Which is one more reason for people to feel some animosity toward Ms Clinton. She had the absolute inside track to shaming, humiliating and disposing of the the festering lump of putrefaction once and for all, and she fucked it up.
Some of us are furious with her for the light-touch campaign she ran that allowed her to lose to the one craven abomination she never should have lost to. She failed to take him seriously, and for that she will not be forgiven.
I fault more the Republicans, as I have mentioned before, for the “failing to take seriously” and for their utter cowardice.
However, I can fully see how people would be tearing their hair out over that and this is an important part of this whole discussion, in that there is on the one hand this: being furious that the person perhaps best armed to take Trump down, failed to; or being put off at how she represents the corporatist DLC wing and at the Establishment Dems who seemed to be more interested in saving her the spot than in taking the Obama opportunity to really strike out on a new path – then, on the other there is beside that, the whole other notion of “hating” on her, which is something almost completely the product of by now 30 years of finding fault with everything about her from her policies to her pantsuits. In this latter part, that’s where the general soak in misogynist-spiced propaganda does its work.
There is kind of a lesson there. I have observed that 30 years of hating on her, and it has had close to zero effect on my issues with her. In fact, the more shrill it has become, the more it has made me sympathize with her. The more ridiculous it gets, the more it inclines me to defend her.
That is sort of related to the nature of MAGAtry. I tend to feel that a large fraction of real criticism of Individual-ONE is legitimate, but the more he is attacked, the tighter the circle of MAGAt wagons becomes. And truly, we have lobbed some absurdly low-brow mudballs at the bediapered Orangetan. Which becomes a disservice to the rational because it makes us look no better.
Such as calling him a “bediapered orangetan”?
yes, like that
I know the spelling is off, but we shouldn’t be so insulting to Orangutan’s. We all know what you mean. However, Orangutans are very sweet, intelligent great apes. I think comparing that lying, vicious, piece of shit, to them is just mean spirited.
Since I don’t know Mrs. Plant, I can’t comment on her specifically but I will point out that undefinable “Spidey sense” of dislike is exactly the way implicit bias manifests itself, and that strong implicit bias can coexist with conscious egalitarian views.
We may not mean the same thing. I’d take that phrase to mean something I’ve only had with a few people in my life; and I doubt it’s got anything to do with any general implicit bias, since the few people I’ve had it with were all of my race, and one of my gender, ethnic background, and in my own social group.
One of them was unquestionably a small-scale con man. One of them is Donald Trump, though I’ve never (thank goodness) been in the same room with him; but the effect’s so strong it comes across on video. Another I’ve never come up with an explanation for; she was a friend of my parents’ who in every interaction I had with her seemed to be a perfectly nice woman. I hope she never realized that I hated being near her. – There have been a few others, but not as strong as with those three.
It manifests primarily as a strong desire to physically get away from the person, including from the sound of their voice and from looking at them. Call it reverse charisma, maybe? I do sometimes, but not always, have it for people who appear to have strong positive charisma for others.
If I had it from a politician whose policies I otherwise agreed with, I’d take it into account, because I apparently have it sometimes for con artists; but I’d take it into account with a grain of salt, because of the apparently-perfectly-nice-woman.
Hillary Clinton, for what it’s worth, doesn’t do it to me; though to be absolutely certain I’d need to be in the same room with her. That of course applies to everybody, not only to her.
But this is a chicken and egg situation since the reason she failed to dispose of said festering lump is that so many people felt animosity towards her.
The way I best describe my dislike for “Sam” is:
Some guy goes nuts and machine guns half the neighborhood. CNN interviews the remaining neighbors about the killer, and a Little old lady says, “He was such a nice, quiet young man”. That is Sam.
I have one of “those people” too; every interaction with her has been perfectly polite and pleasant, but being in a situation where I must interact with her makes my soul itch, for some reason.
While a very generalized comment, that is a better explanation than mine above.
Genuine question: during the 2016 campaign, were you strenuously criticizing her for the specifics of how she ran her campaign? Do you have posts to that effect?
My memory is that it looked like she was running a pretty intelligent campaign, and that to the extent that she didn’t take Trump seriously, many other folks didn’t take him seriously, either. She won the popular vote, and Trump only won due to upsets in a few states, upsets that the polls didn’t account for.
I think it’s pretty shitty to hold her campaign against her, unless you had some Promethean predictions at the time.
I do not. The very idea of the Cheeto-Faced Extraterrestrial-Ferret-Wearing ShitGibbon in the WH was so far beyond my imagining that I had basically nothing to offer against his only viable opposition.
When the Comey thing dropped, I felt that she was in serious trouble, but it went unanswered (it it not clear that there was a good answer), and that spelled the demise of her effort. She apparently did nothing of consequence to counter the attack.
Perhaps the absurdity of 4 years of the Great Ijit was cathartic therapy for the country. If so, Ms. Clinton’s incompetence might prove a net positive. Even that is highly doubtful, though.
I don’t think you can put this down to her incompetence. Trump inspired his voters in a way that no one in the politics business was able to predict.
His margins in the swing states were X-acto thin. Just a small effort on her part might have been enough to make the difference. She chose her campaign management poorly.
She also had the best campaign strategists on the Democratic side offering her advice in this matter. Very few people–yourself included–foresaw the outcome of the election.
Hindsight is 20/20, and is not sufficient to be hateful about someone.
I know what you mean about that spidey-sense, and I’ve had it confirmed a few times, so I don’t ignore it completely. I try to keep an open mind until the evidence is too much to ignore.
I have met Hillary Clinton (very briefly), and I had an immediate sense of a warm nice person. She was nothing like any of the cliches about her, and I was a little surprised by my reaction.
What he said. This is not enough to blame Clinton for Trump’s victory.