Has the left still not realized? It wasn’t Republicans that elected Trump, it was the forgotten working class of the rust belt, mostly democrats, that ushered the self promoter into office. As long as the economy holds, it will be this same group that reelects him.
I haven’t yet seen this consensus. In fact, I and plenty of other liberal posters have directed a whole lot of criticism towards Hillary Clinton on a variety of issues.
iiandyiiii, you want to have your cake and eat it two. This is from the OP:
SHE thought there was a consensus, as have most of the posters here.
Are you talking about criticism or hatred? Those are very different things. In the post I responded to from you, you were talking about criticism.
There is a difference between “I dont like Clintons Gun polices but she is ten times better than trump, so i am solidly in her camp” vs “Clinton is a murderer, a crook, and needs to be put in prison NOW!”
I criticize Clinton all the time, but she was still a solid candidate.
Pardon me, but our “hatred” of various figures in the Republican pantheon do not come completely out of (heh heh) left field:
[ul]
[li]Nixon willfully prolonged an immoral and ultimately unwinnable war for political gain and was at least tacitly complicit in subverting our political process[/li][li]Reagan undercut organized labor with the goal of reinstating robber-baron capitolism and willfully ignored a raging epidemic[/li][li]Bush the Elder? Ennnhhh. Not happy with the invasion of Panama, and he did the blanket pardon of the Iran-Contra clique, but not quite rising to the “Hatred” level[/li][li]Bush the Younger: an overgrown frat-boy who let Darth Cheney play Richilieu for seven years[/li][/ul]
Hillary is hardly my best friend in the world and has done some shady stuff in her past, but one does not have to consult a Ouija board to see that the right wing, aided in part by Richard Melon Scaife, Rush Limbaugh, and yes, by her sense of entitlement and Bill’s chronic inability to Keep It In His Pants, has pushed the HRC Is the Devil’s Handmaiden to ridiculous extremes.
This spider imagery is repulsive.
Ahh, you are right that I misunderstood. So, if I have you right, the issue isn’t a First Lady who has strident opinions and lets them be known; it’s when those opinions are those you disagree with.
Tell me again what you disagreed with about “It Takes a Village”?
Wait, I thought it was the substance of the complaint that bothered you, not merely that she “felt qualified to opine”; you’ve just said that you have no issue with a First Lady taking policy positions, but here, Clinton is a problem because she has the temerity to have a position on child rearing. It’s not just that she’s wrong: it’s that she is “telling [you] how to raise your kids.”
Do you have a similar problem with Melania telling us to “Be Best”, or Nancy telling us to “Just Say No”? Where do they get off talking about growing up like that?
Or was there some sort of qualitative difference between the fact that Hillary Clinton, as First Lady, took a position on child betterment, and wrote a book about it, and the fact that other First Ladies have…done the same thing. (At this point, she had already been a point person on health care; is it that she had already crossed the divide from First Lady to administration advisor, so she could never return to the placid world of First Lady causes?)
Because it doesn’t take a village. It’s a way to describe an increasing role of government in ordering society. I reject it. I want the government to do the absolute least amount that is necessary.
Look at a contrasting example - Michelle Obama championed the cause of healthy diets, among others that included encouraging higher education, encouraging girls in education, and supporting service members. That was great and I think she did great work. But if M. Obama turned around and said you know what, we should totally ban assault weapons and completely socialize healthcare in the country, then I’d be pretty opposed. The policies matter, not the speaker.
I don’t know how old you are (not a slight in the least) but the left, hate, hate hated Reagan with a passion. Might not be quite in Hillary territory, but it was only a zip code away. And there was a fair amount a ageism involved there too. Does anyone care about that? Are we going to rail against how evil that ageism was?
Most of the items you mention above are big issue of contention to the left, but there are big issues that the left espouses that are an issue with the right. Doesn’t make you a bad guy, or your neighbor a good guy. We can honestly agree to disagree.
The very first item you mentioned was Nixon and Vietnam, but you conveniently left off the fact that two Democratic Presidents, Kennedy and Johnson got us into that mess to begin with. Did you forget that part, or didn’t you think that was worth noting? Three Presidents of two different parties, same crapstorm.
Surprisingly enough, Republican Presidents have policy initiations that you don’t like. Democrats have issues that the right doesn’t like.
And while I don’t like Scaife and Limbaugh either, you don’t think that Rachael Maddow and Chris Matthews are equally obnoxious to the right?
What part of the book lead you to this conclusion?
dp.
There is that “Political Equality” Law again-Both sides must be equally bad and/or at fault!
:rolleyes:
Since you’ve already admitted to not reading the book, perhaps you could link to some summary that suggests that it is about what you think it is about. Specifically, that Hillary Clinton wrote a book about increasing the government’s role in people’s lives. I can’t find any excerpts that even begin to touch on your presumption about the message.
Your discussion points to one of the biggest reasons people hate her - other people have told them to; she is bad and tainted, and no specific knowledge or facts are necessary to establish this truth. That’s what 3 decades (or more) of negative publicity will do.
Michelle Obama was heavily criticized for her “role” in changing the standards of school lunches. Why were you not appalled? And, what does “we should totally ban assault weapons and completely socialize healthcare in the country” have to do with writing a book about caring for the world’s children? Are you saying that your disagreement with Clinton gives you the justification for being upset about the book she wrote, even if the book has nothing to do with those policy disagreements?
He never read the book. He admitted as much.
Do you realize you just completely undermined your position that Hillary hatred is all about policy differences? When’s the last time a prominent conservative claimed to “kinda like” Hillary despite disagreeing with her policy positions?
Let me rephrase the question, then: What right-wing talk show host and/or bumper sticker lead you to that conclusion?
I just–there is probably a better way to put this, but I’ll try: You can’t throw black voters in prison and disenfranchise them to try to appeal to white racists, then turn around and tell labor union members that used to be the party base that they’re too racist to vote for you, unless you are trying to lose.
I regret that phrase. She’s mostly a very ordinary kind of self-deluded snob. Only mostly.
But I’m not sure I count as one of the Hillary haters. I find the Limbaugh hatred of her as a feminazi silly and offensive.
It bothers me that so many Democrats adore her. That seems ridiculous.
Sure, the one you used is sufficient. My bold below:
Children exist in the world as well as in the family. From the moment they are born, they depend on a host of other “grown-ups” – grandparents, neighbors, teachers, ministers, employers, political leaders, and untold others who touch their lives directly and indirectly. Adults police their streets, monitor the quality of their food, air, and water, produce the programs that appear on their televisions, run the businesses that employ their parents, and write the laws that protect them. Each of us plays a part in every child’s life: It takes a village to raise a child.
I chose that old African proverb to title this book because it offers a timeless reminder that children will thrive only if their families thrive and if the whole of society cares enough to provide for them…
This book is not a memoir; thankfully, that will have to wait. Nor is it a textbook or an encyclopedia; it is not meant to be. It is a statement of my personal views, a reflection of my continuing meditation on children. Whether or not you agree with me, I hope it promotes an honest conversation among us…
In the pages that follow, we will consider some of the implications of what is known about the emotional and cognitive development of children. We will explore both big and bite-sized ideas we can put to work in our homes, schools, hospitals, businesses, media, churches, and governments to do a better job raising our own children, even when the odds seem weighted against us. Above all, we will learn ways to come together as a village to support and strengthen one another’s families and our own. Most of these lessons are simple, and some may seem self-evident. But it’s apparent that many of us have yet to learn them or to apply them in our families and communities…
The whole of society caring to provide for children is not a necessary condition for children to thrive. Changing child rearing through force of government by putting to work the ideas she espouses is big government.
M. Obama wasn’t criticized by me.
You seem to have misunderstood again. Banning assault weapons and socializing healthcare has nothing to do with the book Clinton wrote. Those are representative examples of things that Clinton did that were objectionable and earned her the negative reactions she garnered. The thread is about why Clinton got the hate she did - I listed several examples. The book is one of them. There are others, and they are not all connected to each other beyond their origin.
I’ve never said there wasn’t other reasons people may have had. I mean, just because Clinton and AOC are both women, that doesn’t make them the same. I can listen and watch AOC and examine her campaign and even though I disagree, I can appreciate it for what it is. Everytime I see an old clip of Obama giving a speech or even talking contemporaneously, I do miss the days of a presidential president, even while disagreeing with most of his policies. Everyone has their own reasons for liking or not liking a given politician. My point in this thread was that to simply attribute attitudes toward Clinton as misogyny is lazy because while that is certainly true, there’s a whole lot more substantive criticisms.