Who else hates Hillary Clinton?

Post Reply New Topic

I will be voting for Obama in my primary, but some of the anti-Hillary rhetoric is just ridiculously over-the-top. It's understandable to criticize some of her political positions (like her initial support of the Iraq war), but the nastiness of some of this is pretty telling, IMHO. Some of the stuff I see about Hillary on this forum and others actually makes me want to vote for her out of spite. I submit that she is no more self-serving than any other politician. Her and Bill's personal life is really no one else's business, and I hate how everyone wants to ascribe all kinds of sinister motivations to her. As though you can know for sure the real reason why she stuck with her husband. (Hey, conservatives, shouldn't you be praising her for family values?)

And, yes, I absolutely believe that her gender plays a role in the vitriol directed against her, and it's highly unfortunate. It's fine for male politicians to be self-centered and self-serving, but God forbid a woman try to play the same (dirty) game. Just look at the remarks in this thread and the other Hillary thread which comment on the Senator's physical appearance!

I do think there is some truth to the saying that those who manage to get themselves elected president are probably least-suited for the actual job. But the need of some people to single out Hillary (while all but ignoring other politicians who do the exact same things) frankly reeks.

If you're equating Hillary Clinton with Hitler or Stalin, you've got way worse problems than I can ever address.

Ever hear of Clinton Derangement Syndrome? You might want to look it up.

I plan on voting for Barak next week. Hillary is not my first pick, but I think some of the criticism of her are off the mark. Consider the new political action group that was formed to 'educate' the world about Hillary - Citizens United Not Timid (acronym: C.U.N.T.). It's an amazing example of the Republican misogynists against Hillary. Their logo is a stylized crotch. Brought to you by a political operative that cut his teeth working for Nixon. http://www.citizensunitednottimid.org/

Her opponent in the NY Senate race made that charge, but he had no evidence to back it up. Maybe she has had botox or an injection of collagen - if so, that doesn't bother me. And I doubt that she has spent 'millions' on cosmetic surgery.

Here's a quote on the allegations:



This is really gutter politics. If you don't like her stand on the issues, fine. If you don't like her style, fine. But making up s**t or calling her ugly is not civil behavior.





Sealed her records? I don't think so. Walmart has declined to open all their records (some of which may contain proprietary information about the business) just because people who don't like Hillary want to see them. If there were really an issue, a prosecutor would subpoena the records.

My stance exactly. My head was sent spinning.

I don't have any problem with Clinton personally It's just that her connections point to her being an establishment, status quo candidate, and THAT I don't like. Now is not the time for business-as-usual. She is also a symbol of Baby Boomer driven "Culture War" politics of th 90s, something I am completely fed up with. Obama, on the other hand, considers himself a post-Boomer, a member of Generation X, a generation more concerned about getting things done then blowing hot air.

The Republicans have become experts at making up BS lies. I remember them calling congressman Max Cleland, a Vietnam vet who lost 3 limbs in combat, unpatriotic and anti-American back in 2002, people believed the crap and Cleland lost the election.

And to think that so many people adored George W. Bush because of his puppy-dog eyes and apparent moral principles.

I'm sincerely gratified that people are weighing the issues as carefully as they are this time.

I will agree that in general a candidate's personal life should be left out. The only exception is when it has actual relevance (Guliani wants to run for the "party of family values" but has had multiple divorces, or to show a candidate carrying over their principles into their private lives, such as Paul refusing to accept Medicare payments and treating poor patients for free). I disown any purely personal attacks on Hillary's private life. However, I have an issue with the fact that she takes huge amounts of buy-out money from the drug companies and then tries to parade about as our health-care savior. I hate Hillary for her political positions (she voted FOR the PATRIOT Act, as did your boy Obama) and her foolish economic plans (seriously... most real economists gave up Keynesianism a while ago, and it has a pretty lousy track record, most dramatically shown in the Bush administration). And she is more self-serving than other politicians, in my opinion. I won't try to defend most politicians, as they are generally lousy, but there are some honest ones out there. I challenge you to find a single example of how Dr. Ron Paul is self-serving. He would be wealthier if he stayed in clinical practice (and took money from Medicare rather than treat poor patients for free). He would also be wealthier if he took advantage of our tax dollars the way other congressmen do- he declined a very nice pension, he returns a good portion of his office budget unused every year, etc.
I wonder... you say you are going to vote for Obama, but have you looked up his voting record? I know, I know, Obama wants to be the "candidate of change" but the best way to predict future behavior is by looking at past behavior. Paul can give a summary of his voting record as campaign advertising. Can your candidate do the same? Last I checked most Democrats hated the PATRIOT Act, although the liberals I know have chosen to no longer care about that since their media-chosen candidates all supported it. A prime example of doublethink in action. America gave the Dems control of the legislature in 2006 with the understanding that they would end the war, impeach Bush, end corruption, and fix Medicare and Social Security. How many of those promises have they fulfilled?

Hillary Clinton is an old hat. So is Hillary-bashing. This is SOOOO 90's.

Obama isn't my ideal candidate, either, but my ideal candidate isn't running for office. (I guess that would be Russ Feingold or someone). Up against the contenders I'd actually vote for, he's a clear winner. Ron Paul? Sorry, the guy's got crazy ideas, and has a history of promoting white supremacy to boot. No thanks. I'll take Hillary's so-called "self-serving" nature any day over a guy who feeds off of false white male victimization. I'll give Paul that his positions are at least consistent...but I find them scary. I'm not under any illusion that a President Obama will mean America becomes a utopia, but I do honestly feel that most of his positions on the important issues (especially Iraq, which is very important to me) are more or less consistent with my own. Ron Paul's? Are not. No matter what an "honest" guy he seems to be. And no, I couldn't tell you every vote Obama's ever cast, but I realize that legislating is a complex game, and there are numerous factors which control how a president will act once in office. Previous record is just part of the puzzle. Presidents have different constraints than Senators, so it's really apples to oranges in some ways.

About the Democratic legislature: I don't think they're perfect, by any means. (Though, if anything, I'm further left than most Democrats.) But changes often take more than a single year to accomplish, and they have been handicapped by Bush vetoing or threatening to veto things left and right. They have been in control of Congress for a year (as opposed to the many years of Republican control previously!) and there is a Republican president. It's not exactly as though they're the only ones calling the shots here.

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist which, to me, is just another form of idolatry.

Heh; but then she'd just have to "lose" the records, as she did in the Whitewater / Rose Law firm case.

Agreed: plenty o' righteous doubts to cast on Hillary's candidacy without starting in on her looks...

Is this the Hillary you know running for President?

(taken 2005)

How come she looks so much better than 3 years ago?


Seems odd to me, "a little bit of Botox", my arse!


Best Regards,

Idaho Aspie

Define "real economists." The people you are calling "real economists" I would call sycophants of the corporate elites.

bah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah.

I agree with you orwell. Those "crazy" ideas srriv345 were talking about have happened all throughout history. Some like to think theyr special and nothing bad can ever happen to them, as if they died the world would stop turning.... People in Germany thought that, people in russia thought that, and people in china thought that, before it actually happened to them. The banking families behind this rise in corporate power have openly admitted this and they no longer even remain secretive about it (that shows you just how uninformed and brainwashed the general populace is). Naomi Wolf posted 10 steps to fascism:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html