Recently in a current thread, one of AD's members wrote,


I don't know how many times this type of statement has caused a tangential shift in the debate (yes, I am guilty of it, too).

I was wondering why Hillary Clinton is considered a "vile and terrible person" by those who feel that way. Aside from whether she was complicit and guilty of doing something that the Whitewater investigation couldn't nail her for doing, I would like to know:

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

Hillary Clinton has not been charged with or convicted of any crime in connection with Whitewater. Some self-righteous souls on this board seem to think they have greater knowledge than grand juries and prosecutors who look at facts. Facts, however, don't seem to matter. Some do not seem to know the difference in factoids and Altoids.



http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/s...inton.filegate/

People, who keep harping on this type misinformation, should be ashamed of themselves. If flies straight in the face of the proposition that people are innocent until proved guilty.

My guess is that the hatred for Hillary is pretty much a carryover of hatred for her husband. Unfortunately, she does not have the charisma that allowed Bill to get past much of the vitriol. That said, she would be preferable to the current regime.

On the Right, Hillary Clinton is a Socialist Liberal villain.

On the Left, Hillary Clinton is a Neocon DINO Corporate Toady.

In the center? I guess she is either liked or hated, or something.

From what I hear, she's ugly, she's a lesbian, she's a criminal, she's married to a serial adulterer, she's a carpetbagger, she's bad, she's evil, she's bad, AND she's evil.

I've always liked her, but I'm hoping Obama gets the nomination.

Maybe because Hillary comes across as cold, calculating and someone that will adapt her beliefs according to what the polls and research say are popular today. Kind of like Mitt Romney with breasts.

Possibly Hillary is disliked because it's raw sexism at work. Men are intimidated by a strong woman with strong opinions. They don't like the idea of a woman on top. Literally.

Then again, there's a strong distaste for putting Bill Clinton back in the White House. Couple that thought with the reality that if Hillary wins we will go from George H.W. Bush (4 years) to Bill Clinton (8 years) to George W. Bush (8 years) to Hillary Clinton for at least four years and possibly eight. That's at least 24 to 28 years of two families switching off occupying The White House.

And we probably haven't heard the last word about Jeb Bush...

That's MY reason for not being wild about Hillary. I'm bored with Bush AND Clinton. I need a change.

That said, I'd still vote for Hillary over any of the tired old White guys the GOP are offering up.

One small thing I notice is how often the Senator is just called "Hillary" by those who don't like her. This can't be just because she has an unusual first name; I don't see anybody calling her chief rival for the nomination "Barack" in the same dismissive tone. It can't be to distinguish her from her husband; it's hard to imagine circumstances in which a reference to "Clinton" would not be clear. If such circumstances exist, it's easy enough to say "Senator Clinton" or "Hillary Clinton." (It's certainly easier than distinguishing between the current President and his father by name.)

My hypothesis is that she is called "Hillary" because she is a woman.

I read a fair amount of old science fiction, and one thing that stands out like a sore thumb is that a male character is likely to be called "Smith" and a female character is likely to be called "Mary." (It is also very common for the male to be called a "man" and for the female to be called a "girl," even if they are about the same age.) I think the same sort of thing is going on here. It makes Senator Clinton seem like a less serious candidate.

To answer the question for debate:

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

Her last name. Imagine the exact same person, with no direct connection to Bill Clinton, and the level of animosity would be much less. There are many things one can say about Bill Clinton, but one factor which seemed to make him so furiously hated by some people was the simple fact that a Democrat won the Presidency, which had seemed to be the exclusive property of the GOP since 1980. At a time when many people were seriously speculating that the Democratic Party was dead for all time, it was genuinely shocking for the party of Ronald Reagan to lose control of the White House. Any person married to any Democrat who was elected President during that time in history would be doomed to be hated.

Other factors might be the fact that she is a very typical politician -- slick, tricky, and hungry for power. It doesn't help matters that she tends to be on the cool and icy side. This is a problem for any female candidate, who has to walk a fine line between being too "butch" and too "girly."

You've made other valid points, but I think this is an important one. These characteristics of overt ambition, toughness, and willingness to compromise if it improves a politician's political position are commonplace in men, not as often seen in women.

But the very attributes that one might desire to see in Senator Clinton--sweetness, gentleness, stereotypical feminine attractiveness--are the very things that would render her incapable of being seen as a serious contender for the highest office in the land. I remember crude jokes about women being incapable of making decisions around the time of their menstrual periods (e.g., What's the difference between terrorists and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with terrorists, heh heh )

So we have a post-menopausal woman running for office. Here come the comments about her not being attractive, being too mannish, estrogen deficient, etc.

Regardless of the fact that she is married to Bill Clinton and therefore less liked by those who don't like him, I can't help but suspect that there is a fair amount of misogyny in the mix.

True equality of the sexes clearly has not been achieved yet in all spheres.

Exterior perspective.....?

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

She is a woman with attitude.

I've been debating Americans for a long time now and on this topic I've noted there is a multitude of excuses but no actual substansive reason. Basically, I think people hate her for the same reason many Brits hated/still hate Margret Thatcher. Sure enough, lots of excuses are offered up about how terrible her policies are, but when you look at it as objectively as you can, which isn't hard when your not involved, the bottom line is, men with unpopular policies (with GW Bush being a possible exception) do not get the same level of hatred as these women do.

Basically its sexism. Hillary Clinton is a woman so instead of being disliked or disaproved of, she gets hated to the point of mania. Its not enough to not vote for her or argue against her, she has to be demonized to the point of obsession.

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

A number of reasons:
1. She was married to a President they didn't like, and didn't divorce/speak out against him when he did things they didn't like.
2. She's a woman
3. She's unashamedly intellectual, like her husband.
4. She's neither an neocon, an old school conservative, nor a devil-take-the-hindmost libertarian.



True, though not all of the people that hated (& still hate) Thatcher hate her for her gender. Some - like me - hate her for what she did. Or, more accurately, for the way she did things. Her policies of de-industrialisation may have been economically necessary at the time, and it would be pointless trying to renationalise and reinvigorate coal, steel, etc. But I'm not sure she - or rather her most vocal supporters in the media or on the fringes of politics - needed to take such glee in forcibly dismantling whole swathes of industrial Britain and the social structures those industries supported, villifying segments of society she disapproved of, denying that there was such a thing as society at all, etc.

And - back to the topic now - the crucial difference between Thatcher and Clinton (Hillary, that is) is that Thatcher was in power and actually did things that could rile people (or rally them). Clinton has not yet held any powerful national office in the USA, so her detractors have nothing substantive to point to to justify their hatred. New Yorkers might have real and tangible reasons to hate her that would be equivalent to the reasons (or excuses used) to hate Thatcher, but nobody else in the USA does.



I think this is also true, again with an exception; I think you underestimate how hated Blair is by some on the anti-war left and also by some on the pro-Tory right (though for different reasons).

But you're quite correct - Hillary Clinton is actively hated, as opposed to merely being disagreed with or not supported. The reason for that is partly sexist, but I think is mostly just because she is married to someone that her political opponents hate.

Interesting that there isn't a single response so far from those to which the question addresses. Everyone so far seems to like Hillary well enough. Okay, I'll bite...I trust no one will accuse me of misogyny?



1. This is one approximately correct but incomplete. Hillary wasn't only married to Bill Clinton, she was a very openly public advocate and participant in his policies. This is not a person who "stood by her man" and said nothing about policies she liked or didn't (like Barbara Bush on abortion law). We actually know quite a lot about her because of her public endorsement at the time. She was even given a fairly highprofile job as the head of the National Healthcare taskforce. So if she is associated with her husband's policies (likely), it is for good reason.

Let's see how that taskforce went, the one job she was in charge of....Well, she immediately filled the positions with 500 lawyers. Not a healthcare worker among them. I found that strange. She then proceeded to tamper with the military healthcare system (though her minions were civilian lawyers, not associated with the military and she clearly knew nothing about the military healthcare system) as it was the only thing virtually directly under her control.

Before she took over, the military had something called Champus which worked rather well and was easy to use. She changed this to an HMO type of system called tricare that was impossibly difficult. For emergency situations, people were obliged to call triage and determine if it was a true emergency. I knew a person whose three year old son's head was split open on the weekend, and he was told it had to wait until Monday to get it stitched. My son (under two at the time) became ill with strep throat when we were traveling. I had to drive almost an hour away to find a provider who would take Tricare and see my son. I was actually denied care that I wanted to pay out-of-pocket. The doctor told me he couldn't see anyone covered by tricare, even if I paid out of pocket. I had to lie to be seen and pay myself. That happened after Ms Clinton fixed what wasn't broken. It took years and things are better now than they were, but the system is still vastly more confusing than before, and finding a provider who takes tricare is very difficult unless you live near a base. This isn't so much a concern to active duty who always live near work, but it is a great concern to retirees who aren't old enough to be covered by medicare.

Clinton (the president) also took away a large portion of the payouts to spouses in the Survivor's Benefit Program. He started something called a Social Security offset so benefits were reduced to about 30 percent rather than the previous 55. This is important because spouses had previously been paying into this protection plan for years, it was a contract with the government...'I pay you X every month, and you take care of my family if I die'. Military members paid and the government (via Clinton) violated that contract. It really bothered me during the reelection campaign when Bush was attacked by Democrats for this policy that their own guy did. I have no love (or even tolerance) for Bush, but that was dishonest. In fact, in 2005 he took away the social security offset and gave survivors those benefits back. Problems with body armor, military downsizing, cuts in benefits, ect, all happened under Clinton. You cannot build up a military overnight. I frankly agree that the military had to be downsized, but when that happens we have to be realistic and honest about the ramifications rather than blame the next guy. After several years in office, we can blame him if there isn't high quality body armor, but not almost the minute he gets in.

Then, there was the fairly direct violation of the Warpowers act when Clinton deployed troops in combat for over 60 days and had no Congressional authorization whatsoever. Subsequently, the House of Representatives exercised its authority by passing H.R. 1569 to prohibit the use of funds from being used for the deployment of ground elements in Yugoslavia unless the deployment was specifically authorized by law (that's why it remained an air-only war).

The above (and other things I've since tried to forget) gives me a lot of pause for concern about Hillary Clinton. Frankly, I simply don't like her condescending demeanor. I get a VERY bad vibe about her and she reminds me of Pat Schroeder. She is like Bill Clinton without the charisma.

2. N/A for me, but I doubt this is much of a player. Most people who detest Hillary Clinton seem to like Margaret Thatcher well enough.

3. N/A Perhaps this is true for some, but it hardly offers a compelling reason to actively dislike her.

4. This is just general partisanship. A portion of the population will never vote for a democrat, and those probably fall into this category, but she hasn't lost votes she wouldn't have otherwise received.

Edited to add to AM below:

Sure you do, AM.

Edited again to respond to Victoria:

I think she is often called Hillary because 'Hillary Clinton' is a bit long and just saying Clinton brings to mind the former president rather than his wife.

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

I imagine, since I don't personally know these members who dislike HC, it comes down to this:

She's a woman.
She's a liberal woman.
She's a liberal woman who's smart.
She's a liberal woman who's smart and in with the Democratic Party.

So something has to be wrong with HC, no matter how illogical that becomes.

Can't say I'm surprised. Funny that even here you mention white. Seriously, NT, let it breathe a min. This isn't a race relations thread.

What if the GOP had Colin Powell? It wouldn't matter would it?

Ok.

Anywho- Hillary's issues with many conservatives (I can't say that I really associate myself with current republicans) is that she literally got away with felonies during Whitewater. It's not only that, but that she seems to be using and staying with Bill to further her political ambitions. She made it to Congress in NY with no real experience. She tried to steal the White House furniture, tried to impose a socialist health care plan, and looks like her ears are too tight. I'm perpetually surprised that she made it to Congress. She's a marginal feminist, and seems to use whatever the feeling of the day is to win a vote.

She makes our skin crawl. We may not have liked Bill in the White House, but atleast we can relate to the guy. Hillary needs to be contained. No one that I know in the South, liberals and conservatives alike, have anything good to say about her. However, the Clinton name actually does carry weight, and that's scary.

I agree with the idea of monarchy NT. It's time for fresh meat. New ideas, maybe a new image. I'm not saying that I'd like to see any of the DNC candidates either... just someone new might be nice. Met any good Governors lately?

Let me ask you this then Aevens- there was an 80 million dollar plus investigation that indicted her on 0 felonies- yet, you say she "got away with felonies"- however- you give GW a complete pass on everything.

That is the real crux of the hypocrisy of the right- you condemn someone, even after they have found NOTHING after years of investigation- however- you are alll too willing to say there was "nothing but a witch hunt" when scooter libyy was CONVICTED IN A COURT OF LAW OF MULTIPLE FELONIES-

so what gives?

There has to be something more to it than that.

I would LOVE to see A REAL INVESTIGATION of GW that complete as the one against Hillary.

But you guys whine and cry like someone took your candy away when someone asks for an investigation.

What gives Aevens? Why the double standard- I am going to go out on a limb here, and say it is because she is what AM says she is- a powerful woman, and that threatens you.

The idea that people dislike Hillary because they're threatened by powerful women is arrogant to the point of comedy. In fact, my reason for not liking Hillary Clinton is deliciously egalitarian and progressive. I dislike Hillary Clinton because she reminds me EXACTLY of every male politician in Washington D.C. She is conniving, misleading, opportunistic and arrogant; just like all the male politicians I dislike. She's just as much of a phony and a hypocrite as 99.9% of our representatives...That's why I don't like Hillary...And I'm willing to bet I'm not alone.


If I disliked everyone who wasn't a 'devil-take-the-hindmost libertarian' [you're going to have to explain that one to me...I speak American ], I wouldn't like many politicians...Wait, I don't like many politicians, eh...But it isn't because they're not libertarians, it's because they demonstrate the very characteristics that I have listed above. I can respect a politician I disagree with [Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, etc.], but I cannot respect someone with the negative characteristics that Hillary [and most politicians] have allowed to control them.

CP

Yes but CP- you, like me, have an honest distrust of ALL politicians, and don't give a politician a "pass" because of the letter D or R behind thier name- I dislike Hillary for the reasons NT pointed out- and, I am not much into the used car salesmen type of leader we have had since Reagan, slick and lying/conniving types are the ones that get the job these days.

The real hypocritical position is the ones taken by Aevens, the real double standard comes flowing through like a flood- it is one thing to distrust and hate all politician because of the basic personality flaw that makes them want to be in these kinds of positions- I believe that is a healthy distrust of goverment

but it is QUITE the double standard in Aevens post, where you have someone that was investigated by a special prosecuter- and not a crony mind you, but a partisan with an axe to grind, who could still find nothing- but will defend thier guy for far worse conduct- even when convicted by a person that is a partisan for the same side!

The fact that they can even choke down thier own statements on this I find pretty funny, considering the folks that harp on her the loudest fall into that uber-hypocrit zone.

I don't like her for the reasons you and NT stated- but I don't hate her, and she has certainly done nothing even close to what this regime has done to America- I just don't believe she is good for America either.

I wouldn't mind seeing her in office though, just to really get all those GW bushbots' panties in a bunch

I'm not so sure this is entirely the case. Even those of who are not totally opposed to or support Sen. Clinton still call her "Hillary." Notice the banner across the top of her campaign webpage that says "Hillary for President." The Clintons are astute enough to know that there is value in this. Don't be surprised to see a lot of "Hillary for President" bumper stickers.

Hillary for President



You just blew by what I posted in the first response. It has been said that you can indict a “ham sandwich.” I’m sure Ken Starr and Robert Ray didn’t get an indictment against her simply because they are “nice guys.”



http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/s...inton.filegate/

Somehow, I'm not surprised that it was you, the defender of all things White on , that seized upon that characterization, Aevans176.

Romney. McCain. F. Thompson. Giuliani. T. Thompson. Paul. Tancredo. Huckabee. Brownback. That's a conglomeration of talent whiter than a bag of marshmallows. Sorry to point out the inconvenient truth, but if you go head-to-head when it comes to racial and gender diversity, it's the Democrats, not the Republicans offering up a choice, not a echo, AE176.

Actually, the use of just "Hillary" is rooted in distinguishing her from her husband. It is a holdover from Bill's time as the Prez, and a recognition that even today both are significant political players. It is also an artifact of the easy familiarity that Bill Clinton brought to the Presidency. Add the fact that "Hillary" is certainly a more unusual name than "Bill", and it's logical that, back in the day, when you said "Clinton", unless the context already demanded otherwise, you were talking about Bill. Being on first name basis, that meant "Hillary" for her, and its pretty much just carried along. Kinda like "GW"...

Nah, she's called "Hillary" because she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary.


To answer the question for debate:

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

She's a slick, mercurial harpy who slips into screeching too easily (her voice is really annoying when she gets worked up, although not as bad as Wanda Sykes. Of course, Wanda is a lot funnier), and who has all the authenticity of a second rate boy band. Oh, and add in the fact that the few actual policies she's advocated with any real substance are deeply injurious to liberty and freedom, and voila, some serious dislike.

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

You know this has always amazed me. The venomous way in which some people talk about this politician. Look, you can agree with somebody's political stance or choices or you can disagree, but at least try to be civil, honest and nuanced when discussing this. Character assasinations do not contribute to a insightfull and good debate and will never lead to a better understanding.



Wow, Bikerdad, this is realy a well argumented and nuanced point of view you are taking here. Would you care to futher ellaborate on these demonizing characterizations or would you be so nice to suprise us with a more objective and honest view and analysis of Hillary Clinton's political stance?

Calm down CR. Hillary IS a crook, and if she's not, then why did all of their partners go to jail?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_(c...sy)#Convictions

If her friends didn't "take the fall", then why did Clinton Pardon 4 of them?

The Rose law firm missing then reappearing documents? Hmm...

Don't even try to debate this CR. I'm expert on the Whitewater scandal in some senses, and know that this one was Power and Priveledge at its best. She should be in prison.

Scooter Libby.. wow. Get your breath. Take a seat. What exactly did he do? You tell me in your own words... not some angry and capitalized rant. Good luck. He was a scapegoat. He's the Oliver North of this decade. Robert Novak even outed Mrs. Plame. This was partisan politics.... but Whitewater happened far before their time in the Whitehouse. At any rate, I'm not a GW fan. I wouldn't want his wife in the Whitehouse either. Simple as that (oh- but at least she's not a crook! )

Go ahead. Tell me how she WASN'T guilty like the others. Why on earth would she SHRED documents and not let prosecutors into the Whitehouse? Come on man. She's a dirtbag. That's why people don't like her. Plain and simple. (Oh- and she should be in prison... did I mention that?)

From NT


Because maybe...umm... it doesn't matter? I'm not defending anything white. I just don't have prejudices that forego logic. I could careless if a candidate is man/woman/tall/fat/or even black. Skin tones and gender don't make anyone a better or worse candidate for anything, unless you're talking about bearing children and then we might agree.

I won't go into the detail by quoting your own text back at you. It suffices to say, fair point, well made

2. N/A for me, but I doubt this is much of a player. Most people who detest Hillary Clinton seem to like Margaret Thatcher well enough.

True, but they aren't the ones who I had in mind - some of her most vocal Democratic opponents have more than an element of sexism in their make-up (at least, they are less likely to base their dislike on other factors).

3. N/A Perhaps this is true for some, but it hardly offers a compelling reason to [b]actively dislike her. [/b]

I'm not so sure; there is an element of populist conservatism that actively dislikes and distrusts people who don't try and come across as an ordinary man-of-the-people type. President GW Bush does this very well (I don't for a moment subscribe to the view that his mind is really is as low wattage as he sometimes pretends).

4. This is just general partisanship. A portion of the population will never vote for a democrat, and those probably fall into this category, but she hasn't lost votes she wouldn't have otherwise received.

Well, yes it's partisanship - don't you think that it's easier to dislike and villify someone if you disagree with what they say and stand for in the first place?



Pat, I wasn't implying that the only reasons to dislike Hillary (or any other politician) are the four I listed, just that I think the main reasons fall into one or more of four categories. Mrs Pigpen's amplification of my reasons number #1 is probably the main reason most political thinkers who dislike Clinton do so. That said, as I mentioned in my reply to her in this post, simple ideological opposition is enough for some people to take a virulent dislike to someone else.

You only have to read some of the more heated threads on - especially the ones that require moderator intervention - to see that

{edited to fix tags}

Back on topic here.......


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

Not just in this forum, but quite a few folks in this country as well. Even her admirers in the mainstream media admit she's one of the most polarizing figures in American politics. I think this all started when the world first got to know Hillary during Bill's first campaign for President. She came off as harsh, strident and radical. Her comments in interviews with such quotes as "I'm not a Tammy Wynette Stand by our man kinda person." Or "I'm not going to stay home and bake cookies", reminded me of the strident radical feminist man-haters of the 60's and 70's who mocked stay at home moms and treated them with distain. That certainly didn't win her any friends with the family values crowd. Then she went on to come up with her Hillary healthcare plan disaster which would have destroyed the healthcare system in this country with a huge government bureaucracy. She testified about ti before congress and I remember one exchange where it was pointed out to her that her plan would destroy a lot of small businesses. Her response? "I don't care, I can't be responsible for every under-capitalized small business in this country". That sure made a lot of friends for her with small business owners. Talk about arrogance. She doesn't care about helping people, she only cares about telling them what to do. Cause you see, she's just so much damn smarter than the rest of us - the great unwashed masses.

There are a lot of other things about her that I'm sure we'll talk about if she gets the nomination, but what I've listed above are reasons I think so many people vehemently dislike her. Having said that though, I'd prefer she get the Democrat nomination over the two clowns running against her. Those yahoos would be a bonified disaster for the country.


Aquilla

Aevans,

Let's acknowledge something: the various reasons people cite for disliking Hillary Rodham Clinton -- from Liberals who dislike her triangulation to conservatives who fear her radical socialized medicine -- don't add up into a single package. You call her a crook, and fine, that's certainly reason enough for a voter to despise a politician.

But that's merely one rational among many, and in fact, I'd argue Hillary was despised even before the Clintons became synonymous with Democratic criminality. She was mocked for socialized medicine in 92. 15 years later she is hated for being too moderate on health care. She was criticized for not publicly coming out against Bill. She is criticized for being too outspoken. She is seen as too ambitious by some, too tepid by others. She's the Led Zeppelin of American politics: something for everyone to hate.

I don't argue that the Clintons -- like Reagan, Bush and every other two term president since Vietnam -- have had there legal run-ins, and frankly, its a somewhat frightening proposition that we're going to re-elect them. Looking at the last four years of Bill, I can certainly see the value of fresh blood.

But then again I can't: Obama has himself tagged as the unifier, but I'm not sure she wouldn't be the unifier. She's a divisive figure, but no more antagonistic to the far left than the far right. The extremes hate her equally, with a rage that doesn't really add up into a single person. If you had never seen or heard of Hillary Clinton, just collected info from her detractors, you'd have a hard time piecing that info into a single human being: she'd be some frankenstein of political gripes about washington-as-is, compiled from liberal and conservative sources. She represents the dead middle of washington politcs, and I think that's the biggest argument for and against her candidacy for the office.

Gee Aevens- here you go again- so you are a bigger expert than the chief persecutor- Kenneth STarr- what do you know that Kenneth did- and couldn't prove?

Once again- your standard of proof for all things GW shows how incredibly hypocritical you really are- I would be more than satisfied with an 80 million dollar investigation of GW that, say, oh, was headed up by John Kerry, or somebody ever MORE rabidly partisan- which Ken Star is and was.

So what PROOF, what CONVICTION of Hillary do you have that Ken Starr doesn't?

Yep, sour grapes and hypocrisy is all the right wing has against Hillary.

Well, she is hardly "dead center" to me. 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"? This is my life. I don't have a hard time "piecing" such observations into "a single human being". I feel I know her rather well as I've been on the receiving end of her policies. Have you?

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

Here is what I understand about Hillary:

1) She is very liberal; she believes in what is essentially communal child rearing, rather than deferring to parental authority, and she believes in universal health care, regardless of cost. Her actions during her life after law school was very prominent on both of these points. She has lead the charge for laws enabling minor children to legally "divorce" their parents. As a concerned parent, I am really annoyed by this. She has also rallied for migrant workers, worked at the Children's Defense Fund, campaigned for George McGovern--in short, she has led a wonderfully liberal--not moderate--life. She is a poster-child.

2) Her commencement address at Wellesley was insulting to then-Senator Brooke and was classic rabble-rousing by someone who should have kept her mouth shut. She came across as arrogant and as behaving well beyond anything her tender age and inexperience should warrant.

3) She apparently married a debaucher for political gain, or at least stayed married to him after she learned of the dozens of affairs. This seems very inconsistent with her feminist agenda, but pefectly in keeping with her need to keep him around to further her politcal ends. This seems calculating and disingenuous to a fault. Ditto her use of her maiden name "Rodham" until handlers told her to use "Clinton" to play better to middle America.

4) Her and her husband's "two for the price of one" comment was irritating, as the first lady is not under any rubric to have any official role in the admin and is not elected. She promptly tried to run her health care program thru Congress, even though many of us were not amused.

5) We have all heard the lesbian rumors: Bill had his affairs, she had hers. I have heard from very good sources that this is indeed true, but to my knowledge this has not been proven and is only alleged. Still, it seems reasonable considering the fact she is still married to Bill after all of his dalliances.

6) She is not from NY, never lived in NY, but chose to carpetbag her way into becoming Senator from NY, as we all know NY is a good jurisdiction from which to springboard to the presidency. Very calculating and disingenuous to the people of NY, whom she told at the time of her Senate election she was not just becoming Senator to springboard to the presidency.

7) She has an irritating personality, generally. She does not play well on TV.

8) She was involved in the Rose law firm billing scandal; and she was involved in Whitewater; and she made lots of money in commodities trading, despite her desire to tax everyone else's earnings at high rates. For my money, anyone in power who wants to raise my taxes should give away all of their own wealth first.

9) All in all, this paints a picture of a spineless political opportunist with little personal character.

I think that covers it.

Come back to earth. Breathe. Don't get upset.

Good job, Mr. Conspiracy theory in not believing anything against Hillary. Good job with not debating ONE thing that I mentioned. Jesus gosh darn Christ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_(controversy)

Debate why the paperwork from the Rose law firm went missing, then reappeared?
Why did ALL of their peers go to jail?

Why did they shred documents?

Why did so many people come up dead or missing?

Again, please read, THIS IS NOT ABOUT GEORGE BUSH, and I'm not defending him. Read that. Twice. This is about why people don't like Hillary Clinton.
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.

If George Bush had friends that went to jail for an oil deal in Texas, and he didn't, he hid documents, they reappeared, and some of his friends came up missing... do you think the left leaning conspiracy theorists wouldn't have a hay day with that?

She had to know that Whitewater was a scam, even if her name wasn't stamped. So did Bill. That doesn't even broach the notion that she tried to take the darn furniture from the whitehouse...

The answer to many of your questions, aevans176 is simply we don't know. When all the actors are off the stage, historians may be able to uncover the "truth." You, however, are not a historian, and you don't have enough time between you and the Clinton Administration to make bold statements like, Hillary Clinton is a "crook." It may be 50 years before we have objetive information about the Clintons or the Bushes. So, what are you missing that allows you to make this judgment? Only time and credentials.

Meanwhile aevans176, you are attempting to set yourself up as judge, jury and executioner.

Here are a couple of sentences from the Wiki article you provided:



aevans176's Own Link Dooms His Argument

The little (2) at the end of the passage leads to this links conclusion:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/s.../20/whitewater/

You may, however, have a point aevans176. That is, that the perception of Hillary Clinton, propagated by people like you may have stuck – even if there is only minimal factual evidence to support the notion.



There is a simple answer for that allegation aevans176. Mrs. Clinton was afraid Barney might mistake some valuable, historic, White House furnishings for fire hydrants.

No, I won't be so nice. Doing so wouldn't be answering the question posed. I will however point out that professional observers of campaign craft pretty much all agree that when she gets worked up, Hillary's voice becomes shrill. A simple fact. Some people may like that, I don't. That's why I included Wanda Sykes. A funny comedian, but like Fran Drescher, Urkel, or Horschak (one of the Sweathogs), the voice itself can be so grating that what is being said is automatically offensive. Nothing rational, objective or nuanced about it. Heck, I can't stand to listen to Martha Stewart or the Barefoot Contessa either, just because there's something about their voices that bugs the heck outta me. Hillary Clinton's voice when she gets cranked up has the same effect, and its not just me. Kinda like the way Bush's pronunciation of "nuclear" sets some people off.

Oh, and it should be noted that its not just "people on this board" that strongly dislike Hillary Clinton. She has the highest negatives of any candidate in the race. As for the policy positions, I don't have to elaborate, I'll just point you here: Hillary's Issues

One last thing: you didn't answer the question yourself.

I really wanted to know why some members in this forum dislike Senator Clinton so much. As far as why anybody else does, I really don't care so much; I am not a national pollster or a pundit.

What I have learned so far is that many qualities that we are accustomed to seeing in male politicians become less acceptable in a female politician because her voice is higher, and she's not supposed to become strident when she gets upset in arguments, and because she stood by her man or because she did not divorce her husband, and maybe because some rumors about lesbian encounters might be true, or someone was really hurting because they stay home and bake cookies and she allegedly dissed moms who do that once during a Presidential campaign, this woman is bad news.

It would be interesting to know if these same people have ever backed a female candidate like Elizabeth Dole or Ann Richards, Christie Todd Whitman or Katherine Whats-Her-Name in Florida. Or did they/would they have voted for the opposition because these women were trying to "wear the pants," too.

Senator Clinton is not my favorite candidate. But I do not hold against her things like being married to Bill (otherwise I would have to dislike Laura Bush for the same thing), or for changing residence to New York in order to run for the U.S. Senate (like Dick Cheney changing his residency to Nevada because of a rule that the Presidential candidate and his running mate can't be from the same state), or for not looking uber feminine (like Dolores Umbridge, evil incarnate dressed in pink in the 5th Harry Potter movie--*ahem*!), or for trying (many years ago now) to secure health care for all Americans.

Ken Starr tried his hardest to indict President and Mrs. Clinton along with the Rose Law Firm and, guess what? He couldn't make it stick, any more than I can convince anyone on this board that George Walker Bush was instrumental in getting members of the bin Laden flown out when no one else in the United States was allowed to fly immediately following 9/11/2001. I might repeat to some here the same thing I was told, i.e., you can't prove it, so you shouldn't say it's true. Remember "innocent until proven guilty"?

There is one good thing to be said about Hillary Clinton, and that is that she isn't continually using religion to advance her own political position the way some candidates shamelessly do. While she may do the same wheeling, dealing, grandstanding and political compromising as the boys do, she does appear to have some standards.

Again, I'm not altogether convinced that there isn't a bunch of misogyny at work against Hillary Clinton, but some folks just aren't honest enough to admit it.

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

Mrs. Clinton is a very intelligent and powerful politician who happens to be a woman. I think that, in and of itself, causes resentment. There is a double standard at play. Women who are strong and tough-minded are called the "B" word, whereas men who exhibit the same qualities are termed in a favorable way.

Hilary Clinton isn't one of my favorites. It's not because she's too strong or tough. I find her disingenuous. I think if the world heard what she is really thinking, there would be a very different Hilary to contend with. But instead she follows the line of saying and doing the appropriate things, to garner support. She's not being "real". That's what I don't like about her.

With regards to Thatcher, be honest. She didn't exist in a vacuum. She may have been heavy handed, but look at who she was dealing with. Could she have succeeded against Scargill and the militants if she'd been less so? I doubt it. Thatcher had to be the way she was in order to succeed and I think the same is true of Hillary Clinton.

All the criticisms of her echo the sentiments rained down on Thatcher, but compare these two with other prominent (Dare I call them Anglo Saxon?) female politicians and ponder on how few come to power. Compare the Scandinavian attitude towards women in political power (sorry to boast) and you won't find the same 'hard voiced harpies', because there is no need for our female politicians to be that way to succeed (though Denmarks most hated politicians is also a women, she is hated because she is a nationalist, not because she is a female politicin).

I bet if there was a level playing field for women in American (and British) politics, you wouldn't see hard nose female politicians like Thatcher and Clinton.

I was doubtful that HC critics would actually chime in.

Okay, so we know HC might have been a CROOK!, but we know for sure the present administration is full of 'em, lousy with 'em, indicted prosecuted sentenced and let off.

1 - HC

We know HC has a higher voice than men hollering at other men irrationally and hatefully (go do that thang to yerself, Dicky C. blow 'em in the face and they'll apologize, you ain't dah boss o' me, no trick about it -- yah-hahahaha).

1 - HC

We know HC is for national health care.

1 - HC (some is better than none)

We know HC believes in government.

1 - HC (as opposed to those who work in government and don't believe in it, ergo are incompetent)

We know that HC is (*gasp*) a POLITICIAN!!!!

Huh. The sky is blue when it's not cloudy or night.

1 - HC

We know HC controls DC

1 - HC

We know she's not a Kebeler elf.

1 - HC

We know she has not divorced.

1 - HC

We know she has been elected to office fair and square.

1 - HC

We know she's not a religious nut.

1 - HC

And finally, we know she is not a Republican.

Priceless

Before their campaigns, I had no real basis to form conclusions about those women one way or another. I do have a basis to make some informed judgement about Hillary because she brought herself to the forefront during Bill Clinton's terms in office. I don't know a thing about Bush's wife, and should she run for office some day I might vote for her depending on how she presented herself. I would not necessarily associate her with her husband's policies....but let me ask you an honest (rhetorical) question...Would you (you meaning the plural, all those of us who don't like Bush) vote for Bush's wife?

If the answer is 'maybe'...Now, imagine for a moment that Bush's wife is/was at the forefront of his politics, advocating all the way and you see her on the news pushing his policies....would you vote for her in the future? If not, how would you respond to folks who charged that you "just didn't like strong opinionated women"? I feel I have some pretty sound reasons to dislike Hillary Clinton, and they are of her own doing.

I don't hold it against her that she tried to fix healthcare in America by working on a system for making it Universal. I actually personally support universal healthcare. What she did was take an already functioning system of already government-run healthcare, and ruined it. Maybe those were just growing pains, but she truly did turn military medicine into a cluster, you know, until others fixed over the years what she had ruined. That was the one job she was given and she didn't do very well whether her intentions were noble or not.

And in all honesty, I was offended by her "won't be home baking cookies" comment. It showed distain for women who stay at home with the children, and she should have presented herself better. I was offended even though I had no children and worked at the time. The first few years of Clinton's first term she came across as absolutely arrogant and hateful. I don't call that "strong", just as male politicians can came across as arrogant, women are not immune from arrogance just because to label them that way someone can turn around and accused you of "being afraid of strong women".

I don't know where have you been Aquilla for the past 15 years, but the healthcare system in this country is such a disaster that even Republicans admit that a radical change is needed. I can't think of a single industrialized country which has it worse than we do. Blaming Clintons for (at least attempting) to reform things in that area - well, to each their own I guess, but she gets a huge credit for her healthcare plan in my book.

Hillary is not my personal favorite among Democratic contenders, but she is leaps and bounds ahead of anybody Republican party can offer at the moment. Yeah I wish her presentation was a bit more genuine, and I wish she would feel less "corporate" than she is... But what can Republicans offer us, Mitt Romney? Yeah, that's a good example of firm convictions and genuineness.

Pigpen, you just proved exactly what I was saying: in your hysterical scenario -- which evokes a little boy's brains oozing out of his head for days -- you would have us believe that Hillary Clinton would immediately institute socialized medicine, plunging all of us, including your son, into some Canadian death-queue. Now whether or not that would happen has nothing to do with whether hill's healthcare approach is centrist. A lot of Americans supported the Iraq invasion, which turned out to be a disaster, too.

I suggest, for perspective on what's happening on the other side of the fence, that you go watch Sicko: Michael Moore long-windedly accuses Hillary Clinton of being far too moderate on health care, as have John Edwards and Barack Obama.

Conservatives view her as a far-liberal in centrist clothing. Liberals view her as "Bush lite" in centrist clothing. None of that adds up. Irrespective of whether socialized medicine would have Americans dripping their frontal lobes in some god-forsaken waiting room, enough Americans are hip to it -- and enough are vehemently against it -- that I can say her ideas represent the floating middle of American politics. your skepticism towards government healthcare has nothing to do with my point: central politics can yield results as terrible as extremism.

Will you go back and please answer one of the questions I posed?

Do you not think power and priveledge help to win cases like these? (ie. OJ?)

Do you not think it weird that people came up missing by the truck load?

Do you not think it odd that the paperwork went missing, the reappeared?

Come on. Seriously. Help a brother out here. It doesn't add up.

All these things ARE facts. I'll use a little analogy.

My father is a retired Army Col. I lived in the neighborhood w/ the Generals, and one time one of the General's sons who was about 20 came home from college. Long story short, he had a red Jeep and there was a hit and run one night. He'd hit a truck parked on the street, left red paint all down the side, and his Jeep was banged up. What happened? Nothing actually.

The MP's investigated and labeled it a "hit and run". Why? It was the General's son. We all knew it. Did it result in a conviction? Of course not.



OH! Blame it on the dog. That's what I do when there's mud on the carpet... great idea.



No offense sir, but I dunno if Micheal Moore is the guy you want to quote. Edwards and Obama maybe, but Mr. Moore isn't exactly the pillar of objectivity that these debates ordinarily require.

Have I said in this thread anything directly nasty about Hillary? NO? She's a slime ball and her daughter looks like someone beat her with the whole ugly tree. How about that.... nasty enough? YES- I have seen Chelsea in person. I wanted the bag for MY head.

This has become a seriously amusing thread. We've got posters calling the Clinton health plan "socialist" and suggesting Hillary is a closeted lesbian (whisper, whisper). Juicy stuff, but most of all, we've got this:



Then after patronizingly suggesting CrusingRam should calm down, take a breath, have a seat, breathe and come back to earth, what follows next?

Why a angry, capitalized and BOLD print rant.






So here we have a logical, reasoned, thoughtful, nuanced and above all else---calm explanation from a self-described "expert" on Whitewater.

And what do we learn?

Hillary is a "crook, a "theif" (sic), and a "farce" who has been elected twice to Congress by the voters of New York state despite having "NO political experience other than her last name." Let's see she won her first election with 55 percent of the vote and her second with 67 percent while winning in all but 4 out of 62 counties in New York. Haw-haw. Whadda buncha saps those dumb Noo Yawkers are.

But not only is Hillary all those scurrilous things as Aevans176 says she is it gets worse! She's a "dirtbag" who should be in prison (mentioned twice in case you didn't catch it once) and apparently is somehow connected to people who have turned up "dead or missing" and worst of all--she tried to steal furniture from The White House! With a record of criminality like that suddenly "The Sopranos" parody makes sense!

One thing bugs me though. I found this on Wikipedia: A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation resulted in criminal charges against the two principals in the Whitewater project, but the Clintons themselves were never charged. Three separate inquiries found that there was insufficient evidence to charge the Clintons with criminal conduct in the land deal.

Gee, you'd think a "expert" might notice a little thing like that.

Three separate inquiries couldn't find sufficient evidence to charge Bill and Hillary Clinton. The independent investigations spent over $25 million dollars investigating Whitewater and Ken Starr himself would spend $30 million in the hunting of the Clintons. Despite all that time and money utterly wasted, Starr did not include an impeachment referral of The President due to insufficient evidence.

But along comes Aevans176 the Whitewater Expert who can PROVE that Hillary did it. No need for a horde of lawyers, banking records, subpoenas and sworn depositions. Nah, why bother with that stuff when rumor, slander, innuendo and character assassination is so much easier? More fun too!

This is a classic example of following the admonishment "consider the source."

And Hillary Clinton's detractors are solely limited to the objective members of our society? Michael Moore -- as one-sided a filmmaker as he certainly may be -- is no less important a critic of Hillary Clinton that any other member of our society. If we're going to discuss why people hate Hillary, than his rational for Hill-bashing deserves as much critique as John Edwards, Rudy, Ann Coulter, And to bring this back to the thread, I'm sure those people's opinions have guided many of the attacks on Hillary within this thread. I certainly have detected a lot of Dick Morris in the field above.

My opinion on this matter is that Hillary, rightly or wrongly, is a punching bag for everything Americans hate about Washington D.C., even when what they hate is contradictory: she's too partisan, she's too centrist, she's a crook, she's self-righteous, she's too outspoken, she doesn't take enough of a stand, she relies on polls too much, she just wants to institute her own agenda and doesn't care what Americans think. As far as her corruption is concerned, she was loathed before she was ever in a position to be corrupt. She has been a mixed liability to Bill since the late 70s, since the days when they could only dream of renting out the Lincoln bedroom.

We could all agree on John Kerry: he was an awkward, publicly humorless candidate, prone to gaffes and easily tripped up by his 'soldier image.' We can't seem to find out what it is we don't like about Hillary-- though I'm willing to give my fellow debaters the benefit of the doubt and assume it is just the corruption, only because I'm too lazy to go back and research their responses on issues of GOP corruption.

Congratulations. It appears that you are not one of those people whose conclusions about Senator Clinton are based on misogyny, unlike, say, this member who posted

Move along, folks, no misogyny here...

Now, to answer your rhetorical question, no, knowing what I do about Laura Bush (and if she weren't the shy, retiring sort that she appears to be), I would not back her politically because she does support her husband. But I would not be putting her down because she might stay home and bake cookies.

Yes, Hillary Clinton has spoken in the past as though she has encountered opposition from people because of her gender, and she has been a little heavy-handed when she has attempted to assert herself as someone who places a higher priority on being a politician than being a homemaker. But don't you think that the backlash was just a little bit more than what it needed to be for that one statement? It wasn't as though she was calling homemakers "Macacas."

Aevans, does it make you feel better to say that Chelsea Clinton is ugly? Remember, she is not a public figure of her own choosing, and she is not necessarily to be considered as a potential sex partner for you. So why do you care that she isn't pretty? And why should we care in a debate forum what you think about what Chelsea Clinton looks like?

Just as I was joking - see inserted () - about Barney, I hope you are joking about this. Otherwise, the statement is uglier than you accuse Chelsea Clinton of being.

Just as many of us went easy on the Bush twins regarding their underage drinking, I think we need to go easy on Chelsea Clinton.

Besides, she's irerlevant to the thread.

Hit with an "ugly tree." The first time I ever heard something like this was in a Bo Diddley song - "You look like you've bin whooped with a ugly-stick!"

Bo Diddley and Jerome, Say Man, 1959


I almost kicked the slats out of my crib. This is not, as nighttimer called it, one of those "white as a bag of marshmallow" statements. Is there some unrecognized cross culturalization going on with aevans176?

{EDIT:BoF fixed the quote}

I can accept that Clinton is disingenuous, and that is a legitimate criticism. I'm just trying to glean the legitimate criticisms from the specious ones in this thread.

How pretty your children do or don't turn out to be is not a legitimate criterion for whether someone is a suitable candidate.

On a side note I met Chelsea at a fund raiser here in NYC not terribly long ago.

There's a lot of things you might want to say about her, she's not ugly. She's also rather charming and wickedly smart.

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

I cant speak for other members in the forum, but I can see some unlikable qualities that would lead them to dislike her. I don't personally have anything against her. She is NOT a very good Senator and she hasnt represented NY well by any stretch. Although I dislike the man, Sen. Schumer is definately a much better Senator for my state. I think that the dislike really has to do with the utter dislike for her husband Bill Clinton. I dont know why the word Clinton makes people see red, it doesnt affect me very much, but for some reason the man is just loathed. He was a Democrat and a liberal one, but his Administration did not oversee anything that I found threatening to my liberties and while he did engage in humanitarian missions, he did not commit hundreds of thousands of troops.

I don't like Hillary as a politician and would rather anyone be president instead of her. I do not think she is very charismatic or that her personality would work well in foreign affairs. She is just what people think about when they think "politician".

As BD noted, Clinton is a