Why do so Many People Have an Unfavorable Opinion of Hillary?

[dazzleman]

Calling her a dreadful woman is a bit strong. Say that shes a dreadful politician or Senator. Say that you disagree with everything she stands for, but attacking her on a personal level like that without actually knowing her is kind of wrong. I don't think I would ever attack someone on your side like that. I would never call President Bush a horrible human being. I don't know him personally. I know his policies and would disagree with them and call his policies horrible or his political tactics awful. I wouldn't attack him on a personal level though.

I understand that it's not a good thing to make too many personal attacks against politicians.  I don't do it lightly.

However, in the case of Hillary Clinton, I do believe that she is a dreadful person, and that having her as president would be a singularly bad thing for the country, beyond whatever disagreements (and there are many) that I have with her prospective policies.

I've been watching this woman for 15 years, and I have yet to see any evidence that she cares about anything other than sheer power, for its own sake.  She has allowed a good number of her "friends" to go to jail in order to protect her from the consequences of her crimes.  She has been at the epicenter of every Clinton scandal, and scandal has followed her wherever she goes.  While there are people out to get her, she has created her own problems by being so dishonest in her behavior.

I could go on and on, but I won't.  While I don't criticize her personal qualities for its own sake, the truth is that my opposition to her goes far beyond any disagreements over political issues with her.  It goes right to the issue of the type of person she is.  Is my personal distaste for her magnified by the fact that I also don't agree with most of her political views?  Probably, but I would also say that based upon the behavior and personal qualities that I have seen exhibited by this woman, I wouldn't support her for any office even if I agreed with her positions on the issues down the line.

This is something downright scary about this woman.  She gives off a very bad vibe.  My distrust and distaste for her is instinctive.  This is not a reaction that I get with most politcians, even those with whom I completely disagree on the issues.  There are few politicians that I would criticize on a personal level as I have Hillary, but I think my criticisms are justified.  I may not know her personally, but I've observed her behavior long enough on many fronts to arrive at what I believe is a sound conclusion that she is a very bad woman.

[opebo]

She's too right wing socially - as BRTD points out a nanny-state supporter of censorship.  I don't know if that comes from feminism or religion or just a desire to win votes, but the net result is the same - more puritanism.

Really there is nothing appealing about her.  To be honest it is almost impossible to imagine a female candidate of either party that wouldn't be an advocate for puritanism.

[dazzleman]

She's too right wing socially - as BRTD points out a nanny-state supporter of censorship.  I don't know if that comes from feminism or religion or just a desire to win votes, but the net result is the same - more puritanism.

Really there is nothing appealing about her.  To be honest it is almost impossible to imagine a female candidate of either party that wouldn't be an advocate for puritanism.

You are correct that feminists are puritanical in their own way.

It's kind of ironic that a movement that started out with the notion that women should have the same sexual freedom as men have traditionally had has ended up with many in the movement supporting the view that male-female sex is somehow, by its very nature, exploitive of women.  I think this is seriously sick and twisted view of the world.  The word that some radical feminists use is "onerous" to describe a situation in which a woman participates in sexual relations with a man.  Mysandry is running rampant in that movement.

While most feminists don't go this far, they offer off a lighter version of it.  They believe that men are toxic, but may be OK after they are housebroken by women.  Their subtext is that men are to blame for all the world's problems, and must be brought to heel by women.  Hillary is probably an adherent to this philosophy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't like her because she's an abrasive, amoral careerist who is happy to go the lowest commen denominator to get power.
I also don't like her because she's very like Thatcher (but I repeat myself).

[skybridge]

The conservatism on here is really becoming disgusting!

[dazzleman]

The conservatism on here is really becoming disgusting!

There's always the DU if you can't handle opposing opinions.

[dazzleman]

The conservatism on here is really becoming disgusting!

There's always the DU if you can't handle opposing opinions.

I second that. Skybridge, if you don't want to listen to dissenting viewpoints (fine display of liberal "tolerance" and respect for free speech, BTW) then go to DU where you can all jerk each other off talking about how great Hillary is.

Those nutcases consider her right wing, so that won't work.

[skybridge]

I didn't say I favored Hillary and I can tolerate opposing points of view, but do some of you actually know what you're saying when you come up with things like "The world would be a better place had Goldwater won in 1964"? Opinion without knowledge is always a poor thing.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The conservatism on here is really becoming disgusting!

There's always the DU if you can't handle opposing opinions.

I second that. Skybridge, if you don't want to listen to dissenting viewpoints (fine display of liberal "tolerance" and respect for free speech, BTW) then go to DU where you can all jerk each other off talking about how great Hillary is.

that doesn't happen. I can bring up plenty of Hillary-bashing threads. I posted one in this forum in fact.

[J.R. Brown]

Calling her a dreadful woman is a bit strong. Say that shes a dreadful politician or Senator. Say that you disagree with everything she stands for, but attacking her on a personal level like that without actually knowing her is kind of wrong. I don't think I would ever attack someone on your side like that. I would never call President Bush a horrible human being. I don't know him personally. I know his policies and would disagree with them and call his policies horrible or his political tactics awful. I wouldn't attack him on a personal level though.

I understand that it's not a good thing to make too many personal attacks against politicians.  I don't do it lightly.

However, in the case of Hillary Clinton, I do believe that she is a dreadful person, and that having her as president would be a singularly bad thing for the country, beyond whatever disagreements (and there are many) that I have with her prospective policies.

I've been watching this woman for 15 years, and I have yet to see any evidence that she cares about anything other than sheer power, for its own sake.  She has allowed a good number of her "friends" to go to jail in order to protect her from the consequences of her crimes.  She has been at the epicenter of every Clinton scandal, and scandal has followed her wherever she goes.  While there are people out to get her, she has created her own problems by being so dishonest in her behavior.

I could go on and on, but I won't.  While I don't criticize her personal qualities for its own sake, the truth is that my opposition to her goes far beyond any disagreements over political issues with her.  It goes right to the issue of the type of person she is.  Is my personal distaste for her magnified by the fact that I also don't agree with most of her political views?  Probably, but I would also say that based upon the behavior and personal qualities that I have seen exhibited by this woman, I wouldn't support her for any office even if I agreed with her positions on the issues down the line.

This is something downright scary about this woman.  She gives off a very bad vibe.  My distrust and distaste for her is instinctive.  This is not a reaction that I get with most politcians, even those with whom I completely disagree on the issues.  There are few politicians that I would criticize on a personal level as I have Hillary, but I think my criticisms are justified.  I may not know her personally, but I've observed her behavior long enough on many fronts to arrive at what I believe is a sound conclusion that she is a very bad woman.

Would you critisize Bill Frist for attacking people who oppose Bush's nominees, saying that they are against people of faith? As someone who has a deep faith in God and loves everything that Jesus stands for I take a strong offense against such accusations, and I think Bill Frist and I'll also add Tom Delay, as the two most dreadful people in your party. They use religion and personal values to gain political support. So they are as bad if not worse than Hillary. I opposed Bush's nominees because they were driven by conservative agenda'a just like I would oppose any judicial nominee with a liberal agenda, not because I was against people of faith.

[dazzleman]

Would you critisize Bill Frist for attacking people who oppose Bush's nominees, saying that they are against people of faith? As someone who has a deep faith in God and loves everything that Jesus stands for I take a strong offense against such accusations, and I think Bill Frist and I'll also add Tom Delay, as the two most dreadful people in your party. They use religion and personal values to gain political support. So they are as bad if not worse than Hillary. I opposed Bush's nominees because they were driven by conservative agenda'a just like I would oppose any judicial nominee with a liberal agenda, not because I was against people of faith.

I don't see what this has to do with my opinion of Madame Clinton.  If you think Frist and DeLay are dreadful people, it doesn't bother me.  You have a right to your opinion, just as I have a right to my opinion about that Clinton woman.  And I won't suggest that you not criticize them personally.  I think it's fine if you do, as long as you explain why, just as I have with Hillary.

[J. J.]

Republican smear campaign plain and simple.  When you really blow off the smoke and ignore her rightward shift, she would really make a great President. 

It will be very hard for me to look at a "rightward shift" when she went on TV with the "vast right wing conspiracy" claim.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Because, Dazzleman does have a right to spisific facts about why democrats are so angry with Frist, here it is.
Bill Frist said "The democrats are filibustering people of faith, just like they filibustered civil rights."  This is lie.  
They are being filibustering the judges because of their EXTREAM right-wing positions.  The Democrats have filibustered 10 of Bush's 214 nominees.  That means 0.04% of Bush's judicial nominees were filibustered.  The Senate is part of the Legislative Branch and acts as a "Check and Balance" to the Executive Branch. With a Republican Administration and a simple majority of Republicans (55 of 100) in the Senate, this nuclear option would effectively remove the Senate as a check and balance to the Administration's use of power. Rather than require the President nominate Judges that get broad support from both parties in the Senate (60 Senators), this nuclear option would allow the President to nominate partisan Judges supported only by 50 Republican Senators plus the Vice President who votes in the event of a tie.

In response to claims of "Senate obstructionism", Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev, pointed out that only 10 of 214 nominations by President Bush have been turned down. Former President Bill Clinton called Republican efforts to paint Democrats as obstructionist "a hoax" stating "The Republicans wouldn't even give a vote to 40 of my Court of Appeals judges... never mind all the others that they wouldn't have voted." George Bush has a better record of having his judicial nominees approved than any President in the past twenty-five yearsFormer Vice President Al Gore said that Republicans threaten to use the nuclear option "to satisfy their lust for one-party domination of all three branches of government" "They seek nothing less than absolute power."

On December 13, 2000, after winning reelection, President George Bush gave a speech reaching out to Democrats, speaking of "bipartisan cooperation" saying "The spirit of cooperation ... is what is needed in Washington, D.C." [6]  (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/13/bn.23.html) While Republicans argue that a "well-qualified" judge should get a vote, Democrats argue that if President Bush were dedicated to the "spirit of cooperation", then he would nominate Judges that were "well qualified" AND got broad support in the Senate, making the nuclear option unnecessary.

Republican Senators, including Bill Frist himself, have attempted to use filibusters in the past to block judicial nominees:

In 1996 Clinton nominated Judge Richard Paez to the 9th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. Conservatives in Congress held up Paez's nomination for more than four years, culminating in an attempted filibuster on March 8, 2000. Bill Frist was among those who voted to filibuster.
In 1968, Republican Senators ran a four-day filibuster and successfully blocked Lyndon Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas as Chief Justice of the United States.
Not all Republicans support the nuclear option:

Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa) stated "I'm going to exercise every last ounce of my energy to solve this problem without the nuclear option. If we have a nuclear option, the Senate will be in turmoil, and the Judiciary Committee will be hell."
Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) said he is opposed to doing away with the filibuster. [10]  
Private Republican polling showed that only 37 percent of Senate Republicans support the nuclear option.
In all, 9 of 55 Republican Senators are considered possible 'Nay' votes. The undeclared are DeWine, Hagel, Collins, Warner, Sununu, and Smith. The confirmed Nays are Chafee, Snowe and McCain.
Private Republican polling showed that only 20% of Americans believed the Republican statement that Bush is the first president in history whose court appointees have been subjected to a filibuster. However, Republicans attempted to filibuster several judicial nominees under Clinton. Each time, the Senate voted to close debate and end the filibuster.  In fact, while Democrats have only blocked 10 of President Bush's nominees, Republicans blocked 40 of Clinton's, mainly by denying hearings for the nominees in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Mitch McConnell urged Republicans to oppose the "nuculer" option.


 Lyndon Johnson (D-TX) introduced the civil rights act.   Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) voted against it.  Ralph Yarbrough (D-TX) voted for it.  Strom Thurmond (R-SC) (by then republican voted) against it.  Estes Kefauver (D-TN) voted for it .  Howard Cannon (D-NV) voted for it.  MANY Republicans did vote for the civil rights act of 1964 (more reps. did then dems.), some democrats opposed it; but you see my point.  It is therfore imposable to accuretly say that only one party supported it and the other opposed it.   Is this enough?

[skybridge]

Of course. LBJ was a terrible President, and Goldwater would have been far better. Do you assume that everyone who disagrees with you on this matter is stupid? I suspect so, which would indicate limited reasoning skills on your part.

You're a sad, pathetic individual. Unable to make any rational arguments, you imply that supporters of Goldwater are insane, and you say things like "The conservatism here is truly disgusting!" You can say things like that, because you're so g enlightened, right? Opinion without knowledge is always a poor thing.

This was the first time I spoke my mind that way, y'know? If you had bothered to read any of my previous posts you might realize that labeling me a "pathetic individual" make your judgement no better than what you accuse me of!

[Rob]

Oh, I read your previous posts:

In your guts you all know you're nuts!

The conservatism on here is really becoming disgusting!

My judgement of you is supported by these ridiculous statements of yours.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Could you all calm down please?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

See this is another reason why I don't like Hillay: the mere mention of her name provokes some pretty nasty rows

[skybridge]

Oh, I read your previous posts:

In your guts you all know you're nuts!

The conservatism on here is really becoming disgusting!

My judgement of you is supported by these ridiculous statements of yours.

The first quote is a pun of a political slogan.

[elcorazon]

1. because she's a woman
2. because she's a Clinton

[MissCatholic]

1. because shes our version of bush.
2. because shes smarter than bush.
3. because she wants to be president like bush.

George bush and hillary clinton are the same people. they both want power. but the left hates bush. the right hates hillary. without hillary, dick morris would lose his job. without bush, maureen dowd would lose her job.

the difference is that democrats vote based on whether she is righe for the couintry. republicans vote for republicans whether they are good or bad.

just ask the following senators.
demint
bunning
stevens
mirkowski
bennett
talent
bond
chambliss
enzi
all very bad senators that stand for nothing and get elected just because they have republican by their name. while this continues our country will never be able to solve problems that really matter to the PEOPLE not co-operatinos

[dazzleman]

1. because she's a woman
2. because she's a Clinton

The poor sweet little victim.

[elcorazon]

I don't like her because she's an abrasive, amoral careerist who is happy to go the lowest commen denominator to get power.

and this distinguishes her from 99.9% of all politicians how?  If she were a man, you wouldn't even notice any of this.  The only word in there that might cause a stir is "amoral" and frankly, I'm not sure what your view of this is based on.  Not saying it isn't true, just unsure where it comes from.

[opebo]

...the following senators.
demint
bunning
stevens
mirkowski
bennett
talent
bond
chambliss
enzi
all very bad senators that stand for nothing and get elected just because they have republican by their name.

Actually all those do stand for something - a plutocrat-friendly theocracy.

[elcorazon]

I feel sorry for people who screech out FFS STFU YOU WOULDNT ATTACK HER IF SHE WAS A MAN ROFL LOLOL WTF ROFLMAO!!!!!!111111. That's so nineteenth-century, what with the pretty Victorian ladies in their oversized dresses and their impressive hypersensitivity to little attacks. You cannot attack a lady. You cannot even tell her that she's wearing the most awful garment, nor that her table manners have decayed somewhat...

We are talking about Hillary Clinton in this thread. We are talking about a woman - no, a lady - here. Therefore, the person of interest is a woman. Big freaking deal. Why the bloody rotten hell must certain people bring up 'Oh no, don't attack her, she's a woman' when they would probably turn right around and fervently attack someone else they dislike in another thread?

I think some anti-Hillary members already stated why they don't like her. It's NOT because she's a woman. It's because of her politics and personality.

Stop the mindless conspiracy theories. This isn't a conspiracy to victimize poor sweet women - I mean, ladies - from the Democrat party - or are we talking about Victorian ladies? We already explained why we don't like Hillary Clinton. If you want to blindly continue to throw her upon an ivory and gold pedestal whilst angrily saying FFS STFU YOU WOULDNT ATTACK HER IF SHE WAS A MAN ROFL LOLOL WTF ROFLMAO!!!!!!111111 (which means that you have apparently not read or digested the opposing views), that's great. I probably shouldn't care because, after all, you're probably going to misinterpret my post and therefore writing this was wasteful of my time.

If you're so bloody hooked on attacking MALE politicians out of fairness, start a thread for one of them! Don't sit around and weep about it on the information superhighway. Besides, while I haven't been active here for that long, I don't doubt that you have already made threads for a good number of bad male politicians. Why cry war when a female politician gets attacked? Why? Is that your idea of fairness?

*escapes*

it has nothing to do with the fact that she's a "lady" that I suggest you dislike her.  In fact, I have no problem with attacking "ladies" or women.  I just believe that her "personality" that you dislike is impacted by your view of what women are supposed to be.  When women are strong, they come off shrill.  When men are strong, they come off as strong.  It's just my opinion.  I know tons of democrats who can't stand Hillary, but who like other similar politicians with as many or more skeletons in their closets.

It's my view that this country is nowhere near ready to elect any woman to the Presidency, especially a democratic woman.  I actually think a black man or a Jewish man could win, but I don't think a woman could.  I don't think people even realize why they have these negative feelings toward these women; they just do.  I think voting for president for many people comes down to a gut feeling, which is often personality based.  People are looking for strong leaders, but they don't want shrill voices.  I think Bush Sr. was hurt by his nasally voice. He won in '88, based on Reagan's coattails, etc., but in '92 couldn't overcome the perception that he was a weenie, despite the truth being he was a war hero and anything but a weenie.  Similarly, Hillary comes off poorly to most people based on lots of factors that they may even be able to describe.  Nevertheless, it is my contention that underlying many of these factors is her gender... and her being Bill's wife, especially given Bill's sexual dalliances.   

[Wakie]

1) It is the popular "Republican" thing to do.
2) She made the "Republican conspiracy" statement and that really irked them.
3) As a young lawyer she helped to investigate Watergate and the GOP old guard are still p***ed.