Wow. I certainly dislike Hillary, and I honestly have been ignorant that there is a large group who feel the same way. I thought that the kind of Hillary-bashing that someone like Rush (and I haven’t listened to him in years) did was at the fringes. I live in NYC which is very, very, Democratic, notwitstanding our Republican Mayor. I am sort of awestruck at all the anti-Hillary stuff over several threads. An excerpt of something I wrote on another thread:
I do think that Clinton presided over a great 8 years of peace and prosperity. He is a fantastic public speaker.
But what do the Clintons really stand for? Oh, I know that she seems to care about children and health care, and he seems to care about racial harmony, and I have no reason to doubt their sincerity. But I can’t figure out their core beliefs and values. I read George Stephanopoulos’ book and it just seemed like they crapped all over their friends and supporters in their path to power. All that is important to them is their ambitions. That’s why people accused Clinton of getting up in the morning and taking a poll to decide what his opinion was that day. Ambition is fine, but without core values and beliefs it serves no purpose other than to advance a career.
(I know that cross-posting is a no-no. Please forgive me.)
I agree with Polycarp’s measured and reasoned tone. But maybe we should just have one huge giant cathartic Hillary thread and get it over with!! The subject of this thread makes it a good candidate. Here I go:
While you’re looking, I’d recommend that you read On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency by Mark Hertsgaard (Schocken Books, 1989). It draws in part on interviews conducted by the author with one hundred and seventy-five principals of the time, including but in no way limited to: James Baker, Michael Deaver, David Gergen, Ed Meese, Lyn Nofziger, Larry Speakes, Sam Donaldson, Brit Hume, Tom Brokaw, A.M. Rosenthal, and Ben Bradlee.
Interesting stuff.
“We have been kinder to President Reagan than any President that I can remember since I’ve been at the Post.” --Ben Bradlee, July 1984
“[Up until Iran-contra,] Ronald Reagan enjoyed the most generous treatment by the press of any President in the postwar era. He knew it, and liked the distinction.” --Michael Deaver
“I think a lot of the Teflon came because the press was holding back. I don’t think they wanted to go after him that toughly.” --David Gergen
Hold The Presses! Here is a cathartic anti-Hillary thread! 6 pages! All the anti-Hillary that’s fit to print! I haven’t read it all, and I’m not gonna revive it (please don’t revive it!!) but maybe we Hillary haters can get our satisfaction from reading it and end the current crop of Anti-Hillary threads!
[quote] Originally posted by december 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.
I still think it’s their ideologies, policies, and actions that garners them hatred, not facial expressions at a speech:
Thurmond openly fought the Voting Rights Act. Vehemently, at that. I thought this was pretty common knowledge, but will happily dig up cites if you wish.
Newt “Family Values” Gingrich dumps his wife while she’s in a cancer ward, then married another. Think that might have something to do with how he’s perceived?
As for Hillary’s claim that she was named after Sir Edmund, has anyone other than The American Spectator stated this happened? Every reference I’ve ever seen either credited the Spectator or left it completely uncredited. I realize that there are plenty of biased organizations out there, but this would be the equivalent of me backing up my arguments with claims made by the Coalition of guilty folks that were pardoned by the Clinton administration and feel they owe something in return.
Since it seems to be okay to second guess everyone’s actions, did anyone else noticed that some of the Supreme Court looked like they were dozing off during the speech? It certainly looked that way to me, but I don’t hear a lot of conservatives pointing that out.
Somehow I get the feeling that this is my fault. Incidentally, there was shortly afterwards a thread devoted to presenting photographic evidence from a variety of angles that Hillary’s ass was not, in fact, fat.
Also, in case you can’t put it together on your own, the OP of the linked thread was the person Polycarp was referring to.
[nitpick]
Lincoln presided over a civil war. FDR presided over a world war and a depression. Point? Clinton got lucky nobody attacked us in a big way (if 2 embassies don’t count), the internet took off, Clinton took credit for all of it.
[/nitpick]
Clinton could sell sand to Egypt or talk OBL into drinking Manechevitz.
minty green, do I really have to come up with examples of Washington politicians getting put through the grinder? Hllary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Strom Thurmond, and Jesse Helms are the only ones?
“Utter nonsense”? Come on.
I accept that Hillary’s facial expressions are low on the list of national priorities just now, but it is something people have talked a lot about. Clearly, it matters.
And I don’t think criticizing a politician–yes, even to the minutest detail–and national unity are mutually exclusive. Not even in these times.
Okay, prove it. Prove that “every politician in Washington” is subjected to the same amount and intensity of personal attacks as HRC. Sure, you can find an occasional attack here and there on Ben Campbell and Patrick Leahy. Your task, my hyperbolic friend, is to prove that those two senators recieve the same amount and instensity of personal criticism as Sen. Clinton. I eagerly await your results.
Sorry, no cite. I’m going from memory here. I can remember lots of articles calling him dumb and ignorant. I remember articles claiming that he must a pawn of his advisors, since he was obviously incompetent to have been providing leadership. (Sound familiar? W was attacked in the same way before Sept. 11. There’s even a thread here on the topic.)
I can remember lots of articles accusing him of being an irresponsible war-monger. (Remember Ronnie “Ray-Gun”?) And, of course he got the usual attacks of wanting to harm the poor and downtrodden.
OTOH I remember no articles at all pointing out his interest in and grasp of a wide variety of policy issues, as demonstrated by the radio addresses he gave in the years before he was elected. I remember no articles pointing out how well-read he was about policy issues – how he spent most evenings reading about policy issues.
On the one hand we’ve got december. On the other, Michael Deaver and David Gergen. Hmmm…who do I think has probably got a better sense of the situation?
Read the damn book. Or come up with some actual, y’know, evidence to support your position.
I’d be happy to take this to a separate thread; I see “Reagan was unfairly maligned in the press” often enough to see the need for some serious debunking.
I’m emotionally involved in many political issues that I consider important, such as education, civil liberties, and Israel, to name a few. Whether or not people think Reagan was treated unfairly by the media 10 to 30 years ago is way down on my priority list.
You’re right. I did write “Everybody in Washington gets shredded” and of course I can’t prove that. It’s my mistake for not using a qualifier of some sort. I guess I just kind of assumed nobody here would choose to interpret that statement on a literal basis. Sloppy work, I left myself open, and I’ll know better next time.
Your use of the word “hyperbolic,” though, does lead me to believe you understood the intention behind the statement, so–oh, to heck with it.
As for the rest, I don’t recall writing that “All politicians are subjected to the same level of scrutiny or attack as Hillary Clinton,” and I certainly don’t feel that way, so I won’t try to prove that, either.
Then take it to IMHO. This is Great Debates, and you KNOW that if you say the press was biased against Reagan, your opinions aren’t enough-you need to have back up.
The fact that there wasn’t massive calling for the guy to be impeached after Iran-Contra except for a few articles in The Progressive should tell you something.
