# Why do you hate Hillary Rodham Clinton? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 2, 2004, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261 "2004-07-02T19:20:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2004, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/61 "2004-07-03T22:30:44Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > And yet you list some reasons in the first paragraph. What, exactly, is the problem of opposing a politician for the reasons you listed? You dismiss them and thats cool. But for other people they are substantive issues. **pervert** , the thread is about why people _hate_ Senator Clinton. You are talking about why you _oppose_ what you think would be her policies and objectives. These are two different concepts. You may well chose not to vote for Senator Clinton because you don’t like it that she is not a native New Yorker, or that you think her insincere in expressing affection for the Yankees (for the love of all that is holy), or that you do not agree with the things she advances. There is a difference between saying “I disagree with Hillary and I will not vote for her,” and running down the street with a banner that in emblazoned with the motto “Hillary is a Bitch.” I understand the disagree thing but no one has yet given a rational explanation for the cacophony of “Hillary is a Bitch” that pops up here every once in a while around here and consistently in Mr O’Rourk’s supposedly humorous pieces. I must take it that there is no rational basis for Hillary = Bitch until someone shows me one since there is no rational basis for that in my experience. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2004, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/62 "2004-07-03T22:32:03Z")
Forget arguments about whether the health care system…or even the payment system for health care…should be run by the government, **I’m still waiting for an actually cite that what HRC proposed was a “government takeover” of the health care system**. I’m not holding my breath though. And furthermore, do any of our conservative breathren want to explain how Clinton’s position on the War in Iraq fits in with this “she’s so liberal” claim? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2004, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/63 "2004-07-03T22:44:56Z")
> [@Spavined Gelding](#): > > I must take it that there is no rational basis for Hillary = Bitch until someone shows me one since there is no rational basis for that in my experience. Well, this makes sense. I guess I am missing the hatred. My appologies. Did someone earlier link to an example? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2004, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/64 "2004-07-03T22:46:23Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Forget arguments about whether the health care system…or even the payment system for health care…should be run by the government, **I’m still waiting for an actually cite that what HRC proposed was a “government takeover” of the health care system**. I’m not holding my breath though. Fair enough, what does a government plan have to entail to be a government take over? Does it have to nationalize health care workers and schools? Or are massive new regulations regarding those things enough? Where, exactly, is th line drawn? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2004, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/65 "2004-07-03T23:22:15Z")
Hentor, I reckon, then, by your follow-up post, that your answer is that your dishonesty was deliberate, is that correct? In your fist instance, I was criticizing an unwed mother who had duped Hillary into pleading her case. In your second instance, I was criticizing perceptions of her. In your third instance, I was hosting a parody/sarcasm thread mocking Fox News analysts. Same same with your fourth instance. Your fifth was a sarcastic swipe at a person who had responded about a comment I quoted as though it had been my own. And the last was a sarcastic joke for Lissener who hates me. In your haste, you neglected context. Meanwhile, conspicuously missing are posts in which I have said directly that I admired her. For what reason, other than an agenda of prejudice, would you have left those out? The reason I admired her was her strength of will, her intelligence, her grace and dignity in the face of all the shenanigans by her ball-and-chain husband, Slick Willie. It is he whom I have bashed, not she. Not until now. But if you know me as well as you claim to know me, then you know that I take my liberalism seriously — tyrants, don’t tread on me. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2004, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/66 "2004-07-03T23:28:07Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > But if you know me as well as you claim to know me, then you know that I take my liberalism seriously — tyrants, don’t tread on me. [nitpick] **Liberal,** you really, really should stop using the word “liberalism” as a synonym for “libertarianism.” It is a perfectly defensible usage on historical grounds, but it is also completely anachronistic and, worse, confusing – especially as we now have a perfectly serviceable, unambiguous word in “libertarianism.” BTW – did Thomas Jefferson actually ever describe his political position as “liberal”? He might have, I’m not too familiar with his writings, but I’ve never heard of that. [/nitpick] ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2004, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/67 "2004-07-03T23:51:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [nitpick] > > **Liberal,** you really, really should stop using the word “liberalism” as a synonym for “libertarianism.” It is a perfectly defensible usage on historical grounds, but it is also completely anachronistic and, worse, confusing – especially as we now have a perfectly serviceable, unambiguous word in “libertarianism.” > [/nitpick] I agree. The biggest reason why “classical liberalism” has been replaced by “libertarianism” is that libertarians _don’t_ want to be confused with the likes of FDR and such. ---
**Author:** ![Hrd2hndl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8dc957/32.png) [@Hrd2hndl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hrd2hndl)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/68 "2004-07-04T00:15:37Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > To be honest, I haven’t followed her career all that closely, so here’s your chance to convince me that she’s a lousy politician and would make a terrible President and/or Vice-President. Just for fun, I’ll assume that people hate her for purely partisan reasons, and/or because they are men who are threatened by a strong woman. Your job is to convince me otherwise. 😉 No it’s too easy to turn this in to a tally-wag of gender politics. Talented people will succeed no matter what. I would rather have her as a senator in NY. I do think she is excellent at outlining policy and finding potential flaws - because she does look that farther down the line. Though I think her policies have at best been a rush to get them out the door. She never did successfully resolve Health care. The only reason I mark against her - is because she made it her desire and was charged with the responsibility while her husband was in office. Say that congress was fighting her the whole way – at the end of the day it was a woman that got her law degree during the depression that said “talented people will succeed no matter what.” Hillary is talented and she does not need to hide behind the “you go girl” vote. Yet she catered to hit and dragged her daughter along with her to drive that message home. As far as her career decision in light of her husband’s behavior. I think people do whatever you allow them to get away with in any venue. Pushy sales people etc. She really was a pushover about her husband’s behavior, but then again - she loves him and maybe that is enough to excuse his behavior that she did not have to offer a reason for her forgiveness, but she chose to disclose those reasons as well (suggesting his mother blah blah blah). I think she’s an ambitious woman, but sometimes really treats men like the enemy for her own gain (breast cancer research against navy defense spending - back in the late 90’s didn’t you know the cold-war is over??) I give her an F for thinking that our national security is about defense greed and being gullible enough to believe when we let our guard down that the other side will not corale to attack us. Then again she has never served in the military, nor her husband. Her husband was not afraid to listen to his Secretary of Defense William Cohen, whereas this president, I fear is allowing his Secretary to make too many of the decisions. Though I give Hillary credit for making her own choices. I don’t hate her - but she’s not my choice for President or Vice President. She tolerated a lot of betrayal intimately (well before Monica Lewinsky; Hillary knew what her husband was) to preserve the partnership with her husband and her own position. I respect that she can see past that - however I cannot support a woman that is that forgiving with our national interest to be that easily duped. It’s like the last time I read something about “Help Jane Fonda help inner city girls” on some socio-economic program. You know what? Most inner-city girls that I work with are hard working young girls with an incredible amount of self-esteem. They have problem with boys- but they stick up for themselves; vice a lot of suburb young women tolerate it. I think of Jane Fonda’s trip on this and think; she got duped by the Viet Cong, duped by Ted Turner (after blasting feminists for her decision to marry - not that feminists asked for one-like they cared - she was vain enough to suggest she needed to defend herself and it’s that kind of half-assed thinking that drives me nuts) and now she has the “balls” to suggest these girls need fixing. I guess it’s that kind of pompousness that I see in Hillary. It’s not that she doesn’t know - it’s that she choses to ignore the obvious in that situation. While I can understand on a personal level of surival why that is necessary - I cannot reconcile that it is NOT a flaw or a secular decision outside of her abilities as a public servant when she tolerated her husband’s infidelity. I don’t think Her husband should have been villified; but she treated it as a secular matter for so long - that a decision maker I find it selfish to partition off your interests against integrity. She loves him and he understand her. Understanding is a great quality for a partnership, but in this case it matters with leadership. I understand more now than ever how important family support is in times of crisis and need to know the decision makers at the highest levels of government have an understanding of that. Maybe people think I am unfair to use that - because it takes remarkable strength to muster the courage to forgive a spouse for infidelity. However it appears she tolerated it for too long and that is what I question - if she had an equally difficult decision to make that affect the morale of a nation - I’m not confident she cannot segment that against her own self-interest. Love Condoleeza Rice. Love her. I’m not a lesbian, but I’d marry that woman if I could! ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/69 "2004-07-04T00:39:24Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Hentor, I reckon, then, by your follow-up post, that your answer is that your dishonesty was deliberate, is that correct? […] But if you know me as well as you claim to know me, then you know that I take my liberalism seriously — tyrants, don’t tread on me. Phew! Thanks for clearing that up. I don’t claim to know you at all. I was merely surprised at your claim of admiring her so much. I did search for context, and darn it all if the “whore” and “bitch” quotes seemed to be self-explanatory. But you’ve explained everything, so I understand now. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Oh, by the way, I found all of these by searching for posts by you with the word Hillary, and not a single one of them expressed any admiration. That’s why I didn’t include any posts of yours expressing admiration for her. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/70 "2004-07-04T01:59:07Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > And since I am sure much babbling about ‘corporate welfare’ will come up, can I presume that you will join in me calling for a flat tax for all citizens and corporations, thus ending preferential taxation treatment? [The Master speaks on the so-called “flat tax.”](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_139.html) > [@](#): > > …the “flat tax” proposal, the stupidest idea to come down the pike since pet rocks. And > [@](#): > > To be fair, though, the flat tax is like a date with Julio Iglesias. It takes you a while to realize you’ve been screwed. Just thought I’d point that out. (As for **Lib** , perhaps you could add the word “Classic” to your name, and go as **Classic Liberal**?) ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/71 "2004-07-04T02:06:51Z")
[For anybody’s who’s interested in researching, here’s direct links to ClintonCare.](http://www.ibiblio.org/nhs/NHS-T-o-C.html) Read the speech to Congress, which pretty much scuttled the plan. Bill Clinton proposed massive new taxes on small businesses in this speech. What would that have done for the economy? The jobless rate? How would that have affected the high-tech sector in particular? It seems to me that it would have been a disaster on all three counts. Not to mention that it was hardly guaranteed that better care or better access could be provided by more government action. The reverse could easily be true. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/72 "2004-07-04T02:51:24Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > [For anybody’s who’s interested in researching, here’s direct links to ClintonCare.](http://www.ibiblio.org/nhs/NHS-T-o-C.html) > > Read the speech to Congress, which pretty much scuttled the plan. Bill Clinton proposed massive new taxes on small businesses in this speech. > > What would that have done for the economy? The jobless rate? How would that have affected the high-tech sector in particular? It seems to me that it would have been a disaster on all three counts. > > Not to mention that it was hardly guaranteed that better care or better access could be provided by more government action. The reverse could easily be true. Interesting points, which might make for a good GD thread on health-care reform – but what has any of this got to do with **hating** Hillary Clinton, as opposed to merely disagreeing with her political positions? ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/73 "2004-07-04T02:51:34Z")
" In time we hate that which we often fear."- William Shakespeare I’m afraid of her. I’m afraid that by some mass error or judgment, she’ll be elected president. And once she’s in office and has\_\_\_ed everything up with her socialist views (doesn’t anyone else see her harping on “it takes a villiage” as a sign of disdain for personal accountablity?), and her oh-so-charming personality that will make her a _really_ smooth diplomat, people will realize that they made a big mistake. Then, with humans’ uncanny ablity to generalize, people will conclude that the mistake was not electing Mrs. Clinton, it was electing a **woman**. I don’t want to see 1/2 of the population written off because some bitch tainted people’s (yeah okay, misogonistic males, mostly, but they _do_ vote) views on the ablity of a woman to run this country. There’s already enough negative attitude out there already (do you want some women president/PMS vitriol as a cite? I’m sure it’s easy to find) that _this_ woman in particular being elected could, no probably would, have disasterous implications if things didn’t go well. I’m not saying that we ought to vote for a sweet, harmless woman as the first female president, but one that isn’t _already_ an object of hatred would be a better start. Libby Dole, for example. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/74 "2004-07-04T02:53:43Z")
[QUOTE=elfkin477(doesn’t anyone else see her harping on “it takes a villiage” as a sign of disdain for personal accountablity)[/QUOTE] 😕 No. Why would anybody read it that way? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/75 "2004-07-04T02:58:35Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > I’m not saying that we ought to vote for a sweet, harmless woman as the first female president, but one that isn’t _already_ an object of hatred would be a better start. Any politician, male or female, who has reached a position where election as president is a realistic possibility will have fervent opponents as well as fervent supporters. Libby Dole included. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/76 "2004-07-04T03:08:53Z")
Oh, I don’t hate her. I just was answering the demands for details on the health care debacle. I’m a political opponent of Hillary Clinton’s, and approach her with healthy skepticism. That’s as far as it goes. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/77 "2004-07-04T04:01:23Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Fair enough, what does a government plan have to entail to be a government take over? Well, as a start, I would sort of expect that it wouldn’t work by continuing to have private insurance companies actually providing the health insurance. I have this strange desire to distinguish between “taking over” and “regulating”. > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > What would that have done for the economy? The jobless rate? How would that have affected the high-tech sector in particular? It seems to me that it would have been a disaster on all three counts. Oh, it probably would have done about the same thing to the economy that raising the minimum wage in the late 90s did…with similar dire predictions, and raising the top tax rate then did too…with similar dire predictions, and adding health insurance protections like COBRA and the Family Medical Leave Act…with similar dire predictions. In other words, the economy would have boomed. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/78 "2004-07-04T07:05:17Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > IMHO, no, and since this entire thread is about personal dislike for someone, that’s as good a reason as any to not like a person. No, I’m really more interested in concrete reasons as to why certain people don’t think Hillary is deserving of political office. I’m trying to _avoid_ having people just voice petty reasons why they dislike her _personally_. ---
**Author:** ![Hrd2hndl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8dc957/32.png) [@Hrd2hndl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hrd2hndl)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/79 "2004-07-04T07:19:33Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > No, I’m really more interested in concrete reasons as to why certain people don’t think Hillary is deserving of political office. I’m trying to _avoid_ having people just voice petty reasons why they dislike her _personally_. what is “petty” I don’t dislike her personality, however her integrity has a lot to do with truth and consequences of decisions that affect a lot of us. If she can tolerate that kind of betrayal that has spread well before the scandal that impeached the president. I’m concerned how open she is to consider a source or would we she always remain in denial. Consider that she would (and has a limited access at this point as a senator) have access to information and sources that require security clearance granted almost immediately. What’s the problem with that? They don’t undergo the same intensive background investigation that analysts and intell professionals undergo, nor do those professionals have a team working to spin their misdeeds for them. Why is it important? If you make yourself too vulnerable (be it debt - extra marital affairs) to be blackmailed by foreign interest. What’s the big deal - when I read congress and senators that want access to documentation that they want to criticize and inadvertedly let it leak in the media without understanding how they have compromised further attempts to continue collection by announcing it, I have qualms with it. She ignored it for years and a person that can live with that kind of betrayal, makes me question their character and how they are as an administrator. Perhaps that is not a substantive enough reason for your choice of VP or President. For myself it’s not just their resume that gets the job. It’s their ability to relate to others and know their decisions and indecision affect other people. Fine fine - you want a political reason that I don’t want her as President - she did come through for health care. that was one of the tenants that her and her husband campaigned on the first time the won the bid for presidential election. I like her reviewing policy and she has good intentions to create policy but her track record to strategize to get it passed has been miserable. Again I’m going to vote for someone that will be effective irrespite of the opposition they may face. No I don’t hate her - but she’s I don’t see her as a presidential/VP candidate. Excellent Senator, but not an administrator. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/80 "2004-07-04T07:34:23Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > And once she’s in office and has\_\_\_ed everything up with her socialist views (doesn’t anyone else see her harping on “it takes a villiage” as a sign of disdain for personal accountablity?) I’m curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion. And I’m especially curious how you would consider that “socialist”. > [@](#): > > and her oh-so-charming personality that will make her a _really_ smooth diplomat, people will realize that they made a big mistake. Could I trouble you for some actual _examples_ of things she has done that make you dislike her personality? > [@](#): > > Shodan: > Yes, it is pretty much purely partisan reasons. She is a liberal Democrat; I am a moderately conservative Republican. But do you _hate_ her, or just disagree with her? > [@](#): > > The stuff about being threatened by strong women is too stupid to bother much with. If you like, you can show how threatened the Right is by people like Maggie Thatcher, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and Condoleeza Rice. > > Since we are so afraid of strong women. Well I _did_ invite you to prove me wrong, and the invitation still stands. So far, you haven’t done a very good job of that. All you’ve done is call me stupid and call her a liberal. So should I take it you’ve got pretty much zip on the subject? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261.md?page=5)