Hillary Clinton - Why the hate?

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't like Hillary Clinton. I think she's a poor choice for President, and personally, she gives me the creeps.

 

There are a lot of folks in here who dig into her, a lot - myself included. From both parties, mind you.

 

Here is what I'd like to do in this thread... let's hear the specific, material reasons why people favor or don't favor her run for President. AND HERE IS THE KEY PART: Let's try to do this like you were trying to win over a room full of intelligent, reasoned people who have no tolerance for snark, B.S., crass or lude jokes, sexism or other assorted crap (and who inexplicably, know nothing of Hillary Clinton). Try to make your argument as substantive as possible, and win over your currently non-affiliated audience.

 

And by the way, you can list both positives AND negatives, if you want to be more complete. I will do that, in a little while.

 

Let's see if we can actually do this, without the thread resorting to profanity-laced invectives...

 

[Chet Lemon]

I'm an independent who does not hate her, and I don't even dislike her. The main negative I have of her in my own view is that she relies far too much on focus groups, one or two powerful advisers, etc.

[whitesoxfan101]

I actually don't have a big problem with her (my hate is for Romney), and I'm sure I'm one of the very few since I'll be voting for McCain in November. I think a lot of the reason for people not liking her (and people won't agree with this), is that Bill Clinton is not nearly as beloved as people think, not even in the Democratic party, and that has a dropoff affect on people. Her plans for universal medicare don't do any favors either (people want better healthcare, but not universal IMO, and that goes for both parties), so she loses points to even Obama among a lot of people there. Lastly, it is true and Hillary and Barack are both strong candidates, but I think the Obama supporters don't really like her because they want something different in Washington (put away the gun TexSox, I didn't say the "c" word), and Hillary is DEFINITELY not something different in general for the democratic party. That's about the best I can do, I'm sure somebody can explain it better, but I tried.

 

I think it's obvious why Republicans don't like her .

Edited February 6, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[kapkomet]

I have a big ass meeting I have to go to. But I will chime in and be nice and actually give reasons without the hyperbole later.

 

[Controlled Chaos]

 

[Texsox]

First off there is a media spiral involved. The GOP has anointed her the DEM nominee five years ago and has been battling her ever since. And we know image is a media creation in todays politics.

 

For some, she is a reminder of the sex scandals and the absurd on both sides impeachment proceedings. Bill we all know what sex is and we also know that removing a President over a bj is ridiculous, but both sides fought it out.

 

Hillary is probably the most ruthless of the candidates and while we accept and even applaud that in men, we have a double standard for our women. She is probably more of a man than any of the men in the race.

 

Many people "know" her and feel strongly about what she thinks and feels. Silly to really believe that, but they do. Some point to her settling in New York as some evil plot and a calculated move in her road to the White House. But how did the Bush family come to be in Maine, Florida, and Texas? For some reason, and I know that is what you are trying to distill with the question, we accept that from the Bush family, but not the Clintons.

 

There is more I will add later but knowone reads posts over a few paragraphs .

[southsider2k5]

I do not like people who do not have convictions. A person's convictions are what makes them who they are, and they tell you how they will handle themselves when they are in office. Its my biggest problem with Clinton, Edwards, and Romney, and its that they will say or do ANYTHING to get into office. The crying and the ruthless stuff are all apart of that game, just like the constantly changing positions over the years of her other opponents. I want to vote for people whom I KNOW what they will stand for, and how they will act in office. I don't get that from Hillary, amongst others.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I have a "big ass" meeting I have to go to. But I will chime in and be nice and actually give reasons without the hyperbole later.

 

 

is that like Alcoholics Anonymous? you can always join the Soxtalk's Biggest Loser club

[Texsox]

I do not like people who do not have convictions. A person's convictions are what makes them who they are, and they tell you how they will handle themselves when they are in office. Its my biggest problem with Clinton, Edwards, and Romney, and its that they will say or do ANYTHING to get into office. The crying and the ruthless stuff are all apart of that game, just like the constantly changing positions over the years of her other opponents. I want to vote for people whom I KNOW what they will stand for, and how they will act in office. I don't get that from Hillary, amongst others.

 

I'm really conflicted on that. If by anything to stay in power you mean doing what the majority of Americans wants, I'm not convinced that is a bad thing. If you mean sticking by a decision after you know it is wrong, that seems dangerous as well.

 

Every movement by every serious candidate is scripted and weighed out. I'm not certain if Gary Hart was the beginning of that or just a notable example of what happens when you do not watch where and what you do. Interesting you mention the crying, Muskie cried and lost his chances, so Hillary crying was a gamble if it was scripted.

 

So to me, it seems like she is being held to a different standard. Or, based on William Jefferson's conduct and Presidency, we are looking for similarities between the two, and that too seems wrong.

[YASNY]

Hillary is a ruthless ... ah hell, I can't do this. I despise the woman too much. You guys have at it.

[Gene Honda Civic]

I do not believe that having a "Royal" last name is a qualification for office. If anything, 8 years ago should have taught us to reject any and all candidates looking to capitalize on the name of immediate family.

 

It's unfortunate that much of the country does not feel this way. Name recognition, more than any other single factor, is the key to winning an election in this country. You have to appeal to the masses, the LCD, the people who think that "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" is great show with tough questions.

 

And yes, I vote against the grain whenever possible. I vote against every judge in local elections. I vote against incumbents unless I really (and I mean really) agree with their policy and voting record. I voted for my incumbent congresswoman and Senator yesterday, which was the first time I've ever voted for than one incumbent.

 

So, yeah I pretty much hate Hillary. I hated when she handpicked New York as her new home when they first started mapping out a 2008 path to the White House. I hate that there are many woman in my life, woman I consider smart informed citizens, who (presumably) voted for Hillary yesterday not on policy but on sisterhood.

[Texsox]

Hillary is a ruthless ... ah hell, I can't do this. I despise the woman too much. You guys have at it.

Stick around.

 

And who do you want going after terrorists, someone ruthless or not? Seriously, that is one thing that actually has me thinking about her. From the confidence and ruthless side, she's the closest to Reagan in this race. Picture any of the four candidates at the Berlin wall and she's the only one I see pulling off the "Tear down this wall" line.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I do not believe that having a "Royal" last name is a qualification for office. If anything, 8 years ago should have taught us to reject any and all candidates looking to capitalize on the name of immediate family.

 

It's unfortunate that much of the country does not feel this way. Name recognition, more than any other single factor, is the key to winning an election in this country. You have to appeal to the masses, the LCD, the people who think that "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" is great show with tough questions.

 

And yes, I vote against the grain whenever possible. I vote against every judge in local elections. I vote against incumbents unless I really (and I mean really) agree with their policy and voting record. I voted for my incumbent congresswoman and Senator yesterday, which was the first time I've ever voted for than one incumbent.

 

So, yeah I pretty much hate Hillary. I hated when she handpicked New York as her new home when they first started mapping out a 2008 path to the White House. I hate that there are many woman in my life, woman I consider smart informed citizens, who (presumably) voted for Hillary yesterday not on policy but on sisterhood.

 

 

omg...I agree with The Cheat.

 

 

Satan needs a scarf and mittens.

[Gene Honda Civic]

Stick around.

 

And who do you want going after terrorists, someone ruthless or not? Seriously, that is one thing that actually has me thinking about her. From the confidence and ruthless side, she's the closest to Reagan in this race. Picture any of the four candidates at the Berlin wall and she's the only one I see pulling off the "Tear down this wall" line.

America does need a candidate who, FROM DAY ONE, can nuke Iran.

[YASNY]

Stick around.

 

And who do you want going after terrorists, someone ruthless or not? Seriously, that is one thing that actually has me thinking about her. From the confidence and ruthless side, she's the closest to Reagan in this race. Picture any of the four candidates at the Berlin wall and she's the only one I see pulling off the "Tear down this wall" line.

 

I'm not happy with ANY of the candidates. Hillary may be a great lady to socialize with, I don't know. But I don't want that 'person' anywhere near the White House. Ever.

[Texsox]

I hated when she handpicked New York as her new home when they first started mapping out a 2008 path to the White House. I hate that there are many woman in my life, woman I consider smart informed citizens, who (presumably) voted for Hillary yesterday not on policy but on sisterhood.

 

Looking at what William Clinton has done after his term, do you really think at his age, settling in Arkansas was in the cards? He seems like a New York kind of guy. I could also see them in California, which would make even more sense for her run.

 

And I think this is the kind of stuff that NSS was talking about in starting the thread. Chaney has lived all over and changed his address to Wyoming so he could run with Bush (two people from the same state can not be on the same ticket). It was not even an issue.

[southsider2k5]

I'm really conflicted on that. If by anything to stay in power you mean doing what the majority of Americans wants, I'm not convinced that is a bad thing. If you mean sticking by a decision after you know it is wrong, that seems dangerous as well.

 

Every movement by every serious candidate is scripted and weighed out. I'm not certain if Gary Hart was the beginning of that or just a notable example of what happens when you do not watch where and what you do. Interesting you mention the crying, Muskie cried and lost his chances, so Hillary crying was a gamble if it was scripted.

 

So to me, it seems like she is being held to a different standard. Or, based on William Jefferson's conduct and Presidency, we are looking for similarities between the two, and that too seems wrong.

 

Then we don't need Presidential candidates. All we need is supercomputers who can poll every second of everyday, and decide what 50% +1 of the country wants to do.

 

I want to know that the person I am voting to represent me, is indeed going to represent MY interests. The issues that people use as a litmus test are important to them, and they are the reason they vote for certian candidates. If you can't trust that, what is the point of voting at all?

[BigSqwert]

I didn't necessarily dislike her before this election cycle but the more I see and hear from Hillary and her campaign the more I cannot tolerate the thought of her being in the White House.

 

These are the words and thoughts that pop into my mind when I think of the Clinton campaign:

 

Ruthless

Phony

Calculating

Polarizing

Carpetbagger

Win at all cost

Oligarchy

Status Quo

Lobbyists

Misrepresent

Smear

Rove-like

 

If she becomes the nominee I will not vote for her in the general and I will not donate or volunteer for the Dems the rest of the year.

Edited February 6, 2008 by BigSqwert

[EvilMonkey]

I can understand a person changing their voting based on what the constituents want, but don't try to convince me afterwards that that was really your position all along.

[Balta1701]

I have a litany of specific policy issues that drive me on this matter, and for most of them I'm going to harken back to the Clinton years and use them as an example, because I think that regardless of specific policy issues she puts forwards right now, aside from Health care, the behaviour of these same folks during 8 years in office is an ideal guidepost to how they'll behave for the next 4.

 

First and foremost, let me get this out of the way...I would probably be happy to vote for Clinton over any of the Republicans if it were not for one thing...this damn war. If I could get it right, then I should be able to expect a Senator to get it right. On top of that, she won't even admit that her vote was the wrong one. That's why there's a chance I might well just leave my presidential ballot blank in the fall if it comes down to Hillary/McCain. Yes, Hillary would be vastly better than the warmonger, but I'm just not sure right now if I have the stomach to put another check mark down for another person who voted for this war. I voted for Dean in the CA primary in 04 despite the race being over and him having dropped out for exactly the same reason. I think this vote says as much about her foreign policy views as anything, and in that I give anyone who did not vote for the war a gigantic advantage, or anyone who voted for the war and repudiated that vote (Edwards) an advantage as well.

 

On overall policy matters, I think the best way I can sum up my feelings about the way the Clintons governed is that they went along for the ride. The biggest things that they actually got out and led on were small tasks, or things that could have been done better. They got the economy running well thanks to the tech explosion, and decided that they weren't going to shake things up even in cases where things desperately needed to be shaken up, and in that they missed some of the greatest opportunities we've had to improve the future of this country.

 

The things that come to my mind that they actually got out and led on were...NAFTA/associated other "Free trade" deals. The Kosovo/Bosnia issues. The Israel/Palestine issues. Welfare Reform, and Health care reform. All of which were, frankly, small matters compared to the other tasks facing this country.

 

After their Health care debacle, which they tried but did a poor job of organizing, they really failed to get out in front on any domestic policy issue that could have shaped the future. They were handed the last great period of low energy prices in the nation's history, but did they use that time to prep for the future? Cut back on fossil fuel subsidies, pump money in to research for Solar/wind, get out and lead by encouraging the building of new wind farms, or cut a deal to raise the CAFE standards? No. So what happens? For 8 years our nation's average fuel economy drops as Detroit pumps out larger and larger SUV's, energy prices explode, and we're 5 years behind where we should be and getting our asses kicked by Toyota because we never bothered planning ahead.

 

They're leading through a great period of job growth and expansion. So what do they do with this time? Do they take advantage of the pro-business environment to finally start working environmental and labor issues into trade pacts? Do they take steps to make sure that the companies making all this money are doing so ethically? Do they advocate free trade for anything other than manufacturing (i.e. do they dare going against Disney in the copyright wars?) No. And what happens? The bubble bursts, we find out that dozens of companies have been cheating and a lot of people lose their jobs and retirement because of it...and things just stagnate and don't seem to get better.

 

They're leading in the period where science comes out and says that anthropogenic climate change is a major threat. They sign the Kyoto protocol, but then do they do anything hard like try to get it passed? No, leave that problem for Al, he'll deal with that when he's President.

 

They're leading at a time of massively growing potential corruption in campaign contributions. Do they try to reform the system? No, they use whatever means they can to enhance their own fundraising.

 

They're leading at a time of massive American military hegemony. What do they do with this power? During their watch, the alliance against Iraq cracks, hundreds of thousands of people die there because of sanctions, a corrupt oil-for-food program is born and unmonitored because people are getting rich, the inspectors are pulled out and never forced back in, and eventually Bush is able to say "Look there haven't been inspectors for 4 years, let's invade".

 

During their watch the terrorist threat grows dramatically, and despite people screaming that something needs to be done before it's too late, only piecemeal steps are taken to deal with the growing threats. A few missiles are lobbed, but a firm plan is never created to go after the people who attacked us in 1998 at the embassies, the Middle East is allowed to dramatically move towards fanaticism, U.S. troops are kept in Saudi Arabia for seemingly no good reason, Pakistan destabilizes, and the Taliban takes over Afghanistan. While they did some good, i.e. stopping the Millennium threat, the 9/11 commission report has more than enough blame to go around.

 

I guess my whole critique on the first Clinton administration is that they didn't really lead. They went along with the ride in a lot of cases, too timid to really make a dent in the issues that were on the horizon. Without their timidity on issue after issue, the disaster that the Bush years have been might have been lessened or even avoided.

 

Does Hillary have good policy proposals? For example, on Health care, yes. But do I trust her to be a good leader? She's surrounded herself with many of the same pollsters and advisers as her husband did during his campaign. Her time in the Senate has shown those same tendencies for timidity in the face of any pushback (i.e. the Iraq war vote). And admittedly, given the comparison to the disaster that the last 7+ years have been, the Clinton Administration looks a lot better. But the seeds of this administration's failures were found in the failures of the Clinton years, and I don't see the same family that couldn't prevent this mess as being able to fix it.

[NorthSideSox72]

I didn't necessarily dislike her before this election cycle but the more I see and hear from Hillary and her campaign the more I cannot tolerate the thought of her being in the White House.

 

These are the words and thoughts that pop into my mind when I think of the Clinton campaign:

 

Ruthless

Phony

Calculating

Polarizing

Carpetbagger

Win at all cost

Oligarchy

Status Quo

Lobbyists

Misrepresent

Smear

Rove-like

 

If she becomes the nominee I will not vote for her in the general and I will not donate or volunteer for the Dems the rest of the year.

 

Some of those are specific concerns, others are just adjectives. Could you be more specific?

 

I'll give a few of my specific concerns...

 

--Echoing what others have said on this, I don't think that she executes her principles in policy. Now obviously, all politicians need to compromise, or they are ineffective. But there is a subtle, yet important difference between compromising on policy and compromising on principles. Similar to Edwards or Romney, Clinton seems to vote where the wind blows her. We're not just talking one issue where she has changed her mind either - its a repetitive issue with her.

 

--Also brought up earlier, the war - she voted for it. The NIE and other intel out there at the time was available to her, though there were other pieces of data that Congress was kept from. In any case, I believe she made a very poor judgement call. And I say poor, not because she was wrong, but for WHY she was wrong. She allowed the moment to sweep her up into things (her and others), and she made the most critical decision a lawmaker can make (going to war) without the appropriate due diligence and without taking a principled position. I cannot abide voting for someone who did that.

 

--While I realize she is not Bill Clinton, she has decided to use Bill to campaign for her, and has essentially made this a Clinton family event. And that just bothers me - a lot. Its an end run on the Constitution, and I know it sounds petty, but it really does bring an oligarchical feel to the whole process. Its not American.

 

--Her whole attitude is so very divisive. I'm not sure if its her trying to be tough or what, but, its clear to me she is incapable of working across the aisle. And right now we need that more than ever - we need to get back to the center, where most of the country sits. You can look at Obama, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, McCain, Romney, Edwards, and a bunch of other candidates in both parties, and see some of that theme in what they tried to bring to the table. Hillary Clinton's history is fraught with just the opposite - her work during her husband's Presidency caused head-butting, and its gotten worse since.

 

--Having read all the various mud about finances, I see a whole lot of very shifty stuff going on for the Clintons, Hillary in particular. Far more than I do other candidates. And that bothers me too.

 

I want to add something else here, about positivism versus negativism. I personally believe that the positivist message from Obama, and for that matter from Huckabee on the other side of the aisle, is important today. I think that having a President who can lead dynamically has value, and that includes their public appearances. Those appearances do far in the public. And I prefer positive to negative, after having 8 years of fearmongering in the White House. Obama, Huckabee, and to an extent McCain, and even Edwards, provide that. Clinton, Romney, and previously Thompson and Giuliani had much more negative attitudes in their speeches and appearances and at the debates. I think that matters.

 

[Reddy]

I didn't necessarily dislike her before this election cycle but the more I see and hear from Hillary and her campaign the more I cannot tolerate the thought of her being in the White House.

 

These are the words and thoughts that pop into my mind when I think of the Clinton campaign:

 

Ruthless

 

Not necessarily a downside. She'll be ruthless w/ the GOP in Washington too. While Obama tries to nice them to death, she'd actually get things done

 

Phony

 

who isn't?

 

Calculating

 

I'd rather have that than the 'off the cuff' presidency of Bush. How bout we actually WEIGH our options and make the best decision for once?

 

Polarizing

 

true, but see Ruthless. We need someone who will fight the republicans. Their idea of a compromise is them getting their way. She realizes this.

 

Carpetbagger

 

I'm gonna be honest and say i'm not really sure what's implied by this. Pardon my ignorance.

 

Win at all cost

 

I really wanna win in Nov. If the GOP nom is McCain it'll be a hard battle and I really don't care what it takes (within reason) to beat him

 

Oligarchy

 

If you think we don't ALREADY live in one you're sadly mistaken.

 

Status Quo

 

Rather have that than McCain abolishing Roe v. Wade. That's not the kind of change I'm looking for.

 

Lobbyists

 

This is the one thing I really dislike about her - but to think Obama wouldn't have lobbyists in his White House is pure fantasy. He said he'd sit at the table with them and negotiate. See how far that gets you...

 

[Reddy]

 

Misrepresent

 

what is meant by this?

 

Smear

 

When Kerry got smeared he didn't fight back. Maybe we NEED someone who will fight back!!! The GOP will pull out all the stops to beat her or Obama - we need to be willing to do the same as sad as that is. Negative campaigning WORKS

 

Rove-like

 

hmm... how did GWB get elected? Oh yeah, he had Rove behind him. Now while i disagree that she's Rove-like, we NEED to win. And maybe being a bit ruthless (as seen above) is what we need

 

If she becomes the nominee I will not vote for her in the general and I will not donate or volunteer for the Dems the rest of the year.

 

So you're anti-Roe v. Wade and anti-civil unions and think that McCain will fix our Economy and like the prospect of 100 years in Iraq?? Ok, well in that case go ahead and don't vote for her.

 

In my book that's just foolish. But what do I know?

[southsider2k5]

I can understand a person changing their voting based on what the constituents want, but don't try to convince me afterwards that that was really your position all along.

 

I could respect someone who got up and said that it is my job as an elected representative to stand up for what my district believes in, no matter what I think of it. The problem is I do not think I have ever heard that. It is "I feel" instead.

[NorthSideSox72]

In response to Tex, about ruthlessness...

 

There is a very important difference between being tough and being ruthless. Clinton is ruthless, meaning she is not only aggresive and hard to her enemies, she is that way towards ANYONE who gets in the way of what she wants. That is NOT something I applaud in any candidate, male or female. I want tough, but diplomatic and open-minded. Someone who has the country's best interests in mind - not their own. I think Clinton falls down in that regard.