General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy Hillary hate is at the core of the current crisis in US politics. You can't understand Trump if
you don't get Hillary.
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bettie
(16,110 posts)propaganda.
People's ideas of her have been set...there are a lot of people alive and of voting age who can not remember a time when she wasn't being investigated for something.
It's easy to leverage something when it is ubiquitous and already fixed in many people's minds.
SharonAnn
(13,776 posts)the people Richard Mellon Scaife funded to go after the Clintons, etc., etc.
It is detailed, accurate, and truthful. It is also frightening how the RW can and will bring so many resources together to destroy someone.
It really opened my eyes as to how all this worked. And it is still working.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Nt
Bettie
(16,110 posts)despite everything stacked against her and us (the people), but they got Comey to do his 11th hour thing and it, coupled with a massive suppression effort gave it to the cheaters.
Jarqui
(10,126 posts)It's just plain hate.
Either that or make the case on how much the GOP loved and revered their black president, Barack Obama.
If it's not a white, male, straight, Christian person with conservative views, then it's second class or worse and time to call ICE, the KKK or some law against abortion or for unequal pay.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)By liberals?
Jarqui
(10,126 posts)Since she's a woman, and they commonly look down on women, they'll go after her for that.
With a white, male Democrat, he's weak - not strong enough to defend the nation. He's a drunken idiot with a checkbook in his hands - giving too much away for free. He's often lazy - with his hand out. If he's not a Christian, they might go after that. He's immoral in some way sexually. etc
They discriminate against
- people who are not white
- people who are not Christians
- people who are not straight
- women
etc
It's not merely a Hillary/women thing.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Yeah, Elizabeth Warren was 'the Canadian girlfriend" for many on the left, which TOTALLY proved that they weren't sexist...
Then the fury that erupted among so many of them when she endorsed Hillary after the nomination showed something a little different.
Keith Ellison got none of that fury when he endorsed the Democratic candidate.
Jarqui
(10,126 posts)I wasn't sure she was ready for president with her lack of foreign policy experience.
But it was Hillary's chronic dishonesty that turned me off. Had nothing to do with her sex. Donald Trump's chronic dishonesty is worse and a bigger turn off.
I don't have an integrity issue with Elizabeth or Bernie. None of them were perfect. I liked Elizabeth or Bernie better and still do.
Are there misogynists among the Democrats? Definitely. But I don't chalk Clinton's loss up mainly to that. There was other issues going on. For example, as much as I couldn't stand Trump way more, people voted for him because between the candidates, he represented change while Clinton represented the old Washington. That's one big difference that was an important factor. I would have taken Hillary any day.
ismnotwasm
(41,986 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And then read this about what happens to Hillary when she is just one degree too candid:
No, Hillary Rodham Clinton was once willing to share her deepest thoughts and feelings, as she did in a 1993 speech on “the politics of meaning,” delivered as her father lay dying, in which she said the country was suffering “a sleeping sickness of the soul,” and urged her fellow citizens “to remold society by redefining what it means to be a human being in the 20th century.”
Her reward? She was roundly, relentlessly ridiculed, most infamously in a New York Times cover story, titled “Saint Hillary,” by the late Michael Kelly, in which she expounded at even greater length on her personal passions, unaware that Kelly would use them to mock her for high-minded earnestness. In those interviews, the public Hillary Clinton was altogether different than the one the public sees today: less guarded, more candid, far more eager to embrace the “larger message” she’s so often criticized for lacking now. When Kelly suggested to her that she was “trying to come up with a sort of unified-field theory of life,” she responded in what he described as “excited” tones: "That's right, that's exactly right!"
It's called double damned if you do and double damned if you don't.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-media-transparency-214250
Jarqui
(10,126 posts)Let's agree to disagree.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Response to ehrnst (Reply #25)
Post removed
ismnotwasm
(41,986 posts)Lord in heaven
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Chronic dishonesty! No proof but there it is...just another dishonest successful/powerful woman I guess.
Jarqui
(10,126 posts)There are plenty of honest, successful women in US politics. Gabby Giffords, Tammy Duckworth, Tulsi Gabbard are examples of other well known women in US politics and I submit their credibility is vastly superior to Hillary's.
It's not a women issue.
Just like Donald Trump's lying is not a men's issue. Barack Obama did not lie anything close to Trump - in fact, he seemed very honest to me. Bernie Sanders is very honest.
Some individuals do not tell the truth as well as others. Hillary and Trump have not been very honest or reliable or trustworthy over the years. Obama, Sanders, Franken, Warren, Giffords, Duckworth & Gabbard have been vastly more trustworthy over their careers.
ismnotwasm
(41,986 posts)Just sayin
Me.
(35,454 posts)to the world's biggest liar based on what? Give an example.
You refer to Islamophobe Gabbard as an example of credible? REally?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Batting 1000 here...
You have some real issues with older women. What did you think of Elizabeth Warren when she didn't support Bernie, then endorsed Hillary at full volume?
I'm also curious as to why you think there was a nearly the lack of endorsements for her rival for the nomination on the part of those who had worked with them?
You seem to have a specific litmus test for female candidates - that they have the blessing of a specific man.
Am I right?
You seem to validate everything the OP was saying.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)On DU?
I think you need to move along. This is not the site for you.
Response to Jarqui (Reply #14)
ehrnst This message was self-deleted by its author.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Here are the facts concerning your rather naive parroting of right wing/Russian propaganda:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/20/fact-checking-hillary-clinton-lying-13-minutes-str/
Young man, please go back your echo chamber at Jack Pine Radicals, where a quick google shows you have a doppleganger with the same name... You seem to eagerly swallow whatever dribbles out of the right wing/Russian propaganda machine in terms of HRC, who still got more votes than any candidate save Obama.
She won - in July, and in November. Get over it.
Don't let the door hit you on your way out, honey.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)To women more broadly.
mcar
(42,334 posts)by some on the left and the right. It is sickening what they, and the media, have done to this noble woman and fine States person.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)some on the far left screech like a chimp in estrus, "You don't get TO OWN THE RESISTANCE!!" as though she's (once again) elbowing out everyone else simply by virtue of existing...
Of all the crap that was slung at her, "entitled" was the most ironic, coming from who it did, when weeks ago, they felt entitled to her making such public statements, holding forth in interviews and holding town halls like "a real leader would."
mcar
(42,334 posts)It is like a sickness.
Zing Zing Zingbah
(6,496 posts)If she were a man and all other things the same, she would be president right now.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Continued in DC where she was vilified for wanting the same respect that she got as a lawyer.
That was off-putting for people who were used to FLOTUS's that simply gave tours, redecorated and were simply spouses. She was told to dial that confident professional woman persona way down, and she did.
She was "lying Hillary" for being what she was told to be to preserve her husband's career. And she was villified for not being natural at that job.
"No, Hillary Rodham Clinton was once willing to share her deepest thoughts and feelings, as she did in a 1993 speech on “the politics of meaning,” delivered as her father lay dying, in which she said the country was suffering “a sleeping sickness of the soul,” and urged her fellow citizens “to remold society by redefining what it means to be a human being in the 20th century.”
Her reward? She was roundly, relentlessly ridiculed, most infamously in a New York Times cover story, titled “Saint Hillary,” by the late Michael Kelly, in which she expounded at even greater length on her personal passions, unaware that Kelly would use them to mock her for high-minded earnestness. In those interviews, the public Hillary Clinton was altogether different than the one the public sees today: less guarded, more candid, far more eager to embrace the “larger message” she’s so often criticized for lacking now. When Kelly suggested to her that she was “trying to come up with a sort of unified-field theory of life,” she responded in what he described as “excited” tones: "That's right, that's exactly right!"
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-media-transparency-214250
haele
(12,659 posts)Here's what counts against her:
1) Her "dishonesty" is that she qualifies her politics and positions with her own ideas and opinions; she doesn't typically use the bumper-stickers and the meme of the day to justify her speech or actions.
So she's awkward when trying to take a "party/organizational line" position with a cause that she only supports by 51% - or "in theory".
She's a lawyer, after all, and she understands the difference between argument and rejection, as well as evidence and opinion.
Which is something many people have a problem with in this social media age of "be my 100% friend, or be my 100% enemy".
2) Her "overwhelming ambition" comes from the fact that she's in politics seeking ever higher positions, married to someone who is also in politics, and has been successful in both politics and in financial circles. Now, for most women, that hasn't been a problem in politics - not even in high offices such as Governor or Senator.
However, her husband was a controversial President, and it appears that she's looking to "inherit" his position as her right. Again, that had never seems to have been a major problem with other Governors and Senators who used their husband's prior positions in those same offices to attain those offices - especially the widows who took over their husband's offices - similar to a Queen Regent position - and were subsequently re-elected in office - but I guess it's different because Ms. Clinton is not the proper gracious society wife type. She has a brash manner and voice; more of equal partner than a politically correct wifely partner.
So people will look at the political machine that she and her husband built, and consider her a "hanger on", because, as Eleanor Roosevelt understood, the woman is always politically identified as the wife, an adjunct position - no matter if they're equal political partners or not.
3) Her political stance is ultimately hers, whether she's successful or has made a mistake. Similar to the appearance of her "dishonesty". She's not 100% liberal, or even 50% liberal/50% moderate. She's a mix of Liberal, Moderate, and Conservative, and it doesn't matter how much she tries to balance them, or looks at all situations and applies what "works best" in a big tent viewpoint. She - like all of us - has her own idea of what is for the best. She started as a Goldwater Girl in youth, then evolved out of most of that philosophy, keeping with her only what she felt was valid for governance or the political environment in general. Incrementalism and Political Triangulation may not have been her creation, but they're political tools that she, like many other successful politicians, have not been adverse to use when getting votes.
So, she's always going to piss off those who live for their causes because she's not in their corner all the time, and because she's a contemplative thinker, she'll appear too wishy-washy, or chummy with whomever has been classified as "The Enemy".
These three components are the basis of the passionate rejection of her. Because for people who are passionately wedded to a cause, someone who does not appear as passionate or dedicated to that cause will always be someone to belittle or hate.
And a passionate person with a large following can do a lot of damage to someone they feel has betrayed them and want to bury.
Haele
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)than any man to be president.
In a woman, that comes off as "smug and entitled" because a woman of that age has no business thinking that, let alone ignoring people who "didn't like" her.
Why so many on the left called her "Queen Hillary," when she was the least arrogant and "entitled" in the campaign.
She better not be thinking of running again.
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)that they have started a self-examination.
iows - they are not just complicit in Trump's election, they are complicit in his treason.
Congrats a-holes.
ismnotwasm
(41,986 posts)There are very few moves she could make right now without facing enormous backlash. The right is heavily invested in Hillary hate as are the alt-left. As someone on Twitter pointing out "Hillary is not your mother and she is not your ex-wife".
There are few women who are as accomplished as Hillary in politics, but even so I used to side eye comments like "I want a woman president, just not THAT woman" naming a woman they found more palatable. And why was say, Elizabeth Warren more palatable? Well she hadn't been Secretary of State, been married to an ex-president, been a successful business women. If Hillary had been male, these thing would have been examined differently and judged differently. Of course a man would not have been married to an ex-President because that hasn't happened. For a while paid speeches and old debunked scandals as well as manufactured ones were de rigour when discussing Hillary. The hysteria reached new heights with demands of transcripts. And how easily the topic could switch from transcripts to who she defended as a young attorney. Or how about the out of context folks. Take a clip from a speech and spin away.
I can't think of a single politician to had been subjected to the bullshit Hillary has. Hillary hate should have its own DSM V category.
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)She gets shit on by the fringe right and left. Fuck them both.
Butterflies
(1,240 posts)It doesn't make any sense. She would have made a very good President, and instead look what we've got . . .
riversedge
(70,239 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)great stuff...
And while Hillary isn't above criticism nobody deserves that tidal wave she got on a daily basis from right and left while giving Trump a pass...
Obama said it awhile ago and pissed everyone off: Trump is graded on the curve
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)who seemed to think that there were candidates that were, and if you supported a candidate, you thought that they were as perfect as they thought their candidate was....
Tatiana
(14,167 posts)The right wing spent decades generating hatred of Hillary from the moment she dared not to sit at home and bake cookies.
Our problem was that we never had a good counterargument. There was a way to sell her to the people that do stay at home and bake cookies. We failed to do that.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)In order for them to do that in Arkansas, she had to take Bill's last name, bleach her hair, get contacts, and have photos of her pouring tea for people.
They told her to "tone it down" when she was FLOTUS, or Bill would not get re-elected. She did.
It still left her wide open to attacks from the GOP.
Is there any way to "sell" a high powered professional woman who thinks she's more qualified to run this country to the women who stay at home and bake cookies, in a way that doesn't make them think that their choice isn't being attacked?
I don't think so.
Beacool
(30,249 posts)Republicans were furious that Bush Sr. lost his reelection to someone they considered an upstart, a Southern hillbilly, and his brash wife. They persecuted both Clintons for five years. They shackled his presidency and cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Only to find out that his big crime was receiving oral sex from a more than willing woman. Was it immoral? Yes. Was it illegal? No, until he was entrapped and lied under oath about the affair.
I was quite young, but I remember how they disparaged Hillary. She was as smart or smarter than most men and she didn't take fools gladly. The now old Republicans have despised both Clintons ever since and wouldn't have considered voting for her, even if her opponent had been Satan. Well, in some respects, that role is being played by Bannon.
Hillary and Bill come from a generation that believed in service, that the government was not inherently evil and that one had to win elections to be able to make positive change. She has held that belief her entire life.
I think that both Clintons are decent people who are not perfect, but have tried to do good onto others.
Hillary would have been a good president, Trump is so horrible that he will be a blot in US history. He's the least qualified and most temperamentally unfit person to ever be elected president.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Despite the fact that she got more votes than any candidate but Obama. And she was the overwhelming choice of Democrats.
I am fed the fuck up with the demonization and sexism.
Beacool
(30,249 posts)Particularly among the college students who were his largest number of supporters, how many of them voted in November? I would have voted for Bernie, Hillary or a turnip. Anyone on the D side was better than the atrocious man who is now in the WH.
If everyone who was against Trump had voted, the orange clown wouldn't be in the WH right now.
milestogo
(16,829 posts)
tblue37
(65,391 posts)in an article or post, we always end up with every tweet being duplicated. IOW, we end up reading the same tweet twice every time.
Isn't there some way to avoid that?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... so you know what? Fuck you, Susan Sarandon! Fuck you for saying the Hillary is worse than Trump. Fuck you, you lousy actress! What a phony Susan Sarandon is! Fuck her, fuck her career, fuck her lies!
#FuckYouSusanSarandon
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Jonny Appleseed
(960 posts)Voting for the unanimously, stereotypically, and comically anthropomorphic embodiment of greed.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)riversedge
(70,239 posts)can articulate WHY except for often repeated Talking points-like it is failing, it is a disaster. They just know they have to hate ACA at this point-to save face-against the FACTS!. Same with Hillary in so many instances--just keeping on saying she is a criminal without any facts. So beyond the pale.
Link to tweet