Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-26-2019, 09:40 AM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,524

Hate for Hillary - from where and why.


As a Canadian and as someone who had never been terribly interested in such things, I didn't use to pay a lot of attention to US politics. Even so, I could see that Hillary was truly hated by some. But I never thought to ask why. Why was she so absolutely loathed by so many? Why did such deep hatred start? It was more than the usual political mudslinging, no?

Other than the fact that she represented the threat of a Democratic victory (by a 'leftist' woman no less), were there any particular unforgiveables in the minds of her detractors? I know about Benghazi, but what motivated that and other relentless lines of inquiry? Had she already committed some unpardonable sin in the eyes of those who pursue her even to this day?

Is it all about baking cookies? Or was it just a matter of opportunity - the internet allowing whole new levels of self-perpetuating, bootstrapping vitriol to emerge? Was it just a matter of timing? Was she just first victim of a new normal?
  #2  
Old 05-26-2019, 09:48 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
I think it dates back to the 90s and the Clinton campaign and administration. She put herself forward as policy advisor (even a policy maker) and equal, and many (those with misogynistic and chauvinistic tendencies) found that highly objectionable. Others knew they could take advantage of widespread misogyny and chauvinism to make Hillary an "easy" target. When she ran for office, that took off into even higher gear, with the expectation that she would eventually run for president.
  #3  
Old 05-26-2019, 10:01 AM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 14,111
Because we the people will never forget Vince Foster!!!!
  #4  
Old 05-26-2019, 10:22 AM
Biotop's Avatar
Biotop is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Faber, VA
Posts: 8,249
An older woman at my bridge club recently said she didn't like Hillary Clinton because she "is so pushy. She'd knock you over to get at what she wants." When I asked her if she'd say the same thing about a man she had no response.

It was the same old prejudices that were fanned by those who knew how to exploit them.
  #5  
Old 05-26-2019, 04:23 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biotop View Post
An older woman at my bridge club recently said she didn't like Hillary Clinton because she "is so pushy. She'd knock you over to get at what she wants." When I asked her if she'd say the same thing about a man she had no response.

It was the same old prejudices that were fanned by those who knew how to exploit them.
I've run into a few of these. If you want to have a little fun, say something like, "Oh, so you have no problem with a woman being president, just not Hillary Clinton?" You are sure to be met with quick agreement. "So what woman would you find acceptable to be president?"

You will be met with a long pause. If they manage to muster anyone -- and they usually don't -- it will be Nikki Haley.

Lots of good responses here.

I always remember an interesting bit of research done into Clinton's approval ratings. The researcher found that when Hillary was actually doing the job, whether as First Lady, Senator of New York or Secretary of State, her approval ratings were sky high. It was only when she asked for the power to do those jobs that her approval ratings reliably plummeted.

Pushy woman.
  #6  
Old 05-26-2019, 04:28 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,524
Thank you for all the responses. I've learned a lot and look forward to reading more.

ETA: I wonder how Republicans and their supporters will characterize the Democratic nominee for president if a woman is chosen, which is very possible.

Last edited by KarlGauss; 05-26-2019 at 04:31 PM.
  #7  
Old 05-26-2019, 06:07 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think it dates back to the 90s and the Clinton campaign and administration. She put herself forward as policy advisor (even a policy maker) and equal, and many (those with misogynistic and chauvinistic tendencies) found that highly objectionable. Others knew they could take advantage of widespread misogyny and chauvinism to make Hillary an "easy" target. When she ran for office, that took off into even higher gear, with the expectation that she would eventually run for president.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biotop View Post
An older woman at my bridge club recently said she didn't like Hillary Clinton because she "is so pushy. She'd knock you over to get at what she wants." When I asked her if she'd say the same thing about a man she had no response.

It was the same old prejudices that were fanned by those who knew how to exploit them.
I think those two posts are a good brief summary of a major part of the reason. The latter sums up the fact that we are still a society where an aggressive, assertive man is admired, while an exactly equally predisposed woman gets nasty derogatory names assigned to her, like "bitch" and "shrew". This was very helpful to Republicans who needed to knock her down because her political strengths and experience were perceived as a real threat.

Compounding the problem is that voters aren't very bright and tend to judge candidates on superficial qualities, and Hillary just didn't have a lot of charisma. She was so politically cautious in her speech that she came across as mendacious and calculating (though she really blew it with the "deplorables" comment). In contrast to Obama, who had a smile so warm and a laugh so genuine that it could melt ice a mile away, Hillary had a laugh that sounded like a panicked hen. She just wasn't very likeable if judged on superficial qualities, and that really sealed her fate. Dismissing her as insincere and calculating, voters instead elected the most egregious conman of all time to ever infest the White House.
  #8  
Old 05-27-2019, 04:05 AM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I think those two posts are a good brief summary of a major part of the reason. The latter sums up the fact that we are still a society where an aggressive, assertive man is admired, while an exactly equally predisposed woman gets nasty derogatory names assigned to her, like "bitch" and "shrew".
Yes, that's why May never managed to become Prime minister. People only ever support sweet, unassertive women like, say, Angela Merkel or Margaret Thatcher...oh, wait...


As usual, I learned in this thread that the only conceivable explanation for why people don't support whatever you support is because they hate some group or another. If they weren't so filled with hate they would of course support the exact same policies you do and vote for the exact same politicians you vote for.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #9  
Old 05-27-2019, 05:13 AM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I think those two posts are a good brief summary of a major part of the reason. The latter sums up the fact that we are still a society where an aggressive, assertive man is admired, while an exactly equally predisposed woman gets nasty derogatory names assigned to her, like "bitch" and "shrew".
Yes, that's why May never managed to become Prime minister. People only ever support sweet, unassertive women like, say, Angela Merkel or Margaret Thatcher...oh, wait...


As usual, I learned in this thread that the only conceivable explanation for why people don't support whatever you support is because they hate some group or another. If they weren't so filled with hate they would of course support the exact same policies you do and vote for the exact same politicians you vote for.



(Not specifically directed to you but in general to most posters in this thread.)
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #10  
Old 05-26-2019, 01:12 PM
Ukulele Ike is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 17,833
Hillary is just so shrill.
__________________
Uke
  #11  
Old 05-26-2019, 02:22 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think it dates back to the 90s and the Clinton campaign and administration. She put herself forward as policy advisor (even a policy maker) and equal, and many (those with misogynistic and chauvinistic tendencies) found that highly objectionable. Others knew they could take advantage of widespread misogyny and chauvinism to make Hillary an "easy" target. When she ran for office, that took off into even higher gear, with the expectation that she would eventually run for president.
That's when the national butt-hurt for her started up, but the conservative hatred for her started long before, when she was in the Arkansas governor's mansion.
  #12  
Old 05-26-2019, 09:19 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think it dates back to the 90s and the Clinton campaign and administration. She put herself forward as policy advisor (even a policy maker) and equal, and many (those with misogynistic and chauvinistic tendencies) found that highly objectionable.
It wasn't misogyny for a lot of people, it was the fact that she was neither elected nor appointed, but merely the First Lady, and that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.

In a lot of people's minds, the First Lady has a fairly well defined role, but being a senior policy advisor and political operator is NOT one of them.

That put a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, and then her defense of Bill Clinton during the whole Lewinsky business cemented in a lot of people's minds that she wasn't there as Bill's partner and wife, but someone who was using Bill as a stepping stone to political office.

And that was further reinforced by the sort of reverse-carpetbagging Senate race she ran in New York, where they literally bought a house to establish residence in order for her to run, but never really actually you know, lived in New York, since she ran for office while she was still First Lady.

It paints a picture of someone who is laser-focused on her own ambitions, and not someone who was interested in public service or anything else. A lot of people don't like that in men, but they're chauvinistic enough to HATE it in women.
  #13  
Old 05-26-2019, 09:54 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
It wasn't misogyny for a lot of people, it was the fact that she was neither elected nor appointed, but merely the First Lady, and that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way......
Then I guess people have forgotten Betty Ford, Eleanor Roosevelt ,Edith Wilson, etc. Betty Ford sat in on Cabinet meetings.
  #14  
Old 05-26-2019, 11:06 PM
Kimera757 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Then I guess people have forgotten Betty Ford, Eleanor Roosevelt ,Edith Wilson, etc. Betty Ford sat in on Cabinet meetings.
Probably. I was not aware of this, and I doubt they were "loud" about it.

The whole First Spouse position is a ludicrous one, IMO, and other than getting a Secret Service detail, does not need to exist. Hillary Clinton (and any other first spouse) should have simply continued to work at a non-political job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Michelle LaVaughn Obama (née Robinson; born January 17, 1964) is an American lawyer, university administrator and writer, who was First Lady of the United States from 2009 to 2017.
Mrs. Obama was (is?) a lawyer. Unfortunately she was not "allowed" to retain that position. (I am not sure if it's actually illegal for an American first spouse to work, and IMO anti-nepotism rules should not affect the first spouse's career outside of the goernment.) Instead, her position as First Lady included diplomacy and causes (dealing with nutrition). I am not sure how her legal education assisted with the latter. I am also unsure what impact not working in her field for eight years would have on her career.
  #15  
Old 05-27-2019, 01:52 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,015
In a recent thread that I started, one Doper who "detests" Trump is still happy Trump beat Hillary. No explanation except that he's "not a bigot." In that thread I express sadness that my friend here also prefers Trump to Hillary. All I guessed from him is that his news source is Alex Jones or such.

So I saw the thread title, and clicked with eagerness to learn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida
Misogyny. If there is one thing the Right can agree on, it's that powerful women are inspired by Satan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ukulele Ike View Post
Hillary is just so shrill.
OK. But are 'misogyny' and 'shrill' the descriptions that the Hillary haters themselves would apply? I know we have Hillary haters here; it would be nice to hear from them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Yeah, maybe conservatives who hate Hillary might post some of their valid reasons here. Valid reasons, now. I'll wait, without holding my breath.
I hope someone sends urgent PMs to the Dopers who "detest" Hillary, just in case any Dopers are holding their breaths for response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I never listened to Rush but I do know that Clinton pushed the idea of "it takes a village". She is vehemently anti gun. She pushed for greater governmental involvement with health care. She has had problems with the first amendment, wanting to ban violent video games. I mean I have always been opposed to Clinton. I'd be opposed to anyone who held her policy views.

Opposition to Clinton is often characterized as misogynistic. It's a given that motivated some people, but defaulting to that is just lazy. There's a ton from her to be opposed to. But it all started with her nannyistic arrogant BS about taking a village crap.
Thank you, Bone ! So the "taking a village crap" is a big point. And — why didn't we guess this? — GUNS! are a biggy.

There are other Hillary haters here; I hope they provide their lists also.
  #16  
Old 05-26-2019, 09:58 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
What iiandyiiii said, and also can't forget Rush Limbaugh who made a living riding the Clinton's coattails. He rode as a parasite who required a bad guy to fight against, and he used them. All of them. On his tv show he even showed a picture of a young Chelsea and called her the white house dog. (It's republican humor.) Rush gave the country the Clintons as the enemy of all that think republican humor is funny.
  #17  
Old 05-26-2019, 10:17 AM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,656
Misogyny. If there is one thing the Right can agree on, it's that powerful women are inspired by Satan. And there is special revulsion for public wives who don't stick to gazing up adoringly at their husbands. Ms. Clinton made some missteps but by and large her political life has been real-scandal free. Fake scandals pursue her like the Furies, however.
  #18  
Old 05-26-2019, 02:58 PM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
Misogyny. If there is one thing the Right can agree on, it's that powerful women are inspired by Satan. And there is special revulsion for public wives who don't stick to gazing up adoringly at their husbands. Ms. Clinton made some missteps but by and large her political life has been real-scandal free. Fake scandals pursue her like the Furies, however.
Bingo. Republicans are VERY afraid of a smart powerful woman.

eta - It appears that they are afraid of anyone that has two braincells to rub together.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.

Last edited by enipla; 05-26-2019 at 02:59 PM.
  #19  
Old 05-27-2019, 01:28 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
Misogyny. If there is one thing the Right can agree on, it's that powerful women are inspired by Satan.
I don't think so. Republicans nominated Palin in 2008, after all, and many touted Condi Rice, Carli Fiorina, Michelle Bachmann, Susan Martinez, etc. as presidential candidates back in the day.
  #20  
Old 05-26-2019, 10:46 AM
Kimera757 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 620
Several elections ago, interviewers went door-to-door with potential voters, asking which candidate they would vote for and why. The Canadians frequently dissed one Prime Ministerial candidate, quoting word for word what the negative advertising said... while insisting they were not being influenced by the very advertising they were quoting. In short, humans are very easily influenced.

Trump will repeat lies that have been debunked, because if he says it often enough people will still believe it. Infinite Pinnochio!

Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
As a Canadian and as someone who had never been terribly interested in such things, I didn't use to pay a lot of attention to US politics. Even so, I could see that Hillary was truly hated by some. But I never thought to ask why. Why was she so absolutely loathed by so many? Why did such deep hatred start? It was more than the usual political mudslinging, no?

Other than the fact that she represented the threat of a Democratic victory (by a 'leftist' woman no less), were there any particular unforgiveables in the minds of her detractors? I know about Benghazi, but what motivated that and other relentless lines of inquiry? Had she already committed some unpardonable sin in the eyes of those who pursue her even to this day?

Is it all about baking cookies? Or was it just a matter of opportunity - the internet allowing whole new levels of self-perpetuating, bootstrapping vitriol to emerge? Was it just a matter of timing? Was she just first victim of a new normal?

Hillary Clinton made the "mistake" of supporting health care back in the 90s. A first spouse is not an electoral position, so her getting the position was basically nepotism. She seemed pretty good on the policy side but not so much on the politics side (which never changed). You can't seriously expect a fiercely intelligent lawyer to act as some kind of ceremonial housewife for the eight years her husband was president. For whatever reason healthcare makes some conservatives scream, and they went on to influence (see first paragraph) their voters. Even the less gullible ones would later on believe in death panels and such nonsense, since they'd heard these comments so often they were now swimming in their collective subconscious.

Her being female put a target on her back. Well, her being female and wanting to be something more than a political housewife. She was criticized for keeping her maiden name (I understand that she isn't Mrs. Clinton, and just calls herself that for political purposes), for not smiling enough, for not being submissive, for being heard and not just seen, for standing by her man, and so forth.

There were even some valid criticisms, such as lies about what happened to her in Bosnia or the email server (an over-the-top attempt to break the records rules, which honestly are kind of stupid considering how many people essentially openly break those rules). She was the target of this kind of propaganda for decades, and when she geared up to run for president (such as becoming a senator, and later Secretary of State) the conservative drumbeat became a panic. Then she ran for president. The same old lies came out, plus new ones, all flying at the speed of the internet. She isn't very charismatic and is gaffe-prone, so there was new material to add to the old.

When I think of gaffes, I think of Rick Perry, but not the oops gaffe. I'm thinking of the mannequin gaffe. During the campaign, Perry attended an event in a small town. He joked about a mannequin near the audience being the most interested, or something like that. It wasn't all that funny, but it didn't fall flat. The journalists, who were live-filming the event onto social media, all got the joke. People watching on social media did not. Because Perry had already made gaffes suggesting he wasn't very bright, those people thought he mistook the mannequin for a real human being. The journalists started getting emails and tweets asking if Perry was such a dunce. The incredulous journalists said no, it was just a joke. Perry's press people said the same thing. Unfortunately people hundreds of miles away were spreading stories that Perry had stepped in it again. Modern-day journalists will often be told by a source "this isn't true" and will then go and repeat the untruth. Even mild gaffes can become catastrophic. See Mrs. Clinton and her comments on coal jobs...

Obviously other politicians have been the target of similar attacks. Barack Obama and John Kerry are good examples of this, and Obama himself drew intense hatred due to not being white. Having said that, neither of them were in the public eye for decades, so there simply wasn't enough material or previous work to sink them like that. (Kerry, unfortunately, was only slightly ahead of Bush, so the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth didn't need to convince that many people...)
  #21  
Old 05-26-2019, 03:02 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,742
Keep in mind the 1992 convention speech by Pat Buchanan which was an attack on Hillary. This, to my knowledge, is the first time a candidate’s spouse has ever been attacked at a political convention. The Buchanan speech was so over the top that it set a new low in politics
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #22  
Old 05-26-2019, 03:45 PM
Ike Witt's Avatar
Ike Witt is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lost in the mists of time
Posts: 14,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
The Buchanan speech was so over the top that it set a new low in politics
But it probably is higher than Everest compared to the current state of politics.
  #23  
Old 05-26-2019, 04:07 PM
jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 37,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Keep in mind the 1992 convention speech by Pat Buchanan which was an attack on Hillary. This, to my knowledge, is the first time a candidate’s spouse has ever been attacked at a political convention. The Buchanan speech was so over the top that it set a new low in politics
Buchanan's speech was all kinds of over-the-top, especially in the anti-LGBTQ arena. I believe it was Molly Ivins who said that it played better in the original German.
  #24  
Old 05-26-2019, 04:49 PM
Ukulele Ike is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 17,833
Shrill.
__________________
Uke
  #25  
Old 05-26-2019, 05:03 PM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,711
I think the American political scene has been ready for a female candidate for some time now, but the woman our society has been ready for would exemplify traditionally feminine virtues. The problem people had with Hillary Clinton was not that she was a woman, but that she was a female politician. No worse than her male politician colleagues, she was a consummate backroom game player, manipulator, strategic horse trader, deal-maker, etc.

Radical leftists didn't like her very much: "She won't die on the appropriate hills! She'll trade away important stuff to keep on top and stay in charge and keep winning! We can't trust her not to sell us out on our issues!"

Mainstream liberals weren't in love with her: "She doesn't have appropriate decorum. We'd like a woman to be in charge for a change but dammit does she have to act like she really really wants to run the show? That makes her look power-hungry"

Conservatives seriously fucking hated her: "Eww, she's got a liberal feminist agenda and she's cunning and sneaky and devious and she's determined to impose all these horrible liberal politics on us!"

The conservatives were closest to being right about her politics. Although the Republicans had everything locked up so tight she may not have been able to get any more done than Obama did. Which was a lot more than I realized at the time, by the way.

Last edited by AHunter3; 05-26-2019 at 05:03 PM.
  #26  
Old 05-26-2019, 05:15 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
...
Radical leftists didn't like her very much: "She won't die on the appropriate hills! She'll trade away important stuff to keep on top and stay in charge and keep winning! We can't trust her not to sell us out on our issues!"
...
Those on the left, even the ones at the egde of the spectrum don't hate her to an exclamation point degree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
...
Conservatives seriously fucking hated her: "Eww, she's got a liberal feminist agenda and she's cunning and sneaky and devious and she's determined to impose all these horrible liberal politics on us!"

The conservatives were closest to being right about her politics. ...
Oh, perhaps you have a few examples of the "liberal feminist agenda" that right wingers feel sets her apart from any other lefty?
  #27  
Old 05-26-2019, 05:16 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Those on the left, even the ones at the egde of the spectrum don't hate her to an exclamation point degree.
Even the ones that voted for Trump over her?
Quote:

Oh, perhaps you have a few examples of the "liberal feminist agenda" that right wingers feel sets her apart from any other lefty?
She is, and continues to be, a member of the female gender.
  #28  
Old 05-26-2019, 05:35 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
I think that anyone who voted for Trump for pres. and considers themselves to be on the left might ask themselves what it is they actually believe.

Last edited by bobot; 05-26-2019 at 05:36 PM.
  #29  
Old 05-26-2019, 06:10 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
I think that anyone who voted for Trump for pres. and considers themselves to be on the left might ask themselves what it is they actually believe.
Well, what I heard during the election was that they were against incremental change, as incremental change wasn't good enough, and that they wanted to burn it all down and build on the ashes.

My response to that was of course that anyone who wants to burn it down and rebuild from the ashes has never built anything before, and has never been in a fire before.
  #30  
Old 05-26-2019, 06:22 PM
Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,422
Dems managed to nominate someone who had been bashed non stop for 24 years before they ran for president. Hopefully they can avoid that in the future.
  #31  
Old 05-27-2019, 06:41 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Dems managed to nominate someone who had been bashed non stop for 24 years before they ran for president. Hopefully they can avoid that in the future.
I think the point of the thread is that maybe it would be good if ordinary people could sniff out bullshit smear campaigns and stop rewarding a party misogyny. And just to be clear it wasn't the party that nominated her; it was millions of voters -- a few million more than Bernie Sanders, to be precise.
  #32  
Old 05-26-2019, 06:47 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
All I know is that every single time you invoke "reasonable", I discount whatever comes next.
Apologies for triggering you! I'll certainly keep in mind that you're incapable of reasonably evaluating my posts in the future.
Quote:
Sure, lots of misogynists hated Clinton. A lot of non-misogynists hated Clinton. Put it together, and you have a giant nothing that isn't informative.
I guess there's no point in discussing things like misogyny and racism with regards to attitudes about public figures, then. Obviously these things are inscrutable mysteries that will remain enigmas forever. No point in trying to, say, use our brains to explore these things.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-26-2019 at 06:51 PM.
  #33  
Old 05-26-2019, 07:30 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,993
I never listened to Rush but I do know that Clinton pushed the idea of "it takes a village". She is vehemently anti gun. She pushed for greater governmental involvement with health care. She has had problems with the first amendment, wanting to ban violent video games. I mean I have always been opposed to Clinton. I'd be opposed to anyone who held her policy views.

Opposition to Clinton is often characterized as misogynistic. It's a given that motivated some people, but defaulting to that is just lazy. There's a ton from her to be opposed to. But it all started with her nannyistic arrogant BS about taking a village crap.
  #34  
Old 05-26-2019, 07:38 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I never listened to Rush but I do know that Clinton pushed the idea of "it takes a village". She is vehemently anti gun. She pushed for greater governmental involvement with health care. She has had problems with the first amendment, wanting to ban violent video games. I mean I have always been opposed to Clinton. I'd be opposed to anyone who held her policy views.

Opposition to Clinton is often characterized as misogynistic. It's a given that motivated some people, but defaulting to that is just lazy. There's a ton from her to be opposed to.
None of this conflicts with anything I've said.

Quote:
But it all started with her nannyistic arrogant BS about taking a village crap.
Perhaps this is a reasonable hypothesis.

  #35  
Old 05-27-2019, 08:48 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
None of this conflicts with anything I've said.
That's because you haven't said anything of substance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post

Have you read the book? Or are you angry at the right wing shortened bumper sticker interpretation?
I've read summaries. Even what you've said right here is objectionable enough. I don't want Clinton's vision for the children of America. Nor did it seem the country as a whole both times she ran. That she felt qualified to opine on what children need was off putting enough. Maybe that's just my personal hangup, but I don't respond well to other people telling me how to raise my kids. That, combined with all of the other policy positions she took was pretty terrible. Of course, Bill Clinton, Obama, Bush 43, all took policy positions that were pretty horrible. It has nothing at all to do with her gender, and everything to do with opposing everything she wanted to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
She is NOT vehemently anti-gun. To my mind, that would mean she wants to ban whole swaths of guns. She does not. She wants to bring back the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. She is certainly for stricter background checks and restrictions due to mental health. What would you characterize as "vehement"? As for the hatred starting with "it takes a village", you mean your dislike of her, or in general? Because if you mean in general, that's laughable.
Talk about laughable. If Clinton isn't vehemently anti-gun in your view, then our scales are pretty far apart. I mean, you say with a straight face that she didn't want to ban whole swaths of guns at the same time saying she wanted to ban assault weapons. I guess assault weapons aren't whole swathes of guns in your mind either? She wanted to repeal the PLCAA. She wanted to allow unlimited delays in background checks, then require them for all sales. She was in favor of the 1994 AWB. I mean, if we can't even agree that Clinton was anti-gun, well that's your opinion I suppose. Good luck with that.

****

Things I don't care about wrt Clinton:
  • her gender
  • emails
  • her voice
  • what she wears
  • Benghazi
  • taking policy positions as a first lady
Those aren't real issues. But look at what left leaning folks in this thread focus on - no substantive issues. Instead, things that don't matter, and facile caricatures. No matter, her political career is essentially over so she doesn't much matter anymore. I'd raise objection to any politician who espouses the positions she did.
  #36  
Old 05-27-2019, 09:01 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
....
Talk about laughable. If Clinton isn't vehemently anti-gun in your view, then our scales are pretty far apart. I mean, you say with a straight face that she didn't want to ban whole swaths of guns at the same time saying she wanted to ban assault weapons. I guess assault weapons aren't whole swathes of guns in your mind either? She wanted to repeal the PLCAA. She wanted to allow unlimited delays in background checks, then require them for all sales. She was in favor of the 1994 AWB. I mean, if we can't even agree that Clinton was anti-gun, well that's your opinion I suppose. ....
You know you & I mostly agree on guns, but I would not say Clinton was vehemently anti-gun. She is more or less middle of the road as far as anti-gun goes. Booker is vehemently anti-gun. Harris might be vehemently anti-gun, I think she is but her stated public policy isnt Booker bad.
  #37  
Old 05-27-2019, 09:16 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
... Maybe that's just my personal hangup, but I don't respond well to other people telling me how to raise my kids.... .
Well it's a good damn thing that Hillary Clinton didn't do that, eh? But you go ahead and hate her for something in your imagination, if it pleases you.
  #38  
Old 05-28-2019, 05:13 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
That's because you haven't said anything of substance.
Gee, we used to have pretty good discussions. I remember some very interesting back-and-forths with you, without this kind of very thinly disguised vitriol. I wonder what happened?
  #39  
Old 05-28-2019, 10:38 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Gee, we used to have pretty good discussions. I remember some very interesting back-and-forths with you, without this kind of very thinly disguised vitriol. I wonder what happened?
I've noticed that you've ncreasingly used some form of the rejoinder "your argument has nothing to do with what I said" in many threads as you did above. Maybe that has something to do with it.
  #40  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:32 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Gee, we used to have pretty good discussions. I remember some very interesting back-and-forths with you, without this kind of very thinly disguised vitriol. I wonder what happened?
I've regularly called you on your lack of substance labeling things you agree with as reasonable. It's a meaningless word that is fundamentally wishy washy and lacking in substance. Watch, I'll illustrate:
There are plenty of reasons for substantive dislike of Hillary Clinton. In my experience, tons of people who hate Hillary Clinton openly say that they dislike her because of the way she comes across on television, or some variation of that, rather than anything substantive. For this latter group, it's entirely reasonable to suspect that this is shorthand for policy disagreements and may have something to do with their attitude about her.
Or like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Not her disfavor -- but the incredible white-hot hatred that goes far beyond the typical dislike that conservatives have for liberals and Democrats. That's what I think it's reasonable to attribute to misogyny -- just like birtherism and the other nonsense that went beyond typical dislike for liberals against Obama can reasonably be attributed to racism. Not everyone who dislikes Hillary Clinton is a misogynist, but those who really, really hate her and were influenced to that hatred by Rush Limbaugh and similar, likely have been strongly influenced by misogyny.
What does this even mean? It's crafted in a way to allow deflection of any counter example. Disagree with actual policy, oh then not that type of dislike. It's like a True Scotsman took up residence and filters everything that comes out the front door. If people dislike a certain politician, they are going to use whatever material sticks to attack them.

Here's a more benign example. I don't like Billy Bob Thorton as an actor. I don't like his looks, his voice, his mannerisms, the way he delivers lines, pretty much if he's in a movie, it's harder for me to watch it. I can level these criticisms about him and it has nothing to do with his gender, or being a misandrist. Can the same be said about a female actress without drawing scrutiny for misogyny?

And then as has been mentioned, you fall back on one of a couple schticks. The first is claiming that criticism of your position isn't actually related to what you've said. The second is the 'golly gee' attitude which is also on display here (trigger warnings). It's fine, if you want to respond in an unserious way, then you get unserious responses. I mean, I'm glad you mock trigger warnings because they are fucking bullshit, but trust me, I'm not triggered.

I've always written directly and straightforwardly. If there is a question that says, is the answer A, or B? And the response is, well, it could be A, and it could be B. I'm going to say that is a meaningless answer. And that's the type of thing you've offered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biotop View Post
Bone, do you think Hillary Clinton lost because of her policy positions?
I think Clinton lost for a number of reasons, of which her policy positions were a part. With less than 100K total votes across three states, do I think her vehement anti-gun rhetoric may have influenced less people to go to the polls that would have otherwise, and more people to go to the polls that would not have otherwise? I don't know the answer to that and I don't know if there is a single 'but for' reason. I would like the answer to be yes. I would like the answer to be a definitive yes with such magnitude as to make her policy positions radioactive for any future politician and that if anyone were to take up her mantle they would be severely punished electorally. But I don't know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
It would be interesting to learn if Bone would care to name a man in politics with virtually the same policy positions as Mrs. Clinton’s.

And if he finds that man to be objectionable to an equivalent degree as he finds Mrs. Clinton to be.

ETA: And to assess the general Hillary-hating public’s expressed opinion of him.
Bloomberg comes to mind. If not for him, most gun control groups would have floundered and he is probably the single most influential person in the gun control movement. So yeah, fuck that guy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Her policy positions are very common, and no one gets hated like her, not on a daily basis for 25 years. It's obvious that people don't hate Hillary Clinton because of policy. The way they talk about her makes it obvious too. There's nothing rational about it.
This is also a function of her being in a highly visible role - yeah not that many people have been hated on a daily basis for 25 years, but not that many people have been in top leadership positions for 25 years. As First Lady, then as Senator, then as Secretary of State, then as a two time presidential candidate, she's been in the spot light for a very long time. Leaders get the hate. But much like Bush 43 who also got a lot of hate, after office he's just not a focus. Nor is Clinton. I grant that Trump for some reason can't get over it and still likes to bash on her, but he's kinda an outlier.
  #41  
Old 05-28-2019, 10:20 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Those aren't real issues. But look at what left leaning folks in this thread focus on - no substantive issues. Instead, things that don't matter, and facile caricatures. No matter, her political career is essentially over so she doesn't much matter anymore. I'd raise objection to any politician who espouses the positions she did.
"Nasty woman" was not a substantive rebuke of Clinton's policy positions, or even a reasonable opinion of her personality. Of course there are reasonable reasons not to be a huge fan, but she's also dedicated much of her life to public service and trying to make America better. How did we go from that to one major party candidate calling her a "NASTY WOMAN" during a major televised debate!? And not being rebuked for it!

NASTY WOMAN tapped into something much deeper than opposing her policies. I freely admit that this is conjecture on my part, I wish I had some data to back it up, but I'm not sure how you prove misogyny scientifically. To me, though, much like gamergate, the sheer degree to which people hate on Clinton goes well beyond their stated reasons.
  #42  
Old 05-28-2019, 01:03 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I've read summaries [of the book It Takes a Village]. Even what you've said right here is objectionable enough. I don't want Clinton's vision for the children of America...
Things I don't care about wrt Clinton:...
  • taking policy positions as a first lady
Clinton's book, "It Takes a Village" was published in '96, right smack dab in the middle of Clinton's time as First Lady. So I guess you do care about her policy positions as First Lady.

(And the answer to the OP, as has already been pointed out, is that there has been a multi-decade smear campaign against Clinton, such that people *know* that she is corrupt without really knowing why, and such that typical or mundane activity is viewed as *proof* of her derangement)

Last edited by Moriarty; 05-28-2019 at 01:06 PM.
  #43  
Old 05-28-2019, 01:08 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Clinton's book, "It Takes a Village" was published in '96, right smack dab in the middle of Clinton's time as First Lady. So I guess you do care about her policy positions as First Lady.

(And the answer to the OP, as has already been pointed out, is that there has been a multi-decade smear campaign against Clinton, such that people *know* that she is corrupt without really knowing why, and such that typical or mundane activity is viewed as *proof* of her derangement)
You seem to have misunderstood. The act of taking policy positions I don't care about. I care about what those specific policy positions are. This is in response to the idea expressed in this thread guessing that people felt the First Lady shouldn't participate in a leadership role. If the person advances agreeable ideas, it doesn't matter from where they come.
  #44  
Old 05-26-2019, 07:44 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
It is 90% how dangerous that person is to the GOP. Hillary was very dangerous, was winning, so the Kremlin and Karl rove and co went into overdrive making shit up and stirring up hate. Fake news, lies, half-truths, exaggerations. The bernie bros happily passed along the Kremlins lies.

Pelosi was the second most dangerous dem, and much hate fake news was directed at her, and it's still ongoing.

Currently with Biden in the lead, he's the preferred fake news and target. Bernie Bros helping the GOP out, just like four years ago. For example, Joe is the "go to guy" on capital Hill for eulogies, he was asked to give one for Thurmond. Joe obviously struggled hard to come up with some good that that old racist did, but he found a few, and gave a decent eulogy, as any decent human being would. Biden is being attacked for that as a "friend of Thurmond" and a "friend of racism", even right her on this MB, even tho what he did is what any decent human being would do.

And so it goes.

Whoever is a threat is reviled. The 40& or so of the public who are GOP respond kneejerkingly by hating, along with too many independents and progressives. The GOP is very good at this, with the help of the Слу́жба вне́шней разве́дки Российской Федерации, aka the Russian CIA.
  #45  
Old 05-26-2019, 09:15 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I never listened to Rush but I do know that Clinton pushed the idea of "it takes a village". ....
First on your list. Oh lord, how dare she...
"It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us is a book published in 1996 by First Lady of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton. In it, Clinton presents her vision for the children of America. She focuses on the impact individuals and groups outside the family have, for better or worse, on a child's well-being, and advocates a society which meets all of a child's needs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Takes_a_Village

Have you read the book? Or are you angry at the right wing shortened bumper sticker interpretation?

Last edited by bobot; 05-26-2019 at 09:16 PM.
  #46  
Old 05-26-2019, 09:20 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
NM
(This thread isn't about the current occupants.)

Last edited by bobot; 05-26-2019 at 09:22 PM.
  #47  
Old 05-27-2019, 02:00 AM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
First on your list. Oh lord, how dare she...
"It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us is a book published in 1996 by First Lady of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton. In it, Clinton presents her vision for the children of America. She focuses on the impact individuals and groups outside the family have, for better or worse, on a child's well-being, and advocates a society which meets all of a child's needs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Takes_a_Village

Have you read the book? Or are you angry at the right wing shortened bumper sticker interpretation?
Some folks are angry about this because:

"Screw you buddy! I did EVERYthing myself! I built the roads outside my house with my own two hands, and taught myself to read! I designed the pipes that carry my sewage to the plant that I created all by myself, with NO HELP FROM ANYONE!"

The "I did everything myself" thought pattern is so strong in some, that their brains have turned to tapioca, and they cannot BEAR THE THOUGHT that a working, cooperative society might actually be a good thing.
  #48  
Old 05-27-2019, 07:48 PM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
Some folks are angry about this because:

"Screw you buddy! I did EVERYthing myself! I built the roads outside my house with my own two hands, and taught myself to read! I designed the pipes that carry my sewage to the plant that I created all by myself, with NO HELP FROM ANYONE!"

The "I did everything myself" thought pattern is so strong in some, that their brains have turned to tapioca, and they cannot BEAR THE THOUGHT that a working, cooperative society might actually be a good thing.
Thanks for posting this. I was just about to ask why "it takes a village" would be problematic for anyone.
  #49  
Old 05-27-2019, 08:19 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
First on your list. Oh lord, how dare she...
"It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us is a book published in 1996 by First Lady of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton. In it, Clinton presents her vision for the children of America. She focuses on the impact individuals and groups outside the family have, for better or worse, on a child's well-being, and advocates a society which meets all of a child's needs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Takes_a_Village

Have you read the book? Or are you angry at the right wing shortened bumper sticker interpretation?
Part of the conservative ideology is to worship the idea of the nuclear family—a heterosexual cisgender couple with their mutual offspring. Any notion of children needing anything more than an authoritative father and a nurturing mother—for example a public safety net—threatens their worship of the status quo hierarchy, which in the end is all that conservatism is about.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #50  
Old 05-27-2019, 06:45 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I never listened to Rush but I do know that Clinton pushed the idea of "it takes a village". She is vehemently anti gun. She pushed for greater governmental involvement with health care. She has had problems with the first amendment, wanting to ban violent video games. I mean I have always been opposed to Clinton. I'd be opposed to anyone who held her policy views.

Opposition to Clinton is often characterized as misogynistic. It's a given that motivated some people, but defaulting to that is just lazy. There's a ton from her to be opposed to. But it all started with her nannyistic arrogant BS about taking a village crap.
She wasn't the first one with that opinion; she was the first person to be able to articulate it so clearly. And she was also right on the money. A healthy community that consists not only of one or two good parents but also helpful neighbors, school teachers, extended family members, and friends is almost preferable to the nuclear family model that we have now, which has resulted in rampant divorce, drug addiction, and plain misery. Americans want the world to believe that we're optimistic and chasing the American Dream, but the reality is, we're a miserably isolated, depressed, and addicted goddamn society. It does take a village.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017