# Why is Hillary Clinton so hated? RE: potential White House run **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 14, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511 "2005-03-14T20:10:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2005, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/101 "2005-03-15T21:19:54Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > 😕 This post is just odd. > > I got the words “sham”, “open marriage”, and “philanderer” from your post! You wrote those words first, not me. And I was clearly responding to your post. I was illustrating the point that her actions were going to result in controversy (that’s another word you used.) _because they were controversial!_\* You seemed to be bemoaning the fact that Hillary had no way out of a bad situation. Maybe so. But, that bad situation was entirely the result of choices that she made. That’s my point. Perhaps my previous post confused you. In response to **SA’s** speculation that HRC didn’t really care about her philandering husband, I asked that \*if \* that was the case, what should she have done? What followed was what frank honesty from HRC would have looked like _assuming_ **SA’s** belief represented the truth. Then you come in and say: > [@](#): > > You’re asking what magic words she could use to get out of a bad situation. Maybe you should focus on not getting into the bad situation at all. If you don’t do anything to be embarrassed about, then you won’t have to lie to avoid embarrassment. …as if that hypothetical was real. So maybe I should be asking if you think the Clintons have a “sham of an open marriage”. If you do, why and who are you to judge it? And more importantly, why does it matter to her worth as a leader? > [@](#): > > Next: You think that even having a sham of an open marriage has no bearing on being a leader? This is just nuts, and most normal people would immediately recognize it as such. Voters tend to be married. It says a lot about someone that they would tolerate a cheating spouse just for **political gain**. You’re assuming that HRC is in a open marriage for political gain. But there are other reasons to have such an arrangment, and maybe it would surprise you that not all of them are political. Furthermore, the Clintons have a daughter. Are you prepared to say that Chelsea’s existence only serves the purpose of making her parents electable? I mean, why limit your scrutiny to their marriage? You could easily posit that HRC (being the cold and calculating villan that she is) chose to have Chelsea only so she and Bill could credibly fit into the Norman Rockwell ideal of the American family. If you can be so bold as to claim that, I would think you should be able to cite your evidence. If you don’t, but you still can decry their marriage as being a sham for political purposes, I would also hope you can bring something more than conjecture to the table. > [@](#): > > It’s a major factor for most voters if someone is a in an open marriage. When asked what their most important factor in the recent election 22% said “Moral Values”. This is more than any other issue. More than jobs, terrorism, Iraq, Education, Taxes or Health Care. Of those voters 80% voted for Bush. If you honestly think that someone in an open, sham marriage has no bearing on them as a leader then you are far outside the mainstream. I’m not an expert in fallacies, but isn’t this simply an Appeal to the Majority? Poll most Americans and you’ll still get too many folks who believe Saddam and Bin Laden are bosom buddies, but that doesn’t make for truth. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2005, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/102 "2005-03-15T21:25:59Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > The Clintons’ marriage is our business in this case because it provides a porthole through which to view their character, and as a result, to make a determination as to whether or not they are people we want to elect to make decisions about, and take action on, issues that affect our lives. > . **SA** , I’ve agreed with quite a bit of what you’ve said here, but this I just can’t buy. Excusing our lurid fascination with celbrities’ and politicians’ marriages by sanctimoniously claiming they should attain to a higher standard in order to give the American people a tool by which to judge their moral character is self delusion at best, out and out judgemental hypocritical bullshit at worst. Hillary Clinton is an intelligent woman with an incredible amount of political accumen. It may well be said that she got her husband into office, just as **Sam** suggested back on page one. I do remember the “co-president” jabs, and I know it seemed to many that Hillary was the power behind the throne. Just like Nancy Reagan, ironically. I’d love to see her make it all the way to the Presidency. I’m just wondering how long she’d survive. **Diogenes** , I agree, but 1. I don’t think that giving gay people the right to marry has any effect on the family unit other than to strengthen it, and 2. I’ve argued it to death, and it would break down into an irretrievable hijack if we started it again. Some people just will not believe they aren’t being threatened. They WANT to see that gun to their heads. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2005, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/103 "2005-03-15T21:47:54Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > **SA** , I’ve agreed with quite a bit of what you’ve said here, but this I just can’t buy. > Excusing our lurid fascination with celbrities’ and politicians’ marriages by sanctimoniously claiming they should attain to a higher standard in order to give the American people a tool by which to judge their moral character is self delusion at best, out and out judgemental hypocritical bullshit at worst. Well, I’m sorry but I disagree. (How did celebrities get pulled into this?) If someone is telling me that I should agree to their assessment of some problem or some action that needs to be taken, I need to know that I can believe the information they give me. If I feel they are likely to lie or put a disingenuous spin on it because if they were to tell the truth it wouldn’t stand the light of day, then I will be far less likely to listen to anything they have to say. The problem is, if you can’t believe _everything_ that a person says, you can’t necessarily believe _anything_ they say. I don’t even come close to believing anything that Bill or Hillary Clinton say simply because I’ve come to view them as being profoundly dishonest, manipulative people. How can this not be an important issue in deciding whether or not to elect them into positions that will have influence over the issues that affect my life? ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2005, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/104 "2005-03-15T21:53:24Z")
Sorry. I used celebrities a further example of how fascinated we are with other peoples’ sex lives. Celebs and politicians. As for honesty: We have currently one of the most dishonest and secretive administrations and presidents in our nation’s history, if not THE most. Are you seriously trying to tell me that just because they man (to our knowledge) has not cheated on his wife, it somehow excuses all the deception, half truths and cover ups? If so…well, now that you mention it, it may very well be so, because obviously people are swallowing it and coming back for more. Why I have no idea. But apparently the only thing that matters is whether or not you keep your fly zipped. Everything else is forgiveable, up to and including selling my retirement and my son’s life. ---
**Author:** ![Marsie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/34f0e0/32.png) [@Marsie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marsie)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2005, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/105 "2005-03-15T21:54:11Z")
She climbs a tree and scrapes her knee Her dress has got a tear She waltzes on her way to Mass And whistles on the stair And underneath her wimple She has curlers in her hair I even heard her singing in the abbey She’s always late for chapel But her penitence is real She’s always late for everything Except for every meal I hate to have to say it But I very firmly feel Hillary’s not an asset to the White House I’d like to say a word in her behalf Hillary makes me laugh How do you solve a problem like Hillary? How do you catch a cloud and pin it down? How do you find a word that means Hillary? A flibbertijibbet! A will-o’-the wisp! A clown! Many a thing you know you’d like to tell her Many a thing she ought to understand But how do you make her stay And listen to all you say How do you keep a wave upon the sand Oh, how do you solve a problem like Hillary? How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand? When I’m with her I’m confused Out of focus and bemused And I never know exactly where I am Unpredictable as weather She’s as flighty as a feather She’s a darling! She’s a demon! She’s a lamb! She’d outpester any pest Drive a hornet from its nest She could throw a whirling dervish out of whirl She is gentle! She is wild! She’s a riddle! She’s a child! She’s a headache! She’s an angel! She’s a girl! How do you solve a problem like Hillary? How do you catch a cloud and pin it down? How do you find a word that means Hillary? A flibbertijibbet! A will-o’-the wisp! A clown! Many a thing you know you’d like to tell her Many a thing she ought to understand But how do you make her stay And listen to all you say How do you keep a wave upon the sand Oh, how do you solve a problem like Hillary? How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2005, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/106 "2005-03-15T22:07:41Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > Sorry. I used celebrities a further example of how fascinated we are with other peoples’ sex lives. Celebs and politicians. > > As for honesty: We have currently one of the most dishonest and secretive administrations and presidents in our nation’s history, if not THE most. Are you seriously trying to tell me that just because they man (to our knowledge) has not cheated on his wife, it somehow excuses all the deception, half truths and cover ups? > If so…well, now that you mention it, it may very well be so, because obviously people are swallowing it and coming back for more. Why I have no idea. But apparently the only thing that matters is whether or not you keep your fly zipped. Everything else is forgiveable, up to and including selling my retirement and my son’s life. Part of it is perception, part is due to uncertainty where Bush is concerned. I trust Bush, I’m in favor of the actions he’s taking, and I don’t believe he lied. You, on the other hand, don’t trust Bush and take it as a given that he is lying and secretive. With Bill Clinton, however, there’s no doubt. And it’s not just about the blowjob. Not by a long shot. His entire time in office was tainted by dishonesty, both in his presidency and in his past, and the same holds true for Hillary. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2005, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/107 "2005-03-15T22:42:22Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > If I feel they are likely to lie or put a disingenuous spin on it because if they were to tell the truth it wouldn’t stand the light of day, then I will be far less likely to listen to anything they have to say. This is why the thought of anyone voting for Bush baffles me. At the minimum, he put a disingenous spin on our reasons to go to war. At worst, he lied. Either way, it speaks horribly of his credibility. I fail to see why all this reasoning is so obvious to you with re HRC and her marriage difficulties (which probably won’t even merit an honorable mention in the high school history books), but evades you as soon as the subject of Bush comes up. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2005, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/108 "2005-03-15T22:56:47Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > The problem is, if you can’t believe _everything_ that a person says, you can’t necessarily believe _anything_ they say. Have you ever told a lie? If so, does that make you unfit for office…even if 99.5% of the lies you’ve ever told were harmless “No honey those pants don’t make you look fat” kind of lies"? By your logic, we have no reason to believe anybody, because there is not one among us who is truthful always. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/109 "2005-03-16T00:35:54Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Having an open marriage is not moral behaviour. Lying about your open marriage is not moral behaviour. Tolerating a philanderer husband is not moral behaviour. In contrast, starting a war with cherry-picked intelligence about WMDs that’s killed tens of thousands of people _is_ “moral behaviour”? 😕 Face it, kids – after the 2004 election, the Republicans have lost all claims of being the party of “morals” for the forseeable future. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/110 "2005-03-16T03:27:18Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > I thought the purpose of this thread was to discuss whey HRC is despised by so much of the population. I can understand how you would want to deflect the argument away from her and onto Bush, but this isn’t the time or place. Quite the contrary. Your responses to that point illustrate clearly, except perhaps to you, that Clinton-hatred is founded in hypocrisy. You condemn Democrats for far less serious problems than you excuse in Republicans. You decry an attempt to keep private matters private, but excuse _starting a fucking war_ on no other apparent basis. Your attempt to deflect the discussion away from that topic is quite illustrative. Clinton-hatred is also grounded in partisan swallowing of spin from the right-wing hate machine, as you also illustrate thusly: > [@](#): > > The fact of the matter is that for a multitude of reasons, Hillary Clinton is perceived as a lying, manipulative, deceptive, smug, arrogant, overly ambitious social reconstructionist whose morals are defined by whatever she can get away with. (The latter would apply to her husband, as well.) The key words being “perceived as”. Care to discuss how that perception came to be? I doubt you do, really. > [@Sam](#): > > His marriage became the country’s business when he started letting his nookie get in the way of the job In what way? His affairs became public only as part of the campaign to get him for something, as you well know. The time it took from his work was a function of that campaign. Are you suggesting that he was doing a bad job with that peace ‘n’ prosperity stuff because he was looking to get laid? Gee, maybe Dubya should get some too, huh? Guess what, though: His employers, We the People, knew he fooled around before we hired him the first time, and we rehired him knowing even more about it. In short, no, we still haven’t heard \*reasons \* from the haters for how anyone else’s marriage is their fucking business. Rationalizations and hypocrisy we have in abundance, though. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/111 "2005-03-16T04:03:50Z")
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it now. I’ll vote for a law guaranteeing the President a blowjob a night if it means we get a stable, growing economy and stay the fuck out of wars. Seriously. Look at the man’s squinched up face. When do YOU think the last time Laura strapped on the ol’ kneepads was?\* \*I feel comfortable asking this question because, after all, they are our president and first lady; their sex life is fair game. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/112 "2005-03-16T04:18:58Z")
I don’t know about that, **Maureen** - Laura looks like the kind of broad who only knows missionary and probably doesn’t even move. But you’re right, their sex life is the national business, it being a portal into their characters and all, as **SA** tells us. _Not_, however, are personal histories of alcoholism, drug abuse, criminal records, military desertion, or even business mismanagement and cronyism. None of that has any bearing on our choice of President. There is no need to speak of _those_ things, because, after all, “It’s OK If You’re A Republican”. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/113 "2005-03-16T14:32:19Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > Perhaps my previous post confused you. In response to **SA’s** speculation that HRC didn’t really care about her philandering husband, I asked that \*if \* that was the case, what should she have done? What followed was what frank honesty from HRC would have looked like _assuming_ **SA’s** belief represented the truth. And I continued along with that same assumption. I was still working with the original hypothetical. That’s why I found it odd when you started challenging me on the particulars of the hypothetical as if I were the one who created it. > [@](#): > > I’m not an expert in fallacies, but isn’t this simply an Appeal to the Majority? Poll most Americans and you’ll still get too many folks who believe Saddam and Bin Laden are bosom buddies, but that doesn’t make for truth. Yes, stating that since a lot of poeple believe something does not make that thing true. That is what I understand the appeal to majority to mean. However, that’s not what I did. I was showing a poll, and using it to specifically illustrate how much some people are “outside the mainstream”. I didn’t use it to try and prove any factual point. Moral issues are tricky that way. They aren’t black and white. It’s difficult to measure them, and they mean different things to different people. However, if we are to assume that yes it is in fact true that Hill and Bill have an open sham marriage, then you need to just trust me that this is not something that sits well with typical American voters. If you even need this explained to you then you are way outside the mainstream and out of touch with the values that most people have. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/114 "2005-03-16T15:00:03Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Yes, stating that since a lot of poeple believe something does not make that thing true. That is what I understand the appeal to majority to mean. However, that’s not what I did. I was showing a poll, and using it to specifically illustrate how much some people are “outside the mainstream”. I didn’t use it to try and prove any factual point. Adultery is as mainstream as it gets, regardless of what people say their values are. You’re also not citing an opinion poll about adultery but a coded poll about gay marriage. Just because Americans are homophobic doesn’t mean they have a problem with marital infidelity. > [@](#): > > Moral issues are tricky that way. They aren’t black and white. It’s difficult to measure them, and they mean different things to different people. And yet you have no problem sounding off on morality like you’re fucking Jesus of Nazareth. > [@](#): > > However, if we are to assume that yes it is in fact true that Hill and Bill have an open sham marriage, then you need to just trust me that this is not something that sits well with typical American voters. Open does not equal sham, fucktard. And no, I’m afraid I will not trust you. If you can’t specifically produce a cite stating that Americans give a fuck about Bill and Hillary’s marriage arrangement then you have no point. Moreover, you have no point anyway since public opinion has fuck all to do with a president’s ability to his job. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/115 "2005-03-16T15:00:10Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > But you’re right, their sex life is the national business, it being a portal into their characters and all, as **SA** tells us. _Not_, however, are personal histories of alcoholism, drug abuse, criminal records, military desertion, or even business mismanagement and cronyism. None of that has any bearing on our choice of President. There is no need to speak of _those_ things, because, after all, “It’s OK If You’re A Republican”. Very well said. And to take the argument that because they serve us their sex life and marriage IS our business to its logical conclusion–then YOUR marriage is indeed my business, because your life/work/social network may touch me and mine. It’s ridiculous and hypocritical–like I said early on in this trainwreck–HRC is damned if she did and damned if she didn’t. BC=evil and nothing anyone can say to these GOP’ers who believe this will changer their minds. To me it’s amazing that they(Bush supporters) willingly swallow the drug addiction, the questionable service record, the alcoholism, the lovely behavior evinced by the twins (and Chelsea is on a Rhodes scholarship? God help me, I would trust Bill and Hillary as parents long before I would Laura and W) the business deals of W. But --as we learned from Rush Limbaugh’s lil addiction–it was never about morals or prinicples at all, and it still isn’t. For those who espouse “family values” and “God bless America no matter what patriotism”(the GOP): it’s all about power, getting it, consolidating it, and abusing it. In this, they are highly successful. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/116 "2005-03-16T15:48:53Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Open does not equal sham, fucktard. And no, I’m afraid I will not trust you. **DtC** , it’s clear to just about everyone on the SDMB that you are a fucking idiot. I guess I’ll have to explain myself once again, just for you. I am specifically responding to the notion that somebody else proposed that even if Hillary was willingly participating in a “sham”, “open” marriage with a “philanderer” then she is somehow blameless. That she is in a catch 22 situation that will result in controversy no matter what. I’m simply pointing out that, if true, this is no ones fault but her own. If she didn’t want controversy or embarassment than she shouldn’t have put herself into this situation in the first place. I have not said that open equals sham. I’m simply challenging what **you with the face** said, and even he did not say that. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/117 "2005-03-16T18:54:22Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > like you’re fucking Jesus of Nazareth. Wow. I’ve never seen a marriage _that_ open. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/118 "2005-03-16T19:09:45Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > And she wasn’t made Sec of State before now, because? No really, why? Let the vet give you the rabies shots and check back in next week. :rolleyes: Uh, logic check - please. What on Earth does that have to do with whether or not she is a “yes” woman for Bush? ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/119 "2005-03-16T19:17:48Z")
**blowero** , did you really just ask **duffer** to explain something logically? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/120 "2005-03-16T19:18:51Z")
And while I’m at it, how in the world would Bush have made her Secretary of State _before_ now? We already _had_ one. Colin Powell? Heard of him? Black guy - short hair - wears glasses? Does that ring a bell? idiot :rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511.md?page=7)