The cleared the deck for her senate campaign. The New York Democratic machine basically told all the other Democratic candidates to withdraw. Then in the middle of running against Guiliani, he gets testicle cancer or something and drops out of the race so they get6 some patsy by the name of Lazio to run against her and lose.
So I wouldn’t give her #2.
I said way back then that we would see how corrupt the Clinton Foundation is by measuring how much its getting in donations after the Clintons no longer have any political capital to leverage. The Clinton foundation is basically shut down at this point. No reason to donate unless access to the Clintons is worth something.
Including zero or perhaps it even had a positive effect on her candidacy. Who knows, its impossible to tell. So I could say that Hillary would have lost in a landslide if she had a penis and it would be just as true as your statement.
Hell, Clinton’s sex might have been a net positive for her, but is was simply not enough of a positive to overcome all her other negatives.
And that sexist prejudice might have helped her coming from the other direction.
ISTM that no one can make conclusive statements other than the fact that some people do in fact hate the shit out of Hillary and she lost and election to someone like Donald Trump.
Those are my only problems with her, as well. On most issues, she seemed reasonable. I just couldn’t wrap my head around the whole “let’s start a shootin’ war with the only nation capable of leveling the United States” thing. Of course, if it came down to that, we would flatten them, as well. Small consolation…
I have spoken to several candidates over the years. Some of them very close personal friends. If the party doesn’t want you to run, its not some amorphous anonymous group of people that don’t want you to run. Its all the big dollar donors, the political heavyweights and anyone else that will lock step with them. If you are a mere congressman from New York, your ability to win elections depends heavily on party support until you break out of rank and file status.
My sister-in-law would absolutely vote for a man over a woman. She has complained in the past about the job a woman Sheriff was doing and said “Can’t they get a man to do the job?”
She is a white, young-earth creationist. She absolutely believes the bible tells her to follow the lead of her husband and that men are superior to women.
Wow, weak. I think these are Bulverism and genetic fallacies; are there other fallacies here?
So, just to clarify, you think that this guys comments should not be taken at face value because he is not very influential and because of his self proclaimed influences. You must get to dismiss a lot of people this way. I bet I could use these same arguments to dismiss everything you say; what do you do for a living again?
Well, it’s mainly because they have the strong odor of sour grapes and petty resentment, which a little research into him supports. A more honest and thoughtful assessment would include some facts and anecdotes, not just the combination of junior-high gossip and economic ideology this guy is peddling.
Can’t you or **puddleglum **find an informed and nonideological adult to cite instead?
Not I; I am on your side of this particular debate and don’t remember ever being on puddleglum’s side of any debate. I just thought that your reaction to puddleglum’s posts was lame and, this being GD, thought I would call you out on it.
The OP asked (for opinions on) why Hillary was hated and puddleglum responded both with his personal opinion (“unlikable combination of arrogance, incompetence, greed, sanctimony, and a thirst for power”) and a quote from somebody who allegedly worked with her. You asked for the quote attribution so you could give it the “proper credence and weight” and when he responded, you seemed to dismiss it due to the reasons I listed; namely his ranking as an economist and his influences.
If you think this guy wrote his post because of petty resentment or sour grapes, what’s the evidence? Did Hillary fire him or something? What economic ideology is this guy peddling? His influences include Smith (founder of modern economics), Keynes (one of the greatest economists of the last century), Shleifer (brilliant behavioral economist), Friedman (again, one of the greatest economists of the last century), and Summers (his boss in the Clinton Administration). Seems innocuous enough; Laissez faire capitalism and Keynesian economic are mainstream and have been so for many decades. It’s not like he is pushing Ayn Rand or something.
So I remain stedfast; you seem to dismissal of puddleglum’s source seems to be an informal fallacy, specifically the genetic fallacy:
[QUOTE=wikipedia]
The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue[1]) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone’s or something’s history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.
[/QUOTE]
In other words, your response was lame.
Whatever. Regarding the OP, I don’t know. I have always though Hillary Clinton was a capable and intelligent person and would probably have made a fine President. I know many people who have worked with her, both on her campaigns and on her team and they had nothing but good things to say about her. Most likely, the hatred is due to 20+ years of negative propaganda from right wing sources.
I am not a fan of Delong because he is very liberal, shrill, and partisan. His supposed economic ideology is neobileralism which was associated with the Clintons for 30 years. His ideology closely matched Democrat orthodoxy from 1992-2008. His is a macroeconomist so it is no surprise that his biggest influences are the founder of economics, the two greatest macroeconomists in history, a friend he works with frequently, and his mentor who was one of the most influential economists of the Clinton administration as Treasury Secretary.
The reason I found DeLong’s opinion so persuasive was that he is a very partisan Democrat and worked with her. Very few people who have worked with Hillary are willing to go one the record with negative opinions about her because she keeps a list of all the people who have crossed her and she tries to hurt them politically. At the time he said the quote he was endorsing Obama in the 2008 primary. In 2016 he reversed himself and endorsed Hillary, citing her competence at running a campaign. LOL
I don’t know if you would classify the secret service as informed and non-ideological but they describeher as rude and ungrateful cursing at the limo driver if they ran over a bump. The white house pastry chef who said she screamed at someone changing a light bulb in the white house because repairs were supposed to be done when she was out of the house. The white house usher she had fired for talking to Barbara Bush.
I give creedence to this kind of thing because it matches what someone who worked with her told me.
The “thin” part, it seemed to me, was suggesting that the mere proximity of Russian territory gave her governance of Alaska some foreign-policy cred. There may be a number of U.S. military bases in Alaska, but probably every other border state that touches Canada or Mexico sees more international movement of goods and people, requiring those governors to have at least some foreign policy knowledge. She was attempting to boast about something trivial, making her lack of genuine accomplishment more obvious. As a fast check, I did some fast research for states that border Canada and the economic effects (all values in $CAD):
Among states that actually border Canada, Alaska is dead last in trade. Unless there’s some massive Alaska-Russia economic exchange going on that I’m unaware of, what the heck is Palin talking about?
Kenobi65 did characterize the seeing Russia from my house bit as a “certain exaggeration”. The fact that it’s a direct quote from an SNL skit does not invalidate that characterization as it it an exaggeration of something that she actually said. (Otherwise it would be a fabrication.) It is telling how many people actually think that Palin said that and I think it tells more about people’s perception of Palin than about Tina Fay’s skill as a satirist.
I believe that people hate Hillary Clinton for the same reasons that they hate Jews (there is some overlap). People have a huge unmet need to hate – someone. Someone they can blame for, really, everything they don’t have, can’t get and know they never will. They need to BLAME SOMEONE.
Remember Orwell’s Five Minute Hate? It’s exactly the same thing. Hate, especially group hate, is a cathartic bonding experience.
The hate for Clinton has so incredibly little to do with the actual politician, her personality, policies, adventures, misadventures. Nothing lines up except that primal need to hate. Her curse is that she’s such a open target.