Why? There is not one fact that could be used in a later time period.
Today is tomorrow’s history. A presidential election is a notable event, as are the circumstances surrounding it. Just as the reference to the '64 election provides important perspective now so will the rest of the column in the future.
My mother hated Hillary, said she was too ambitious and that wasn’t lady-like … okay, mom … you’re a weighmaster who occasionally drives a ten-wheeler snowplow … that .38 on your hip screams femininity.
My mother was in her mid 50’s before people realized she wasn’t my sister.
My theory is people dislike “the Clintons” because after Reagan the Right thought they’d reign forevermore. They really believed there was a permanent electoral shift. Instead, some liberals took over, shattering their dreams. Now they “want their country back.”
Nope. Cecil has it right. She has personality flaws as a politician and public servant.
Sure, but many do. That alone isn’t a reason to hate.
These flaws result in a pattern that she denies but doesn’t change. That makes her seem insincere to people. And people hate that in politicians.
It’s a combination of an individual having weaknesses and being among the highest profile political figures in a hyper-partisan political era in which her opponents have gone to extraordinary lengths to discredit her and her husband.
On one hand, Clinton’s supporters have indeed had a tendency to understate her character problems. The fact is, she and her husband have always tiptoed toward the edge of legal and ethical boundaries. Sure, both sides do it, but as a politician you have to know that the other side is out to expose your corruption. But as Cecil wrote, this doesn’t seem to faze the Clintons. Maybe it should.
On the other hand, her detractors have understated the significance of the ruthlessness of modern politics, and the ease with which people can get dirt on anyone. People knew that JFK slept around but it was just understood that there’s no need to talk about such things, particularly when presumably many of Kennedy’s opponents were doing the same. And I think people are being naive if they think that some of this isn’t motivated by Hillary’s early forays into politics as a sitting First Lady.
My girlfriend is from Chicago and hates Hillary with a passion. When I ask her why, it’s a combination of things:
-
Sticking by Bill when he was screwing everything with a pulse, because being First Lady would make it easier to be elected Senator and eventually President (by contrast, my GF admires Maria Shriver partly because as soon as Ahnold’s affair came to light, she dumped him and never looked back).
-
Actively courting Illinois power brokers for a 2004 Illinois Senate run (which was her original plan), then dumping Illinois like a hot potato when Daniel Patrick Moynihan unexpectedly retired, opening up a New York seat.
-
Denying during the entirety of her New York candidacy that she was interested in becoming President, even though everyone in the civilized world KNEW she was aiming for the White House from square one.
-
Her complete insincerity: As an example, Hillary speaks before an environmentally-conscious crowd and brags about putting coal mines out of business and coal miners out of work. Then she speaks in West Virginia, claims she meant a Trump victory would put the coal mines out of business, and instead promises to protect the mines and the livelihoods of the miners.
Essentially, according to the GF, Hillary combines the worst aspects of pre-sexual revolution gender relations (women were expected to be perfectly chaste, but men could screw around all they wanted) with the “I’ll say anything to get your vote, but won’t give a damn about you after I’m elected” crassness of Richard Nixon.
As for me: I have no great love for Hillary or Trump, and cannot stand the thought of voting for either. I’m voting for Gary Johnson in November.
People say they hate that in politicians. But only Hillary Clinton seems to get consistently dinged by it.
Powers &8^]
I’m far more prepared to hate Hil for four more years than I am to live in TrumpAmerica.
(I actually don’t hate either Clinton, but they are exasperating people as leaders and politicians.)
I’m puzzled that this was considered a question worth answering. Cecil has never been shy about being liberal, but the answers in the column that I’ve read for 25 years are normally well-researched and based on verifiable facts. This question can only be answered by speculation, and even the speculation is supported by background that I’ve seen in a hundred Facebook posts.
I thought it was unusual type of question for a column also. But Cecil works in mysterious ways.
Maybe good questions to The Master are running thin … perhaps We the Teeming Millions need to get busy and ask more questions about the sex life of JFK.
I suspect it’s just a really popular question he’s been asked. And that, perhaps, he genuinely wondered about the answer himself.
I actually learned a lot from it. I’ve been wondering the same thing. I hear all this hate directed towards her, but no specifics other than Benghazi and email-ghazi, which fizzled out.
I also enjoyed Raider Duck’s answer, though, to me, what he described is a typical politician. The stuff about not worrying about the appearance of corruption makes more sense to me.
Though I do wonder how many normal people who vote but don’t follow the intricacies of politics know any of this.
I don’t think that’s the case. It’s just rare for a politician to make it so far with that kind of personality. Nixon also had the distrust issue, but he was elected president and it appears Hillary will also. Sincerity isn’t the only basis for voting for a politician. We are not in an election that will be decided by who you would like to have a beer with. Whether or not people like the current state of affairs I think most see an uncertain future and would prefer to have Hillary as the president for at least the next four years of that future.
Back to the topic of sincerity, these days a lot of politicians are disliked for what they appear to be sincere about. That’s what’s hitting Trump hard right now. He’d be doing better if people didn’t believe that he believed what he was saying.
The Clintons seem to have a more naked thirst for power than the typical pol. That, coupled with their shaky grasp of ethics, puts them in the cross-hairs a lot.
Couldn’t disagree more. Politics is about power; otherwise, why would they all keep running? As for ethics, it’s only unethical if you are caught and punished. Otherwise, it’s known as politics as usual, and most all of them do it.
So you don’t think Obama has been more ethical the either of the Clintons?