Even if some people don’t like Sen. Clinton, apparently some people do. According to the lates RCP average, she leads the field by 12.6%. I know, we have to go Iowa, New Hampshire... but it is as significant as any average of polls can be this early.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

I’m ambivalent about Clinton. Ideologically, I’m closer to Sen. Obama. If he can’t overtake Clinton, I would welcome an Al Gore ticket. It would be fun to stick my tongue out at Republicans and say, “he got what you stole from him in 2000." I’ll bet Karl Rove would go into cardiac arrest. Gore/Obama 2008/2012. Obama/ in 2016?

That said, that little dandy image of Mitt Romney - like someone ordered him online and had him shipped UPS in a symmetrical box - that sends me flying to the porcelain god, makes Sen. Clinton look good. Heck, Mitt Romney is a nightmare. I wake up, mop my brow and think, man am I glad that was just a dream. In comparison, dreams of Hillary Clinton are like “sugar plums dancing in my head.” Indeed, Christmas 2009 will be special if Clinton, Obama, Edwards, or… A_ G___ will be inaugurated in less than a month.

I know, I know...my dream is someone else's nightmare.

Let's try a little exercise:
Take this quotation and substitute the words "liberals'" and "liberal" with "neoConservatives'" and "neocon"; and then substitute "Clintons" with "Bushes," then substitute "Hillary" with "Dubya," and read what you've written.

Considering that this can be done with such facility, just what does it contribute to the debate at hand? I guess what I am saying is, isn't the "pot calling the kettle black"?

We have a sitting president who illegally authorized wiretaps (when there is a FISA court to do that) and who "disagrees" with SCOTUS when they call him on things like the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, and yet we're talking about the "moral character" of the Clinton administration, and going even further back and bringing up Ted Kennedy's accident in the waters of Chappaquiddick with the late Mary Jo Kopeckne!

Sure, Hillary [Rodham] Clinton pushed hard to get universal health coverage with Americans. Sure, she stayed with Bill after the blue dress scandal and the impeachment. Sure, she was investigated and not charged with criminal misdeeds in the Whitewater investigation.

Do any of these things indicate moral bankruptcy? Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but I don't think so.

Has she shown arrogance? Yes. But that seems to be a presidential characteristic these days, now doesn't it, along with naked ambition, obfuscation, and hyperbole about one's own accomplishments. So what's your point?

As far as alleged affairs with lesbians, that's supermarket tabloid fodder. She and Bill were supposed to be meeting with space aliens while in the White House, too, according to these same, august publications.

I just think that people need to examine their reasons for disliking Hillary Clinton and not just make judgments based on rumor, innuendo, and investigations that were inconclusive or notions that she isn't "womanly" enough. It's like that stupid question at the last Democratic debate when Barack Obama was asked if he was "black enough" to be President. Geez--last time I checked, not one of the previous Presidents was black, or female.

Look, Pigpen, I don't deny your druthers against Hillary Clinton are based on sound judgement... you are after all, our 'most level headed member,' I actually don't know why you thought that I was accusing you of that in the first place. You say you are open to government healthcare but even if you weren't, that would still be perfectly fine reason to dislike Hillary Clinton. Who knows. Maybe Hillary Care will really have us waiting for weeks for bypass surgery.

However:



What you said was: "If your son cracked his skull open on a Saturday and you were told he couldn't have it sewed up until Monday because Hillary made it a policy, would you say that was "central politics"?"

Now please explain how I was supposed to know that scenario represented anything close to a real, historical incident? Seriously? I say that liberals and conservatives view Hillary Clinton totally differently, and you come at me with that... and then, when I conclude that, gee, she must not be keen on government healthcare, you blast me for it?

If you had in any way indicated that your "son cracked his skull open" was something that actually happened to a friend of yours, not just one of many hysterical scenarios posited by opponents of government healthcare, then maybe I would have said, oops, sorry misunderstood you. I mean, you didn't even specify what kind of healthcare you were talking about, military healthcare, national healthcare, canadian healthcare or what. I apologize for jumping to a conclusion, and assuming you meant "hillary clintons national healthcare system WILL have you waiting for days to get your head stitched up" and not "Hillary clintons national healthcare system DID have my FRIEND'S SON waiting for days to get his head stitched up.

Evidently, I am just not aware of every terrible wait a tricare parient is forced to undergo. Or I haven't read enough of your backposts to know your personal history.

Finally, my entire point had nothing to do with you. You jumped in on the defensive when I said that liberals and conservatives are totally at odds concerning what results a Hillary Clinton presidency would bring. I would say that's pretty much a fact as far as social observations go. So lay off me. !>!<W!

And to answer your question:



Yes, I might call that centrist politics. A whole list of terribly implemented, inhumane programs have been kept alive for decades by the will of centrist politics, including, but not limited to, the war on drugs, and the current healthcare system.

I think the one overriding issue with Hillary is she is seen to have gotten to her position by riding on Bill's coattails. Does anyone think we would know the name Hillary Rodham if she had not married Bill Clinton?

You may be entirely correct deng, but here's a more pressing thought. At least Hillary Clinton is an intelligent person - as revealed on this thread.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry222344

Hillary Clinton, I would suggest, had a better chance of making it on her own than frat rat George W. Bush, had his father not been named George H. W. Bush.

My first post on this thread:

I made the post above before yours. I assumed you had read it because this thread isn't very long and we posted on the same day.

For the first several years, tricare would only classify a situation as emergency if it was an imminent threat to life, limb, or eyesight. Otherwise, one had to wait and get a referal. It didn't matter how dire the situation seemed...if a two year old girl's face were mauled by a dog (arbitrary hypothetical example) unless it was life threatening rather than simply disfiguring, it didn't apply. If this happened on the weekend, one had to wait until a weekday. Whose decision was it to make emergency military care that way? Who made this the policy for years until that person was removed? That would be Hillary Clinton. I would not vote for that woman unless she were running against I don't know. I'd MUCH rather see her husband back in office a third term than vote for her (and I didn't exactly like him).

**************

Edited (next day) to add: For those who like the concept of universal healthcare, I present the above as evidence that Hillary might not be the one you want to impliment this plan. For those who dislike the outsourcing of public jobs to private contractors, you should know that tricare created a HUGE layer of underlying civilian bureaucracy that didn't exist before, actually making a prior government-run system less efficient. Now we have to call 800 numbers and work with the HMO type system first (after every move and I've done 10 in 16 years), in order to use even the military health facilities. When there is a problem, it is very difficult to sort it out because the military tells you to call the civilian hotline and the civilians tell you to sort it out with the miltiary facility. I don't know the actual dollar number, but I can't imagine it's less expensive this way either.

******************

Edited (again, while I'm lambasting all things Clinton since I rarely have this type of podium):

Another thing that Clinton did (this time the president, not Hillary, but as she seemed to align herself very squarely with his policies it's food for thought...heck, the way she managed tricare this might have actually been her idea) was to force all military members to have a credit card through one civilian company. They were (and still are) required to place all government charges on this card. That way, the government gets the benefit while the soldiers place all expenses on these cards that they have to pay until they file a travel voucher to be compensated.

If it's a TDY en route this can be quite expensive, and we went into debt to pay charges off in the past until we were compensated (10,000 dollars of charges had to be paid out of our pocket for Mr P's six month TDY before we arrived at his next assignment and could file a travel voucher). I hate these cards. We are one-credit card people, and pay ours off every month if we can. This is the company that lost the personal information of thousands of military members opening them up to identity theft. They lost this information twice, and the government still makes us deal with them!

I will have to concede that Mrs P has made one of the very, very rare cases where presidential policies can be directly atributed to some sort of "loss" (can't think of another word, sorry) to a person, when it comes to domestic policy.

I have had only one time in my life that a president's policies have had a direct effect in my life- and crazy enough- it is Mr Clinton's changes to mortgage lending that allowed me to raise my income level. And Al Gore streamlined some paperwork for me.

Reagan cancelled the YCC program, a great program, where kids went to work on public works projects- modeled after the old CCC, but that didn't really effect me directly, since it was cancelled the year after I went through it.

So, in this case, I concede that Mrs P has every right to dislike Mrs Clinton's POLICIES and possible PERSON based on policy decisions.

Otherwise, the real hatred shown by Aevens and other right wingers have a distinctly hypocritical double standard flavor to them, considering thier rabid defense of GWs wrongdoing.

Anyone that is highly, oh, perturbed? at both GW and Hillary I would at least say is consistant in thier values that they don't like charlatans or politicians, or really, believe they are one and the same. DR comes to mind- he certainly has nothing good to say about the Clintons, but at least he applies equal standards to those with a ® behind thier names! - I would even say he is MORE disgusted with "his" side over thier behavior not being BETTER than Clintons, and actually holding "his" guy to a higher standard than the low set bar of the Clintons.

I guess there are no truly self-made men (or women), Wealthy people and those with political connections always have a heads up in the Presidential derby. Clearly, GW benefitted from both. Nor, did I say that disliking Hillary for riding Bill's coattails is fair. It just is. Of course, much is simply partisanship. It seems partisans cannot be satisfied that someone is just wrong on the issues. He/she must be evil and/or stupid also.

Just what makes Hillary Clinton so disliked by some members of our forum?
I don't like Hillary as a presidential candidate for two very simple reasons. First, I view her as a classic part of the "establishment" (ie. Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton?.../sigh). I believe 2008 should be about fresh ideas to governing and while some of her challengers aren't exactly revolutionaries in approach, they are a far better alternative to her.

The second reason relates to electability. Quite simply, I think her hate factor is too strong for her to be a viable candidate in the general election. The hate/dislike may be irrational, ideological, or even misogynistic, but it is what it is. Obama or Edwards (Richardson is the dark horse but viable as well) pairs up far better against the GOP challengers from what I have seen.

Just what makes Hillary Clinton so disliked by some members of our forum?

Her major policy initiatives since 1993 have ranged from tyrannical paleo-socialist to neo-socialist unlimited-government nightmares. She invents conspiracy theories to demonize dissenters. When she raises her voice to speak over a crowd, she sounds more dangerously delusional than Howard "Screech" Dean or Kim Jong-Il. In her past scandals like Whitewater, she's been a bit too cagey with the truth, contracting temporary amnesia about several years worth of her legal career, as if it happened during Woodstock or something. She carpet-bagged NY for a big, easy Senate seat instead of risking a loss in her home state. As FLOTUS, her management style was to threaten "Hell to pay". The visceral reaction against her personality can probably be summed up by the anagram of her full name, Hillary Rodham Clinton: "I'm a chilly old rant-horn".

In all other respects, though, Her Royal Highness Queen Clinton II is an angelic sweetheart. And I for one welcome our returning Clintonian overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted Web personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their remote pork belly ranches. (1)

Well, Seamus- I have to commend you on your consistancy, but I have to say- I am really quite satisified that if 80million dollars and an incredibly partisan persecutor can't find anything on her- there isn't anything on her. I would be as comfortable saying that about GW if we had equal accountability.

Otherwise- you pretty much described every politician except Mike Gravel or Ron Paul.

Just what makes Hillary Clinton so disliked by some members of our forum?

I think what sets Hillary apart from other politicians is her lack of likeability. As others have stated, she lacks what Bill Clinton had an excess of: charisma. She is shrill when she gets excited. It's like fingernails down a chalkboard (at least to me it is). When I watched Bill Clinton on television, I despised the man I knew to be a liar. When I see Hillary, I see an unlikable figure (first) with poor policies (second).

The other factor here is here seemingly cold-hearted calculations of her positions and her demographic constituencies. She's an intellectual (according to some defenders here) and yet she courts hair dressers in Massachusetts. She's pro-Iraq war and has yet to be called on it by many Democrats (although those that do call her on it often use it as a basis for equating her to Bush-lite).
Sure some of this is to be expected of any politician.

I think that some of the unlikeability is related to her being a woman. For the most part, when men think of women, they expect them to be hospitable even to people they may not like. Hillary does not seem to have any hospitality for those she does not agree with (or, more importantly, do not agree with her). This makes people (especially men) uncomfortable because she is not like other women they know and like.

Of course, the politics are a huge factor as well. From socialized medicine to socialized child rearing to her idiotic "vast right wing conspiracy" charges to her advocating higher taxes to her denegration of stay at home moms, to her patronizing "I know better than you" attitude, Hillary is simply an unlikeable figure, even to many of her supporters who see her as the lesser of many evils-- the "devil you know" as it were.

To add: MSN had an interesting article on an inside look at Hillary Rodham when she was in college.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20033163/

Just what makes Hillary Clinton so disliked by some members of our forum?

Strangely enough, I don't dislike Hillary Clinton at all; I just could never vote for her. It has nothing to do with her being a woman for me. I do know that to imagine her in conference with other "HEADS OF STATE" throughout the world, makes me cringe. Her voice just "does me in" and I don't know if the USA can ever have a president who screeches and shrieks in the same way Hillary does!

The second reason is that I know that the minute Hillary takes the Oath of Office if she wins, socialized health care is right around the corner. I have talked over health related issues with Canadians and Brits, and the horrific stuff that goes on in their respective health care systems is HELLISH to put it mildly. The Brits I have discussed this with have purchased additional "top drawer" health insurance in addition to paying the massive taxes to provide health care to all British citizens et al.

This extra tax and h/c premiums is not something that our economy needs!

You know, someone has to say it. I guess that someone is me.

Hillary while clearly female is unattractive and looks count... dea with it.

You wanna be President, you need to look like a President. Hillary doesn't look Presidential. She's got no particulary attractive feature you can latch on to and say, well she's got great (fill in something attractive.) Her head looks like it was carved, skillfully, from an apple. He body is a potato and when she's in ill fitting clothing she resembles a newly used tube of toothpaste. Is that a curve or a lump?

Sure, you'll say rude things about me now. Call me a mysoginist and other such things, but let's face it - if Hillary looked more like Kate Beckinsale and less like Anne Ramsey we might be discussing her excellent Health Care policy. Oh and that nasty incident with the Blue Dress... never would have happened. Not a chance.

Fair enough. Somehow I missed it. Either way, my original comment had nothing to do with you- your experience on the blunt end of Hillary's politics is a rare one. The average detractor of Hillarycare does not share that or any informative experience regarding Hillarycare, and differs wildly with liberal detractors about how serious a healthcare upheaval Hillarycare would be.



I utterly disagree, if we want to go there. She certainly looks more presidential than any of the GOP frontrunners, from John "never know what he's going to say next" McCain, to Rudy "Balding, Hunched shoulders" Guiliani, to Mitt "Used Car Salesman" Romney. She makes Edwards, the slick candidate from 04, look like a traveling bible salesman, and Obama, the academic, look callow.

That's impressive. As a female candidate, the pressures for her to look both elegant and presidential are stark and unprecedented. And even though you say, if she looked more like Kate Beckinsale, she'd look more presidential -- I disagree. Beautiful women, no matter how smart, are subject and object in the media. Talked about, objectified, even when the curriculum vitae serves only to accent the sex appeal. Don't believe me? Do an image search for Kate Beckinsale, the third google image that comes up is her in a bathing suit. You think we could have that for a president? No way. The relationship between sex and power is a thorny, unexplored issue enough-- especially for the Clintons -- and no way is America ready to start associating raw female beauty with the most traditionally male office in America. Gorgeous women are intimidating enough as is, to both genders. No need to make one commander and chief.

Frankly, I suspect Hillary might be better looking than she's ever let on. But she deliberately plays that down, in dress suits, high collars, and always long sleeves, for a reason.



It has nothing to do with her being a woman-- just her shrill, shreiking, -- can I add nagging -- voice? That's like saying 'I couldn't vote for Barack Obama, not because he's black but because his hair is too nappy.' Maybe Hillary could conk her vocal cords.


Interesting gender slip. Can Hillary Clinton be patronizing? Not sure.

I can't call you anything, as board policy prohibits it, but I have to hope you're just kidding here. Who was that really GOOD LOOKING President again? Um, maybe Kennedy, but pretty much NO ONE ELSE????

Yeah, Nixon was a stone cold fox, and the Bushes could do nude modeling, since they are such hunky dudes. I know tons of chicks that get all melty over Cheney, and that Rumsfeld was Tiger Beat's "Dreamiest Political Figure" of 2000.

Give me a break! Hillary's looks have nothing to do with it.

The Right HATES this woman, because she scares them, and the far left thinks she's too moderate, which she is.

Your post frightens me, for what it says about American Politics, but again, hopefully you were just kidding.

Kidding or not, I think this speaks to the shallowness of American politics. It's becoming like bean soup without any beans.

Remember, Michael Dukakis was too small to adequately fill a tank. This type thing has been around for a while.

I'll bet, even now, Dukakis doesn't drive a Hummer.

BTW: I hate to burst your bubble BA, but aevans176 already introduced looks into this thread. He, however, did you one better and attacked her daughter- Chelsea.

Looks do count in politics. Frankly, I find it amazing when I watch CSPAN to see how dorky and ugly some of our politicians (male, mostly) are. Seriously, I wouldn't vote for a guy that seemingly can't dress himself in the morning or comb his hair.

Hillary's looks aren't really an issue as far as I can see. She certainly isn't a bad dresser. Her conservative dress is a plus in my book (although if Kate Beckinsale dressed like her, I'd be mad as heck). She's sorta plain, but not revoltingly ugly (my former Congresscritter, Mary Rose Okar was an ugly woman). I think her looks are Presidential enough. Her voice and demeanor, however...

I don't know whether to laugh at your political barometer or step on it. It depends on whether you're simply making an observation of others or offering your own. Your observation does speak to the shallowness and entitlement of American life. We have it so good we can afford to criticize candidates based on physical attractiveness, and not just the persuasiveness of oratory performances.

Men who viewed Bush as the kind of guy they can see themselves having a drink with (never mind he's a dry drunk), and compared pictures of Bush clearing shrub on his ranch to Kerry fumbling with a football will eventually wonder if the former first lady is boinkable.

Bill and George have both been called good looking, they are both certainly Presidential looking in the tall somewhat athletic sense.

The whole of the RIGHT doesn't hate Hillary, and I doubt few of them are particularly scared of her. Unless by scared you're suggesting they're terrified of being taxed into the middle class. The far left, which you agree with, may or may not be right but they HATE her because she voted for the war.

Dude... you know I was joking. Chelseas IS ugly, but it was a joke.

I don't think Hillary is ugly enough for it to detract from her candidacy. Frankly, you're not going to see her on the swimsuit issue of SI, but I don't think all that is necessary.

The problem with Hillary is that her demeanor causes her to seem caustic, which seems to be an accessory to her very up tight look.



The right HATES this woman because she's a dispicable creature that has fulfilled the American "money and power can buy anything" legacy. If she'd only drive a woman into a river and drown her we'd complete the trifecta.

IF THE GLOVE DOESN'T FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT.

I have to jump in and laugh at this. Are you being serious BA or just putting a cat amongst the pigeons as befits your name?

Personally I'd vote for a hippopotamus if it had policies worth voting for! If looks mean so much to US politics, then frankly, you don't have any politics!!!!

The word is misogynist and yes, BaphometsAdvocate. If you are placing a value judgment on Hillary Clinton based on something as superficial as how appearance, then I don't think your following political analysis is worth much of a damn either.

You wanna be President, you need to look like a President. What does a President look like? Male and White? What about this 350-lb fat bastard who once got stuck in a bathtub? Or this handsome devil? And don't forget this hunka chunk of burnin' love and this stud muffin?

But the hell with it. Only pretty people should be elected to political office. Let's just cancel the elections next year and start a new reality show called "America's Next Top President." No fugly dudes and fatsos need apply.



Yeah, actually you HAVE said a lot of directly nasty things about Hillary Clinton.

"She's a dirtbag."

"She's a crook, a theif, and a farce in that she made it to congress with NO political experience other than her last name."

"She's a slime ball and her daughter looks like someone beat her with the whole ugly tree. How about that.... nasty enough?"

"The right HATES this woman because she's a dispicable creature that has fulfilled the American "money and power can buy anything" legacy. If she'd only drive a woman into a river and drown her we'd complete the trifecta."

All n' all, that looks a lot more like pure hatred than a Valentine card.

Nobody will blame you if you choose not to remember them. Damn that short-term memory loss...

An ugly rant like that doesn't require or even deserve much in the way of serious debate. Anyone who thinks making jokes about someone's child isn't really interested in issue of substance and meaning.

Sometimes the obvious explanation beats over-analyzing a statement for depth, thought and nuance. It's just plain sexism pure and simple. The idea of a President with breasts whom has given birth is one that some guys crippled by testosterone poisoning just can't wrap their tiny little minds around.

Though when you've got a major hottie like Kay Bailey Hutchinson as one of your U.S. Senators, Aevans176 to drool over, I guess we should trust you really know how to pick good looking babes.



The word is misogynist and yes, BaphometsAdvocate, if you are placing a value judgment on Hillary Clinton based on something as superficial as how appearance, then I don't think your following political analysis is worth much either.

You wanna be President, you need to look like a President. What does a President look like? Male and White? What about this 350-lb fat bastard who once got stuck in a bathtub? Or this handsome devil? And don't forget this hunka chunk of burnin' love and this stud muffin?

But the hell with it. Only pretty people should be elected to political office. Let's just cancel the elections next year and start a new reality show called "America's Next Top President." No fugly dudes and fatsos need apply.



Yeah, actually you HAVE said a lot of directly nasty things about Hillary Clinton.

"She's a dirtbag."

"She's a crook, a theif, and a farce in that she made it to congress with NO political experience other than her last name."

"She's a slime ball and her daughter looks like someone beat her with the whole ugly tree. How about that.... nasty enough?"

"The right HATES this woman because she's a dispicable creature that has fulfilled the American "money and power can buy anything" legacy. If she'd only drive a woman into a river and drown her we'd complete the trifecta."

All n' all, that looks a lot more like pure hatred than a Valentine card.

Nobody will blame you if you choose not to remember them. Damn that short-term memory loss...

An ugly rant like that doesn't require or even deserve much in the way of serious debate. Anyone who thinks making jokes about someone's child isn't really interested in issue of substance and meaning.

Sometimes the obvious explanation beats over-analyzing a statement looking for depth, thought and nuance that isn't there. The idea of a woman as President is one some guys can't get next to. It's just sexism. No other explanation necessary and it gets no deeper than that.

Though when you've got a major hottie like Kay Bailey Hutchinson as one of your U.S. Senators, Aevans176 to drool over, I guess we should trust you really know how to pick good looking babes.

That Hillary doesn't look like a Prez is hill-ar-y-ous. Remember: Politics is showbiz for ugly people.

Better put, politics is showbiz for regular-looking people. It's possible to be too good-looking, and Edwards may be an example.

Hehehe -- having an irritating voice works for some -- hehehe. Actually, being downright irritating seems to have worked. Or at least was ignored.

Anyway, I can buy the argument from an individual that looks is the primary reason for not liking HRC and even the voice thing, as that turns me off about GWB. Can't stand listening to him. HRC is a little better, maybe because she's smart. But that's just an individual's reason, so doesn't answer the question.

Still pretty sure it's cuz she's a liberal woman who wants universal health care.

Thank you Nighttimer for your correction of my typo. Please make a note of yours above.

I don't make public opinion I simply acknowledge it. If you think the public (the entire planet's) doesn't care about looks and is only interested in the platforms, voting records, and political leanings of a candidate then you are not dealing with reality.

Looks count. A lot. Television and now the internet have made looks very important in politics. There's quite a study about this with regards to Kennedy vs Nixon. Nixon hadn't shaved for the debate, people thought he LOOKED unsavory - especially compared to the dashing JFK. As you may remember Nixon lost. Now tell me what they debated... Hardly anyone "there" remembers - but people remember what they saw on TV. "You just couldn't trust him" is a phrase you'll hear from people regarding Nixon in that debate. Based solely on looks.

So when asked Why don't people like Hillary Clinton the fact that she's not terribly attractive is a perfectly good point.

BTW, I met Chelsea Clinton some time ago at a NYC fund raiser. You can say many things about Chelsea, that she's ugly is really not one of them.

George W. Bush is nothing like "Presidential-looking." His beady little eyes dart around nervously, and they are too close together. He has the weak chin, and big ears of an inbred Frank Burns clone. He may have been called "good looking," but whoever called him that was certainly delusional. He has lots of weird tics and mannerisms; and he comes across with that creepy stammer/half-laugh that has always given me the heeby-jeebies.

Bill Clinton has a bulbous nose, and his head is too big.

So neither man can accurately be described as "good looking." Like I said, Kennedy was the only attractive president of the twentieth century. The rest of them were beyond funny looking.

In fact, other than Jefferson, I can think of no others EVER in history.

As for the Right being scared of Hillary, I stand by my words. I am a frequent reader of Free Republic, and they have been after her since '92.

RING RING KETTLE- YOU'RE BLACK (not about RACE NT, but a pot and kettle reference... don't want you to get confused like you might've on other threads...)

The fact is that I've added links and objective statements to say why I/many conservatives and good Americans hate her. She slithered out of White Water, hid legal papers, stole furniture, rode her husband's coat tails, etc. What else? I could go on forever.

She is a terrible person. She's a race baiter, a liar, etc.

You can solve your argument by making statements about my "ugly Chelsea" jokes... but it doesn't change the fact that if a Republican was in her shoes and had the same record, you'd hate her more than David Duke.

If Nancy or Barbara had tried to steal the furniture out of the white house, what would you say? If they had a business deal where EVERY SINGLE partner of theirs was convicted, but not them, what would you say? If they'd hit paperwork, and then it reappeared, what would you say? Y'all are conspiracy theory monsters at times... but this one is a shut case because a gov't prosecutor didn't find anything. OJ was acquitted too... so what. Ted Kennedy literally drowned a woman and got reelected, what does that say?

I can think of nothing more sexist than disqualifying a frontrunning female candidate for the oval office because she doesn't lookl ike Kate Beckinsdale. And the notion that, if she did, she'd be a more viable candidate is absurd.

Presidential is another matter, but again, the defining features of presidential persona are created by the culture. What's presidential in South Africa is not necessarily presidential in America. Guys used to wear wigs to fit the part.

And now we have a woman for the office and why is she not presidential? Not because she vacillates (like John Kerry) or is too callously informal (like G.W.) is too callow (like Obama, allegedly) is a technocrat (like Al Gore) or fat (like Al Gore). But because she has a shrill voice, a round head, and dare I say, cleavage. It is impossible for any poster on this thread to convince me the debate over her presidential-ness is not tinged with sexism. She's not my favorite candidate, but if Hillary Clinton isn't presidential, then presidential is a term which excludes women, and should therefore, be reworked.

This is simply absurd. There is no proof whatsoever that Hillary Clinton "stole" furniture from the White House. And you will need to link to the proof that EVERY SINGLE partner of theirs was convicted in the Whitewater fiasco. "Race baiter" is a pretty charged term, which I hotly deny. Claiming that disliking or hating her is somehow related to being a "good American" is pretty underhanded, and the "ugly Chelsea jokes" are reprehensible enough that you have left yourself little ground to make the claim that "she is a terrible person."

Do you have anything of substance, or just this list of imagined transgressions? I mean, not liking her stand on Health Care would be fine, but this List of Made Up Partisan Blather is simply ridiculous, and doesn't pass for political debate.

Muckraking is more like it.

Say, I hear George W. Bush used to torture small animals as a child...

Thank you for pointing that out.



So why didn't you say that in the first place? When you state your case like that it is imminently arguable and reasonable.

Certainly people place value judgments based on something as meaningless as who is better looking. But there are a lot of not-so attractive people doing terrific work as mayors, city councilpersons, senators, congressmen, judges, and any other profession you can think of. Some of them may be coyote ugly, but I'd rather vote for someone who isn't drop-dead gorgeous over a pretty face with no brains or principles.

You are absolutely right about the Nixon/Kennedy debate. People listening to the debate on radio reported they felt Nixon clearly won the debate. But in a television age, something as callow as who "looks" better seems to engender a degree of trust, authority and belief.

Still, it misses the point to say since Hillary Clinton doesn't look like a Hollywood starlet, she isn't attractive enough to be elected president. There's a place in this world for people who aren't beautiful or repulsive. Those with merely adequate to plain looks count for something as well.



Is this you not being "nasty" about Senator Clinton, AE176? Needs work. Needs a lot of work.

While you may feel better now that your deep-seated hatred of her is out in the open, don't you think you can quit this horsecrap about "objective statements?" You are so pathologically blinded with pure hate for the woman that you can't possibly make an objective statement about her. Just say it out loud, "I hate Hillary Clinton."



Once again, you're a lot better off telling me what YOU think instead of telling me what I think. The fact is you hate Hillary Clinton and you made a tasteless and boorish cheap joke about her daughter. That isn't very nice and it sure isn't very polite. But since you're making assumptions about me I'll return the favor and make one about you, Aevans176.

I'm going to assume you were raised to treat women with a little more respect than you've demonstrated here. I hate Ann Coulter the same way you hate Hillary Clinton, but I wouldn't go after her child (provided she could find a guy who could get it up long enough to impregnate her).

Oops. Now you've got ME doing it.

Here are some female personages with "presidential" bearing: Condi Rice, Margaret Thatcher, Queen Elizabeth II, Eleanor Roosevelt, Sandra Day O'Connor, Margaret Chase Smith, Elizabeth Dole, Kay Baily Hutcheson, etc. Not that I necessarily agree with their politics, but they usually project leadership.

HRH Clinton II is no Eleanor Roosevelt. She's far more "dictatorial" than "presidential", wouldn't you agree? She's in the category of a Ross Perot, Dennis Kucinich, or "Screech" Dean, whose sanity and honesty seem somewhat questionable-- the kind most of us wouldn't take too seriously if she were a man.

Would it be sexist not to want Leona Helmsley, Lisa Nowak, Martha Stewart, Jennifer Wilbanks, or Tammy Faye Messner to have control of the little red button? Not that they're horrible, but I wouldn't want them to be President, either. Sure, there are a few chauvinists who couldn't handle any woman being President, then there are those of us who would rather have a less socialist-dictatorial option.

If Clinton is dictatorial by your measure, how can Bush, or presidential Thatcher for that matter, not be considered dictators?

Wait a minute, Seamus, just what has Hillary Clinton been dictatorial about? From what I can tell, she has not violated any laws or spied on people during her tenure as an elected official.

Please explain.

OK< a few key comments I want to make on this.

I knew somebody would come up with exceptions here, and that's fine. I'm not accusing you (or at the moment, anyone) on here of being a bigot, but bigotry has always made exceptions, maybe even at a level so high as the presidency.

Getting back to what we're getting back to here: "projecting leadership" is a perfectly fine qualifier of whether someone is presidential. "Round face," or "shrill voice" are not: Those are female qualities, and when men exhibit either of them, its a sign of a femininity. Once upon a time, high pitched, shrill voices were considered masculine -- even sexy -- because they could reach over a crowd.

But ever since the invention of the microphone, low, bass-resonating close vocals have replaced that mantle. The Frank Sinatra, Garrison Keeler radio-voice has had a huge impact on what voices we deem to be authoritarian and presidential-- and its a masculine, deep voice.

So you begin to see the complexities in describing a female trait -- a higher voice -- as unpresidential, and then trying to claim that, no, its not based on her gender. Hillary Clinton's voice has the same problem Barack Obama's skin would have if he was three shades darker. None of us here started that, its not acknowledged sexism, but its a sexism inbred into our culture.

Secondly, accusations that she stole white house furniture aside, how has Hillary Clinton not projected leadership? (At least as far as her image is concerned) I agree with a lot of the criticisms that I know are going to be launched at me (she panders, she doesnt say whats on her mind, etc) but she has dominated debate after debate. She is pure composure -- can we not all agree about that? There are many things I don't know or understand about Hillary Clinton, but I feel fairly certain that, in her three or four decades as a media target, shes learned to say exactly what she wants to say, in such a way that it cannot be taken out of context or exploited. Thats a good quality for a president to have. If I wanted someone at the table with Chavez -- excluding what they would be at that table to accomplish -- it would be Hillary Clinton, not the long-winded Obama, or the hot-head Guiliani.

Thirdly, you say she doesn't project leadership then you call her dictatorial.

Finally, I have never heard Bill Clinton be called socialist, and I don't think I have ever heard him really be called dictatorial either. Yet I here both about Hillary frequently. I think this largely has to do with the somewhat secretive, closed-door nature through which a first lady must inevitably exert real political power beyond presiding over the rose garden easter egg hunt.

I can't stand what Kay Bailey Hutchison has done as Senator from Texas, but she's marginally better than our other Senator John Cornyn. Chris Matthews once asked Hutchison why she didn't run for president. Could this have been anything other than a patronizing question? The last time I saw Elizabeth Dole on Meet the Press, she seemed near senility and about all Condi Rice has done is tote the Bush line. She needs to return to academic as soon as possible. I would be interested in why you mentioned Hutchison, but not Maine's more moderate female Republican senators - Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

That said, I think Hillary Clinton belongs in the first group and not in the second with the likes of Leona Helmsley. Next you'll be implying Clinton belongs in a sub-group with Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, and Brittney Spears.

I used "dictatorial" (in quotes) in the context of "presidential" demeanor. Just as one may have a presidential demeanor without being President, one may have a dictatorial demeanor without being a dictator.

By leadership, I intended to imply good leadership. She doesn't project a charismatic, trustworthy leadership style, but a mean, angry, shifty, dishonest, cold, ruthless, adversarial, dictatorial leadership style.

That, and HillaryCare, and the most left-wing voting record in the Senate, etc.

I wasn't making an exhaustive list. There are probably millions (or billions?) of women (Democan, Republicrat, and otherwise) who are charismatic leaders with presidential bearing, but I'm asserting Hillary is not one of them.


Here are a few links demonstrating some comparisons I may have implied (underlines show phrases with multiple links). Hillary has Leona Helmsley's leadership style and Martha Stewart's angry snobbery. Her half-baked political initiatives are reminiscent of Dennis Kucinich, and her penchant for delusional conspiracy theories evoke Ross Perot. When she preaches in Alabama, she closely resembles Tammy Faye Messner, without the sincerety. When she gets worked up, her voice gets a maniacal edge to it like a combination of Howard Dean's infamous screech and Ted Kennedy's shrill rants. She frequently gets the same crazy look in her eyes as Lisa Nowak, Jennifer Wilbanks, and Vladimir Illych Lenin's wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya (edited to finish...) and the aforementioned Kucinich and Perot.

(Oops. Edited again to clarify some wording, before anyone began replying.)

Seamus, I may respond to more of your post later. What is your source for such a bold statement?

According to The Washington Post:



http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007..._wall_whos.html

It sounds like you are trying to substitute myth for reality.