The thread is indeed about irrational hatred of Hillary. Only meant to show you that not all anti-Trumpers have only irrational dislike of Hillary or no reason not to support her.
It’s your thread but I suggest digging up some quotes from some of the members who have talked Hillary lately that got you to start this thread. You wanted to talk about the blind haters, who are we talking about?
I call bullshit on all that. A five year old could’ve seen through the Bush case for Iraq. There’s no way Hillary is dumb enough to have bought that bullshit. Face it, she voted for Iraq because she didn’t want to seem weak. Say what you like about Trump, at least he didn’t vote for Iraq.
Pizzaguy, you’re usually better than that. That page fact-checks a particular statistical claim, arguably tangential to the real issue of Clinton’s bipartisan strength.
Sheeeez. I trot out specific examples of Republicans praising her, and specific legislation she achieved by “crossing the aisle” and you Google to come up with … just that silly nitpick? Proves my point, rather.
I apologize if this is off topic. This is more of a meta comment on Hillary hate than examining why she’s hated.
For the better part of a decade in Dem and left leaning circles you could find debates on the practicality of a Hillary run. I remember several from this board. The against position went something like: she’s a lightning rod of controversy and always seems to be in a scandal real or imagined which distracts from the issues, the left dislikes her, and the right loathes her with every fiber of their being and would do anything to stop her.
The Hillary supporters generally said it didn’t matter, because:
Her unfavorables couldn’t go any lower since she’s been around forever and the GOP already threw everything and the kitchen sink at her.
She’s battle tested and knows how to deal with GOP BS.
People associate the Clinton name with the '90s, which was a swell time.
Well, she’s currently in a neck and neck race against Donald Trump, of all people. Would it be controversial to say she would be losing badly to a “normal” GOP candidate? She may still win, but I think her supporters were forgetting something. Elections are literally popularity contests. You should put up popular candidates. If she loses, what do you do? Blame the electorate? Maybe do some serious soul searching? Why was it so important to nominate her, in particular?
He had no opportunity to vote for the war.
However, he did have the chance to speak out against it. Which he didn’t.
I don’t agree that you have proved your point. You have some examples of some legislation that was bipartisan. But the claim is that she is better at being bipartisan or that she will appeal to Republicans because reasons. That she will be a uniter.
For that claim to be **based **on something, that something should be her record. Her record is not remarkable in terms of achieving high levels of bipartisan success, which is what the link says. A few instances is not the whole picture.
The disagreement we’re having hasn’t concluded one way or the other, but what I’m saying was supported by the link.
In what ways has Hillary been remarkably our outstandingly bipartisan?
BTW we can move this side discussion to a different thread if you like. Ping me with a link.
She voted to authorize the war because she was opposed to going to war? I mean, I know Hillary fans are resorting to weird mental gymnastics to decide to like her these days, but to argue that voting FOR allowing Bush to pursue the war in Iraq was done because she did not want him to really takes the cake. If you don’t want the country going to war, don’t vote to allow the use of military force. If you do vote to authorize military force, then you did vote for the war, regardless of any excuses or weasel words you tack on to it.
Many of us here, if not most, knew that GeeDub was lying, or at least misled. But not everybody knew. Don’t forget, it was packaged to sell as an effort towards peace. That with that power behind him, GeeDubya could negotiate from strength, bring Saddam around, you know the drill. Hell, the man was a fool, maybe he even believed it himself!
A better man, a smarter man, could have taken that resolution and used in exactly as he promised. A smarter man would have realized that Saddam could not openly admit how disarmed he was. A smarter man, a better man, might have found a way. Alas, he was neither.
Why are you assuming people don’t have a rational hatred of Hillary?
Agreed. I think we can all get behind condemning “irrational hatred” in the abstract. Nothing controversial about that.
It’s no guarantee, of course, but maybe the thread has a better chance of staying on track if the OP focuses on those specific people/arguments on this MB that he deems to be examples of “irrational hatred”. I’m sure there are at least a few.
The OP sells Hillary Clinton short. There are 4 main aspects of the Presidency. They are policy, communication, implementation and stamina. In most democracies the leader of the party is tested on all 4. But US elections only really evaluate communication and stamina well. (All nominees who can get through the primary have prerequisite physical stamina, even Trump.) Hillary sucks at speechmaking, though she does well in debates and town hall meetings. Her policy chops are fantastic. Her implementation is great, as is her coalition building.
Hillary Clinton will cut deals with anyone: she is incredibly disarming in person. As a Senator she reached across the aisle and worked with Tom DeLay (R) on foster children. She and Gingrich worked together on health care after the former speaker had left the House. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Clinton wrote bills on computerized medical records. Ezra Klein: “The list goes on: Senator Robert Bennett on flag-burning; Senator Rick Santorum on children’s exposure to graphic images; Senator John Sununu on S.U.V. taillights; Senator Mike DeWine on asthma.”
This is more than just playing the inside game: this was playing it with care and innovation. And Hillary has always been this way: if there’s a way to improve matters, some angle, some opportunity, Clinton will advance the ball. Back in college she pushed forward a reform on regarding freaking library books.* She’s a do-gooder and she’s not afraid or too egotistical to play small-ball. Always fighting for the commonwealth. Never gives up. Never.
Yeah, 30 years of right wing bullshit, plus her sub-par oratory will do that. But Hillary is one of the good ones. Her staff loves her, mainly because she actually listens to what she says. If she joined the Senate in 1992, she would be Majority or Minority Leader now. She’s that good.
Hillary. The best reason she even has a chance is she is running against Trump.
Trump. The best reason he even has a chance is he is running against Hillary.
Glad I found my unused Rose Perot bumper sticker recently. Might need to whip that puppy out.
Absolutely typical John Mace snark. Pretentious malarkey of no worth whatsoever. If your name had been erased, I’d know it was you. If you want this thread steered in a different direction, take the stick out of your rectum so you can sit down, and write your own post. If not, shut up for once.
John Mace — the guy who’s so proud of himself because sometimes he’s the 4th-smartest guy in the room.
Ah here we go: [INDENT][INDENT] There’s another way to put this: Hillary Clinton is a nerd. You see it at every stage of her life. As a kid she went door to door collecting census data, asking homeowners if they had “any children in the home who are not in school” so that the Census Bureau could understand the discrepancy between the total number of children and those who are enrolled in school. As a student at Wellesley, writes Carl Bernstein, she developed “a better system for the return of library books” and “studied every aspect of the Wellesley curriculum in developing a successful plan to reduce the number of required courses.” Writing in the Atlantic, Peter Beinart collects other examples of Clinton’s earnest, and authentic, nerdiness:
[INDENT][INDENT] In 1993, she took time off from a vacation in Hawaii to grill local officials about the state’s healthcare system. In his excellent book on Hillary’s 2000 Senate race, Michael Tomasky observes that, “In the entire campaign, she had exactly one truly inspiring moment” but that, “over time it became evident to all but the most cynical that she actually cared about utility rates.”[/INDENT]
[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT] Hillary Clinton should go full nerd: The Democratic frontrunner should offer voters her authentic geeky self.
So people dislike that Hillary voted for war in Iraq, and to make sure this never happens again they are voting for… Trump?
Really?
In other news, my state is too cold, so I will move to Antarctica. That’ll fix the problem!
Snark? There was not an ounce of snark in that post. You seemed to be wondering why your thread wasn’t staying on track, and I was agreeing with Askthepizzaguy as to the reason. But whatever. It’s your thread, do as you please.
Snark in last sentence. FWIW. So that aspect of septimus’s [del]purely ad hominem attack[/del] post is not inaccurate.
That sentence can just as easily be read as a flat and unaccented statement of fact. Not that I know anything about snark…
We might even have one in this thread already: Airman Doors. Otherwise intelligent guy*, saying he will not vote for Hill. He didn’t give a reason, although I might guess it has something to do with the 2nd amendment. IIRC, he lives in PA, which is a swing state, to boot.
*The OP is not Pitting all Hillary haters, but the one who are or should be smart enough to know better.