# 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:** 12\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2004, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/101 "2004-07-05T00:13:21Z")
I hate her 'cause she won’t go out with me. She keeps telling me she’s married and she wants to set a good example for Chelsea. I think it’s 'cause I didn’t give her a big enough campaign donation. Oh well. ---
**Author:** ![Hrd2hndl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8dc957/32.png) [@Hrd2hndl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hrd2hndl)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2004, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/102 "2004-07-05T00:37:01Z")
> [@Hrd2hndl](#): > > 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. > > **Err… she did _NOT_ come through for healthcare, (even).** > > 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:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2004, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/103 "2004-07-05T00:47:25Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Hard to measure that except with votes, but Sens. Feinstein and Boxer were elected with something like as many votes as Clinton got in NY, and maybe more. Ex-Sen. Braun of IL is in that league, too. Maybe so, but I cannot believe that Feinstein, Boxer, or Braun have anywhere near the support outside their state, or the opposition for that matter, as Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2004, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/104 "2004-07-05T01:31:03Z")
[Mildly amusing](http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040629-090643-9704r.htm) > [@](#): > > They have had a pact for decades: He gets to fool around with women, and she gets to fool around with women (plus the occasional man like Vince Foster). > Yes, she’s bisexual — I disclosed that in an infamous Strategic Investment column in January 1993, and Dick Morris publicly revealed it a few years ago. You knew that, right? ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2004, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/105 "2004-07-05T06:27:53Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > I’m curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion. And I’m especially curious how you would consider that “socialist”. Sorry, overlooked your post earlier. In return, I have a question for you: have you ever taken a class on moral perspectives in education? My guess is not. Here’s how I come to that conclusion. " It takes a village to raise a child" is a theory that we all influence children’s lives and ought to do our best to help raise good citizens blah, blah. That somehow even though I’ve never reproduced, I’m in some way responsible for helping shape the person your kid is going to grow up to be. That sounds all well and good in theory, but since we don’t really let strangers do much teaching and raising of random children what this translates into is taking (some of) the burden of teaching non-academic subjects off of parents and placing it on institutions instead - like schools. This trend to teach what used to be taught by parents (well, those who didn’t ignore the issues completely) started with sex education. But do you know that teaching students are now being lectured on how they ought to be teaching not only the ABCs in their classrooms, but teaching the little darlings right from wrong as well? Oh, they bandy about slogans about “educate, not indoctrinate” but there is no demonstrable way to do this successfully in a mass setting. Instead of positive examples (positive meaning the kids actually modeled the desired behaviors) about how children will choose correct behavior on their own with the right gentle direction, half the lectures were spent either listening to our professor bemoan the fact that morals are hard to teach by anything but rote or listening to classmates argue if it’s wrong to indoctrinate kids for the “right” reason. Although I do have to say that Vivian Gussin Paley’s attempts to do this were fascinating to read about ( **You Can’t Say You Can’t Play** ), but they sure sounded like indoctrination after her earlier attempts to educate by example didn’t work out so well. None of the other books we read on the subject illustrated ways to educate **and** achieve the desired effects (less bullying and violence) without **telling** children what was right and what was wrong. In the end, the biggest controversy over teaching morals is that instead of being taught how to think, kids are being taught _what_ to think. Doesn’t that scare you a little? And one of the hallmarks of societies governed by socialism, I mean in actual practice not in theory, is that people are not free to think what they like- at least they’re not allowed to express those thoughts without worrying about dire consequences. Instead they must think, or at least not publicly disagree with what the institutions tell them too, least they receive a visit from the thought police. So “it takes a village”—\> in practice means "let schools teach them "–\> Schools fail to find ways to do this that do not involve indoctrination–\> socialist institutions indoctrinate too. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2004, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/106 "2004-07-05T07:30:05Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > what this translates into is taking (some of) the burden of teaching non-academic subjects off of parents and placing it on institutions instead - like schools. Does she actually advocate that in her book, or are you just inferring that? > [@](#): > > …But do you know that teaching students are now being lectured on how they ought to be teaching not only the ABCs in their classrooms, but teaching the little darlings right from wrong as well? > …but there is no demonstrable way to do this successfully in a mass setting. Instead of positive examples (positive meaning the kids actually modeled the desired behaviors) about how children will choose correct behavior on their own with the right gentle direction, half the lectures were spent either listening to our professor bemoan the fact that morals are hard to teach by anything but rote or listening to classmates argue if it’s wrong to indoctrinate kids for the “right” reason. Sorry, I lost you. What does this have to do with Hillary’s book, and why did you start the paragraph decrying the teaching of morals in school, and end the paragraph complaining about those who decry the teaching of morals in school? I can’t understand what your position is, nor what it has to do with anything Hillary has said or written. > [@](#): > > In the end, the biggest controversy over teaching morals is that instead of being taught how to think, kids are being taught _what_ to think. Doesn’t that scare you a little? I had always thought that right-wingers were in _favor_ of teaching morality in school. They always seem to be complaining about not being able to teach about God and the 10 Commandments. > [@](#): > > And one of the hallmarks of societies governed by socialism, I mean in actual practice not in theory, is that people are not free to think what they like- at least they’re not allowed to express those thoughts without worrying about dire consequences. Instead they must think, or at least not publicly disagree with what the institutions tell them too, least they receive a visit from the thought police. I’m really trying to understand your point, but where are you going with this? Did Hillary ever advocate “thought police”? I mean, this is sounding a lot like “She’s an evil pinko commie.” I was really hoping for something a little more substantive than that. > [@](#): > > So “it takes a village”—\> in practice means "let schools teach them "–\> Schools fail to find ways to do this that do not involve indoctrination–\> socialist institutions indoctrinate too. Well I wish I had read her book, because I’m skeptical that this is what she was saying in the book. In speeches she gave about “it takes a village”, it was more a plea for communities and government to support family values, mentioning things like family-leave time from work when a child is born, affordable health-care, and tax credits for people who adopt, but most certainly not a desire to turn over the responsibility for child-rearing to the state. Was the book really about wanting a “Brave New World” type socialist state where children are raised by the government? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2004, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/107 "2004-07-05T16:50:20Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Was the book really about wanting a “Brave New World” type socialist state where children are raised by the government? Judging by [the reviews](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684818434/qid=1089046081/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-4299571-3496856?v=glance&s=books) from people who actually read the darn thing, not bleepin’ likely. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2004, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/108 "2004-07-05T19:32:19Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Judging by [the reviews](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684818434/qid=1089046081/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-4299571-3496856?v=glance&s=books) from people who actually read the darn thing, not bleepin’ likely. No, it doesn’t seem so, does it? This one seems particularly telling: > [@](#): > > My leanings are more right than left but I would take issue with anyone who actually read this book (not just decided to berate the title because you don’t like the author) and didn’t conclude that Hillary Clinton is every bit a proponent of “family values” as the most right-wing republican. But since I haven’t read the book myself, I want to give those who _did_ read it the opportunity to back up their assertion that it’s some sort of communist manifesto. Specific quotes from the book to support that view would be most welcome. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/109 "2004-07-08T04:32:40Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > Here’s how I come to that conclusion. " It takes a village to raise a child" is a theory that we all influence children’s lives and ought to do our best to help raise good citizens blah, blah. That somehow even though I’ve never reproduced, I’m in some way responsible for helping shape the person your kid is going to grow up to be. That sounds all well and good in theory, but since we don’t really let strangers do much teaching and raising of random children what this translates into is taking (some of) the burden of teaching non-academic subjects off of parents and placing it on institutions instead - like schools. > > This trend to teach what used to be taught by parents (well, those who didn’t ignore the issues completely) started with sex education. But do you know that teaching students are now being lectured on how they ought to be teaching not only the ABCs in their classrooms, but teaching the little darlings right from wrong as well? Oh, they bandy about slogans about “educate, not indoctrinate” but there is no demonstrable way to do this successfully in a mass setting. Instead of positive examples (positive meaning the kids actually modeled the desired behaviors) about how children will choose correct behavior on their own with the right gentle direction, half the lectures were spent either listening to our professor bemoan the fact that morals are hard to teach by anything but rote or listening to classmates argue if it’s wrong to indoctrinate kids for the “right” reason. Although I do have to say that Vivian Gussin Paley’s attempts to do this were fascinating to read about ( **You Can’t Say You Can’t Play** ), but they sure sounded like indoctrination after her earlier attempts to educate by example didn’t work out so well. None of the other books we read on the subject illustrated ways to educate **and** achieve the desired effects (less bullying and violence) without **telling** children what was right and what was wrong. > > In the end, the biggest controversy over teaching morals is that instead of being taught how to think, kids are being taught _what_ to think. Doesn’t that scare you a little? > > And one of the hallmarks of societies governed by socialism, I mean in actual practice not in theory, is that people are not free to think what they like- at least they’re not allowed to express those thoughts without worrying about dire consequences. Instead they must think, or at least not publicly disagree with what the institutions tell them too, least they receive a visit from the thought police. > > So “it takes a village”—\> in practice means "let schools teach them "–\> Schools fail to find ways to do this that do not involve indoctrination–\> socialist institutions indoctrinate too. Well, I was going to cut out all the non-relevant pieces before replying, but since your entire post is about this same theme, I left it in it’s entirety. With that said, I take it you’re going to vote for Kerry, since Bush is a socialist like Hillary, correct? After all, he’s the one who said: > [@Bush](#): > > We must stand with our families to help them raise healthy, responsible children. When it comes to helping children make right choices, there is work for all of us to do. Oops. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/110 "2004-07-08T22:18:02Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > You really need to stop fetishing on the Armey plan, you know. And the [Specter Plan](http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=SpecterSpeaks.Detail&SpecterSpeak_id=51&Month=5&Year=2003). Likely the [Forbes Plan](http://pffc-online.com/mag/paper_flat_tax_proposal/). To an extent, the proposed [Gramm Plan](http://cgi.uticaod.com/cgi-bin/calc/armey.cgi). In fact, do you have links to any Flat Tax proposal from a politician which **explicitly** says the Capital Gains tax will remain in full effect? I couldn’t find a single one. Most proposals either reduce it, eliminate it, or say they’ll iron that out later. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/111 "2004-07-09T00:43:20Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > Just out of curiosity, **BG** , what exactly did this contribute to the argument as a whole? Positioning. My point was, if I’m only a very moderate socialist, so moderate that real Marxists dispute my claim to the title, and I don’t consider HRC a socialist in any sense, my pov rather detracts from her characterization as such. More broadly: I’m trying to point up the stupidity of a right-wing point of view that lumps together as “leftists” everyone to the left of Newt Gingrich and cannot perceive the very important distinctions and gradations on that side of the spectrum. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261/112 "2004-07-09T13:31:37Z")
All right… I guess. Just sounded wicked snarky to me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-hate-hillary-rodham-clinton/253261.md?page=5)