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.
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.
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.
Also, there is a longstanding Internet meme about how people who are witnesses to Clinton misdeeds inevitably end up mysteriously dead before they can give testimony. Whether there was indeed Clinton foul play or not, there are many people who are convinced that the Clintons have bumped off people who had inside knowledge of misdeeds, like the mafia bumping off would-be witnesses.
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.
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.
I hope someone sends urgent PMs to the Dopers who “detest” Hillary, just in case any Dopers are holding their breaths for response.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
She RIGGED the election and stole it from Bernie - and oh yeah, she murdered Vince Foster and Seth Rich and dumped their bodies in the Potomac. :rolleyes:
I think my one beef with Hillary Clinton is that she knowingly voted to authorize military force in Iraq when I suspect she knew all along it was a bad idea. And I don’t think Sanders was completely wrong about judgment being an occasionally an issue with her. I think she is a brilliant woman - far more intellectually capable than myself and most people I know. But I think that her intelligence sometimes borders on arrogance and occasionally makes her prone to ignoring the advice of people she ought to be listening to. I also don’t think she’s particularly great at forging broad coalitions. Some of that might be the result of being overly-guarded and suspicious of the public, owing to years of vitriol - I don’t know.
Because something something emails. And she wears pantsuits! How dare her not give us a leg shot! And because her husband cheated on her. And she had the audacity to get people together from all the concerned parties to try to come up with health care reform. You don’t pass major legislation like that! When you’re the majority party, you’re supposed to exclude the opposition, ignore any facts that might be in your way, and draft it in secret among yourselves and make revisions on cocktail napkins, only letting the opposition see the bill hours before voting on it. She just didn’t want to do things the American way. And oh my God, she isn’t an enthusiastic NRA member! Don’t you know that guns are the ONLY issue that you’re supposed to vote on and that supporting ANY controls on guns makes you unworthy of office?
Hillary rose to national prominence in the early 90s, which were a different time. Misogyny was more pronounced then.
There are various reasons people dislike her.
I’d say the right dislikes her because of misogyny and 30 years of propaganda portraying her and her husband as serial killers and master criminals.
Some on the left hate her because they see her as too pro-corporate.
But some people didn’t like her because they felt she’d say whatever she needed to to win. They didn’t see her as someone who said what she truly believed. Sadly when Hillary actually is authentic (like with the deplorables comment) she gets slammed and apologizes. But her deplorable comment was one of the most acute and honest assessments of where we are in America. Half of Trump’s base actually are bigots who hate democracy*, she called that and got ridiculed for it. So she can’t win. If she focus group tests everything she says she is called inauthentic. If she is honest people can’t handle the truth and get upset.
*If you look at polling of republicans, no matter how stupid or evil a question is, about half of republicans give the wrong answer. Is pizzagate real, should Trump postpone elections, Was Obama born in Kenya, did God want Trump to be president, should Trump be allowed to shut down news media outlets, Families should be separated at the border, etc. Her calling half of Trump’s supporters a basket of deplorables was a very accurate statement.
ttps://www.nbcnews.com/card/one-quarter-registered-voters-almost-half-republicans-believe-god-wanted-n971706
pizzagate-theory-believed-by-nearly-half-of-republ/
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.
Someone else posted before that Hillary’s voice, appearance and style reminds many voters, subconsciously, of an overbearing room teacher or school-authority figure from their childhood and that brings back unpleasant memories. The quote used by the Doper was “Hillary is like the teacher who deliberately assigns you a ton of homework right before you begin school break” (can’t find the thread.)
I, for one, am not thrilled with her treatmentof the women who had prior “dealings” with her husband.
There’s no indications there of any mistreatment by Hillary vs her husbands accusers. Hillary did say Bill shouldnt have resigned. Which is correct.
Thanks for posting this. I was just about to ask why “it takes a village” would be problematic for anyone.
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.
That’s because you haven’t said anything of substance.
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.
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:[ul]
[li]her gender[/li][li]emails[/li][li]her voice[/li][li]what she wears[/li][li]Benghazi[/li][li]taking policy positions as a first lady[/li][/ul]
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.