Clinton on Maddow last night. Why do people hate her?

[BlueSwan]

A good idea when addressing criticisms of Hillary Clinton is to ask yourself "Could I use this same defense of Hillary word for word to dismiss criticisms of Margaret Thatcher?" and if the answer is yes, delete your post and start over.

Ehh...the problem with Thatcher was her politics, not her competence.

The problem with Hillary is her politics.

Hillarys rather moderate stances are hardly ones to inspire true hatred.

[TheSaint250]

A good idea when addressing criticisms of Hillary Clinton is to ask yourself "Could I use this same defense of Hillary word for word to dismiss criticisms of Margaret Thatcher?" and if the answer is yes, delete your post and start over.

Ehh...the problem with Thatcher was her politics, not her competence.

The problem with Hillary is her politics.

Hillarys rather moderate stances are hardly ones to inspire true hatred.

Ok she's not a moderate.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

A good idea when addressing criticisms of Hillary Clinton is to ask yourself "Could I use this same defense of Hillary word for word to dismiss criticisms of Margaret Thatcher?" and if the answer is yes, delete your post and start over.

Ehh...the problem with Thatcher was her politics, not her competence.

The problem with Hillary is her politics.

Hillarys rather moderate stances are hardly ones to inspire true hatred.

Neoliberalism is cancer

[BlueSwan]

How did mondale get so awesome overnight! Savage!

Neither is Mitt Romney.

Believe me, Mitt Romney is hated much more than Hillary. That guy is a complete trainwreck.

What? No he isn't. Show me the polls.

You are speaking about passion. Lots of us passionately hate Romney. Polls go up and down depending on that person's status at the time. It was not always like that with Hillary until she changed who she was.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/mitt-romney-favorability
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

Romney was 40/51 in March immediately after losing and the base falling out. Looks like the latest Hillary is 41/54 after being high for quite some time - whereas Mitt was never loved by the vast majority of the nation. It has gotten worse from there as she continues to be an ungracious loser and complete national embarrassment.

Those Hillary numbers are super old though. Some of the more recent ones puts her favourability below those of Trump, which is just crazy.

[BlueSwan]

A good idea when addressing criticisms of Hillary Clinton is to ask yourself "Could I use this same defense of Hillary word for word to dismiss criticisms of Margaret Thatcher?" and if the answer is yes, delete your post and start over.

Ehh...the problem with Thatcher was her politics, not her competence.

The problem with Hillary is her politics.

Hillarys rather moderate stances are hardly ones to inspire true hatred.

Ok she's not a moderate.

I actually agree. She's a progressive at heart, but a pragmatic politician and as such her actual proposals are fairly moderate.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

How did mondale get so awesome overnight! Savage!

Neither is Mitt Romney.

Believe me, Mitt Romney is hated much more than Hillary. That guy is a complete trainwreck.

What? No he isn't. Show me the polls.

You are speaking about passion. Lots of us passionately hate Romney. Polls go up and down depending on that person's status at the time. It was not always like that with Hillary until she changed who she was.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/mitt-romney-favorability
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

Romney was 40/51 in March immediately after losing and the base falling out. Looks like the latest Hillary is 41/54 after being high for quite some time - whereas Mitt was never loved by the vast majority of the nation. It has gotten worse from there as she continues to be an ungracious loser and complete national embarrassment.

Those Hillary numbers are super old though. Some of the more recent ones puts her favourability below those of Trump, which is just crazy.

And as I just explained - people did like her (i.e., they didn't have an anti-woman reaction) - and then all of a sudden they hated her for good reasons such as being, I repeat - an UNGRACIOUS LOSER and complete NATIONAL EMBARRASSMENT. She didn't go away. She couldn't accept responsibility. She could do no wrong. Less humble than Donald freakin' Trump while losing! That takes a lot!

[TheSaint250]

A good idea when addressing criticisms of Hillary Clinton is to ask yourself "Could I use this same defense of Hillary word for word to dismiss criticisms of Margaret Thatcher?" and if the answer is yes, delete your post and start over.

Ehh...the problem with Thatcher was her politics, not her competence.

The problem with Hillary is her politics.

Hillarys rather moderate stances are hardly ones to inspire true hatred.

Ok she's not a moderate.

I actually agree. She's a progressive at heart, but a pragmatic politician and as such her actual proposals are fairly moderate.

Nope. She's something in between and takes policy ideas when it's convenient.

[publicunofficial]

A good idea when addressing criticisms of Hillary Clinton is to ask yourself "Could I use this same defense of Hillary word for word to dismiss criticisms of Margaret Thatcher?" and if the answer is yes, delete your post and start over.

Ehh...the problem with Thatcher was her politics, not her competence.

The problem with Hillary is her politics.

Hillarys rather moderate stances are hardly ones to inspire true hatred.

"How can you be mad at these policies, they're moderate!" Hillary says to a crowd of people who think they will lose their jobs if TPP passes.

[Gustaf]

A good idea when addressing criticisms of Hillary Clinton is to ask yourself "Could I use this same defense of Hillary word for word to dismiss criticisms of Margaret Thatcher?" and if the answer is yes, delete your post and start over.

Ehh...the problem with Thatcher was her politics, not her competence.

The problem with Hillary is her politics.

This is true. Anyone who voted for the Iraq War, which was an obvious farce based on a pack of lies, does not have the judgement to be president.

She did so very reluctancly, contrary to urban legend. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html

Oh well that makes it ok then.

THis is of course why Kerry, Feinstein and Schumer are tied for top most hated Democratic politician together with Clinton.

[publicunofficial]

A good idea when addressing criticisms of Hillary Clinton is to ask yourself "Could I use this same defense of Hillary word for word to dismiss criticisms of Margaret Thatcher?" and if the answer is yes, delete your post and start over.

Ehh...the problem with Thatcher was her politics, not her competence.

The problem with Hillary is her politics.

This is true. Anyone who voted for the Iraq War, which was an obvious farce based on a pack of lies, does not have the judgement to be president.

She did so very reluctancly, contrary to urban legend. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html

Oh well that makes it ok then.

THis is of course why Kerry, Feinstein and Schumer are tied for top most hated Democratic politician together with Clinton.

Feinstein is worse than Hillary no question, I'll give you that. I don't want any of those people to be President.

[BlueSwan]

How did mondale get so awesome overnight! Savage!

Neither is Mitt Romney.

Believe me, Mitt Romney is hated much more than Hillary. That guy is a complete trainwreck.

What? No he isn't. Show me the polls.

You are speaking about passion. Lots of us passionately hate Romney. Polls go up and down depending on that person's status at the time. It was not always like that with Hillary until she changed who she was.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/mitt-romney-favorability
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

Romney was 40/51 in March immediately after losing and the base falling out. Looks like the latest Hillary is 41/54 after being high for quite some time - whereas Mitt was never loved by the vast majority of the nation. It has gotten worse from there as she continues to be an ungracious loser and complete national embarrassment.

Those Hillary numbers are super old though. Some of the more recent ones puts her favourability below those of Trump, which is just crazy.

And as I just explained - people did like her (i.e., they didn't have an anti-woman reaction) - and then all of a sudden they hated her for good reasons such as being, I repeat - an UNGRACIOUS LOSER and complete NATIONAL EMBARRASSMENT. She didn't go away. She couldn't accept responsibility. She could do no wrong. Less humble than Donald freakin' Trump while losing! That takes a lot!

How?

She gave a VERY gracious speech the day after the election. It was pure class. Then she went away for a LOOOOOOONG time. Then just now she is telling the whole story in which she takes primary responsibility (which is boring to report on), but also mention the numerous COMPLETELY TRUE factors that influenced the outcome of the election. I'm sure if she had just taken 100% responsibility and never even mentioned Comey or Russia, people would hate her for being inauthentic and not genuine and "probably looking to run again". She can't win.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

She gave a VERY gracious speech

Totally false. She was very embarrassed after losing something she felt entitled to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, we all remember that month when the news couldn't stop reporting how she forgot how to put on make-up and became some hermit in the woods.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it's boring, then why tell it, except to make millions more that she will never need off the backs of people she already scammed for a billion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Totally false. People like when a leader takes responsibility. I'm going to need a Verrit card if you want to claim that as truth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, she can't. Thank God for making sure evil people are kept in check.

[BlueSwan]

She gave a VERY gracious speech

Totally false. She was very embarrassed after losing something she felt entitled to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, we all remember that month when the news couldn't stop reporting how she forgot how to put on make-up and became some hermit in the woods.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it's boring, then why tell it, except to make millions more that she will never need off the backs of people she already scammed for a billion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Totally false. People like when a leader takes responsibility. I'm going to need a Verrit card if you want to claim that as truth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, she can't. Thank God for making sure evil people are kept in check.

Did you even watch her concession speech? It doesn't sound like it. You sure as hell haven't followed what she has actually been saying about the loss, where she clearly takes primary responsibility. In her book Sanders is barely even mentioned, yet the media writes and talks about it as if she blamed the entire loss on him.

Either way, for a losing candidate - especially one that everybody thought would win - it makes very good sense to dissect what went wrong. Both for herself, but certainly also for the party if they want to avoid something similar happening again. To ignore the cause of losses seems like a pretty dumb idea. And as I stated, all the numerous contributing factors she mentions are valid. I cannot think of one contributing factors that she has mentioned, that did not have merit.

Calling her evil is either borderline psychotic or terribly terribly misguided.

[TheSaint250]

She has not taken responsibility. She has blamed Comey, Russia, Sanders, and more. She'll never willingly admit that she was the reason for losing to Trump.

[BlueSwan]

She has not taken responsibility. She has blamed Comey, Russia, Sanders, and more. She'll never willingly admit that she was the reason for losing to Trump.

Yes she will and she has in her book and in her numerous interviews given in conjunction with the book release.

But the fact is that several things cost her the election and it would be silly to ignore those things. No Russia involvement: Clinton wins. No Comey letter: Clinton wins. No Sanders-assisted campaign to label her "crooked": Clinton wins.

But of course also: No private e-mail server: Clinton wins. That was her number one flaw and ironically it had nothing to do with her actual campaign.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

#Slay #Kween #Winning #Covfefe #ItsStillHerTurn #DeleteYourAccount

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Anyone (I'm looking at you Hagrid) who enthusiastically supported Clinton - ie, voting for her not as the lesser of two evils - is essentially a bad person.

How?

Because Hillary Clinton actively and avidly seeks to destroy huge swathes of the electorate in order to fortify her own position. Hillary would be happy to watch my relatives in WV starve to death, because there is "no room" for them in her America.  Anyone who voted for her with the desire to see her as President as opposed to a desire to see Donald Trump not be President is effectively endorsing this.

[heatcharger]

Because Hillary Clinton actively and avidly seeks to destroy huge swathes of the electorate in order to fortify her own position. Hillary would be happy to watch my relatives in WV starve to death, because there is "no room" for them in her America.  Anyone who voted for her with the desire to see her as President as opposed to a desire to see Donald Trump not be President is effectively endorsing this.

Very unfair!

[BlueSwan]

Anyone (I'm looking at you Hagrid) who enthusiastically supported Clinton - ie, voting for her not as the lesser of two evils - is essentially a bad person.

How?

Because Hillary Clinton actively and avidly seeks to destroy huge swathes of the electorate in order to fortify her own position. Hillary would be happy to watch my relatives in WV starve to death, because there is "no room" for them in her America.  Anyone who voted for her with the desire to see her as President as opposed to a desire to see Donald Trump not be President is effectively endorsing this.

That's delusional.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Anyone (I'm looking at you Hagrid) who enthusiastically supported Clinton - ie, voting for her not as the lesser of two evils - is essentially a bad person.

How?

Because Hillary Clinton actively and avidly seeks to destroy huge swathes of the electorate in order to fortify her own position. Hillary would be happy to watch my relatives in WV starve to death, because there is "no room" for them in her America.  Anyone who voted for her with the desire to see her as President as opposed to a desire to see Donald Trump not be President is effectively endorsing this.

That's delusional.

Google "Margaret Thatcher" and "coal mines."

[RINO Tom]

Anyone (I'm looking at you Hagrid) who enthusiastically supported Clinton - ie, voting for her not as the lesser of two evils - is essentially a bad person.

How?

Because Hillary Clinton actively and avidly seeks to destroy huge swathes of the electorate in order to fortify her own position. Hillary would be happy to watch my relatives in WV starve to death, because there is "no room" for them in her America.  Anyone who voted for her with the desire to see her as President as opposed to a desire to see Donald Trump not be President is effectively endorsing this.

That's delusional.

Google "Margaret Thatcher" and "coal mines."

Please don't give Hillary Clinton the dignity of being compared to Margaret Thatcher, however much you may dislike both.

[Mr. Smith]

Anyone (I'm looking at you Hagrid) who enthusiastically supported Clinton - ie, voting for her not as the lesser of two evils - is essentially a bad person.

How?

Because Hillary Clinton actively and avidly seeks to destroy huge swathes of the electorate in order to fortify her own position. Hillary would be happy to watch my relatives in WV starve to death, because there is "no room" for them in her America.  Anyone who voted for her with the desire to see her as President as opposed to a desire to see Donald Trump not be President is effectively endorsing this.

That's delusional.

Google "Margaret Thatcher" and "coal mines."

Please don't give Hillary Clinton the dignity sservice of being compared to Margaret Thatcher, however much you may dislike both.

FTFY

[heatcharger]

Because Hillary Clinton actively and avidly seeks to destroy huge swathes of the electorate in order to fortify her own position. Hillary would be happy to watch my relatives in WV starve to death, because there is "no room" for them in her America.  Anyone who voted for her with the desire to see her as President as opposed to a desire to see Donald Trump not be President is effectively endorsing this.

Very unfair!

It is too bad. It's also too bad your beloved leader decided to permit the completion of the Keystone XL pipeline, something that will only speed up the rot of whatever heroin-infested hellhole your aunts live in. At least they were lucky enough to be spared Hillary's Final Solution for rural whites!

[JA]

Maybe it's because she speaks so condescendingly, attempted to hide an email scandal, lost a very winnable race, is still dividing the Democratic Party, etc.

It's not because she's a woman. It's because of who she is as a person.

Basically this. Anyone who falls back onto the tired old "you hate her because she's a woman" schtick is pretty pathetic. Sure, there are likely many people who dislike her because of her gender; that seems to be a particular problem with liberal female politicians. But there are plenty of reasons for people, left and right, to dislike her aside from that. Personally, I never trusted her, I didn't think she'd do half the things she promised, she always seemed rather condescending, and she seemed far too dependent on all those technocratic techniques of trying to win an election. Her voting history was uninspiring, her picking Kaine was disappointing, the entire premise of her campaign was despiriting, and the fact that she continues to relitigate her failed campaign and blame her failures, at least in part, on her Democratic rival who was far too kind to her, shows what a sorry loser she is too.

Those are all reasons for being underwhelmed with her, or finding her uninspired or boring. Those are not reasons to hate a person with passion.

John Kerry isn't hated for running a lacklustre campaign and losing to GWB. Neither is Al Gore, who "lost" in a somewhat similar fashion to Hillary. Neither is Mitt Romney. All of those guys were boring technocrats who don't campaign very well, but are strong on substance - much like Hillary. Except for the chromosomes.

Except that I never said I hate her, let alone with a passion. I voted for her in November and, against any Republican, I'd vote for her again (unenthusiastically). With that said, I find the way she has voted, handled her position as SoS, and campaigned to be incredibly disappointing, her conduct in regards to Wall Street and other elites frustrating (that applies to Obama and all the others as well), and her willingness to do whatever it takes to win (including running a racist campaign against Obama in '08 and switching positions on major issues like TPP in '16) disgusting. She's the embodiment of what millions of Americans hate about our political establishment. People found her so repugnant that the majority voted third party, abstained, or voted for the ultimate bigoted dumbass known as Trump.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Because Hillary Clinton actively and avidly seeks to destroy huge swathes of the electorate in order to fortify her own position. Hillary would be happy to watch my relatives in WV starve to death, because there is "no room" for them in her America.  Anyone who voted for her with the desire to see her as President as opposed to a desire to see Donald Trump not be President is effectively endorsing this.

Very unfair!

Agreed friend. Its about as unfair as when many Democrats claim that anyone who opposes whatever awful healthcare bill or gun ban they propose literally want millions of poors to die in the streets. I remember hearing a lot of that when the Pubs in our State wouldn't approve McAwful's medicaid expansion. The word "genocide" and "murder" were misused so often that they almost lost their true meaning.