What's really scary about Hillary?

Great Debates
1

Let’s simplify this.

When you’re a politician, you don’t get caught on TV looking like someone peed your cornflakes unless you want to.

And when you’re the senator from New York in the middle of the biggest crisis that city and quite possibly this country has ever faced and the president is talking about war, you don’t get caught on TV looking like someone peed your cornflakes unless you REALLY want to.

Anyone clinging to the idea that “that’s just the way she looked” is kidding themselves. Part of any politician’s job is to manage the way he or she is perceived. So if you’re any good, and you’re a professional, you pay attention to your clothes, your body language, and your facial expressions. You make damn sure they are going to “scan” the way you want them to, that you create the impression you want–both in person and for a TV audience.

So if you believe she wasn’t paying any attention to the way she looked in that circumstance, then what you’re really saying is that she’s a rank amateur and can’t be blamed.

Clearly, she’s not a RANK amateur (she was, after all, the First Lady). But she and her staff made an amateurish error. They decided that appearing the way she appeared was in her best political interest.

They were wrong. They misread the political tealeaves, misjudged the way the wind was blowing, drank the wrong Kool-Aid, or just didn’t get the memo that said partisanship was out, the American people weren’t in the mood. Let’s not excuse them for making the mistake, okay?

And it was a mistake. A very small one, to be sure, but a mistake.

Now let’s complicate this.

To a large extent these days, we don’t judge our politicians on who they really are, or even who they’re pretending to be. Rather, we judge them on how effective they are at pretending to be something we already know they are not.

I’d argue that’s why Bill Clinton was so popular, and so successful. He was brilliant at playing that game, because he was able to carry off that sly wink and smile that said “I may be an actor, we may all be actors, butgoddamned if I’m not just so much better at it than everybody else.”

Now, Hillary’s not anywhere near as good as that. And that’s part of what worries me most about her, because a lot of people would like to elevate her to Bill’s level, or think she’s already there. She’s not, she’s nowhere and her expression and attitude during Bush’s speech is just one indicator that both she and her staff have got a long, long way to go until they’re truly deserving of the political power they’ve already been handed.

Think about that, and you’ll see that what’s most scary about her is the eagerness people have to thrust more power in her hands. And her eagerness in accepting it.

2

Now lets apply your logic to Bush and see how he rates.

3

Hillary Clinton is the most useful person in America.

Not a great politician, necessarily. And not a leader.

But she serves this country in a vital role – by merely existing, she smokes out hatemongers, who cannot resist taking potshots at her.

I have no idea what her facial expression meant, or why, and I could not care less. There are in excess of 6,000 people dead; who knows where the Office of Homeland Security will end up going; pacifists are urging we allow the terrorists to keep on doing their thing; ultra-patriots are urging that this gives us opportunity to bomb a country of several million that has just come off 22 years of war, with sufficient widows, orphans, persons permanently disabled, and combinations thereof to keep the Intl. Red Cross doing land office business for years, governed by a dictatorship of intransigent radical Islamic fundamentalist terrormongers that kill and maim their own citizens. Clearly the most important thing we have to be concerned about is what a former First Lady’s emotional state while listening to a speech was, and why!! :rolleyes:

4

Ned:

I’d thought about it in regard to Bush. I think it applies there. He did very well during the speech in question, but I remember that during his first address, the night of September 11th, he came across as barely under control.

Pretty darn scary, as well.

Pollycarp:

I tried to use Hillary’s facial expression–which has garnered a lot of attention–merely as a “way in” to the larger question of her legitimacy and relative political skill. Maybe I didn’t do a good job.

But like it or not, she’s been front and center, and she’s a figure who’s had a polarizing effect. So I think its worth examining her role, both now and in the future. If that offends you, sorry.

Maybe this thread belongs in the Pit. It doesn’t seem like there can be any examination of Hillary Clinton without people on both sides getting really angry and outraged.

5

OK, blacksheep – I see your point.

However, the “polarizing” has happened at both ends of the political spectrum – and as a liberal myself, I see a lot of blaming the left for any problems we may encounter. Others may see it just the other way.

One point that I do stand by, and I regret having more-or-less flamed you by misprision of where you were going, is that for some reason, she attracts hate from her opponents. Eleanor Roosevelt was cordially disliked by most Republicans and most conservatives of both parties, back in the Thirties, but it was rare to have somebody pick on her physical appearance or allege evil motives to her. I recall one former poster here who, like Cato ending every speech with Carthago delenda est, seemed bound and determined to bring up in every post on every subject the state of Mrs. Clinton’s glutei maximi.

A little of this goes a long way.

And, quite bluntly, her “legitimacy” was confirmed by a majority of the voters of the State of New York last November – unless you’re bringing up a completely different issue regarding her parents’ marital state! :wink:

She was a very effective advocate in Arkansas on a number of issues, and during Watergate, in which she played a very minor role, a skilled lawyer. Her attempt to parlay her role as First Lady into a stance with some political power did not work well – but she was hardly the first First Lady with such ideas. With her new role as the leading Clinton, the time is far too short to evaluate her effectiveness as yet.

6

I agree that HC has been the focal point for a lot of hatemongering, and a lot of very nasty, very personal, very hurtful stuff involving her relationship with BC and even her relationship with her daughter. And its never a nice thing when people dissect your physical appearance and use that as the basis for attacks.

But I’d argue that goes with the territory. Everybody in Washington gets shredded that way. That such things are not fair is beside the point.

Look at Dan Quayle. He got destoyed very day his VP candidacy was announced. He wasn’t prepared for it. He wasn’t prepared to handle questions about the draft and the National Guard, and he stumbled badly:

“If I knew then that I’d be standing here now, I wouldn’t have done what I did then, heh heh heh.”

Remember that? He was never forgiven for that horrible, uneasy moment where he let himself be slit wide open. And he should never have been forgiven for it, either. He’d demonstrated a real capability for total ineptness.

Clinton didn’t exactly go to war, either, but nobody cared because he never let it touch him. He never let it touch him because he’d cut his teeth in the trenches, he’d earned his stripes in the dirtiest, most local level of poltics.

What I’m saying is that Hillary leap-frogged all of that, and as a result, she gets slit wide open all the time.

And that’s HER fault, brother.

And it scares me because I want my leaders a lot more savvy than that.

7

Why all the threads about Hillary Clinton at a time like this?

I’m not a fan of hers, and I’ve been a pretty strong critic in the past, but I think a lot of conservatives should take a cue from the Democrats here on this forum and elsewhere - a lot of them have an intense dislike for George Bush, but most of them have stowed it away from now and are giving him every benefit of the doubt, because we need unity right now more than more partisan bickering.

I think the same consideration should be extended to the Clintons. Everything Hillary has publically said has been 100% in support of George Bush. She apparently ‘gets it’, even if she let her guard down a bit during the address.

I, for one, won’t be saying another bad thing about her until and if she comes out and does something specific that I have a strenuous disagreement with. And even then, I intend to stay far away from generic attacks on her character or anything else not directly related to the issue.

So far, the Democrats from this board all the way up to the Congress have shown an absolutely exemplary attitude. Let’s try to do the same.

8

Utter nonsense.

Very, very few Washington politicians have anywhere near as much personal venom launched at them by people who disagree with their politics. Ted Kennedy, Jesse Helms, and Strom Thurmond might come close, but I think you’d have a hard time coming up with any other Senators whose mere existence provokes so much irrational hatred in so many people.

9

Yes, HRC gets a lot of venom. IMHO Newt Gingrich was attacked even worse, particularly by the mainstream media. The HRC attacks are pretty well restricted to the Right Wing media.

Remember the Time Magazine cover, “The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas.” At least nobody makes fun of the sound of HRC’s name. And the NY Times wrote any number of editorials to help drive him from office. Note that both HRC and Newt were pretty good attackers themselves, so maybe it served them both right!

Reagan was not only viciously attacked as President. The attacks continued long after he was out of office.

A related question is whether HRC is a good symbol for the Democratic Party. The media often look to her as the face of the Party. IMHO she’s good for the Party because she’s very intelligent and also because she’s a woman. She’s bad because she carries a certain amount of baggage. I really don’t know how these factors balance…

10

Gingrich and, to some extent, Reagan are good examples, december. My point was that it is relatively rare for a politician to be the object of comparable personal animosity, contrary to BSS’s assertion.

11

Does anyone know of a link for some video to see this “face?”

Thanks

12

“no one made fun of Hilary’s name” ??

“Billary” anyone?

I think it’s tough to draw comparisons to the venom displayed towards Gingrich vs. venom towards HRC. One point, however - HRC only recently became an elected official. The venom originally directed her way was towards the family member of an elected official, vs. an elected official.

Sam kudos to you, sir.

13

I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong, but isn’t most of the venom aimed at Helms, Thurmond, Kennedy, Gingrich, etc., due to their ideologies and policies?

I haven’t seen any of the Hillary bashing threads start off with policy disagreements, just the usual “I hate her, she looks disinterested, and therefore she must be the devil” arguments.

I’m hardly a fan of GWB, but as Sam Stone stated, many of us are dropping our partisan guns for the time being. He hasn’t been flawless in this tragedy, but I do think he’s trying hard, so I’m going to give him a chance. Would it be too much to ask the same courtesy in return, or is it just easier to bash now since we’ve backed off?

If she tries to pass a law you disagree with or makes a statement that you have a problem with, jump on it, but “I can tell she wasn’t sincere”, etc., doesn’t carry a lot of weight with some of us.

14

:confused: I listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannaty quite often and read lots of right wing sites. I’ve never heard or seen her called “Billary.” I don’t even know what it means.

Well, no. E.g., Kennedy is often criticized for being fat and for allegedly drinking too much. Helms and Thurmond are regularly called racists, although the critics seldom if ever provide appropriate evidence. The Time article comparing Newt to The Grinch had nothing to do with his philosophy. In fact, it was mean, but without meaning.

Limbaugh’s most common criticism of HRC is her political philosophy. He criticizes her for her support of big government.

Others criticize her for being a crook, a liar, and for McCarthyism – all of which have considerable degree of support. E.g. several years ago she was speaking in New Zealand and told the audience that she had been named after famed New Zealander Sir Edmund Hillary. She must have been embarassed when a local paper pointed out that she was 4 years old when Sir Hillary first became famous for climbing Mt. Everest.

I agree with this point, DMC.

15

Appparently not very closely.

well, my first find on “Billary” on a google search is a geocities web page w/ a bunch of faked pictures (including one of a woman barring her breasts, with HRC’s face on it). So can’t link it.

But heres another

orhere

or here you’ll note that one of Rush’s featured sites in 2000 was the ‘Billary be gone’.

Looks like you were wrong on that one, eh?

and,DMC spoke of ‘the Hilary bashing threads’ here, and I believe they’re correct on that.

16

Emphasis mine

I agree, the vast right-wing conspiracy lives in every village. Quick, start a House Un-Hillary Activities Commission. Make discussing her a hate crime. Poor Hillary, so beset by “hatemongers.”

I think many of you have very short memories if you really think HC is the ultimate lightning rod for criticism.

What convenient arguments, BTW. It precludes you from having to actually defend her. Just throw aspersions at anyone who “takes potshots” at her. After all, politicians should not be scrutinized, especially ones who aspire to become President.

A policy argument: she likes big, unresponsive, focused-on- next-years-funding governmental bureaucracies, I do not. Yes, including the duplicative Homeland Defense Agency that Bush is creating.

Just wondering Sam Stone how is calling people “hatemongers” demonstrating an “absolutely exemplary” attitude? I won’t even get into absolutely. That was the first responsive post.

Exemplary: “Serving as a model for imitation.” OK, Sam, you are a hatemonger.

17

I never saw the hatemonger quote. I saw her interviewed on Larry King, I saw several interviews on CNN, and I read a quote from her in another news article. In the CNN interview, she was actually being baited to say something negative about the President, and she refused.

I’m not here to apologize for anything Hillary Clinton has to say. As I said before, I’m no fan of hers. But the government has called for national unity. To me, that means it is okay to disagree with the government on substantive matters, but the partisan bickering should stop.

The Democrats have had an excellent attitude all through this, as far as I’m concerned. I’ll admit that my expectations were much lower, and I have been pleasantly surprised. It has caused me to re-evaluate my opinion of some leaders.

It bothers me that I now have a suspicion that the right would not have been anywhere near as supportive had Al Gore been in power, because I identify myself more with the right than with the left.

But of all the subjects to debate right now, the personal demeanor of Hillary Clinton has got to be at the bottom of the list. Like I said before, get some perspective! Jeez, 6700 people are dead, the world looks like it’s going to war, and we’re STILL worried about Hillary’s facial expressions? And this helps the country how?

18

OK, wring. You have demonstrated that “Billary” has been used on some obuure internet sites. I guess the term was a way to tie Hillary to Bill Clinton.

There’s no doubt that my memory isn’t what it used to be, but I still maintain that I don’t remember hearing that term used. Now, “congenital liar” I do remember…

19

OK, I take it back then. I know you were aware I just said that to make a point, but I still take it back.

IMHPO: in my humble personal opinion.

As for unity, yes, I agree. However, that is how all this started. IMHPO, during Bush’s address to the nation HC looked like, and acted like, a hater-of-unity. Hillary looked as though, IMHPO, she was disappointed that “the end of partisanship” had arrived.

I don’t believe in the end of partisanship by the way, or think that partisanship is always bad either. I would like to hear some debate about this “crusade”***** we are embarking on.

“How should she act?,” one might ask. Simple, don’t stand up and golf clap with a sour expression. Either don’t clap or clap sitting down. Or, be courageous (politically suicidal?) like Barbara Lee and vote against Bush acquiring war powers and sit throughout the speech. I disagree with Barbara Lee, because the United States was attacked, but I have respect for her willingness to fight against a huge majority for what she believes in. HC, IMHPO, acted childish, afraid to stand (sit?) on principle. Another IMHPO is that Hillary intentionally stepped back to avoid shaking Bush’s hand in the reception line. Fine, not a huge deal, but at least oppose him, don’t pretend like you believe in what he is doing because it is politically expedient.

I know that I am ridiculously idealistic, and that I should dislike most politicians–I’m already there. If anyone disagrees with my take on her attitude, I respect that. I think nonverbal signals are a window into personality, some people don’t, OK.

Sam Stone, you are right about the casualties, war, and how unimportant all this really is. But, “Hillary” (passive-aggressive divorce?) is a Senator, and has presidential dreams. If one, like myself, some pundits, and all my friends, thinks that she was horribly disingenuous, that is instructive in determining whether or not she is fit for public office. Still, I know, not that important right now–but here we all are.

By my reckoning more defenders of HC came in, who has stronger feelings? Hillarymongers.

*One thing not to like about Bush: his choice of words sucks.

20

The term ‘Billary’ dates to before Bill Clinton’s election. The point to the barb was that electing Bill Clinton was the same as electing Hillary, since by his own admission Bill Clinton said that it was a ‘2-for-1 deal’. At the time, Hillary was generally seen as a big asset to Bill, so he played up her future role in government, and followed through by trying to give her a substantial amount of power after the election.

It wasn’t until her task force on Health Care failed that Hillary became a more ‘traditional’ first lady. She definitely started off being much more active in the affairs of government at the beginning of the Clinton Presidency than she was at the end.

I’ve always hated this stupid name-calling stuff though. If you want to win over people from the other side, making up joke names about the First Lady isn’t a very good way to go about it. If you can’t argue against someone in substantive ways with substantive proof, perhaps you shouldn’t be arguing at all.