# Why do people hate Hillary? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 16, 2000, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912 "2000-12-16T16:35:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2000, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912/41 "2000-12-17T13:58:06Z")
> [@](#): > > ## \*Originally posted by peace \* \*\*Revtim, there are two parts in this “statement”, which one would you like to be supported and how? > > Peace \*\* Just an example of Al and/or Hillary caught in a lie that could only have been made for “sport”, and not for political/image gain, would suffice. ---
**Author:** ![Pyrrhonist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pyrrhonist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyrrhonist)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2000, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912/42 "2000-12-17T14:09:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > \*\* > People who accuse Hillary Clinton (or Bill Clinton, or the Democratic Party in general) of being “socialist” or “communist” aren’t using language in any meaningful way anymore. > \*\* I think you’re mostly right that the terms “socialism” and “communism” have lost much or most of their original meaning. (Much in the same way “gay” is no longer used to mean “cheerful.”) Calling her “Socialist” may not be technically correct, but it is a meaningful way to describe her. There is an old joke that describes the heart of these terms fairly well: [list=A] [li] **Feudalism:** You have two cows. You give a share of the milk to Lord. [_] **Socialism:** You have two cows. The Government takes one cow and gives it to your neighbor. [_] **Communism:** You have two cows. The government takes both cows then gives you the share of milk they think you need. **Capitalism:** You have two cows. You sell one cow and buy a bull.[/list=A][/li] Under this simple description, Hillary believes in Socialism for the general population in the U.S. because she supports the redistribution of wealth. Perhaps an accurate description would be to call her a “redistributionist” as someone who follows the tenets of redistribution: **re·dis·tri·bu·tion** (rê´dîs-tre-by¡¹shen) _noun_ 1. The act or process of redistributing. 2. An economic theory or policy that advocates reducing inequalities in the distribution of wealth. — **re´dis·tri·bu¹tion·ist** _adjective & noun_ Of course, the redistribution isn’t supposed to come from her slice of the pie. There are other terms to call like “Big Governmentist.” There is no accurate definition of that word, but I’m sure everybody knows what it means and knows it can apply to Hillary. ---
**Author:** ![peace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@peace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peace)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2000, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912/43 "2000-12-17T17:51:02Z")
## Revtim: I gave you one. She “was a long-time NY Yankee’s” fan and many other lies in NY although, strictly speaking, it was lying for business, not pleasure. BTW, putting her daughter through private school while offering public school for all others was nice. Al Gore invented the Internet, we all know that. Pantom, you still do not understand: presidents do not hire or fire people, outside their administration. I do not know the exact reasons for booming U.S. economy, but think that one of them is the evolvment of PC. The economy DURING Bush administration was slower than it was DURING Clinton’s, but still it was the envie of the world. I tried to study political economy and history and still do not understand why we have economic cycles. I know one thing: they have nothing to do with the current president. Peace ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2000, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912/44 "2000-12-17T21:31:10Z")
> [@](#): > > I think you’re mostly right that the terms “socialism” and “communism” have lost much or most of their original meaning. (Much in the same way “gay” is no longer used to mean “cheerful.”) Calling her “Socialist” may not be technically correct, but it is a meaningful way to describe her. Well, no, actually it isn’t. To quote myself in [this old thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=44195): > [@](#): > > The _American Heritage Dictionary_ defines “fascism” as “a philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism”. I’m sure George W. Bush is “devot[ed] to the interests of a particular nation” (e.g., America), and is therefore a “nationalist”; he’s politically to the “right” (a conservative); and he is, of course, “pro-business” and is a “business leader” (oil and baseball) who has sought political leadership (governor of Texas, president of the United States). Therefore, George W. Bush is a fascist–Q.E.D., right? So, even though it isn’t “technically correct” to refer to Republicans as “fascists”, it’s “meaningful” to do so. No problem, right? ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2000, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912/45 "2000-12-17T22:33:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by peace \* > \*\*Revtim: I gave you one. She “was a long-time NY Yankee’s” fan and many other lies in NY although, strictly speaking, it was lying for business, not pleasure. \*\* I thought I clearly stated I was looking for examples of lies that demonstrated a pathological tendency for lying, not for political gain. You yourself admit it was business; what makes you think this is an example? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by peace \* > \*\* > BTW, putting her daughter through private school while offering public school for all others was nice. Al Gore invented the Internet, we all know that. > \*\* 1. I’m not sure what you meant by “offering public school for others”. Obviously, public schools existed long before Hillary was around, so what do you mean? 2. The “report” that Gore said he invented the Internet has been strongly and repeatedly shown to be a great exaggeration. A nominal search of this very message board will show that. But even if it was 100 percent true that he said he invented the Interent, it of course would have been done for political gain, and is another totally invalid example of lying because of a pathological tendency. You yourself said: > [@](#): > > \*\* > She (and Al Gore) is a pathological liar, i.e. a liar, who lies just for the thrill of it, not out of profit. > \*\* Unless your school reference that I don’t understand pans out, you have provided zero support for this statement. ---
**Author:** ![Cardinal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cardinal/32/4000_2.png) [@Cardinal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cardinal)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2000, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912/46 "2000-12-18T02:27:37Z")
Has anyone else heard the story of how Hillary made the 100k in cattle futures without a single losing trade, because it was really a slush account arranged by a lawyer connected to Tyson chicken? The winning trades were retroactively assigned to her name. Coincedentally, Arkansas relaxed some environmental restrictions in an area that Tyson needed to move a factory in. I personally remember Ross Perot saying in a debate that he had discovered what Clinton meant by “manufacturing.” He meant “chicken farming” or somesuch. As I remember it, this alone accounted for a significant portion of the economic growth in a state like AR. I’d really like to know a cite for the first paragraph there. I’ve searched the American Spectator site for it, but I can’t find it. Anyone have any support or disproof of this? If this is all true, it does make them definately sleazy. But that seems to be agreed fairly widely here anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2000, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912/47 "2000-12-18T02:39:44Z")
…but she got out early. Here’s one link on Hillary’s adventures with cattle futures: [http://www.investorsnet.com/futures/future990628.html](http://www.investorsnet.com/futures/future990628.html) Here’s another link more skeptical link: [http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm](http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm) ---
**Author:** ![peace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@peace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peace)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2000, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912/48 "2000-12-18T02:58:34Z")
## Ok, Revtim, you nailed me down: other pathological lies by the two skip me know. That’s why I leave “pathological liars” crowd and join less controvercial “sleazy” crowd. I’m sorry you missed on Chelsey Clinton schooling. Peace ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2000, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912/49 "2000-12-18T03:19:57Z")
Don’t get me wrong peace, I agree they are sleazy scum. But no more than other politicians. It just irritates me when one side is demonized just because of their politics. ---
**Author:** ![Pyrrhonist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pyrrhonist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyrrhonist)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2000, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912/50 "2000-12-18T13:55:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > \*\* > > The _American Heritage Dictionary_ defines “fascism” as “a philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism”. I’m sure George W. Bush is “devot[ed] to the interests of a particular nation” (e.g., America), and is therefore a “nationalist”; he’s politically to the “right” (a conservative); and he is, of course, “pro-business” and is a “business leader” (oil and baseball) who has sought political leadership (governor of Texas, president of the United States). Therefore, George W. Bush is a fascist–Q.E.D., right?\*\* The trouble with your analogy is that in his heart of hearts Bush is not a dictator, _the_ crucial element of Fascism IMHO. The Republicans may or not be able to push him around, it is too early to say, but it would be very hard to convince me that he is a tyrant or despot. There probably are few Republicans who are closet Fascists, but I can’t think of any names off hand. (Maybe former Republican Pat Robertson or ex-KKK David Duke (Rep.?) could fit that bill. Now Hillary with her presumed penchant for authoritarian control, has more in common with the heart of a dictatorship than Debya. Of course, not all Democrats have Hillary’s Socialistic and Authoritarian heart, but if she were in to gain to control or strong influence, she could lead the weaker more moderate Democrats into a dangerously Liberal Left arena. Now I have said it before, that a Republican 2/3 majority in the House, Senate, and Presidency could possibly decline to a Fascist-like regime, the same way the Democrats could decline into a Socialist/Communist-like regime with a prevailing majority. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2000, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912/51 "2000-12-18T14:18:23Z")
Not to pick on Sam here, but he’s about the only respondent to the inquiry as to the origin of Hillary-hatred to use nouns instead of irrefutable adjectives of excoriation, which I’ll note in passing as saying more about their users than their targets. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > This is the ‘caring liberal’ who believes that rich people should be taxed more, while being rich herself and doing everything she could to avoid taxes. We have had a progressive income tax structure for as long as we’ve had income taxes. There aren’t too many examples of people NOT trying to reduce their tax bite. > [@](#): > > Including donating her old underwear to charity so she could claim it as a tax deduction. Has anyone else here ever had the gall to claim their used underwear as a tax deduction? It was Bill’s, not hers, and that stuff happens all the time. > [@](#): > > She and her husband campaigned on a theme of, “The 80’s were the decade of greed, typified by the S&L scandals”. This while having best friends who were some of the worst S&L offenders around, and while almost certainly engaging in S&L fraud themselves (Whitewater has all the earmarks of a classic S&L fraud). Why do you think that Arkansas bank was one of the “worst”? Just because it got reported more? Try Neil Bush’s (yep, another brother) bank, which cost the taxpayers a LOT more money. The biggest corruption of all was the GOP Congress using taxpayer money to bail them all out. The Arkansas thing was pretty small potatoes, made into a literally-federal case by Richard Mellon Scaife’s “Arkansas Project” (suggest you look into it). > [@](#): > > While she was crusading against greed, her and her husband were pulling in huge salaries. And apparently this wasn’t enough, because she managed to turn $1,000 into $100,000 in the futures market, in what was almost certainly an illegal stock scheme, and may also have been a scheme to buy political favor and move the money through a trading office to launder it. Agreed on the hypocrisy of being against greed while making more money than most people, disagreed on its uniqueness in the Clintons’ case, or on their particular wealthiness. Re illegality, if there had been any shred of it, is there any doubt Starr and Scaife would have found it? > [@](#): > > She claims to be a champion of working people, but one of her first acts upon entering the White House was to fire a whole bunch of career employees in the travel office so that she could put in some of her cronies from Arkansas. and to make matters worse, the Clintons trumped up a bunch of fake charges against the travel office people in order to make the firings more politically palatable. Several of those people spent their entire life savings attempting to clear their names, which they eventually did. It turned out that all the charges were completely false. But those people are now broke. Do you think we’ll be hearing any apologies for that from the new Hillary? Suggest you provide documentation of above. There’s plenty of information about sloppy recordkeeping in that office. Would it be preferable to leave the situation alone? See above comment about illegality, and refer to the number of people in Arkansas and lower down in the Administration who had to spend their own life savings on lawyers for the “crime” of knowing the Clintons. Where are THOSE apologies coming from? Not you, apparently. > [@](#): > > (I started to delete adjectives, and wound up with nothing for quite a while)…Her management of the failed health care plan showed the ‘true’ Hillary, in my opinion. “Management”? Not a good description of holding hearings on possible changes and bills to file with Congress. Closing the doors was questionable, but there’s a good case to be made that nothing could have been done at all with TV-induced grandstanding. But at least the entrenched opposition kept her from “imposing” a terrible, socialist, hateful Canadian-style plan here. > [@](#): > > Her latest hypocrisy is accepting an 8 million dollar advance for her book, after she vilified Newt Gingrich for getting an advance less than half that size (and which he subsequently turned down under political pressure, if I recall correctly). You do NOT recall correctly, or at least it’s partial and one-sided. Gingrich staged the force-out of former speaker Jim Wright for doing exactly the same thing he himself then did, which was to have a fake foundation take the money legally and then give it to him for political purposes against House ethics rules. Gingrich took a heavy fine (from a committee his own party controlled!) and had to call in all his chits to avoid being voted out. There were other, lesser cases of his taking money through the back door that contributed to it. Hillary was just one of the chorus pointing out his own hypocrisy for doing that. Her own book advance is for her White House memoirs. Reminder: Gingrich’s trouble was due to his laundering the money, not for taking it. > [@](#): > > (another long string of pejorative adjectives)\*\* If any of you simply don’t like her viscerally, as several of you have mentioned, that’s your right. If you want to base it on something solid, you do have a responsibility to consider whether the things you’re bringing up are unique, unusual, or even as bad as the things you accept in those whose policies and approaches you DO agree with. You also should try being much more skeptical of the sources of these stories, their own axes to grind, and the credibility of their own claims to objectivity and fairness. I really can’t help noticing that the primary targets of the right-wing media (e.g. Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Will, Limbaugh) over the last 8 years, besides Bill Clinton and “Algore” themselves, have been: Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, and Madeleine Albright. Is that fair enough? I do notice a common theme there, don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2000, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912/52 "2000-12-18T14:44:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\*I really can’t help noticing that the primary targets of the right-wing media (e.g. Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Will, Limbaugh) over the last 8 years, besides Bill Clinton and “Algore” themselves, have been: Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, and Madeleine Albright. Is that fair enough? I do notice a common theme there, don’t you? \*\* I’m sorry, you’re not allowed to mention that. See **Lemur866** ’s post, previously in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![egkelly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/db5fbb/32.png) [@egkelly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/egkelly)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2000, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912/53 "2000-12-18T16:37:14Z")
Speaking of the Clinton-Tyson Chicken connections: when Bill was Gov. of Arkansas, Tyson Chicken wanted permission to dump chicken guts into the rivers (they process around 80% of the chickens farmed in Arkansas). Hillary was the go between for Tyson, and Tyson was eventually awarded permits to dump chicken offal and waste. The result-Arkansas has the most polluted rivers in the west, and Don Tyson is millions richer! The cattle futures deal (made up by “red” Bone), trnsferred $100K to Hilary, whcih came ultimately from accounts controlled by Tyson. Another thing-Tyson also got exemptions for its trucks 9from Arkansas maximum weight laws). Another good deal for the Cl;intons, while the public paid the price (more road damage, and more peopl killed by overloaded trucks). As they say, it takes a village! ---
**Author:** ![peace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@peace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peace)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2000, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912/54 "2000-12-18T17:41:23Z")
Revtim, it’s better. Really, at the time I was surprized at what was said by both. It was more strange, as both are quite bright. I jusy wondered: “Why on Earth?”. I can’t recall any of the examples now, sorry, but I remember the fun. I agree that one can’t make it in politics unless lying. Recent events show that the one who lies better, wins. Sad. ## Not only GWB is not a fascist, he is not even a “far right”. The whole analogy was in extreme bad taste. Yes, he is “pro-business”, but not for “business-state” partnership. That witless post was just another example of how far liberals are willing to go: GWB is a very mediocre pol, very moderate (look at almost perfect 50/50 election split, i.e. he is OK for half the people), yet they (liberals) are willing to demonize anyone who is even slightly is not to their taste. Peace ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2000, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912/55 "2000-12-18T18:17:30Z")
Hillary is reportedly looking to sell her house in Chappaqua, NY in order to buy an apartment in Manhattan. I guess it wasn’t politically feasible to buy the apartment right off the bat, when you need suburban and upstate voters to whom Manhattan is anathema. Now they’ll have time to forget this bit of trickery, assuming Hillary isn’t off to bigger and better things by 2006. And the $8 mil. book advance will buy nice Manhattan digs. Wasn’t it clever to arrange the book deal prior to taking office, so those sleazy ethics investigators in the Senate don’t get to probe the deal? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2000, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912/56 "2000-12-18T18:24:37Z")
Oh, right, she thought upstaters might think she was a Manhattanite instead of a carpetbagger. Methinks that thesis need a little more polishing. ---
**Author:** ![blank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a4c791/32.png) [@blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blank)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2000, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912/57 "2000-12-18T22:56:41Z")
The fact that she’s now a senator, and overcame the problem of never holding prior elected office, as well as the “carpetbagger” baggage, proves to me people love her. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2000, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912/58 "2000-12-18T23:15:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\*Oh, right, she thought upstaters might think she was a Manhattanite instead of a carpetbagger. Methinks that thesis need a little more polishing. \*\* Apparently it just isn’t penetrating. NYC tends to be a bastion of liberalism/progressivism/righteousness while the suburbs and communities upstate are more right-wing/conservative/full of gun-toting hicks (to see it from Hillary’s point of view). If you swoop in and buy that luxury apartment in Manhattan right off the bat, the upstaters who already resent NYC will not be happy. Best to buy the house in the suburbs, then dump it as soon as one is elected, in favor of the apartment that was really desired in the first place. Too late for those hayseeds to cop a resentment now! See, it’s easy to follow. ---
**Author:** ![snac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/90db22/32.png) [@snac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snac)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2000, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912/59 "2000-12-19T01:33:43Z")
My two cents as an upstater for close to twenty years: Hillary won New York not because she was a celebrity, not because she bought a house in Westchester (just about as bad as Manhattan where many upstaters are concerned), not because Democrats _always_ win (someone brought up D’Amato, and the current governor, re-elected to a second term, is a Republican as well), but because she worked her little you-know-what off. She was clear and articulate when she spoke, and she certainly gave the impression of being a good listener. She may not have been a native or even a recent ttranspant, but there is no question that she understood the issues of upstate New York a hell of a lot better than her “native-born” opponent did. I can’t speak for how suburbanites and NYCity dwellers felt, but upstate she lost to Lazio by a relative handful of votes–an amazing achievement for such a strongly Republican area and such a controversial candidate. I was not originally a supporter of hers. I took the celebrity carpetbagger charge very seriously and was quite well prepared to vote against her. But I did keep an open min, and the more I saw, the more I liked. Anyone who thinks she got the seat handed to her on a platter is quite wrong: she worked very hard for what she got. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2000, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912/60 "2000-12-19T06:35:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Not to pick on Sam here, but he’s about the only respondent to the inquiry as to the origin of Hillary-hatred to use nouns instead of irrefutable adjectives of excoriation, which I’ll note in passing as saying more about their users than their targets. First, let me agree that Hillary has not been convicted of anything, and therefore it would be incorrect of me to state categorically that she has done any of these things. However, I think there is a preponderance of evidence that the Clintons have been involved in a lot of shady dealings. I think one of the reasons Starr kept digging for so long was for the same reason that the feds kept after Capone for so long - it was pretty clear that he was guilty, but it was hard to make evidence stick to him. In the case of the Clintons, more documents vanished and more witnesses claimed to have forgotten all details of those events than did the witnesses in the John Gotti trial. Note: I’m not for an instance trying to make a comparison between what the Clintons did and organized crime - the comparison was simply to point out that people get away with crimes all the time when witnesses refuse to speak and evidence vanishes. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## Originally posted by Sam Stone This is the ‘caring liberal’ who believes that rich people should be taxed more, while being rich herself and doing everything she could to avoid taxes. > > We have had a progressive income tax structure for as long as we’ve had income taxes. There aren’t too many examples of people NOT trying to reduce their tax bite. But it’s hypocritical. If you believe that the rich are under-taxed, how do you justify using every tax dodge in the book to reduce your own taxes when you are part of the rich? I’ll grant you that this is not exclusive to the Clintons - most wealthy liberals behave the same way. I’ve never understood that. My grandparents were staunchly against government interference and progressive taxes, but when they did reasonably well for themselves they still gave over half of their money to charity. If liberals believe that government is a powerful force for good, why do they go out of their way to avoid paying taxes? > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## Including donating her old underwear to charity so she could claim it as a tax deduction. Has anyone else here ever had the gall to claim their used underwear as a tax deduction? > > It was Bill’s, not hers, and that stuff happens all the time. Which doesn’t make it any less hypocritical. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## She and her husband campaigned on a theme of, “The 80’s were the decade of greed, typified by the S&L scandals”. This while having best friends who were some of the worst S&L offenders around, and while almost certainly engaging in S&L fraud themselves (Whitewater has all the earmarks of a classic S&L fraud). > > Why do you think that Arkansas bank was one of the “worst”? Just because it got reported more? Try Neil Bush’s (yep, another brother) bank, which cost the taxpayers a LOT more money. The biggest corruption of all was the GOP Congress using taxpayer money to bail them all out. The Arkansas thing was pretty small potatoes, made into a literally-federal case by Richard Mellon Scaife’s “Arkansas Project” (suggest you look into it). You’re right - I engaged in a little hyperbole there. I’ll grant you that the S&L scams that Clinton’s friends and clients engaged in was small potatoes compared to some of the real big ones, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s amazingly hypocritical to campaign on a theme of, “We want to end the greed of the 80’s, typified by S&L frauds and stock manipulators”, while being surrounded by S&L criminals, possibly engaging in S&L fraud themselves, and also engaging in questionable stock deals. > [@](#): > > Re illegality, if there had been any shred of it, is there any doubt Starr and Scaife would have found it? Yes. As I said before, John Gotti stayed out of prison for years and years, despite millions being spent by New York Prosecutors to put him away. And his crimes were recent. In the case of the Clintons, a parade of witnesses went through the hearings claiming to have ‘no recollection’ of any of the salient questions. Susan MacDougal did time for contempt for refusing to testify. A number of critical documents vanished (remember the ones found in Hillary’s possession after she claimed to have no knowledge of their whereabouts?) Several significant players were dead (Vince Foster was the lead White House counsel, and after he committed suicide Clinton staffers violated the rules of evidence and searched his offices before the police could - and probably removed a number of incriminating documents). > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## She claims to be a champion of working people, but one of her first acts upon entering the White House was to fire a whole bunch of career employees in the travel office so that she could put in some of her cronies from Arkansas. and to make matters worse, the Clintons trumped up a bunch of fake charges against the travel office people in order to make the firings more politically palatable. Several of those people spent their entire life savings attempting to clear their names, which they eventually did. It turned out that all the charges were completely false. But those people are now broke. Do you think we’ll be hearing any apologies for that from the new Hillary? > > Suggest you provide documentation of above. There’s plenty of information about sloppy recordkeeping in that office. Would it be preferable to leave the situation alone? > See above comment about illegality, and refer to the number of people in Arkansas and lower down in the Administration who had to spend their own life savings on lawyers for the “crime” of knowing the Clintons. Where are THOSE apologies coming from? Not you, apparently. They weren’t fired for ‘sloppy recordkeeping’. They were charged with embezzlement. Charges which ended in acquittal after a stream of witnesses came through at the trial of Billy Dale testifying to his character and ability. I don’t recall if all seven fired employees were charged or even accused of embezzlement, but no one was ever convicted. And there is evidence that the company owned by Linda Bloodsworth-Thomas’s (a close friend of Hillary’s) husband had recently been refused an air charter contract by the travel office. Also, the White House claimed that the FBI had been undertaking an ongoing investigation of the travel office. This was no doubt meant to distance the new administration from the firings. The problem is, it was a lie. According to a report released by the Justice Department’s internal ethics unit, “ill-advised and erroneous actions” by the White House, including “prematurely terminating” the seven travel office employees, set in motion events that “created the appearance that the FBI was being used.” Hillary Clinton claimed that she had absolutely nothing to do with the firings. However, in testimony before Congress, director of administration David Watkins admitted that Hillary pressured him into firing them. In January 1996, the White House finally released a memo by Watkins saying that Vincent Foster “regularly informed me that the First Lady was concerned and desired action – the action desired was the firing of the Travel Office staff.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-hate-hillary/45912.md?page=4)