Actually, I always thought most Reps disliked her because she tried to, you know, do stuff. Basically, that “she isn’t elected, but she is still trying to push through her commie pinko laws.” Nancy and Barb and Laura are good Republican women, standing behind their man and making meaningless campaigns against ghost issues, posing for photo-ops with schoolkids, etc. Hillary is a demon because she has an actual agenda and was “using her position and influence as if she were elected president” - which is a half-truth, she did use her position to push her issues. The question is, is that wrong? If so, why is that wrong but Nancy’s drug war not? Because it has actual substance?
This is an extension of the “not doing what a wife should be doing”, but not quite so demeaning towards all Republicans, most of whom are fine with their wives wearing shoes and leaving the kitchen.
To be honest, I think an earlier poster had it closer. Objections to Hillary are mostly based on what her politics are rahter than the idea that she has politics. Notice that most of the vitriol continued during her Senate race. This had very little to do with any percieved violations of wifely duties. It have much more to do with the contents of her healt plan rather than the simple fact that she came up with one.
It is worth noting that Eleanor Roosevelt had a fair number of detractors for, IMHO, the same reasons that Mrs/Senator Clinton does. It seem to me that like Eleanor, Hillary catches abuse because she is her husband’s wife, because she took an active roll in social and political matters and because she represented what a lot of men abhor in a spouse and a lot of women fear in a rival, a decent brain and the willingness to use it. In is worth noting too, that Eleanor endured and forgave a philandering husband.
People hate Hillary because she scares them so badly that they pee down their leg. She scares them because she is obviously a big dawg – smart, ambitious, strong and willing to use power to get her way and she doesn’t have testicles (so I am told). Sort of an Elizabeth Dole with an ax and a focus.
Please identify what industries Senator Clinton believes should be taken over by the government. And please don’t automatically parrot “health care” or I’ll have to assume you are a dittohead without a mind of his own.
I don’t mean to pick on you. This sentiment has been expressed by many others. I wrote a paragraph about it, but then thought it too vitriolic. Instead, let me ask you a couple questions.
How do you determine that Senator Clinton’s opponents views are based on the prejudices you mention? Have you ever heard a serious political commentator express them? Are you only talking about the non serious political commentators?
If I say that I don’t like Senator Clinton’s politics, how do you know that she scares me?
Let me be perfectly clear. I am not accusing you or any others who espouse this view of anything wrong whatsoever. I am truly interested in how you come to conclusions like this.
I’d say that it had more to do with the perceived contents of her health plan rather than the actual contents of her health plan. My guess is that most of the people who hate her in part because of her health plan would fail miserably on any objective test of what that plan actually entailed. (And, I say this as someone who was no big fan of it myself because I didn’t think it went far enough toward the sort of models that work in other industrialized democracies.)
Speaking from here in Rochester, NY, I’ll note that the main reason I think she got elected is that the vote here in conservative upstate NY did not go sufficiently strongly for Lazio to overcome her lead in liberal NYC. And, the reason I think it didn’t was because, despite the fact that she was a “carpetbagger”, she actually was a very intelligent one who was willing to learn and clearly showed a much better knowledge and command of the issues facing upstate than her Republican opponent from Long Island. A lot of upstaters concluded that it was better to have a “carpetbagger” than a guy from Long Island (who, to upstaters, means one is just about as much of a carpetbagger) who didn’t seem to understand upstate NY as well as she did.
The easy answer, pervert, is that I have yet to see anybody come up with an explanation for why they are antagonistic toward Senator Clinton that would not pass muster as a poor joke in a P J O’Rorke piece. The woman is smart, she is ambitious, she does know how to use power and she is Bill Clinton’s wife and came to public notice in that capacity. All anybody here has had to contribute is throw away lines about not being a true New Yorker, being insincere about her affections for a professional baseball team, and oblique references to her work on a national health care policy. None of that stuff is substantive. Carpetbagger or not, the voters of New York sent her to the US Senate. A little insincerity about the Yankees, as big a bunch of cry-babies and phonies as exists in professional sports today (with the possible exception of the Chicago Bears) is to be expected. The national health care initiative is something the country needs and which in the form of Medicare we have already to one extent or another.
All I see as a basis for a visceral dislike of Mrs Clinton (and I assume that few of the critics and none of the posters have had the opportunity to meet her in anything but a pro-forma fashion) is that as a strong, smart, ambitious woman she scares them. The extent to which the comment on the threads suggesting Senator Clinton as a Vice-presidential candidate turn into Red baiting simply solidifies my opinion. Now that the Red Russians and the Godless Communists are unlikely to vaporize Omaha in the next week or so the “Hillary = Commie” claims lack either probity or the capacity to frighten.
That’s just one thing. Supporting gov’t controlled redistribution of wealth would mark one as an asshat socialist, for another.
Of course its an industry. There is no debate on that. The only debate is what is the best way for people to access that industry while not raising taxes to crippling levels.
[/quote]
Probably any industry that you want to see turned over to the gov’t.
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?
No, the ‘right-wing code word’ for getting rid of the capital gains tax is ‘sanguine’.
Also, why would you feel the need to ascribe positions to others, suggesting ‘code words’ and other stupid methods? While certainly it is easier than actually come up with counterpoints, it’s also dishonest. A Moore-onic debate method. When I say ‘A flat tax would be swell’, it means just that. It doesn’t mean ‘Let’s force children to work in dangerous mines’ or some other stupid shit.
Are you being deliberately dishonest? Or are you truly ignorant about the rhetorical device I used to express my contempt for Svinlesha’s curse? I have also used “Martin Luther King Jr in a tree”, but I am not a racist. As you most likely know, my use of such expressions dates back to a discussion with Gaudere about the use of people’s deities in curse phrases. She established the rule that public figures are fair game for such things and that Jesus, being a public figure, qualifies. Same same for other admirable public figures. If you care to debate honestly, then proceed. But if you want to Michael Moore the facts, then identify yourself as a struggling poet who cares only about his art and then flail away.
Well, in Thomas Jefferson’s day, you weren’t a liberal unless you believed that people had unalienable rights granted by God or nature, and that government should levy no capitation tax unless in proportion to the census. Hillary’s wording was particularly ominous: “We’re Going to Take Things Away From You on Behalf of the Common Good”. I mean, damnation.
This sort of comment always intrigued me, especially the comparison to Dole. I never hear about people being afraid of Dole because she’s a powerful and ambitious woman, even though I can find a whole hell of a lot of meat in her Senate bio. From working for 3 Presidents to running the Red Cross (no small job there) to running for Pres herself.
That seems pretty ambitious and powerful to me, but the Republicans seem to have taken a bit of a liking to Ms. Dole.
Chefguy, the Bushes, IIRC, moved to Texas for business/personal reasons, and got involved in Texas politics as a result. Hillary moved to NY for political reasons, the incumbent Dem Senator was retiring. Did she move here for any reason outside of that? 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.
jshore, I agree that Lazio was a pretty lousy candidate himself, in fact, we’re probably better off with Clinton in office than we would have been with that guy…
My big problem with HRC: she is a hypocrite, and has never been anything but a political insider, and a greedy one at that. Consider her career in Arkansas…she was a partner at the ROSE LAW FIRM, and had an inside track to most of the business transacted by that state. While there, she was involved in several real estate deals that were at best questionable, at worst, highly dishonest. Then, she rails about how currupt her republican opponents are!
What really got me: her announcement that she was a “co-president” with Bill (“you get two for the price of one”…who the hell authorized HER to reorganize the US healthcare system??
Oh, and the constant evasivenous…she lied about the Rose Law Firm billing records, and has never explainer her role in the 360 FBI file profies found in the White House.
