Beefs with Hillary

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Since we have a thread about beefs with Bernie.

My biggest beef with Hillary is Iraq. Not as much as her 2002 vote. Every politician has some history of opportunism (certainly she was too intelligent to believe the administration's bulls**t), but the fact she didn't quite say sorry until years after.

Another thing is the botched healthcare reform. While I certainly admire her for advocating it when it wasn't so popular and while it was mostly the Congress' fault, she was still a manager of the project and that's not a good thing to have under her belt.

I'm also wary of her foreign policy record. While problems with Bernie's foreign policy were rightly pointed out by CrabCake in the other thread, I'd still go with him given the alternative.

That being said, she's infinitely better than any Republican candidate, so I guess if (or rather when) she's nominated, I'll be keeping my fingers crossed for her.

EDIT: I forgot about her continuing support for the death penalty, which is one of the reasons I'm still with Bernie.

[pho]

Hillary is running to be a continuation of Obama's presidency, but doesn't actually specify what she is hoping to continue. Defending Obamacare, fine.  Beyond that, is she promising to continue battling a GOP congress to a draw? There just doesn't seem to be much to "continue" and her unique ideas leave a lot to be desired.

[SillyAmerican]

Beefs with Hillary Clinton? Okay, here are a few to consider:

- Lots of evidence exist that the American electorate is more than a little disappointed with the way politicians have been running the country lately. Heck, I contend that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are proof positive of the unrest. Hillary Clinton represents what people are tired of, seeing as how she's a career politician with big name recognition, someone who feels entitled to her frontrunner status. She is the quintessential establishment politician.

- Clinton is strongly tied to the Obama administration, and more specifically to that administration's foreign policy. While I agreed with Clinton when she said "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don’t do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle" (in an article in the Atlantic written by Jeffrey Goldberg), I don't think she's done anything to show how she'd operate any differently than President Obama, and I think his foreign policy has been feckless at best.

- According to the Wall Street Journal, Wall Street has provided the largest source of campaign funds for the Clintons since 1992, with Goldman Sachs as the largest single contributor. "Clinton Inc. is going to be the most formidable fundraising operation for the Democrats in the history of the country. Period. Exclamation point." So said Rick Hohlt, a lobbyist and fundraiser for Republican Party presidential candidates. With massive speaking fees and the cozy relationship Mrs. Clinton has with Wall Street, one can't help but wonder who's calling the shots.

- Unlike her husband, Mrs. Clinton is not personable. She has no idea how to handle the press (heck, when she and Bill are out together, if someone in the press shouts a question, she ignores them, but Bill will stop to offer an answer; that sums things up). She's basically aloof, and people get the feeling she feels that she's above their petty concerns, and the feeling is not unjustified. And as a candidate, Hillary has tended to be deeply cautious, guarded and suspicious of everyone, both supporters and opponents. She is, in a word, prickly.

- A Wall Street Journal article by Kimberley A. Strassel lists the names of persons who have commuted between government jobs obtained under Clinton auspices and cushy interim jobs at the Clinton Foundation. The operations of the Clinton Foundation, both currently and when Clinton was Secretary of State, needs to be looked into.

- There's the little matter of the FBI investigation into her mail server, which I think is a much more serious matter than Mrs. Clinton is willing to admit.

[Famous Mortimer]

Lots but they all come about because of one fact.

Hillary is a coward who will only support a position once it has majority support.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I guess I'll keep this one short.

There's not a single time I can think of over her entire political career I can point to and say "There. Hillary took a position against conventional wisdom and stuck her neck out to do the right thing because she believed in it. Right on." Not one. She will always move with the political winds, and this has led her to taking numerous terrible positions over the years for the sake of political expediency. I could never trust her judgment like I could with Obama and Bernie. Hillary's first consideration will always be polls. That's not what I want from a leader.

Lots but they all come about because of one fact.

Hillary is a coward who will only support a position once it has majority support.

More succinctly put.

[MATTROSE94]

I never really agreed with either Bill or Hillary Clinton politically and felt that Bill Clinton was a very overrated President. I also feel that Hillary Clinton is very uncarismatic and strongly disagree with her foreign policy positions such as her support for a no fly zone in Syria (for which Russia would likely respond to negatively) and her strong support for sanctions (and possibly military action) against Iran. Both actions would serve to only further destabilize the Middle East and increase the chances for a major war to eventually occur. On the issue of foreign policy, Hillary Clinton is no different than Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz in my opinion.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

- Unlike her husband, Mrs. Clinton is not personable. She has no idea how to handle the press (heck, when she and Bill are out together, if someone in the press shouts a question, she ignores them, but Bill will stop to offer an answer; that sums things up). She's basically aloof, and people get the feeling she feels that she's above their petty concerns, and the feeling is not unjustified. And as a candidate, Hillary has tended to be deeply cautious, guarded and suspicious of everyone, both supporters and opponents. She is, in a word, prickly.

Yet some people wants to treat her like she's some sort of Bill's extension while, as you pointed out, she is not.

I never really agreed with either Bill or Hillary Clinton politically and felt that Bill Clinton was a very overrated President. I also feel that Hillary Clinton is very uncarismatic and strongly disagree with her foreign policy positions such as her support for a no fly zone in Syria (for which Russia would likely respond to negatively) and her strong support for sanctions (and possibly military action) against Iran. Both actions would serve to only further destabilize the Middle East and increase the chances for a major war to eventually occur. On the issue of foreign policy, Hillary Clinton is no different than Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz in my opinion.

I'd also add intervention in Libya with achieved... what exactly?

[Shadows]

Won't start -  Will seem like a rant. She is a horrible human being, politician & administrator.

While Bill did a long standing damage with his new democrat thing for the long term, I was a bit of a fan of him - I like charismatic people who can connect & Bill could & was a fabulous orator. Hillary is like a robot IMO. Bill had more charisma in 1 hand than Hillary has in her whole being.

[Asian Nazi]

She took Sanders way too seriously when she should have just ignored him.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I dislike how her campaign doesn't seem to have a discernable overall message other than "continue Obama's presidency".

She's got the microtargeting down; Bush in 2004 and Obama both times used it to turn out the base (and it worked very well), but both of them also had broader, overall themes that could unite everyone under the ticket. Voters could say, "I agree that Bush/Obama have a vision that I can support for the country, but this issue that they emphasized really speaks to me and makes me more enthusiastic about electing them".


I don't see that with Hillary, and she needs to change that ASAP.

[MATTROSE94]

- Unlike her husband, Mrs. Clinton is not personable. She has no idea how to handle the press (heck, when she and Bill are out together, if someone in the press shouts a question, she ignores them, but Bill will stop to offer an answer; that sums things up). She's basically aloof, and people get the feeling she feels that she's above their petty concerns, and the feeling is not unjustified. And as a candidate, Hillary has tended to be deeply cautious, guarded and suspicious of everyone, both supporters and opponents. She is, in a word, prickly.

Yet some people wants to treat her like she's some sort of Bill's extension while, as you pointed out, she is not.

I never really agreed with either Bill or Hillary Clinton politically and felt that Bill Clinton was a very overrated President. I also feel that Hillary Clinton is very uncarismatic and strongly disagree with her foreign policy positions such as her support for a no fly zone in Syria (for which Russia would likely respond to negatively) and her strong support for sanctions (and possibly military action) against Iran. Both actions would serve to only further destabilize the Middle East and increase the chances for a major war to eventually occur. On the issue of foreign policy, Hillary Clinton is no different than Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz in my opinion.

I'd also add intervention in Libya with achieved... what exactly?

The intervention in Libya did not achieve anything at all, as the country is more unstable today than ur ever was under Gaddafi's rule and it is on the brink of collapse. I also find it funny that many people on the site feel that Hillary Clinton is going to win the 2016 election with a 400 Electoral vote landslide. Clinton is actually a paper tiger and is behind in many of the major swing states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Colorado.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

- Unlike her husband, Mrs. Clinton is not personable. She has no idea how to handle the press (heck, when she and Bill are out together, if someone in the press shouts a question, she ignores them, but Bill will stop to offer an answer; that sums things up). She's basically aloof, and people get the feeling she feels that she's above their petty concerns, and the feeling is not unjustified. And as a candidate, Hillary has tended to be deeply cautious, guarded and suspicious of everyone, both supporters and opponents. She is, in a word, prickly.

Yet some people wants to treat her like she's some sort of Bill's extension while, as you pointed out, she is not.

I never really agreed with either Bill or Hillary Clinton politically and felt that Bill Clinton was a very overrated President. I also feel that Hillary Clinton is very uncarismatic and strongly disagree with her foreign policy positions such as her support for a no fly zone in Syria (for which Russia would likely respond to negatively) and her strong support for sanctions (and possibly military action) against Iran. Both actions would serve to only further destabilize the Middle East and increase the chances for a major war to eventually occur. On the issue of foreign policy, Hillary Clinton is no different than Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz in my opinion.

I'd also add intervention in Libya with achieved... what exactly?

The intervention in Libya did not achieve anything at all, as the country is more unstable today than ur ever was under Gaddafi's rule and it is on the brink of collapse. I also find it funny that many people on the site feel that Hillary Clinton is going to win the 2016 election with a 400 Electoral vote landslide. Clinton is actually a paper tiger and is behind in many of the major swing states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Colorado.

It's funny how people are constantly talking about possible landslides, while in all recent elections only Clinton and Obama got a substantial electoral lead, while none of the candidates since 1984 had a double-digits popular vote lead.

But, hey, this is the forum where people overhype third party runs each cycle as well.

[Crumpets]

1. "What, like with a cloth?"

2. "Under sniper fire in Bosnia" repeatedly.

3. The fact that she can't seem to answer a question about shady goings-on by just denying them flat out. She always goes for "there is no evidence," basically implying that she did whatever they're alleging.

4. She needs to come clean about the money she's raised from big donors. I have no problem with someone milking them for every cent as long as it doesn't impact their policies. I know if I was being offered hundreds of thousands of dollars for pretty much anything, I'd take it. It would be a lot better if she just said "Goldman offered me a load of dough to give a speech with no other strings attached. Of course I took it."

5. She was a pretty good SoS, but it was definitely a learning on the job experience. A lot of the decisions she made early on I'm pretty sure she regrets, particularly with respect to the US-Russia relationship, but it's too soon for her to disown those decisions or say "I had no idea what I was doing" without looking weak, so she won't.

But to those who say that she never went against public opinion to push for a policy that she saw as the right thing to do, I'd point to her feminism when her husband was running for President, and the early years of his presidency. Millennials seem to forget just how unpopular feminism and people who called themselves feminists were among men and non-liberal women until very recently. She had pretty much every moderate and every conservative trashing her for daring challenge centuries of established practice, not to mention her speech in China. The reason "women's rights are human rights" became a well known line is that that was something that the vast majority of humanity, including most of the developed world, did not believe at the time, even if it sounds pretty reasonable now. 

That's not to mention the healthcare laws she proposed, pushing for increasing our non-combat presence in Iraq as SoS (tell me that was widely supported), and adoption reforms aimed at shifting the focus away from biological parents.

Sorry for going all dudeabides at the end there.

[Lyin' Steve]

1)  Hillary has handled the press and the people at her events poorly and at times contemptuously.  "What, like, with a cloth?"  "Nobody is asking me about this except you guys!"  "Well, no one's ever asked me that before, honey"  even in her victory speeches, she usually speaks in a drawl that sounds rehearsed and sarcastic.  Hillary is simply a poor communicator and ineffective spokesman for herself, and none of this will change when she is POTUS.

2)  If you ask what she accomplished as Secretary of State, for eight months all you would get was "She flew more miles than any other SoS in history" "She pioneered social media" and "she was an advocate for women" (how??) finally last month she let loose and spent ten minutes detailing a litany of real tough decisions and situations she handled effectively as Secretary.  Why didn't she just start with that?

3)  She's played identity politics absolutely shamelessly, and it's ranged from weird and pathetic ("12 ways Hillary is like your abuelita", "I can't think of anything that makes one more of an outsider than to be a woman in politics") to misguided and dangerous (promoting BLM as a centerpiece of her campaign, uncritically pushing 21st-century intersectional feminism, giving credibility to myths about race/sex/LGBT issues).  She's not helping anyone by going up on stage and saying "Trayvon Martin was murdered for the crime of being black" or "It's still ok for businesses to pay black women half of what they pay white men" etc.

4)  As Game Change 2008 revealed, her previous campaign was a complete mess and she was emotionally unstable at many points.  It seems like she's running a much tighter ship this time, but I worry that she will not be able to manage the bureaucracy and interpersonal intrigue of the executive branch well.

5)  She has a dozen different plans that will cost significant amounts of money, and for each one her answer on how to pay for it is to "make the rich start paying their fair share of taxes."  But you can only do that once, how is she going to pay for the other 11 things?  Fortunately she only ever has to address them one at a time or in aggregate, never in succession.

6)  She weasels around and refuses to give straight answers far too often, and a lot of the time it's with this smug smirk and tone of voice that just communicates guilt.  Even when it's unnecessary and she has nothing to hide!  Why, Hillary, why?

[°Leprechaun]

Iraq.

[Tender Branson]

It's over. Bernie is toast.

So, all HAIL HILLARY !

[HillOfANight]

Thanks, moderator.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

How is this creep still a moderator?

[Ebsy]

How is this creep still a moderator?

No one knows.

[Comrade Funk]

The status quo and continuing the contradiction of supporting Saudi Arabia and giving that horrible country a pass for everything in their dumb little cold war with Iran. I hope Iran wins and defeats ISIS/Al Nusra/Al Qaeda and embarrasses the Saudis.

[Asian Nazi]

The status quo and continuing the contradiction of supporting Saudi Arabia and giving that horrible country a pass for everything in their dumb little cold war with Iran. I hope Iran wins and defeats ISIS/Al Nusra/Al Qaeda and embarrasses the Saudis.

Freedom Post!

[Mr. Smith]

She's an non-explicitly corrupt Nixon.

Same willingness to shed any position for more expedient ones in the name of one pet project (for Nixon, it was foreign policy, for her it's clearly global scale human rights)

Same manner of treating the press as an enemy rather a mere obstacle or as a tool.