Eleanor Roosevelt was. She was criticized for traveling too much instead of staying in the White House, she was called a communist, people spread rumors of an affair of hers with a New York State Trooper, etc. A lot of people didn’t like her, and attacked her as a way to attack FDR.
Nancy Reagan also was really heavily criticized, as a spendthrift and as a bitch. Her critics said she selected her husband’s advisors, and all sorts of really nasty stuff about her.
SHODAN:
I never said anyone on the SDMB called Hillary “evil.” As I’ve already said, I was referring to the people in the OP.
It has been widely rumored for years that GWB used cocaine when he was younger. Is this, per se, enough to be convincing? No. The fact that he refuses to DENY it pretty much cinches it. Why play games with “…not in the last 20 years…” half-denials. If he’s never done coke, why not just SAY so. Believe me, if he COULD say that,he WOULD.
As for crimes, well, GWB WAS busted for a DUI was he not. He also sold his stock in harken right before it tanked, ala Martha Stewart. He has never been cleared for this. The investigation specifically states that it was NOT exonerating him. Furthermore he was investigated by his daddy’s own JD. Of COURSE they weren’t going to prosecute him, just like they never prosecuted another criminal by the name of NEIL Bush for the savings and loan debacle.
Why won’t Cheney comply with his fucking SUBPOENA? Cuz he’s GUILTY, that’s why.
I won’t even go into the violations of INTERNATIONAL law which have been, or will be violated by this administration.
Now, if we’re done hijacking the thread can we go back to bickering about the greatest first lady of all time?
So if any politician refuses to deny any rumor, he/she must be guilty? As far as I know, Hilary has never publicly denied that she shot her law partner. I assume from this that we must assume her guilt.
As for your unsubstantiated accusations vis-a-vis Harken, I refer you to the threads in which Scylla and Dewey Cheathem and Howe have adequately disposed of that.
You have produced no evidence for any of your accusations. Instead you repeat them.
Withdraw your accusations, or prove them.
No more of your nonsense. Put up, or shut up.
Regards,
Shodan
I started this fight and I have been astonished at the number of replies. If this thing has been hijacked, I hope the hijacking continues. Most edifying. I do take it that I can safely say that most of us do not consider Hillary evil–culpable, maybe, but not evil.
LouisB:
I find it fascinating that so far not a single person has shown up with an Ad Hominem towards Hillary.
Based on the number of Ad Hominem’s we’ve had against Conservatives, Republicans, Bush, Cheney et al, spewed by those complaining about Conservative hatred for Hillary (thus far entirely absent,) I 'd say the dipshit hypocrisy factor has gotten quite high.
You’ve mischaracterized my argument (again. What else is knew?) I haven’t made an accusation against Hillary, and I’m not building a case.
As for your failure to grasp the “obvious.” I’ve spent more than enough time explaining the appallingly obvious to you. Your failure to understand is your failure, but I’m sure you understand and are simply trotting out your little Argument from ignorance gambit again.
So why not just grow up, and debate in good faith?
YES Shodan. If a conservative politician won’t deny drug use, or even worse, tries to issue a half-ass partial denial, then it’s safe to assume that there is a reason. Give me one good reason he won’t just flatly deny it.
The threads you refer to have disposed of nothing to MY satisfation, nor to the satisfaction of the Justice Department.
Even YOU can’t deny that Bush’s proposal to assasinate another head of state is in violation of international law.
I withdraw NOTHING.
Scylla, please don’t be so sanctimomious. There are several posts on this board accusing Hillary of being a criminal, and really, don’t us liberals have a little right to give a little something back to the Bushies after enduring eight years of Clinton bashing. Actually, i think that some of us got so used to being on the defensive during the Clinton years, that maybe some us (well, me at least) now just automatically come out swinging.
**
I see. Does this only apply to Conservative politicians?
Excellent. You have something new to add. What scenario do you propose by which Bush committed insider trading at Harken?
Really? I was not aware the Justice Department was currently or had been in the past pursuing an investigation against either Bush or Cheney. Do you have a link to support this?
I wasn’t aware of any such proposal. Link?
You seem to be under the impression that because you have not withdrawn a clear falsehood, that it is still somehow worthy of consideration. Any idiot can make any stupid assertion. Demonstrating that it is so is something entirely different.
Several, huh? Let’s see. Quote two.
I don’t share your liberal sense of entitlement. I wasn’t aware being a shithead was an entitlement, and I don’t pity your self-perceived martyrdom. There’s certainly a lot more of liberals bashing conservatives on this board than the other way around, and if we could disown december you’d be hard put to find much Clinton bashing at all.
But, if you need an excuse to justify your poor behavior by all means use one.
Ohhh, you poor martyred child. How did you ever manage to bear up?
No one objects if you come out swinging. What we object to are low blows, such as false accusations, unsubstantiated attacks, innuendo - you know, the kind of thing you object to so strenuously when you think it has been applied to Hilary.
So far, you are swinging at air. If you want to score some hits, try some evidence.
You have made a number of accusations. Prove them.
You are acting the fool. Stop it. This is the SDMB. Talk like an adult, or don’t talk at all.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ll second Captain Amazing’s point. Eleanor Roosevelt was hated by many conservatives not only when she was First Lady, but also into the 1950’s and 60’s. Of course, she was also loved by many, many Americans.
*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
Perhaps because it’s none of your or anybody else’s business?
Oh, and what of our Iraqui friend’s ACTUAL attempt to assasinate another (admittedly former) head of state? That Ok with you?
Actually, the evidence as to the assassination attempt on Bush I is less credible than it is made out to be, depending as it does largely on Kuwaiti sources, the same paragons of truth who spread the stories about Iraqi soldiers turning Kuwaiti babies out of life support in order to steal the equipment. Which turned out to be a whopper. Under the circumstances, it could hardly be termed slander. Still, it was a lie.
A good article on that is cited here, Seynour Hersh, New Yorker magazine (much too long to excerpt meaningfully)
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02
Not to defend Diogenes the Cynic or anything, but it strikes me this arguement was used throughout the Clinton scandals to little or no effect.
It still amazes me the vitriol that can be accessed with the mere mention of the Clintons, on either side. I know I’m covering ground already covered, but why can’t a question asked about either Clinton or a Bush be answered without “well, so-and-so” did X" as a reason/excuse for someone else’s behavior?
Also,
-Diogenes the Cynic, calm down, really, you’re not helping anyone’s case except the one that puts forth your hated “conservatives” as the more rational bunch. Take a pill or something.