Hillary Clinton - Why the hate?

[Texsox]

Hillary may be the most enigmatic politician of our time. She has the fiercest supporters and the most rabid detractors. YAS and Kap get so wound up they just scream UGHHHH and run away, others defend her every move. I'm trying to think of anyone else that has drawn that sort of reactions.

 

Great idea for a thread, but in the end, there may not be an answer to either question, why you love or hate her. Perhaps it is because we truly do not know who she is. The media and word of mouth have created an image that is both real and fake. Real in the sense it is what you and I believe her to be, and false because it is based on what we see and hear from media.

[NorthSideSox72]

Hillary may be the most enigmatic politician of our time. She has the fiercest supporters and the most rabid detractors. YAS and Kap get so wound up they just scream UGHHHH and run away, others defend her every move. I'm trying to think of anyone else that has drawn that sort of reactions.

 

Great idea for a thread, but in the end, there may not be an answer to either question, why you love or hate her. Perhaps it is because we truly do not know who she is. The media and word of mouth have created an image that is both real and fake. Real in the sense it is what you and I believe her to be, and false because it is based on what we see and hear from media.

I'd say this thread did pretty well. I think that, among the snark, there were a number of very well thought-out points made (positive and negative) about her candidacy.

 

[Texsox]

One other factor on why

 

Perhaps we do not know what to expect from a legitimate female candidate for President.

[Balta1701]

One other factor on why

 

Perhaps we do not know what to expect from a legitimate female candidate for President.

This is actually the one thing I tried to avoid with my whole post on policy issues earlier. I can't honestly say that deep down somewhere buried that doesn't play into my decision, because I'm a geologist and not a psychologist. But I'd like to think that this is not something that bothers me. I've voted for Boxer, I've voted for Feinstein, I don't on the surface feel like I have a problem with voting for a woman, I feel like I have a problem with this particular one, and their history of policy.

[knightni]

She's a legitimate female candidate.

 

I've just found her to be personally distasteful and an unpleasant reminder of 1993-2000.

 

She pretty much ran her husband's time in office anyway, so why have four years of repeat?

 

 

 

 

[Texsox]

This is actually the one thing I tried to avoid with my whole post on policy issues earlier. I can't honestly say that deep down somewhere buried that doesn't play into my decision, because I'm a geologist and not a psychologist. But I'd like to think that this is not something that bothers me. I've voted for Boxer, I've voted for Feinstein, I don't on the surface feel like I have a problem with voting for a woman, I feel like I have a problem with this particular one, and their history of policy.

And I believe that to be true for many people, but the same behavior that would pass for normal from a guy tags her as a b****. Name another candidate that comes close to a description like that. The types of adjectives that are used to describe her is very interesting. I also think there are some people that wish she had publicly humiliated William Jefferson and divorced him during the Lewinski affair. What could have passed, perhaps, as conservative, Tammy Wynett, stand by your man, became a conniving tool to become President. She is judged differently as a woman, but isn't that valid? Is not sex a big part of who we are? What our identity is? There are differences between men and women, and not just under the hood.

[iamshack]

And I believe that to be true for many people, but the same behavior that would pass for normal from a guy tags her as a b****. Name another candidate that comes close to a description like that. The types of adjectives that are used to describe her is very interesting. I also think there are some people that wish she had publicly humiliated William Jefferson and divorced him during the Lewinski affair. What could have passed, perhaps, as conservative, Tammy Wynett, stand by your man, became a conniving tool to become President. She is judged differently as a woman, but isn't that valid? Is not sex a big part of who we are? What our identity is? There are differences between men and women, and not just under the hood.

 

Those last few sentences are hitting what I am going to mention- sure, she gets labeled as a b**** because she can be so focused and ruthless....but she also can get away with crying whereas a man could not have.

 

It's absolutely a matter of what sort of behavior is traditionally expected of women, just as we have been judging men on what sort of behavior is traditionally expected of men...

[Misplaced_Sox]

Those last few sentences are hitting what I am going to mention- sure, she gets labeled as a b**** because she can be so focused and ruthless....but she also can get away with crying whereas a man could not have.

 

It's absolutely a matter of what sort of behavior is traditionally expected of women, just as we have been judging men on what sort of behavior is traditionally expected of men...

 

Men cry in office are called patriotic, and brave. Women cry and they are weak and emotional.

 

I remember several media outlets clapping with optimism the tears bush would shed over spicy kung pao meal. Said "it makes him more human, like us."

[iamshack]

Men cry in office are called patriotic, and brave. Women cry and they are weak and emotional.

 

I remember several media outlets clapping with optimism the tears bush would shed over spicy kung pao meal. Said "it makes him more human, like us."

 

I think you're seeing this about as one-sided as you possibly could. It's great that you have such an appreciation for Hillary, but you're not being very open-minded in this discussion.

 

I think the vast majority of people in this country would view a male candidate crying in office as weak and pathetic. Obviously the context would be quite important, but given the situation, I think Hillary was viewed far more favorably for crying when she did than if one of the male candidates had done the same.

Edited February 7, 2008 by iamshack

[CrimsonWeltall]

Men cry in office are called patriotic, and brave. Women cry and they are weak and emotional.

 

I remember several media outlets clapping with optimism the tears bush would shed over spicy kung pao meal. Said "it makes him more human, like us."

 

You think if Obama started crying while talking about struggles as a black man, he would be considered patriotic and brave?

 

And when Hillary cried earlier in the primary season, she wasn't called weak and emotional; she was accused of being a faker precisely because she is thought of as NOT being weak and emotional.

[DrunkBomber]

Ive read through most of this thread and hadnt saw this brought up I might have missed it. Im just gonna say what I dont like her on a personal level. The first thing I look for in an elected leader is respect. Im not saying I respect GWB or any of the other candidates now any more or less. However, how Bills affairs were made so public and they werent isolated incidents to me a huge slap in the face to her. Then her staying with him shows me a lack of spine. I know some people look at the sanctity or marriage and thought it was good for her to stand by her man but thats just not the way I think. I simply cant respect someone that would let their spouse walk all over them like that and I dont want a leader I dont respect.

[Misplaced_Sox]

Another strong piece of anecdotal evidence of Hillary's strength and endeavors for others.

 

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/6/181048/8171#2

 

 

Where are the Obama anecdotes? Despite the ones he riffs from Martin Luther King, Langston Hughes, or Paul Laurence Dunbar.

 

Better yet I say you Chicagoan go track down the Cabrini Green residents they moved around the state and ask them about Obama's "change." I am still in contact with ten people from there if you want an address.http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/6/181048/8171#2

Edited February 7, 2008 by Misplaced_Sox

[iamshack]

Ive read through most of this thread and hadnt saw this brought up I might have missed it. Im just gonna say what I dont like her on a personal level. The first thing I look for in an elected leader is respect. Im not saying I respect GWB or any of the other candidates now any more or less. However, how Bills affairs were made so public and they werent isolated incidents to me a huge slap in the face to her. Then her staying with him shows me a lack of spine. I know some people look at the sanctity or marriage and thought it was good for her to stand by her man but thats just not the way I think. I simply cant respect someone that would let their spouse walk all over them like that and I dont want a leader I dont respect.

 

Well, this is part of what really bothers me...but it isn't that I believe she stayed with him because she had no spine, but rather, that she stayed with him because she knew it was in the best interests of her eventual political career. Which I find extremely repugnant.

 

I don't believe in their marriage- I think it's a sham and strictly a career arrangement for both of them. It's not that I believe they don't care for one another, but I think they each think of their political careers first and foremost (whether that is individually or collectively) their daughter second (I hope), and then whatever is left of their sham marriage.

[iamshack]

Another strong piece of anecdotal evidence of Hillary's strength and endeavors for others.

 

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/6/181048/8171#2

Where are the Obama anecdotes? Despite the ones he riffs from Martin Luther King, Langston Hughes, or Paul Laurence Dunbar.

 

Better yet I say you Chicagoan go track down the Cabrini Green residents they moved around the state and ask them about Obama's "change." I am still in contact with ten people from there if you want an address.http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/6/181048/8171#2

 

You know, these are great and all...but honestly, I'm sure there are plenty of people who have had great experiences with all the candidates.

 

The Clinton's are the masters of this technique, and it's been on display since Bill's campaigns and his SOTU addresses. Frankly, I think it's gotten quite old.

 

As for your repeated references to Obama's role in tearing down the projects, don't you think you are oversimplifying things a bit? There are so many factors that have gone into whether to leave those projects in place or what to do with them that we could spend days discussing that issue. Yet you are trying to pin the entire thing on Obama, as if he just strolled in there, snapped his fingers, and the wrecking balls were let loose. I'm not sure what the answer is regarding what to do with those areas, but one thing is clear: they were replete with drugs, violence, and absolute poverty for a long period of time. Whether it was right for the residents to be displaced, I'm not sure. But those were certainly not areas where anything very positive could happen at all. The odds of anyone raised there of living a healthy, stable, and happy upbringing were quite minute.

[Misplaced_Sox]

You know, these are great and all...but honestly, I'm sure there are plenty of people who have had great experiences with all the candidates.

 

The Clinton's are the masters of this technique, and it's been on display since Bill's campaigns and his SOTU addresses. Frankly, I think it's gotten quite old.

 

As for your repeated references to Obama's role in tearing down the projects, don't you think you are oversimplifying things a bit? There are so many factors that have gone into whether to leave those projects in place or what to do with them that we could spend days discussing that issue. Yet you are trying to pin the entire thing on Obama, as if he just strolled in there, snapped his fingers, and the wrecking balls were let loose. I'm not sure what the answer is regarding what to do with those areas, but one thing is clear: they were replete with drugs, violence, and absolute poverty for a long period of time. Whether it was right for the residents to be displaced, I'm not sure. But those were certainly not areas where anything very positive could happen at all. The odds of anyone raised there of living a healthy, stable, and happy upbringing were quite minute.

 

My disagreement with Obama was not with tearing down the projects, they needed to be torn down, but my disagreement was with the initial, and agreed upon by residents that they would have homes in these new mixed income building, at least a 75% mix of former project inhabitants, and the rest sold market to other non income capped buyers. This was a deal that Obama worked on as a lawyer, co brokered with Rezko holdings, and they changed that to 30% housing for them and 20% "workable income" houses. Workable income being loosely based upon 65,000 for single 120,00 for married, which no on at Cabrini Green made. they were brokered out on behalf of Obama and his law firm, and Rezko made much more money. How is this good politics?

 

I lived in the Robert Taylor Homes, also a rezko holding which Obama's law firm brokered from under the inhabitants. He came to our little part of the woods and made a big speech how we wouldnt end up like Cabrini Green residents, but we did. The poor shuttled off to Tinley, Oak Lawn, Cottage Grove. Away from their jobs, their family, their friends, instead of in the planned new mix use income homes they promised.

 

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/4253...obama13.article

 

You need to have lived it, to understand it.

 

I made it out, not so many did.

[Texsox]

Men crying is weak and knocks you out of the race.

 

 

 

The collapse of Muskie's momentum early in the 1972 campaign is also attributed to his response to campaign attacks. Prior to the New Hampshire primary, the so-called "Canuck Letter" was published in the Manchester Union-Leader. The letter claimed that Muskie had made disparaging remarks about French-Canadians—a remark likely to injure Muskie's support among the French-Canadian population in northern New England. Subsequently, the paper published an attack on the character of Muskie's wife Jane, reporting that she drank and used off-color language during the campaign. Muskie made an emotional defense of his wife in a speech outside the newspaper's offices during a snowstorm. Though Muskie later stated that what had appeared to the press as tears were actually melted snowflakes, the press reported that Muskie broke down and cried, shattering the candidate's image as calm and reasoned.^[3]

 

Evidence later came to light during the Watergate scandal investigation that, during the 1972 presidential campaign the Nixon campaign committee maintained a "dirty tricks" unit focused on discrediting Nixon's strongest challengers (see Ratf***ing). Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigators revealed that the Canuck Letter was a forged document as part of the dirty-tricks campaign against Democrats orchestrated by the Nixon campaign.^[4]

 

So if the Clinton campaign did decide that cryng would help, it was a damn big risk, and one I don't think she needed to make.

 

 

[iamshack]

My disagreement with Obama was not with tearing down the projects, they needed to be torn down, but my disagreement was with the initial, and agreed upon by residents that they would have homes in these new mixed income building, at least a 75% mix of former project inhabitants, and the rest sold market to other non income capped buyers. This was a deal that Obama worked on as a lawyer, co brokered with Rezko holdings, and they changed that to 30% housing for them and 20% "workable income" houses. Workable income being loosely based upon 65,000 for single 120,00 for married, which no on at Cabrini Green made. they were brokered out on behalf of Obama and his law firm, and Rezko made much more money. How is this good politics?

 

I lived in the Robert Taylor Homes, also a rezko holding which Obama's law firm brokered from under the inhabitants. He came to our little part of the woods and made a big speech how we wouldnt end up like Cabrini Green residents, but we did. The poor shuttled off to Tinley, Oak Lawn, Cottage Grove. Away from their jobs, their family, their friends, instead of in the planned new mix use income homes they promised.

 

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/4253...obama13.article

 

You need to have lived it, to understand it.

 

I made it out, not so many did.

 

I'm not so ignorant to claim I can understand what went on/goes on in some of these areas as you do/did. Obviously, if you've lived it, you were there, I was not. But what I'm saying is things are quite a bit more complicated than what you're owning up to.

 

Let me ask you this, Misplaced....since the rest of us are absolutely affected by the housing economy, why should those living in subsidized housing not be? If I want to live in certain areas, I need to be able to make a certain amount of income either to rent or own there. Why should those living in subsidized housing be immune to this economic reality?

 

[iamshack]

And what does it matter that the developers, which did not even include Obama, paid $1 for the property? I used to work for the Mayor's Office and the City sold vacant/abandoned/damaged properties all the time for $1. The City often can't afford to rehabilitate the property itself, so it transfers ownership to someone in the private sector who is eligible for federal tax credits and they make it happen that way....there's nothing shady about the fact that the land for that development was bought for $1.

[DrunkBomber]

Well, this is part of what really bothers me...but it isn't that I believe she stayed with him because she had no spine, but rather, that she stayed with him because she knew it was in the best interests of her eventual political career. Which I find extremely repugnant.

 

I don't believe in their marriage- I think it's a sham and strictly a career arrangement for both of them. It's not that I believe they don't care for one another, but I think they each think of their political careers first and foremost (whether that is individually or collectively) their daughter second (I hope), and then whatever is left of their sham marriage.

I agree that its mostly because of their careers and it kind of makes it worse for me.

[Balta1701]

I agree that its mostly because of their careers and it kind of makes it worse for me.

You know? This kind of bothers me, because I for one have no way of getting in to their heads, so I honestly don't think this is any more than guesswork. Not only are we trying to guess her motivation without knowing her, we're trying to guess her motivation based on the persona that gets presented of her through the media. So I think it's really difficult to guess a person's motivation. You may believe that, but without knowing the person, I just feel like it's hard to say that with confidence.

[iamshack]

You know? This kind of bothers me, because I for one have no way of getting in to their heads, so I honestly don't think this is any more than guesswork. Not only are we trying to guess her motivation without knowing her, we're trying to guess her motivation based on the persona that gets presented of her through the media. So I think it's really difficult to guess a person's motivation. You may believe that, but without knowing the person, I just feel like it's hard to say that with confidence.

 

This is clearly why we premised our posts with the qualification of "I think..."

 

No one can truly know, and she certainly is not going to come out and tell us. But we can evaluate everything we have seen of her in the press, in print, the actions of her husband and how she dealt with that, and make an educated guess of what we believe. Which is all these are...

[Misplaced_Sox]

And what does it matter that the developers, which did not even include Obama, paid $1 for the property? I used to work for the Mayor's Office and the City sold vacant/abandoned/damaged properties all the time for $1. The City often can't afford to rehabilitate the property itself, so it transfers ownership to someone in the private sector who is eligible for federal tax credits and they make it happen that way....there's nothing shady about the fact that the land for that development was bought for $1.

 

 

It is about making money off poor people, disenfranchising them of their home by promises of integration in a mixed income society, like as promised. You obviously will never understand and you sound like a real ignorant person. Live a day in a poor person's shoes. Go to work with them, listen to their problems, then go home with them. Understand the realities you are talking about. This was not vacant land. The inhabitants of said ghettos signed off a new proposal to rehab land for the chance to live in an integrated society and not one that bred more poor people. The ghetto was first designed as a social construct to keep people poor, it becomes a breeding ground for cheap workforce. Reference the Dr. Martin Luther King on those points about the systematic poverty.

 

 

You don't promise people one thing and then turn your back and make a profit off them because they don't have a voice to speak out from.

 

Obama also bought land for part of his house for a dollar, he was not rehabbing the land.

 

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

It is about making money off poor people, disenfranchising them of their home by promises of integration in a mixed income society, like as promised. You obviously will never understand and you sound like a real ignorant person. Live a day in a poor person's shoes. Go to work with them, listen to their problems, then go home with them. Understand the realities you are talking about. This was not vacant land. The inhabitants of said ghettos signed off a new proposal to rehab land for the chance to live in an integrated society and not one that bred more poor people. The ghetto was first designed as a social construct to keep people poor, it becomes a breeding ground for cheap workforce. Reference the Dr. Martin Luther King on those points about the systematic poverty.

You don't promise people one thing and then turn your back and make a profit off them because they don't have a voice to speak out from.

 

Obama also bought land for part of his house for a dollar, he was not rehabbing the land.

Listen carefully - you just called another poster "a real ignorant person". You need to tone it down, or you can just stop posting in here. Your choice.

 

Back to your material information... as you have pointed out, the projects were a really poor design for everyone involved. Now we have the new plans, in great part pushed by Mayor Daley, to integrate income levels in housing. I am sure that is no perfect solution, but, be honest here - are you really saying its not an improvement from the cell block-like projects?

 

[iamshack]

It is about making money off poor people, disenfranchising them of their home by promises of integration in a mixed income society, like as promised. You obviously will never understand and you sound like a real ignorant person. Live a day in a poor person's shoes. Go to work with them, listen to their problems, then go home with them. Understand the realities you are talking about. This was not vacant land. The inhabitants of said ghettos signed off a new proposal to rehab land for the chance to live in an integrated society and not one that bred more poor people. The ghetto was first designed as a social construct to keep people poor, it becomes a breeding ground for cheap workforce. Reference the Dr. Martin Luther King on those points about the systematic poverty.

You don't promise people one thing and then turn your back and make a profit off them because they don't have a voice to speak out from.

 

Obama also bought land for part of his house for a dollar, he was not rehabbing the land.

 

I'm ignorant because I asked you a question? Why did you completely ignore the question?

 

Secondly, the property was SUBSIDIZED HOUSING. How is that making a profit off of poor people? The poor inhabitants of these housing projects did not OWN the land. They were living there in a subsidized housing program run by the Chicago Housing Authority and the Federal Housing Authority at different times. They were given homes to live in at reduced rates which were subsidized by the tax dollars of ignorant taxpayers like me. In Housing developments, not their own homes that they were establishing equity in on land they themselves owned.

 

Please don't accuse me of being ignorant simply because I have not walked in your shoes. I'm not representing to you that I have, I'm not judging you or anyone you know, and I am not telling you to do anything or not do anything.

 

All I'm saying is the development and upkeep of subsidized housing is so much more complex than you seem to believe or are owning up to. It's an extremely difficult situation, governed by an extraordinarily complex set of real-world factors, including federal and other tax dollars, the fact that those living in subsidized housing are often not involved in the credit system, there is little accountability due to that and other factors, etc. Add that to the fact that the City has been experiencing gentrification at an absolutely phenomenal pace, which is necessary for economic development and the well-being of the populace as a whole, and this becomes a ridiculously complex issue.

 

 

 

[Texsox]

Well, this is part of what really bothers me...but it isn't that I believe she stayed with him because she had no spine, but rather, that she stayed with him because she knew it was in the best interests of her eventual political career. Which I find extremely repugnant.

 

I don't believe in their marriage- I think it's a sham and strictly a career arrangement for both of them. It's not that I believe they don't care for one another, but I think they each think of their political careers first and foremost (whether that is individually or collectively) their daughter second (I hope), and then whatever is left of their sham marriage.

 

So fighting to save a marriage and keeping the family together is a bad thing? I wonder if you have analyzed the other candidates marriages, which ones are the best, which couples are the most in love?