic as that is) ...

For me this is a compelling indication of our great need to have a female President.

As for Hillary—I think it’s more than just she wasn’t a lady-like First Lady. She just isn’t ideologically “pure” at all. Not only does she irk the right by being assertive and non-conciliatory but you also find anti-Hillary vitriol on the left: she’s responsible for the death of the health-care bill, she stayed with her cheating husband (not very grrl power), she prioritizes her own political ambitions (dirty!).

She also suffers somewhat in comparison to her husband, with all his charisma. I mean, I like her, but she’s just really not very likable. Then add that she’s obviously not following any party script or agenda but her own and you’re pretty well on the way to understanding why she’s so hated.

Damn, and here I thought Ms. Clinton was well liked in the US. That’ll teach me to pay better attention to CNN Global (hey, since they don’t play ‘this is CNN-James Earl Jones’ bit, I stopped paying attention).

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. But it’s true, she’d waste a huge portion of her time fighting against the current of attacks and stalling tactics because she has ovaries. Nothing would ever get done.

But damn, I’d like you guys to elect her, just to throw a few wrenches into the gears of gender bias!

There are a lot of issues wrapped up in this nugget of why people despise Clinton.

* I understand trying to “take back” the word “bitch,” but, really, I live for the day when a woman speaking her mind isn’t considered a negative trait. Women are still mired in the catch-22 of being viewed as nice but incompetent vs. competent but a bitch.

* I can’t stand Clinton b/c I don’t want the U.S. Presidency to turn into a de facto hereditary office like some third world country. So, no more Clintons, no more Bushes.

* The other reason that Clinton bugs me is that she has the intelligence to have made it this far all on her own—she didn’t need Bill. Instead, she sold out and road his coat-tails, all the while he pretty constantly cheated on her.  Not very Feminist, IMO.

The First Spouse should be doing PR jobs like the Easter egg toss and Christmas tree decorations b/c we don’t vote for them. They’re spouses, not running mates. But I agree, I have a hard time seeing a First Man (?) doing some of these things. Maybe once it happens it will show how really ridiculous a lot of it is.

I dislike Hillary for the same reasons I dislike a lot of male politicians. Meaning, my dislike has nothing to do with her being a woman, and everything to do with her being a politician.

What I resent is this whole “Why won’t some women vote for Hillary?” As if because I’m female I can’t see anything except our mutual possession of a vagina. Oh, glory, glory!!! I judge her on the same merits as other politicians A LOT OF WHOM AREN’T LIKEABLE!!! Is she supposed to be likeable just cuz she’s a mommy? *mutter, mutter*

You have to take a leaf from Canada and vote for the party whose leader you hate the least.

It’s worked for us since 1972.

I’ve been involved in politics for most of my adult life, either as a reporter or a participant.  I wouldn’t vote for Senator Clinton because she’s a woman any more than I would vote against her because she doesn’t have a penis.  Sisterhood is powerful, but I want the best leader, not the best sister.

At this point I like Joe Biden and John Edwards, in that order.  It’s not the anti-Hillary vote, it’s just that I favor those two candidates’ platforms and experience more than I like Senator Clinton’s. 

But in the final analysis, I’m pretty much a yellow-dog Democrat (In the South we used to say “Paint a dog yellow and call it a Democrat, and I’ll vote for it!”).  Senator Clinton certainly reflects my values and hopes for this nation more than anyone currently running from the other party.

IMO this country is more sexist than racist (though there’s lots of both).  Black men got to vote before women of any color.  And we endured a civil war over racial freedom; women have only been warred over as objects of ownership, never for our freedoms as women as a whole—though my history is sort of spotty, maybe it has happened? All the wars/revolutions for women’s freedoms that I know of have been cultural rather than two armies facing off with guns and bombs.

I like HC’s toughness; even so, I believe she’s in the back pocket of corporate America as much as any major party politician in this country.  Getting a Dem is office is important to me, but the middle class will still be screwed.

My biggest criticism of Hilary is in evidence of her poor judgment. Not only did she marry Bill Clinton, but she stayed married to him. How could you trust a woman like that to make good decisions on larger issues?

“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”

This captures something really important, in my opinion. Why do people think that a political candidate has to be perfect? What kind of person would believe that Mr. Family Values has never (not even in college) done something that wasn’t entirely thought-through? Who really believes that if someone smoked a joint in college, or is gay, or had sex with a prostitute actually has any bearing on the candidate’s ability to lead? Who has never noticed that the decisions we make in our private lives are often nothing like the decisions we make in our work lives? Lots of leaders have been useless in private and effective in their leadership role. At the same time, a person who is all virtue may be a useless leader. A whole other set of factors and motives are at play.

At this point, though, we have this pretense that candidates never inhaled and don’t currently drink, and certainly don’t boink people other than their spouses (especially people who are the same sex as themselves). I can’t help but think that rather than a guarantee that you’re getting a leader who will never take a false step, you’ll be getting a guy who’s going to be wasting a lot of energy on making sure his false steps aren’t made public.

For women, we’ve got the additional expectation of a pleasant demeanor. I can’t think of a single powerful woman leader (Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir come to mind, even Kim Campbell for her nanosecond as PM) who got where she got to by playing nice. Playing nice isn’t a winning strategy in politics, for anyone.

I guess what all this rambling is about is that I think the voting public would be better served by a process that was less fixated on serving up a shiny-faced squeaky-clean choirboy (while tearing down anyone who might not fit into that mold) and was more fixated on rational debate about actual policy. (However, I’m a foreigner, so what do I know?)

“I recently did an exercise on Washington Post.com. It’s a blind test that has about 25 questions on a variety of issues. They give you the top 6 contenders for either party’s stance on the issue. You then pick which answer most closely mirrors how you feel and you rank the importance of the question to you personally.”

I did something similar to that during the last Canadian election and had a similar surprise - I was told my stances, which were all over the board, were most like the party Which I Will Never Vote For Come Hell or High Water. Since I’ve just preached rationality, I’m sure you can predict that I just shrugged and said, ‘Oh well, I’m still not voting for them.’

Sarah, you expressed my feelings pretty well. Part of me would love to have Hillary elected president, if only to spazz out the right-wing attack dogs. It’s always amusing to see them go ballistic. But the other part of me is very, very tired by the inane and insane partisanship in this country. I’ve given up watching “talk” shows (more like “scream” shows).I’m not confident that there’s any candidate, Democrat or Republican, that can mend this nation.

I think what that means, at least, what I’d mean if I said it, is that on the whole (har har) the US is more sexist than it would like to believe itself to be, and the attention to a woman president would be more on the “woman” part than on the “president” part.

Yes, Sarah, thank you that’s what I meant (and you said it more clearly that I could have). It has nothing to do with my perception of Hillary running the country. It has to do with the fact that there are some parts of the country that just wouldn’t ever consider voting for a woman. That’s what I meant by the country isn’t ready.

Can you imagine the PMS jokes? And all the other “emotional woman” shit that would get thrown at her?

Believe me, I’d LOVE to see a woman running the country. But Hilary is a divisive person, regardless of her gender. She’s divisive for all of the reasons Sarah stated in her original post.

Sarah, I totally agree about dreading Hillary’s run for president because of the incredible, violent hatred she inspires in people who dislike her.

I was discussing this with someone last week; even the conservatives who disliked Bill Clinton while he was in office didn’t revile him the way people like Rush Limbaugh do Hillary. There’s this black, toxic, gendered hatred that certain elements express toward Hillary, and it’s really disgusting. They don’t express the same sort of bile toward other liberal women like Nancy Pelosi; I’m not sure what it is about Hillary that engendered (heh) that way back in the early ‘90s and made it stick, but it’s gross.

Don’t you want an aggressive person in the White House?

Well, yes. You do. If that person is a man. The real irony about all of this “bitch” stuff directed at Hillary Clinton is, for me, the fact that John Kerry got pretty much the exact opposite. A male candidate should be aggressive. He should be willing to

bomb the shit out of

stand up to

impotent dictators

the “axis of evil” without any of that

rational thinking

cowardly, namby-pampy “thinking it through” crap.

Ah, ye olde double standarde. No more tolerable when I put you in fake old-style spelling.

The other reason that Clinton bugs me is that she has the intelligence to have made it this far all on her own—she didn’t need Bill. Instead, she sold out and road his coat-tails, all the while he pretty constantly cheated on her.  Not very Feminist, IMO.

I’m not attacking you personally, Lisa, but I see this opinion a lot, and it kind of bugs me.

We’re sitting here talking about whether or not a woman, specifically Clinton, who is thought to be a “ball-buster,” a “bitch,” etc., could be elected. Does anyone *really* think that if she had divorced her husband she could stand a chance in the White House? The “stand by your man” contingent would hate her even more.

She can’t win in regards to Bill. I see all these women judging her for not leaving him, but…isn’t that a valid choice on her part? We don’t know anything about their marriage. We don’t know why they stay together. And if she has stayed with him because of her political ambitions…why is that a bad thing? Why is that even an issue?

I see some of the same people who could care less about what Bill did castigating Hillary for staying. Isn’t that hypocrisy? Why do we hold her to a higher standard?

“Keep in mind that during Bill Clinton’s eight years as president, America became a country deeply divided along partisan lines…This wasn’t entirely Clinton’s fault…”

WTF?? Talk about revisionist history! Jerry Falwell and the evangelical political power playbook took over the Republican party and handed it to the religious right LONG before Bill Clinton was elected. If you talk to longtime moderate Republicans, they identify THAT hijacking with the beginning of divisive partisanship in this country. By the time the Clintons came along, the religious right was already well-established and ready to take advantange of an 8-year fundraising nirvana, screaming about “culture wars” and Hilary’s criminal lack of interest in White House dishware. They haven’t stopped since.

I like HC as a senator. But she can’t pull this country together as president. She is hated too irrationally and by too many people. After twenty years of Clinton/Bush, it’s time for a new direction.

When is the Virgin Mary running for office? And will Mary Magdalene be her running mate?

Sarah! You should know better! The Virgin Mary got pregnant out of wedlock! Her son (who obviously lacked a strong father figure in that ball-less Joseph—what kind of man marries a woman pregnant by someone else?) was a long-haired commie hippie revolutionary who was executed by the government.

And don’t even get me started on that Mary Magdalene creature. A h0r is what she is. And a successful businesswoman, which is the same thing anyway.

Plus, she ran around with the Virgin Mary’s son—you know she’s up to her ears in anti-government sentiment.

snarkhunter said:

I’m not attacking you personally, Lisa,

I’m not taking it personally, no worries.

but I see this opinion a lot, and it kind of bugs me.

We’re sitting here talking about whether or not a woman, specifically Clinton, who is thought to be a “ball-buster,” a “bitch,” etc., could be elected. Does anyone *really* think that if she had divorced her husband she could stand a chance in the White House? The “stand by your man” contingent would hate her even more.

Clinton chose a path that put her in the political arena based on who she married, not based on her individual merits. I think she could have made a successful political career for herself without following that path.

She can’t win in regards to Bill.

Absolutely.

I see all these women judging her for not leaving him, but…isn’t that a valid choice on her part? We don’t know anything about their marriage. We don’t know why they stay together. And if she has stayed with him because of her political ambitions…why is that a bad thing? Why is that even an issue?

For me, it’s an issue of not being recognized for her intelligence, experience etc., but instead of who she, at least at some point, slept with.

Clinton chose a path that put her in the political arena based on who she married, not based on her individual merits. I think she could have made a successful political career for herself without following that path.

Okay, I agree with you as far as that goes, but at what point was she supposed to choose that path? Should she have never married? Divorced Bill before he became president? Not supported his political ambitions? Been a typical, “demure” first lady instead of attempting to be an active part of the political process? Ran for senator while he was in office?

I don’t feel like her career is at all built on his—in fact, I think most of her success has been *in spite of* Bill. I’m not sure where she could have made other choices, except in choosing not to marry him, and that just seems like an extreme and even anti-feminist suggestion.

SB Sarah said:

Why is her marriage and whether she stays with someone who cheats on her an issue as pertains to her viability as a job candidate for president?

Normally, I would agree. In this particular instance, though, Clinton made her marriage an issue by using it as a stepping stone in her political career. It’s not like over the years each of them pursued separate political careers and they both got mileage out of the marriage. Has she held any political office before being a senator, before being First Lady? I honestly don’t know, does anyone here know? She subsumed her ambition in to his and then called in the chips later, instead of just pursuing her political course on her own. At some point she decided she needed him, and I’m saying that she didn’t.

snarkhunter said:

Okay, I agree with you as far as that goes, but at what point was she supposed to choose that path?

Hell, I don’t know. I’m pretty sure that about the time they met she had her own political ambitions, though admittedly I’m not an authority on her life story.

At some point she decided to hitch her wagon to him instead of pursing her own course. If she’d had her own political career, I think she would have had the option of divorcing him without having to lose everything she’d worked for.

It’s not like over the years each of them pursued separate political careers and they both got mileage out of the marriage.

Okay, I totally get what you’re saying now, but couldn’t we see this as taking turns? Lots of two-career marriages are built on the concept of ‘taking turns.’

First, one partner pursues his/her goal while the other takes a temporary backseat—raising the kids, working the less prestigious jobs—in order to help the first partner establish him/herself. Then, when that’s done, the first partner takes the “backseat” while second partner pursues his/her goal. That’s how I’ve always seen the Clintons’ marriage. I don’t know that you can successfully pursue two independent political careers in a single marriage, particularly when one partner (or both) wants to be president. There’s simply too many complicating factors. Look how Hillary was accused of having too much influence over Bill when she was a politically active first lady. Do you think there is *any* way she could’ve been senator or representative while he was in office?

I don’t feel like her career is at all built on his—in fact, I think most of her success has been *in spite of* Bill.

Yes, exactly. Which speaks to my point that she never needed him.

It’s simple. Hillary is proud and she looks pretty good in makeup and heels. She’s independent or at least thinks she is. She’s confident. She’s a woman which makes her different than most politicians. A lot of people want to throw that confidence under the bus and hurt it bad. It’s not personal, just a reaction to the image that has been created.

Okay, I totally get what you’re saying now, but couldn’t we see this as taking turns? Lots of two-career marriages are built on the concept of ‘taking turns.’

Good point, and some people are able to make this work. But Clinton has had to wait an awful long time for her turn.

I don’t know that you can successfully pursue two independent political careers in a single marriage, particularly when one partner (or both) wants to be president.

I’d have to think about this a bit more, but there might be a good comparison with the Doles since both of them have attempted a run for president.

Do you think there is *any* way she could’ve been senator or representative while he was in office?

I doubt it. She would probably have had to step down. The more women pursue high office elections, the more this is going to be an issue.

I think most of her success has been *in spite of* Bill. Posted by snarkhunter

Being from Arkansas, you can imagine the questions I get asked when I travel. I have YET to meet someone who doesn’t ask me about the Clintons. Just for the record… Yes, I’ve met Bill. Was very good friends with his brother and his mother. Never met Hillary.

I agree with Snarkhunter - Hillary had a lot of baggage to overcome when she ran for NY Senator - not from there; ex-first lady; Repubs laying in wait to point out all the things she did wrong as Senator. And what happened? She convinced NY to vote for her. Her Repub senators liked her, respected her, worked with her. She was able to build bridges with both parties in the Senate. She did a good job.

One of the problems is that an assertive (not aggressive as aggression can be a hostile action)woman is call a bitch. 9 times out of 10, a man will be called a “go-getter” or some such nonsense.

With or without Bill, Hillary is a smart, smart lady who is quick to grasp a situation. She’d do a good job as President.

and Snarkhunter - your discussion on the Virgin Mary and her illegitimate son…laughed my ass off.

Perhaps people don’t like Hillary Clinton because as a Senator she backed Bush when he decided to invade Iraq.

That doesn’t exactly make her someone who has “no intention of following the typical role” for our country.

I am one of those with the knee jerk hate towards HC. It’s not b/c she’s female, I look forward to the day that there will be a female pres. It’s the fact that when in the White House she almost bankrupted healthcare, she took on the role of political player when no one voter for her. IMHO as the spouse of the pres you do the meet & greets, not the politics. No one voted for you so shut up. And during her years in the Senate she didn’t do much better. Look at her record, nothing was done she rode in on the coattails of hubby. Give me a decent, viable, female pres. hopeful and I will vote for her.

Hey if I was an American, I’d vote for that Clinton Wench, she couldn’t do a worse job than the present arsehole I’m sure.  Plus she comes across as intelligent. And that’s certainly not an accusation that could be levelled at Good Old George. (Bless him and all that sail in him.)

Okay, I’m a moderate democrat bitch and I hate Hillary. I don’t care that she stayed with Bill but I do care that she set attack dogs on any female who complained about being fondled/groped by her husband. Many of her achievements are rewards for having married Clinton (Hey, the governor’s wife is a lawyer. Let’s invite her to join our firm!) Her time as a junior senator has been spent throwing herself in front of the media preparing to run for president. She keeps telling us how accomplished and intelligent she is but I just don’t see it.

And I can’t vote for Edwards after seeing his youtube “I feel pretty” gig.

The only people who ever write about “why people hate Hillary” are those who support her.  As a result they over-analyze what is actually very simple.  Let me explain it as somebody who actually DOES hate Hillary:

She’s a jerk.  She stayed with a husband who obviously treated her like crap and defended him RABIDLY—not out of love but because he was her ticket.  She has never had an idea that was her own, and only expresses ideas she thinks are safe with pollsters.  She is everything feminism claimed for ages to despise.

I felt seriously betrayed every time a woman with any sort of legitimacy fiasco.  And she’s been useless in the Senate.  Her only role has been to pander.

That last bit should have been “any woman with any sort of legitimacy defended their fiasco.”

And just for the record when I say “support” I don’t necessarily mean “vote for.”  Conservatives and moderates generally don’t give a crap about her gender.  They despise her politics.  I’ve never met someone who actually, personally hates her who did it because she was female.

Just adding my two cents to the pile… I would not vote for Hillary because

1) Her idealistic “let’s help everyone” rhetoric will bankrupt an already neck-deep in debt America.

2) She achieved her position through other people instead of her own merit (husband) and ...

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.

It’s one thing to be pointed and direct, another entirely to lose it like a two year old because you can’t get your way.

She’s a jerk. She stayed with a husband who obviously treated her like
crap and defended him RABIDLY—not out of love but because he was her
ticket.

You said that so vehemently that I guess you had the inside scoop on why Hillary did what she did huh?

Hate on her because you hate her politics, because hating on her because she stayed with her cheating husband just makes you a tad judgmental, since neither you nor I know what we would have actually done under the same set of circumstances.

I didn’t say I hated her because she stayed with her cheating husband.  I said I hated her because she got everything she has on his coat-tails and stayed with him for that reason, not because she loved him and wanted to stick by him.

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.

Anyone willing to sacrifice themselves for power is not going to do anything I want them to with it.

BTW I have read every biography of Hillary I could get my hands on by both conservatives and liberals.  I’ve voted for conservatives and liberals.  I hate Bill Clinton just as much as Hillary.

I also hate that she—and frankly SO MANY of the republican candidates—have such LONG public and blatant records for lying.

I’d vote for Clinton because she’d get the job done. All the things that people don’t like about her—her willingness to ride on her husband’s coat tails, her willingness to take advantage of any opportunity that comes her way, is what makes Clinton able to make things move. She’d also choose the middle ground on most subjects and pick her battles so carefully that most people on both sides would end up despising her. Too bad.

That said, I’m voting for whichever Democratic candidate has the best chance of winning the election. If it’s Edwards, ugh, then I’ll vote for him, even though he sets my teeth on edge. I’ll vote for Obama if he’s the sure win, too. People liken him to a young, idealistic JFK. Intriguing.

As for Clinton’s failed health care plan, check out this PBS timeline on the whole thing:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page1.html

She never had a chance.

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.”

The main problem with Hillary’s run is the sense of entitlement that she exudes like a cheap perfume

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

Sorry for the long comment, but I have a tendency to be flippant, and I’m trying not to be (sort of).

”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.”

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.

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 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’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.

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?

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.

I don’t think there is a cause and effect relationship between rude manners and bad leadership.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.