That’s one anti-Hillary position I don’t get. “She’s power-hungry”. Say wha…?
Someone runs or supports a spouse running for high offices including POTfreakinUS with all the pain and expense involved – ya THINK s/he may be seeking some degree of power? GMAB
I don’t see that at all. More than Bush I or Bush II? More than the Kennedys? More than Nixon, Johnson, or Ford?
I’m disappointed that the column did not list Hillary’s many accomplishments. The illustration with the column showed her work on healthcare, at which she failed to accomplish by the time her husband’s term concluded. Is that the best that you can do?
It’s a column about why people don’t like her. They don’t dislike her for her accomplishments.
It’s interesting. I came here to say “on the Left, a lot of hate came from the Iraq War - I know at least a few 2003 anti-war marchers who felt hurt by her position back then as senator, and still carry that grudge.”
Then I reflected - one of my own state’s female, Democratic senators voted the same way, and we protesters sure weren’t happy in the moment. But while it was a point in a potential primary challenge, that fizzled, and the hate for that senator seems gone. So it leaves me with the mystery of why the difference? Which makes me really reflect that it is all about perceived personality, just another version of “not someone to drink a beer with.”
I am a proud liberal feminist, and this is much of my reason right here. First of all, contrary to the findings in Cecil’s column, I hate Hillary, but I hate Bill much more. He’s a thoroughly disgusting pig, she’s just the woman who stood by and supported the thoroughly disgusting pig. She is not the role model I wanted for the first woman president. I did NOT want a woman who was riding her husband’s coattails, and I particularly didn’t want a woman riding the coattails of a man like that. Rather than being joyful that we will almost certainly have a woman president, it just makes me sad.
I thought for sure that I would not be voting for Hillary, but given the alternative, I really have no choice.
And no, none of the Benghazi, email server, Vince Foster, etc. scandals play any part in my feelings. I hated Hillary long before the Republicans tried to smear her with all of that.
I have always liked Maria Shriver, though.
She certainly comes across as more power thirsty than most contemporary pols. Her marriage of convenience, the bounding to different states so she can become senator–that seems like more than, e.g., the Bushes. The Kennedys are before my time but there seemed to be a bit more of the “servant” in their view of being a public servant. GWB and Obama both seemed to fall into their nomination; for HRC it feels like a long, calculating road. We’re debating over degrees, of course; anybody who becomes president has to get there for some reason. The only person who I can think of off the top of my head who compares to Clinton in this regard is Gingrich.
This doesn’t make HRC a bad candidate; I believe that if she can keep her head above ethical water (like, say, Obama) she might be a very effective president. Like Cecil I think some of the hate is because she’s a woman. But I can easily see why she rubs people the wrong way.
Sheer amount of time in the full spotlight can’t be ignored, I don’t think. With the modern political climate, I can’t imagine anyone going for 24 years as either an explicit candidate or someone who most people expect to run eventually and not having a polarized public opinion.
What would George W Bush’s ratings look like if he’d been in the spotlight for three times as long as he was?
This is a woman whose 4 years of diplomacy to the world were a resounding success whom you’re calling unlikable. I like her just fine and so do lots people in the 100+ countries she traveled to representing the United States.
Actually, Shriver and Schwarzenegger are still married. They never completed the divorce. They have boyfriend/girlfriends but still hang out together.
Not that other peoples’ marriages are anyone else’s business.
What accomplishments. The only accomplishment I have been able to find is being married to the president and working to undermine and destroy women who accused him of rape and sexual assault.
Running columns on matters of current interest is sort of important to journalists. (Which Cecil more-or-less is.)
E.g., suppose the question “Is the Earth really going to end Oct. 31, 2016?” Cecil could put together a column that would no doubt apply to later time periods. (After all, that group has and will adjust the date.) But it sort of dodges the question.
When would be the best time to inform people about the weird anti-Hillary phobia so many people have if not during this election??? (E.g., the latest time-waster: 2 years and $7M tax payer dollars that failed to show that Hillary could be blamed for Benghazi. Umm, all the previous, tax payer supported, investigations showed that.)
The phrase was used earlier. There are some examples.
2004: book by Howard Dean. “You Have the Power: How to Take Back Our Country and Restore Democracy in America.”
2004: Howard Dean’s speech at the Dem. Natl. Convention. “Together, we can take our country back.” USATODAY.com - Howard Dean's remarks at the Democratic convention
2006: Take Back America conference (logo at the top of the lectern). John Kerry’s remarks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7Yrtg4d_Do
Others available.
2007, 2008: Hillary Clinton expressed similar sentiments.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/29045-clinton-we-have-to-take-our-country-back
The phrase was okay then. Why do you disparage it now? Guess what my theory is.
And many liberal women publicly agreed with that, even to his sexual misconduct, which must have been deeply humiliating to Hillary.
I’m looking decades into the future and what the West will become given Democrat and Republican actions and policies towards immigration. Since Ted Kennedy’s immigration reform bill of the 1960’s both political parties actively encourage a bias of immigrants from the third world over Western nations. Many, the majority but not all third world immigrants are of the persuasion to favor Democratic Party planks over Republican, and thus vote accordingly. Both party candidates the last fifty, sixty years see nothing wrong with parasitically sucking a nation’s life and vitality, the best and the brightest individuals from around the world, thus leaving the emigrant’s nation of origin without qualified individuals to perhaps consider governing and thus causing change within the less-than-ideal cultural environment they left. In other words, for example, Germany and Japan after the devastation of war can, within two generations time, they transform their nations from ruin to again! become leading economic powers, and yet Western politicians are clueless to this transformation of the two nations and instead have promoted negative world policies which retard all other third world nations by bleeding them of the individuals with the qualities of character who could possibly cause change to their environment, culture and nation, instead of emigrating.
I am of the opinion both Democrat and Republican candidates today are of the mindset that envisions a socialist form of government active in every first world nation within fifty years, and they’re actively encouraging this transformation with their current immigration policies. Donald Trump has a plan to transform nations, especially the ones south of the Rio Grande, into business models encouraging economic prosperity similar to any State of the Union, within two generations time, thus halting the hordes of immigrants from nations with administrators of a socialist mindset, or simply put, less than ideal visions for the future.
Watch the debate with The Don and Hillary. I’m hoping I caught his attention in the past, and a surprise is in the works that’ll cause a quick uptick with the perceptions of Donald Trump in the minds of the people. I don’t want to write and explain further at this time. In fact, I hope what I wrote appears a tad bit convoluted to some; others connect the dots to realize the plan. I don’t know who is reading this, to let the cat out of the bag.
Vote for the Donald Trump folk. They’re good people. Not only will his administration be a catalyst causing transformation of nations around the world, they will accomplish what fourteen centuries of nations armies could not: engage the resources causing the Islamist beast to tire, then to slumber, never to awaken in the minds of men, for all time forward.
All the other candidates Republican and Democrat have no plans for the future of the West other than enabling the socialist transformation of Western nations. If this is hunky-dory to you, so be it.
You read it here first.
I’m looking decades into the future and what the West will become given Democrat and Republican actions and policies towards immigration. Since Ted Kennedy’s immigration reform bill of the 1960’s both political parties actively encourage a bias of immigrants from the third world over Western nations. Many, the majority but not all third world immigrants are of the persuasion to favor Democratic Party planks over Republican, and thus vote accordingly. Both party candidates the last fifty, sixty years see nothing wrong with parasitically sucking a nation’s life and vitality, the best and the brightest individuals from around the world, thus leaving the emigrant’s nation of origin without qualified individuals to perhaps consider governing and thus causing change within the less-than-ideal cultural environment they left. In other words, for example, Germany and Japan after the devastation of war can, within two generations time, they transform their nations from ruin to again! become leading economic powers, and yet Western politicians are clueless to this transformation of the two nations and instead have promoted negative world policies which retard all other third world nations by bleeding them of the individuals with the qualities of character who could possibly cause change to their environment, culture and nation, instead of emigrating.
I am of the opinion both Democrat and Republican candidates today are of the mindset that envisions a socialist form of government active in every first world nation within fifty years, and they’re actively encouraging this transformation with their current immigration policies. Donald Trump has a plan to transform nations, especially the ones south of the Rio Grande, into business models encouraging economic prosperity similar to any State of the Union, within two generations time, thus halting the hordes of immigrants from nations with administrators of a socialist mindset, or simply put, less than ideal visions for the future.
Watch the debate with The Don and Hillary. I’m hoping I caught his attention in the past, and a surprise is in the works that’ll cause a quick uptick with the perceptions of Donald Trump in the minds of the people. I don’t want to write and explain further at this time. In fact, I hope what I wrote appears a tad bit convoluted to some; others connect the dots to realize the plan. I don’t know who is reading this, to let the cat out of the bag.
Vote for the Donald Trump folk. They’re good people. Not only will his administration be a catalyst causing transformation of nations around the world, they will accomplish what fourteen centuries of nations armies could not: engage the resources causing the Islamist beast to become tired, and then for it to seek a place to slumber from which it never awakens from in the minds of men, for all time forward. Thank God.
All the other candidates Republican and Democrat have no plans for the future of the West other than enabling the socialist transformation of Western nations. If this is hunky-dory to you, so be it.
You read it here first.
There’s a very ironic answer that Hillary Clinton gave in an interview back in 1992 (during Bill Clinton’s first campaign for President) that shows me how inconsistent people are about judging what a wife does if a husband is unfaithful. She was asked something about why she had stuck with Bill (and even then there were rumors that he wasn’t). She said she wasn’t some little woman like Tammy Wynette (who sang “Stand by Your Man”) who felt that she had to stay with her husband no matter what since divorce was wrong. She said that she loved and respected Bill.
Of course, the fact is that Hillary Clinton and Tammy Wynette apparently lived by the principles that the other publicly espoused. Tammy Wynette married and divorced four men and was married to a fifth on her death at age 55. (There were claims before her death that the reason she stayed married to the fifth one for nineteen years was that she had finally found a good man, but there have been claims since her death that he wasn’t so great either.) On the other hand, Hillary has stuck with Bill despite everything. I’m surprised that nobody (to my knowledge) who believes in the absolute sanctity of marriage hasn’t praised Hillary for sticking with Bill through thick and thin.
What this says to me is that I and anybody else have no business trying to judge a person’s reasons for staying with or leaving a spouse (or partner) given what’s happened between the couple. I don’t know all the facts in the case and am not qualified to give them advice. I’m not even a marriage counselor or a personal friend of the two people. They have to make their own decision about this.
My dislike of Hillary is strictly a gut-level reaction that goes back to when Bill first got elected, and she started digging in on health reform. I am all for health care improvements, but when I first saw her on TV speaking before congressional committees, my reaction was - Wait a Minute! Why does she have all this power? I never voted for her! She could be(come) the most honest and capable person in the world but I will still never get rid of the ache in my stomach when I see or hear her or anything about her. “You only get one chance to make a first impression”.
It doesn’t matter if she was elected or not. The president appoints all sorts of advisers on all manner of subjects, and all manner of experts testify before Congress, whether they work for the government or not. In this regard, she’s no different from the drug czar. She was just asked to step up and work on health care policy.