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

[BlueSwan]

Saw Hillary on Rachel Maddow last night. If you haven't seen it, jump to Rachel's website.

Watching it, I yet again had to ask myself how on earth this woman inspires such vitriolic hatred. It really doesn't make any sense whatsoever, unless you acknowledge that contempt for an ambitious woman is a very real thing.

As always she comes off as incredibly well-informed, well-articulated and just extremely competent. Any reasonable person would acknowledge that she would make for a much more competent president than the current trainwreck.

Sure I can understand that some would find her boring or uncharismatic, but that is rarely the criticism that is waged against her. It's usually some unfounded allegations of curruption or her being a blood thirsty warhawk or similar nonsense, which in my view, again, are allegations that would never have been made about her had she been a man.

Haters, please explain yourselves?

[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.

[BlueSwan]

Did you lefties ask this question during the 2008 primary, when your messiah was trouncing her - with words and votes?

For the record, I also supported her in 2008.

I think, if the hatred of her was even vaguely rational, then it makes no sense that in 2010-2013 she was probably the most popular politician in the country - at leasy amongst those with universal or near-universal name recognition. And she was exactly the same person back then.

[BlueSwan]

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.

[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?

[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.

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

[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.

[BlueSwan]

No one is saying that Hillary is a great political genius or ran a wonderful campaign - although she did get further than any other woman in history, may well get further than any woman in her generation (older boomers born 1946-55) ever will, which is saying a lot. It's the the vitriolic reaction to her that is so over-the-top that it has exposed what a misogynistic society we live in, and that's why Hillary is a hero for exposing it, and that's why we need more Hillarys.

Exactly!

[BlueSwan]

No one is saying that Hillary is a great political genius or ran a wonderful campaign - although she did get further than any other woman in history, may well get further than any woman in her generation (older boomers born 1946-55) ever will, which is saying a lot. It's the the vitriolic reaction to her that is so over-the-top that it has exposed what a misogynistic society we live in, and that's why Hillary is a hero for exposing it, and that's why we need more Hillarys.

Nah. It shows that we hate decades-old corruption, large sense of selfishness, and a belief of entitlement to the White House.

We also dislike her policies. You are speaking like the people who say hatred for Obama was only because he was black. It's not about race or gender. It's about who you are as a person, and Hillary is a horrible person.

Are you seriously saying that people hated Barack Obama because of who he was as a person? One of the cleanest family values presidents in US history?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[BlueSwan]

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.

Fair enough. But the thread is about how she inspires such vitriolic hatred.

[BlueSwan]

The answer to the OP is that the Republican Party was taken over by John Birchers in 1994. They think that Hillary shot Chris Stevens, wanted Al-Qaeda to read the CIA's emails, wants to send SWAT teams into people's houses to take their guns, goes to hospitals and shoots babies, etc.

This. And unfortunately the far left have been taken over by Putin sympathizers and constantly attacks Democrats when 99% of their anger should be directed at the GOP.

Agreed.