I’m posting this in the Pit because I can’t imagine the vitriol will not begin to ooze.
I’ve read rumors that Hillary is lining up for a strong shot at the Demo candidancy in 2008. My reaction, of course, was: My God, the Demos can’t be THAT fucking stupid. Don’t get me wrong. I think Hillary would make a superb President. But from reading and seeing the pathological hatred she inspires among the right-winged of us, including not a few people here, it’s patently obvious that the Repubs could go find Dan Fucking Quayle and put him up there against her and he’d win. You’d think the brainpower of the Democratic Party would see that as well.
That’s where you’d be wrong. From today’s Salon:
She is already easily the favorite to win the Democratic nomination, intimidating many possible rivals. “She’s the elephant in the living room,” Democratic Sen. Joe Biden, a possible 2008 hopeful himself, admitted. Haas summed it up: “She’s a rock star.”
Now this isn’t about how suicidal it would be to run Hillary in 2008. Rather, I want to know: What on God’s green earth makes people foam at the mouth about her? It’s baffling to me. I’d love to hear from any and all perspectives. And I guess if anybody who is a Demo (no gloating about what an easy victory it would be, Pubbies) and thinks that Hillary in 2008 is a good move is out there, please chime in.
The virol tends to come from folks who think Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush are examples of what an “ideal” First Lady is – quiet, docile, and a background ornament.
I’ll take a stab at this, although I don’t pretend to speak for all of the Hillary bashers. In my mind, and the mind of most others I have talked to, she seems to be a calculating bitch who will step on anyone and everyone who tries to get in her way. She needs power and influence the same way that most people need food and water, and every action she takes, including marrying Bill (and not dropping him like a hot potato after Monica-gate), is calculated to get her closer to her goal of ultimate political power.
Having said that, I don’t know her personally, and IRL she may be a very charming person, but this is a widely held perception, and in politics, perception is reality.
Nancy Reagan was more the Malevolent Dragon Queen type, manipulating her poor boob of a husband, buying up fancy china and glittering gowns, consulting with astrologers and other practitioners of the dark arts.
God only knows why the “keep the bitches in the kitchen!” faction thought she was the goods.
She’s outspoken.
She’s opinionated.
She’s unapologetic about being outspoken and opinionated.
She’s not afraid of detractors, and doesn’t let those opinions sway her from doing what she thinks is right.
She refused to hold to the image of First Lady that people have stubbornly insisted on, even though we’re no longer in the fifties and the roles of women have changed greatly. Apparently, that’s the one place it’s never supposed to change.
She put her weight behind legislation (healthcare) that she saw as important.
She wears trousers!!!
What’s not to loathe? THE WOMAN DOESN’T KNOW HER PLACE!
Uh, what else should a first lady be? It’s not like she’s the one that was elected. I’d prefer first ladys (or first men, if we ever get a female president) to stay quitely in the background…
rjung, are you saying Bill wouldn’t be a good first husband? I thought we were talking about Hillary as president.
As for Hillary for president, I just think back to her jumping in with both feet social experiments when she was first lady, and think she might be a bit too radically left for most people’s tastes as president. I will admit I haven’t kept a really close eye on her as senator, but I seem to recall she might be moderating a bit. Depending on who you ask, she might also carry a good bit of political baggage from her first lady days, skeletons in her many closets. I’m not saying she does, but it will be interesting to see how her past stands up to the microscope that is a presidential race.
Why is it up to us what the first ladies (or men) do with their careers? Why waste 4 years reading books to orphans if you can do some real good? Oh, that’s right. I forgot. Because then people might think they’re the ones in charge. :rolleyes:
During a Today Show interview, this is what she said was responsible for the allegations against her husband that he was diddlin’ Lewinsky. She lied. She knew full well he was a philanderer, and she placed the blame at boogeymen in Brooks Brothers suits and wingtips.
If I recall correctly, she said there was no way this was true. She did get one thing right, though. I distinctly remember her saying if we’re patient the truth will come out. It did.
Now, you may think this is petty, but I think it speaks volumes about her character. She didn’t just drop one or two lines about the Lewinsky affair and leave it at that. She went on and on about how the Republicans were using this latest lie to undo everything President Clinton accomplished during his term and a half. She was lying through her teeth the entire time. I haven’t liked her since.
In Bill Clinton’s first term, he appointed Hillary to find solutions to America’s health care problems. The insurance companies and the drug companies got scared that she was going to mess with their gravy train. They unleashed one of the biggest, nastiest propaganda campaigns the US has ever seen. Then there were the sexist men who believe that any strong, smart woman must be a lesbian. Rush Limbaugh was ruthlessly slamming Hillary every day. Pretty soon, a lot of dittoheads believed she was the worst thing to hit Washington since the British army burned the White house.
Because it’s not a career. A First Lady/Man isn’t elected to any office, has no authority, and draws no government paycheck. Their only job is to make public appearances as a pseudo-figurehead.
If you think that reading to orphans for 4 years is somehow wasted potential then that says something about you. What is wrong with helping on a micro-level instead of trying to grow into a full-blown succubus circumventing the Constitution.
Do you really think that she wouldn’t have been pilloried IF she had kicked him to the curb? The Christian right would have had her for breakfast.
I can hear it now-- “poor role model”,“she doesn’t believe in family values”; she’s touting “broken homes and latch key kids” and the ever present, but slightly dated now “gasp-a divorcee-the horrors!”–she stuck by him and that sticks in the craw of many a righteous fool.
HRC couldn’t win either route she took with Bill’s philandering–I like to think that she may actually love her husband and while hurt and humiliated by some of his action, she decided to work on her marriage and do the whole “for better or for worse” thing. How revolutionary-I’m deeply shocked by it all.
I do think that we have a twisted view of First Lady (and what a nonsensical title that is). Being an outspoken woman myself, I applaud Hillary–but I see where alot of America is uncomfortable with the idea that state secrets etc may be discussed on the pillows after lights out. IMO, Laura Bush is not a “good” FL, because she is leagues away from where women are right now–she has not furthered the progress of sculpting the image of FL to include independent thought, decisive action and using ones private influence in the public arena.
The real question is not why the far right don’t like Hillary, but why there seems to be (maybe there isn’t) a somewhat sizable contigent closer to the middle who won’t vote for her.
I think Hillary hatred is pretty confined to people that won’t vote Dem anyways, so I think a lot better of her prosepects. Also, vitirol from one side of the political spectrum doesn’t really doom one as a candidate. Bush hatred seems far hotter to me then Hillary hatred ever was, and that certainly didn’t keep Bush out of the WH.
As for why people hate her, she was closely associated with Bill’s health care plan which the Repubs vilified, so she was an early target of the Clinton Admin. She also didn’t appear to have a lot of relevant experience, so many rightly asked what the hell she was doing heading a major domestic policy campaign. After all, we elected her husband to run things, not her.
I think the biggest factor, though, is that modern politics (probably non-modern politics as well) depends on vilifying your opponent in such a way that it sticks in the mind of the public. Consider that in 2004 the Repubs turned a war hero into a yellow-bellied Kennedy wannabe and the Dems turned a (politically) successful president into a bumbling idiot. In 2002/2004 Hillary was the target, to get at her husband. In 2008, one side could run Mr. Rogers (pre-death) and the other side would manufacture the most sincere looking anger and outrage you can imagine.
I wasn’t talking about being first lady. I meant the career she had before she became first lady. I fail to understand why she should simply drop being an attorney and a politician just because her husband won the election. Or why any woman should stop doing whatever it is she does in her chosen career just to stand there, look pretty, and pick out china patterns.
Oh, come now. Succubus? Aren’t we being just a leetle melodramatic? And yes. If I spent four years reading to orphans instead of fighting to help increase funding that might get them shelters and homes, I would feel I had wasted the time and opportunities I had been given. That’s just me.
I would imagine that being married to a successful politician is absolutely a career. You’re not the one elected, and you don’t get a paycheck, but you’re examined and prodded in every way imaginable. You have to attend formal functions and make public appearances. You have to look right, speak right, and act right. It absolutely looks to me to be a full time job.
Sure, and then the rest of America would’ve said, “Wait a minute. He cheated on her. Kick his ass to the curb! Drop that zero and get with a hero! You go girl!”
You just described Condi Rice, who the right loves. Sorry, this dog won’t hunt. Hillary-Hate has nothing to do with sexism. Margaret Thatcher was loved by conservatives twenty years before Hillary was even on the radar screen.
Somehow, I doubt that-especially with older folks, who tend to vote more frequently. There is an expectation, a standard that the First Family is supposed to reflect back to us America’s values.
She was between a rock and hard place with this one. Frankly, I think some neo-cons and some of the more bent Righties were gnashing their teeth that they couldn’t add “broken home” to the pile of nonsense about her.
FWIW, I doubt highly that she will run in '08. If she does-I’ll campaign for her. Hell, let’s compose a dream team and make Barak Obama her running mate.
Just kidding-IMO, neither HRC or BO have enough experience as elected officials to run the country (although HRC has most definetly a running start on most folks).