Why the venom for Hillary?

[Quartz]

@Dinsdale

SOmeone upthread says such venom is used on both sides towards various figures. I can’t think of another political figure I’ve heard called a cunt, or consistently called a bitch - by folk who do not generally strike me as extremists.

How about Margaret Thatcher?

[ElvisL1ves]

Or Nancy Pelosi? Or even Michelle Obama?

What successful and ambitious (i.e. uppity) women have *not *been branded that way?

[Mijin]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

So I’m saying, it’s possible they (a) never reacted to a Donald Trump insult with a quick “I think he’s talking about me,” but (b) did react to a Hillary Clinton insult with a quick “I think she’s talking about us.” That would explain it, right?

I see. Yes that’s undboutedly a part of it.

(I thought, with your rhetorical question, you were implying Trump ran the more civil campaign :eek:. But I agree with your point, if this is it.)

[ElvisL1ves]

It helped that their bubble-media outlets coaxed them into thinking that way.

[tim314]

I don’t know if people hate her because of sexism, but the way in which they express their hatred for her is frequently a manifestation of their sexism.

[puddleglum]

@ElvisL1ves

puddleglum, would you please link/attribute that quote, so we can give it the proper credence and weight?

Here is the

[quote source]
(http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001600.html). He is a professor of economics at UC Berkeley and was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton.

[ElvisL1ves]

Thanks. Sez Wiki,

According to the 2016 ranking of economists by Research Papers in Economics, DeLong is the 740th most influential economist alive.

Also, more seriously,

DeLong considers himself a free trade Neoliberal. He has cited Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, Andrei Shleifer, Milton Friedman, and Lawrence Summers (with whom he has co-authored numerous papers) as the economists who have had the greatest influence on his views.

That would explain his antipathy to Hillarycare, and, by extension, Hillary.

[puddleglum]

@ElvisL1ves

Thanks. Sez Wiki,

Also, more seriously, That would explain his antipathy to Hillarycare, and, by extension, Hillary.

In what way?

[DrDeth]

@JohnT

25 year nonstop GOP-lead smear campaign. Nowadays, the Hillary-hate is recognizable as the beginnings of the slide into fake news, irrational hatred, and the constant lying (especially to themselves) for the GOP and its supporters.

Yep. But there is a tiny bit of fire with all that Rove and Russian fake smoke.

[DrDeth]

@Velocity

I don’t understand it, either. Hillary is about as centrist or hawkish a Democrat as Republicans could hope for. 0.

There is really no evidence she is hawkish, other than one vote, which most Senators voted the same.

[DrDeth]

@Little_Nemo

She was only the second most corrupt and despicable candidate running in 2016.

Not by a long shot. You forget Ted Cruz and Chris Christie.

[Kimstu]

@DrDeth

There is really no evidence she is hawkish, other than one vote, which most Senators voted the same.

Well, I think it’s largely her record as Secretary of State that is so described:

[…] But she was understandably wary of talking about areas in which she and Obama split — namely, on bedrock issues of war and peace, where Clinton’s more activist philosophy had already collided in unpredictable ways with her boss’s instincts toward restraint. She had backed Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s recommendation to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, before endorsing a fallback proposal of 30,000 (Obama went along with that, though he stipulated that the soldiers would begin to pull out again in July 2011, which she viewed as problematic). She supported the Pentagon’s plan to leave behind a residual force of 10,000 to 20,000 American troops in Iraq (Obama balked at this, largely because of his inability to win legal protections from the Iraqis, a failure that was to haunt him when the Islamic State overran much of the country). And she pressed for the United States to funnel arms to the rebels in Syria’s civil war (an idea Obama initially rebuffed before later, halfheartedly, coming around to it). […]

As Hillary Clinton makes another run for president, it can be tempting to view her hard-edged rhetoric about the world less as deeply felt core principle than as calculated political maneuver. But Clinton’s foreign-policy instincts are bred in the bone — grounded in cold realism about human nature and what one aide calls “a textbook view of American exceptionalism.” It set her apart from her rival-turned-boss, Barack Obama, who avoided military entanglements and tried to reconcile Americans to a world in which the United States was no longer the undisputed hegemon. And it will likely set her apart from the Republican candidate she meets in the general election. For all their bluster about bombing the Islamic State into oblivion, neither Donald J. Trump nor Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has demonstrated anywhere near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has.

[DrDeth]

@Kimstu

Well, I think it’s largely her record as Secretary of State that is so described:

Yes, horrible.:rolleyes: She and the Pentagon said send 40K troops, Obama compromised on 30K. :dubious:

[Urbanredneck]

@ElvisL1ves

Or Nancy Pelosi? Or even Michelle Obama?

What successful and ambitious (i.e. uppity) women have *not *been branded that way?

How about Sarah Palin?

[kenobi_65]

@Urbanredneck

How about Sarah Palin?

I’m not sure that I ever heard Palin criticized in that way (though I imagine such could be found with a little googling). Criticism of Palin (particular from liberals) centered on her apparent lack of intelligence and experience, certain exaggerations (“I can see Russia from my house”), and often conforming to a cartoonish stereotype of ignorant conservatives.

[HurricaneDitka]

@kenobi_65

… “I can see Russia from my house” …

speaking of cartoonish stereotypes, that was an SNL skit, not reality.

[kenobi_65]

@HurricaneDitka

speaking of cartoonish stereotypes, that was an SNL skit, not reality.

Fair enough, and I stand corrected, but her actual line (“They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska”) does illustrate the fact that her qualifications for the vice-presidency were pretty thin.

[Shodan]

So, making accurate statements shows that someone’s qualifications are pretty thin? Hmmm.

Regards,
Shodan

[kenobi_65]

@Shodan

So, making accurate statements shows that someone’s qualifications are pretty thin? Hmmm.

Accurate, yes.

But, as a demonstration of her understanding of Russia or U.S. / Russia relations? Pretty thin, IMO.

Trying to get back to the theme of the OP – criticisms of Palin were more centered on her lack of experience, her simplistic answers to questions, and her seemingly-willful lack of knowledge about the sorts of topics that a holder of a national office needs to understand, rather than accusations of being “uppity.”

[ElvisL1ves]

Fair enough, Palin is a good example of a successful, ambitious woman who was hated for *valid *reasons.