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?

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.

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.

Because we the people will never forget Vince Foster!!!

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.

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.

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!

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…)

Hillary is just so shrill.

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.

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.

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

But it probably is higher than Everest compared to the current state of 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.

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.

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.

Shrill.

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.

Those on the left, even the ones at the egde of the spectrum don’t hate her to an exclamation point degree.

Oh, perhaps you have a few examples of the “liberal feminist agenda” that right wingers feel sets her apart from any other lefty?

Even the ones that voted for Trump over her?

She is, and continues to be, a member of the female gender.

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.