NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently got into a debate on another forum about ther 2008 race, and I've never seen such a more hated person.

Frankly, I'm not even sure Bush is more disliked by the people who dislike him.

I know Hilliary is suppose to be polarizing, but why? What's the cause for such anger towards this Woman?

I suggested in my original post, in an off hand manner, that perhaps it rubs Republicans (whom seem to be the main 'Clinton haters') the wrong way because she forgave Bill for his transactions against her, like the Bible says you should (which would make her a better Christian then many of these hate mongering idiots like Jack Chick, or Andrew Schlafly), but somehow I don't think that's the whole story.

So, why do you hate/dislike this woman? (if you don't hate her or dislike her, what are some reasons that other may?)

Dislike. 'Hate' is such a strong and overused word. But that's another thread...

I dislike Hillary Clinton because she is highly intelligent, completely unscrupulous and blindly ambitious. SHe'll do anything for power, and she knows exactly how to manipulate the system. If you thought Bill Clinton was slippery, you ain't seen nothin' yet. She probably taught him all he knows. :p

I no more hate Hilary than any of the rest of the presidential candidates.
Wich is to say, I think theyre all douchebags, who are all poor choices for the job.

I like the way you think backwoods. Maybe you should run for office

Dislike. 'Hate' is such a strong and overused word. But that's another thread...

I dislike Hillary Clinton because she is highly intelligent, completely unscrupulous and blindly ambitious. SHe'll do anything for power, and she knows exactly how to manipulate the system. If you thought Bill Clinton was slippery, you ain't seen nothin' yet. She probably taught him all he knows. :p

To be fair, that description would fit any politician worth his salt.
The usual way to the top ranks of any party is by being ruthless and manipulative (unless daddy pushes you, of course), so I'd be willing to bet that none of the other candidates are any less slippery..

I like the way you think backwoods. Maybe you should run for office

Heh, Ive actually thought about it.
Sadly, if I did run for a senatorial/congressional election, I too, would likely become the same sort of douchebag Im railing against.
Now a local election..thats different.

To be fair, that description would fit any politician worth his salt.
The usual way to the top ranks of any party is by being ruthless and manipulative (unless daddy pushes you, of course), so I'd be willing to bet that none of the other candidates are any less slippery..

True, but most are only one or two out of the three(highly intelligent, completely unscrupulous and blindly ambitious). She is all three! :eek:

True, but most are only one or two out of the three(highly intelligent, completely unscrupulous and blindly ambitious). She is all three! :eek:

Well, I for one would tend to trust someone who's highly intelligent and unscrupulous and ambitious a lot more than someone who's dumb as a post and amibitious and unscrupulous...

But that's just me, really ;)

Well, I for one would tend to trust someone who's highly intelligent and unscrupulous and ambitious a lot more than someone who's dumb as a post and amibitious and unscrupulous...

But that's just me, really ;)

the 2000 and 2004 elections prove that a disheartening portion of the country disagrees with you.

But Ralph Nader proves that it depends which two. *nod*

She's a woman in power. That's enough for a lot of people. Her being unapologetic and not very "ladylike" about it are compounding factors.

The right has to villianize her because otherwise the right leaning voters who are slightly closer to the center might actually realize that she matches up closely, so they have to bang the drum loud and often and as extreme as possible, painting her with the laughable label "Communist."

Some of the people on the left don't like her because she isn't really left enough, and kind of a shill. Things like video game censorship or her too-hawkish stance on the war, just don't sit right.

I think the 'opportunistic' thing is largely unfair. It's one of the most often said but least often supported things. I don't really want to trot out the sex thing, but all things considered...the only thing that seems to ring out of it is her 'carpet bagger' status in New York (can you be a carpet bagger in the 'north'?) Otherwise she seems like any other politician to me. I don't like her issue stance, really.

But mostly we need a diplomat in office to undo all the damage that's been done over the last few years. Sadly, the guy with the most diplomatic experience isn't even an also ran right now.

She's a woman in power. That's enough for a lot of people. Her being unapologetic and not very "ladylike" about it are compounding factors.

Well, if she is elected, we all have to turn in our penises...apparently...

Well, if she is elected, we all have to turn in our penises...apparently...

She won't get elected. It's barely a "******" could get elected (oh, those racist slams from the right will be a hoot to look forward to if he ends up being the final prospect), let alone a woman (well, the misogynist slams have already been a hoot, so not much to look forward to there) .

Well, I for one would tend to trust someone who's highly intelligent and unscrupulous and ambitious a lot more than someone who's dumb as a post and amibitious and unscrupulous...

But that's just me, really ;)

So, you'd trust, say, Emperor Palpatine over, say, Edmund Blackadder (in series 1)? :p

IMO stupidity is bad but often relatively harmless - it's them smart ones you have to watch.

So, you'd trust, say, Emperor Palpatine over, say, Edmund Blackadder (in series 1)?

IMO stupidity is bad but often relatively harmless - it's them smart ones you have to watch.

I think there wouldn't really be THAT much difference between them, do you? ;)
When it comes to politics, I prefer competence over honesty, mostly cause I know that I won't ever get honesty anyway, let alone competence AND honesty.

Dislike. 'Hate' is such a strong and overused word. But that's another thread...

I dislike Hillary Clinton because she is highly intelligent, completely unscrupulous and blindly ambitious. SHe'll do anything for power, and she knows exactly how to manipulate the system. If you thought Bill Clinton was slippery, you ain't seen nothin' yet. She probably taught him all he knows. :p

And how would you feel if this was a man :)

I hate her for several reasons, but one of my gripes is that we've already HAD the Clintons in office for 8 years! That sets her apart from those other lying, conniving, hypocritical politicians.

I hate her for several reasons, but one of my gripes is that we've already HAD the Clintons in office for 8 years! That sets her apart from those other lying, conniving, hypocritical politicians.

You've also had a Bush for 16 years...

And how would you feel if this was a man :)

I didn't vote for Bill. Twice. :)

I'm not even American, and my overall impression of her is as a power-hungry bitch. Perhaps she gets unfair press coverage over here, the last few times I've seen her in the news (BBC) it has been about here slandering Obama with very childish statements.

But that does not deserve my hate. Very few things do.

She's a blatantly manipulative war-mongering tyrant for starters.

You've also had a Bush for 16 years...

Well if you combine the two families we have had them for 28 years. Bush Sr was VP under Reagan. Time to move on. I would vote for Obama in a heart beat over Hillary if it came down to the two.

I dislike Clinton because she's a moderate who gets portrayed as a liberal, and she plays up that angle. But I certainly don't hate the woman. She's yet to do anything to deserve hatred from me.

She's a blatantly manipulative war-mongering tyrant for starters.

Enough with the nice words and get to the point already. ;)

Dislike. 'Hate' is such a strong and overused word. But that's another thread...

I dislike Hillary Clinton because she is highly intelligent, completely unscrupulous and blindly ambitious. SHe'll do anything for power, and she knows exactly how to manipulate the system. If you thought Bill Clinton was slippery, you ain't seen nothin' yet. She probably taught him all he knows. :p

I must agree toatally with you. She's a bitch to be harsh :p

I don't hate Hillary Clinton; actually, I don't really care much about her. She's just another politician, probably attempting to pass off her views as liberal or left-wing in order to gain the Democratic vote, probably unlikely to follow any of them up while in office. Yawn.


I dislike Hillary Clinton because she is highly intelligent, completely unscrupulous and blindly ambitious.

To be fair, so is George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney, and practically everyone who was ever in Dubya's cabinet, and Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon, and ..... oh, name any other world leader of the past six millennia and at least half of them are intelligent, unscrupulous and ambitious. It's kind of a requirement for going into politics; if you're stupid, you won't be elected, and if you're moral, your policies will go nowhere. (If you're unambitious, why bother going into politics anyway?)

She's a woman in power. That's enough for a lot of people. Her being unapologetic and not very "ladylike" about it are compounding factors.

Sorry, incredibly old arguments aren't useful anymore.

I recently got into a debate on another forum about ther 2008 race, and I've never seen such a more hated person.

Frankly, I'm not even sure Bush is more disliked by the people who dislike him.

I know Hilliary is suppose to be polarizing, but why? What's the cause for such anger towards this Woman?

I suggested in my original post, in an off hand manner, that perhaps it rubs Republicans (whom seem to be the main 'Clinton haters') the wrong way because she forgave Bill for his transactions against her, like the Bible says you should (which would make her a better Christian then many of these hate mongering idiots like Jack Chick, or Andrew Schlafly), but somehow I don't think that's the whole story.

So, why do you hate/dislike this woman? (if you don't hate her or dislike her, what are some reasons that other may?)

She if more pro-war than Bush. She fought Bush to have more money put into the military. Anyway, I do not hate her.

Don't some people think she's a communist? I'm pretty sure it's not true, but the commies are far from popular in the US.

She's definitely a slightly different brand of scary than the other candidates, she is also though a brand of scary that doesn't sit well with me due to her authoritarianism.

She won't get elected. It's barely a "******" could get elected (oh, those racist slams from the right will be a hoot to look forward to if he ends up being the final prospect), let alone a woman (well, the misogynist slams have already been a hoot, so not much to look forward to there) .

if she gets the nomination she will be elected. it will be a horrible bitter campaign because the republicans hate her (bitch doesnt know her place) even more than they do her husband.

but if OBAMA gets the nomination....

oh i do look forward to how they will put him down for his race without ever using the N word. they cant play the race card but it is their best card against him. it probably doesnt have to BE played because its always right there.

anyway

people hate hillary clinton because of her husband and knowing that she would do most of the same things he did (politically, she wont get getting blowjobs in the oval office). if they hate bill, they hate hillary

the other reason is as stated--its hard to see an ambitious successful woman compete for the highest office in the land in exactly the same way the men do. they never hate the men for being blindly ambitious but in a woman, its unforgivable.

if she gets the nomination she will be elected. it will be a horrible bitter campaign because the republicans hate her (bitch doesnt know her place) even more than they do her husband.

but if OBAMA gets the nomination....

oh i do look forward to how they will put him down for his race without ever using the N word. they cant play the race card but it is their best card against him. it probably doesnt have to BE played because its always right there.


Please. I am no fan of the Republicans but I have to object to this. That a liberal (of all people!) should stereotype that large of a portion of the population merely because they do not agree with the liberal in question makes me sick. You are a disgrace to liberalism!

That would be like a conservative saying the liberals hate Bush just because he is a white male. Obtuse.

Please. I am no fan of the Republicans but I have to object to this. That a liberal (of all people!) should stereotype that large of a portion of the population merely because they do not agree with the liberal in question makes me sick. You are a disgrace to liberalism!

That would be like a conservative saying the liberals hate Bush just because he is a white male. Obtuse.

what specifically are you objecting to?

Please. I am no fan of the Republicans but I have to object to this. That a liberal (of all people!) should stereotype that large of a portion of the population merely because they do not agree with the liberal in question makes me sick. You are a disgrace to liberalism!

It's not an ignorant or uninformed stereotype. It's a reflection of what the conservatives are already doing. I honestly think it's a reasonable prediction of what would happen if Obama got nominated.

(One man's take: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/05/obama/index.html)

Sorry, but the GOP has used racism and race-baiting for campaigns a whole lot in the past, and I don't think it's ignorant or wrong to note that and make predictions based on it. Hell, Lee Atwater admitted to and apologized for that kind of crap before he died, and he wasn't even personally a racist (as far as I can tell). He just knew what all good GOPers know: the Southern Strategy worked, and it's still working somewhat today.



That would be like a conservative saying the liberals hate Bush just because he is a white male. Obtuse.
I don't think most of the conservatives who engage in this dog-whistle racism stuff are actually racist. I think they use it because it works. Kind of like how most of them aren't actually Christian dominionists, but they pander to constitutants who are.

It's not an ignorant or uninformed stereotype. It's a reflection of what the conservatives are already doing. I honestly think it's a reasonable prediction of what would happen if Obama got nominated.

(One man's take: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/05/obama/index.html)

Sorry, but the GOP has used racism and race-baiting for campaigns a whole lot in the past, and I don't think it's ignorant or wrong to note that and make predictions based on it. Hell, Lee Atwater admitted to and apologized for that kind of crap before he died, and he wasn't even personally a racist (as far as I can tell). He just knew what all good GOPers know: the Southern Strategy worked, and it's still working somewhat today.

I could bring-up the fact the KKK is a Democrat group. Anyway, I will still look into it. But picking-out individual Republicans does not count any more than the KKK remark above.

I don't think most of the conservatives who engage in this dog-whistle racism stuff are actually racist. I think they use it because it works. Kind of like how most of them aren't actually Christian dominionists, but they pander to constitutants who are.

Perhaps.

what specifically are you objecting to?

it will be a horrible bitter campaign because the republicans hate her (bitch doesnt know her place).

That.

"oh i do look forward to how they will put him down for his race without ever using the N word."

And that. Who do you define as "they"?

That.

you are living in a dream world if you think that the nomination of hillary clinton wouldnt lead to the most bitter ugly campaign in living memory.



And that. Who do you define as "they"?

perhaps the same people who went after mccain in '00 because he "has a black child"

you are living in a dream world if you think that the nomination of hillary clinton wouldnt lead to the most bitter ugly campaign in living memory.


I do not. The bitterest American campaign ever (not quite within living memory) was against the last woman who ran for President of the United States. "Free love" in the Victorian Period, what did you expect?

perhaps the same people who went after mccain in '00 because he "has a black child"

Refresh my memory.

I do not. The bitterest American campaign ever (not quite within living memory) was against the last woman who ran for President of the United States. "Free love" in the Victorian Period, what did you expect?



Refresh my memory.



It didn't take much research to turn up a seemingly innocuous fact about the McCains: John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her. Bridget has dark skin.

Anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the "pollster" determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.

Thus, the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign.


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/

That is terrible. Really, even if the kid were illegitimate (which I seriously doubt) how would that affect whether or not McCain could run the country well?

Aside from that I must say it is somewhat unfair to use anonymous calls to represent an entire party.

That is terrible. Really, even if the kid were illegitimate (which I seriously doubt) how would that affect whether or not McCain could run the country well?

Aside from that I must say it is somewhat unfair to use anonymous calls to represent an entire party.

it was not my intention to smear the whole republican party. only those who hate hillary clinton and those who would do anything to win.

So, you'd trust, say, Emperor Palpatine over, say, Edmund Blackadder (in series 1)? :p

Oh come on. Emperor Palpatine wasn't THAT bad. D:

Because she is a woman and somehow managed to find her way out of the kitchen perhaps?

I do not like Clinton, but neither do I hate her.

I simply do not like self-centered, mean-spirited bullies.

I recently got into a debate on another forum about ther 2008 race, and I've never seen such a more hated person.

Frankly, I'm not even sure Bush is more disliked by the people who dislike him.

I know Hilliary is suppose to be polarizing, but why? What's the cause for such anger towards this Woman?

I suggested in my original post, in an off hand manner, that perhaps it rubs Republicans (whom seem to be the main 'Clinton haters') the wrong way because she forgave Bill for his transactions against her, like the Bible says you should (which would make her a better Christian then many of these hate mongering idiots like Jack Chick, or Andrew Schlafly), but somehow I don't think that's the whole story.

So, why do you hate/dislike this woman? (if you don't hate her or dislike her, what are some reasons that other may?)

Mrs. Clinton is seen as the kind of person who would hire a focus group to decide what dress makes her look the most like a real human being before wearing an outfit on camera. She is seen as a plotting, scheming, faker.

She is legedary for her nasty and high strung "Type A" personality. Lyndon Johnson might have been a pretty tough and demanding guy but at least he was real. Ms. Clinton is nasty in private but always smiling in public. She is clueless about the fact that you really cannot live a double life in politics.

She really screwed herself when she was the first lady in terms of how she treated the military men. She was really nasty to them (and they are by no means the only people she was nasty to). You really cannot do that and expect people to like you let alone elect you to be commander in chief.

I really do not think that her marriage with Bill is much of a factor beyond the fact that if you do not like Bill you probably do not like her. However, I think it is safe to say that the reverse is not true -that if you like Bill you would like Hillary. Christians understand forgiveness and would not hold that against her. A wife forgiving a husband is not really a big deal. Saying something along the lines that military servicemen in uniform give the White House a fascist look and something should be done about it, is mainly what is behind all of this. Plus, she seems to be all about the negative campaigning although she tries to be sneaky about it which is even worse. Most of this was done against Obama.

Generally Bush is disliked by people who oppose his views. I do not think that people dislike Bush because of his personality.

Yanno... I'm not a Republican but some of this nonsense needs to be called out... (And I'm glad I won't be the first to do it.)

She's a woman in power. That's enough for a lot of people. Her being unapologetic and not very "ladylike" about it are compounding factors.


Sorry, but the GOP has used racism and race-baiting for campaigns a whole lot in the past, and I don't think it's ignorant or wrong to note that and make predictions based on it. Hell, Lee Atwater admitted to and apologized for that kind of crap before he died, and he wasn't even personally a racist (as far as I can tell). He just knew what all good GOPers know: the Southern Strategy worked, and it's still working somewhat today.

I don't think most of the conservatives who engage in this dog-whistle racism stuff are actually racist. I think they use it because it works. Kind of like how most of them aren't actually Christian dominionists, but they pander to constitutants who are.

if she gets the nomination she will be elected. it will be a horrible bitter campaign because the republicans hate her (bitch doesnt know her place) even more than they do her husband.

...

the other reason is as stated--its hard to see an ambitious successful woman compete for the highest office in the land in exactly the same way the men do. they never hate the men for being blindly ambitious but in a woman, its unforgivable.


Because she is a woman and somehow managed to find her way out of the kitchen perhaps?

She won't get elected. It's barely a "******" could get elected (oh, those racist slams from the right will be a hoot to look forward to if he ends up being the final prospect), let alone a woman (well, the misogynist slams have already been a hoot, so not much to look forward to there) .

Do you guys even listen to yourselves? Or is the groupthink too loud to be able to think? Republicans are racists and sexists, huh? Quick Quiz:

1st Black Secretary of State was appointed by which party?
2nd Black Secretary of State (who also is female) was appointed by which party?

Over here in MD, in our election for Governor, we had a Lt.Governor (Michael Steele) who was black and Republican. Know why the Dem candidate lost? Because her people would pass out Oreos at their rallys, as an insult to Mr. Steele. The cookies were meantt to symbolize they way they saw him: black on the outside, white on the inside.

Oh there's racism out there alright, but to act like it's all on one side of the aisle is intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant, which I find distasteful.

None of this is surprising. Some people love to slap those labels down. Don't like Hillary? You must be sexist. That's the dumbest rationale I've ever heard.


...
I think the 'opportunistic' thing is largely unfair. It's one of the most often said but least often supported things. I don't really want to trot out the sex thing, but all things considered...the only thing that seems to ring out of it is her 'carpet bagger' status in New York (can you be a carpet bagger in the 'north'?) Otherwise she seems like any other politician to me. I don't like her issue stance, really.
...

This is one of my big reasons for finding her distasteful. She picked New York because of the status and visibility. We all knew back then what her game was... To use New York as a stepping stone to the Presidency.

Don't some people think she's a communist? I'm pretty sure it's not true, but the commies are far from popular in the US.

Socialist.

I dislike Hillary because I find her campaign hugely disingenuous, and transparently so.

She protrays herself as having more experience than Obama, despite having been in the Senate for less time than him, and having had no official role in Bill's White House (and everything she tried to do, like her universal health care plan, failed badly).

And yet it seems to be working. She appears to be widely viewed as the establishment candidate (of the two).

So, why do you hate/dislike this woman? (if you don't hate her or dislike her, what are some reasons that other may?)
I don't hate or dislike her and I won't speculate why others may hate or dislike her.

I dislike Hillary because I find her campaign hugely disingenuous, and transparently so.

She protrays herself as having more experience than Obama, despite having been in the Senate for less time than him, and having had no official role in Bill's White House (and everything she tried to do, like her universal health care plan, failed badly).

And yet it seems to be working. She appears to be widely viewed as the establishment candidate (of the two).

QFT

Yanno... I'm not a Republican

Then what are you getting upset about?






Do you guys even listen to yourselves? Or is the groupthink too loud to be able to think? Republicans are racists and sexists, huh? Quick Quiz:

1st Black Secretary of State was appointed by which party?

I'm afraid you have fallen for the 'negro receptionist' routine. Racist organizations like to hide their racisim by hiring black people. You can bet that woman doesnt have any real power. Its sick I know.
2nd Black Secretary of State (who also is female) was appointed by which party?

See above.

Over here in MD, in our election for Governor, we had a Lt.Governor (Michael Steele) who was black and Republican. Know why the Dem candidate lost? Because her people would pass out Oreos at their rallys, as an insult to Mr. Steele. The cookies were meant to symbolize they way they saw him: black on the outside, white on the inside.

Paranoia much?

Oh there's racism out there alright, but to act like it's all on one side of the aisle is intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant, which I find distasteful.

Petty name calling. Nice.

None of this is surprising. Some people love to slap those labels down. Don't like Hillary? You must be sexist. That's the dumbest rationale I've ever heard.

That is the main reason Republicans dont like here. non-Republicans have more educated and informed reasons to dislike Hillary.

Then what are you getting upset about?


Do I have to be a Republican to be outraged when I see nonsense, or intellectual dishonesty when talking about them?

Or do you see everything in terms of 'us vs. them?'


I'm afraid you have fallen for the 'negro receptionist' routine. Racist organizations like to hide their racisim by hiring black people. You can bet that woman doesnt have any real power. Its sick I know.


So, you're so desperate to shoehorn this into that argument that you're comparing the Secretary of State of the United States to a receptionist, and this, in your mind, suffices as a rational argument.



Over here in MD, in our election for Governor, we had a Lt.Governor (Michael Steele) who was black and Republican. Know why the Dem candidate lost? Because her people would pass out Oreos at their rallys, as an insult to Mr. Steele. The cookies were meant to symbolize they way they saw him: black on the outside, white on the inside.

Paranoia much?


You think I made that up?



Oh there's racism out there alright, but to act like it's all on one side of the aisle is intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant, which I find distasteful.

Petty name calling. Nice.


Petty name calling? Are you on drugs? Who did I call a name?

Reading Is Fundamental. I said the practice of pretending only the 'other side' is racist is intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant.


That is the main reason Republicans dont like here. non-Republicans have more educated and informed reasons to dislike Hillary.

So... according to your own words, any person who doesn't like Hillary and is a Republican must therefore be a sexist?

Don't like Hillary? You must be sexist. That's the dumbest rationale I've ever heard.

Indeed.

This is one of my big reasons for finding her distasteful. She picked New York because of the status and visibility. We all knew back then what her game was... To use New York as a stepping stone to the Presidency.

I always wondered why NY fell for that. The only good of it was that it was nice to get some reverse carpetbagger revenge.

Don't some people think she's a communist? I'm pretty sure it's not true, but the commies are far from popular in the US.

Socialist.

Nope. There are idiots who think she's a commie.

THE HILLARY CLINTON - COMMIE CONNECTION EXPOSED (http://www.themidnightsun.org/?p=933)
HILLARY INTRODUCES "COMMIE CARE" (http://firstinengine.blogspot.com/2007/09/hillary-introduces-commie-care.html)

I dislike Hillary because I find her campaign hugely disingenuous, and transparently so.

She protrays herself as having more experience than Obama, despite having been in the Senate for less time than him, and having had no official role in Bill's White House (and everything she tried to do, like her universal health care plan, failed badly).

And yet it seems to be working. She appears to be widely viewed as the establishment candidate (of the two).

A small nit-pick - Obama's been a Senator longer, rather than in the Senate, as "in the Senate may be confusing. Obama was an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2003 and a US Senator from 2004 til the present. Hillary has only been a US Senator since 2000. But yes, 10 years trumps eight years.

Indeed.
Nope. There are idiots who think she's a commie.

THE HILLARY CLINTON - COMMIE CONNECTION EXPOSED (http://www.themidnightsun.org/?p=933)
HILLARY INTRODUCES "COMMIE CARE" (http://firstinengine.blogspot.com/2007/09/hillary-introduces-commie-care.html)


I hadn't heard of that one. I've always heard about her Socialist philosophies.

not everyone who hates hillary is a republican.

there are many reasons to dislike mrs clinton. there are few rational reasons to hate her.

not everyone who hates hillary is a republican.

there are many reasons to dislike mrs clinton. there are few rational reasons to hate her.

I think very few people (including Republicans) actually HATE her. I think that was just a bit of phrasing on the part of the OP.

I don't 'hate' Hillary because I don't think I hate anybody... Including my former boss. (lying bastard that he was)

But dislike? Ohhhh yeah.

I dislike Clinton as a candidate for a number of reasons.

- She's too authoritarian and too nanny-state.
- She changes her focus too much depending on who she's talking to, suggesting that none of it actually means anything more than the quest for power.
- She's too entrenched in the various industries with a choke-hold on government. In other words, she's too much a part of a corrupted system to improve upon it.
- She point-blank stated that national security overrides human rights concerns, and even seemed proud of it.
- The negative campaigning and attempts to claim her husband's accomplishments as her own (while claiming that his failings were all him).
- The dynasty effect. As of right now, there has been a Bush or a Clinton in the Pres or VP slot for my entire lifetime. I think it's high time for someone new.

So, you're so desperate to shoehorn this into that argument that you're comparing the Secretary of State of the United States to a receptionist, and this, in your mind, suffices as a rational argument.

The unfortunate thing is that, in Bush's administration, it's not that bad a comparison. She's expected to parrot the lines of the administration and attempt to clean up after his messes - just like Colin Powell was expected to do.

Generally Bush is disliked by people who oppose his views. I do not think that people dislike Bush because of his personality.

It's certainly a part of it. Holier-than-thou attitudes and a "you're either with me or against me" stance don't go very far in making a person likeable.

I hadn't heard of that one. I've always heard about her Socialist philosophies.

There's lots more out there.

not everyone who hates hillary is a republican.

there are many reasons to dislike mrs clinton. there are few rational reasons to hate her.

Indeed, indeed, and indeed.

That is the main reason Republicans dont like here. non-Republicans have more educated and informed reasons to dislike Hillary.

I am afraid that I am disappointed in this. You are stooping to the level you despise.

"The first and second black Secretaries of State were Republican appointed."

"They hire black people to hide their racism."

:confused: Stupid? :confused:

The unfortunate thing is that, in Bush's administration, it's not that bad a comparison. She's expected to parrot the lines of the administration and attempt to clean up after his messes - just like Colin Powell was expected to do.

Oh? How long have you worked at the White House?

Oh? How long have you worked at the White House?

I don't have to work at the white house to see the way the administration runs things.

I always wondered why NY fell for that.
People are dumb. It's democracy's dirty little secret.
A small nit-pick - Obama's been a Senator longer, rather than in the Senate, as "in the Senate may be confusing. Obama was an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2003 and a US Senator from 2004 til the present. Hillary has only been a US Senator since 2000.
Thanks for the clarification; I didn't know that.

I dislike politicians in general. Whether left wing or right wing, northern or southern.....they all are the same and accuse each other of the same thing they do themselves.

I dislike Clinton as a candidate for a number of reasons.

- She's too authoritarian and too nanny-state.

QFT.

- She changes her focus too much depending on who she's talking to, suggesting that none of it actually means anything more than the quest for power.

Sounds exactly like her husband.

- She point-blank stated that national security overrides human rights concerns, and even seemed proud of it.

Scary. Another reason to pray she does not get elected. In the event that she DOES, I hope she doesn't use "national security" as an excuse to unconstitutionally persecute religious people in violation of the 1st Amendment.

- The dynasty effect. As of right now, there has been a Bush or a Clinton in the Pres or VP slot for my entire lifetime. I think it's high time for someone new.

QFT.

So, you'd trust, say, Emperor Palpatine over, say, Edmund Blackadder (in series 1)? :p

IMO stupidity is bad but often relatively harmless - it's them smart ones you have to watch.
But at least you can come to understand their motives.

The 'hate' for Clinton is wildly overblown and is in fact just a tiny minority of far-right loons making lots of noise from the fringe, nothing to worry about.

The dynasty effect. As of right now, there has been a Bush or a Clinton in the Pres or VP slot for my entire lifetime. I think it's high time for someone new.
You just made me feel old.

There was no sitting Vice President when I was born.

And how would you feel if this was a man :)

Don't soil LG with your filthy questions!

Dude you say youve never seen anyone hated so much as Hillary. Are you drunk? For 7 years bleeding heart liberals have done everything in their power to destroy GW Bush. Get a clue and stop LIBERALS NOW not just
Hillary! and her cheating hubby!

Dude you say youve never seen anyone hated so much as Hillary. Are you drunk? For 7 years bleeding heart liberals have done everything in their power to destroy GW Bush. Get a clue and stop LIBERALS NOW not just
Hillary! and her cheating hubby!

Lol, nice first post, you will end well.

Lol, nice first post, you will end well.

Haha. :p Yeah, he sounds almost as bad as we do, talking about Republicans.

Dude you say youve never seen anyone hated so much as Hillary. Are you drunk? For 7 years bleeding heart liberals have done everything in their power to destroy GW Bush. Get a clue and stop LIBERALS NOW not just
Hillary! and her cheating hubby!

pointing out shrub's screw ups is not liberals doing "everything in their power to destroy GW Bush"

the AWOLer made it quite easy.

She's a blatantly manipulative war-mongering tyrant for starters.

^ What s/he (sorry, Khadgar, I don't know your gender :() said. ^

Dude you say youve never seen anyone hated so much as Hillary. Are you drunk? For 7 years bleeding heart liberals have done everything in their power to destroy GW Bush. Get a clue and stop LIBERALS NOW not just
Hillary! and her cheating hubby!

Whose troll puppet are you?

Or maybe you're just ignorant or applying an enormous dose of sarcasm.

Dude you say youve never seen anyone hated so much as Hillary. Are you drunk? For 7 years bleeding heart liberals have done everything in their power to destroy GW Bush. Get a clue and stop LIBERALS NOW not just
Hillary! and her cheating hubby!

Yes, but Bush isn't liked for 'reasons',

but when it comes to Hillary, it seems like she's just walking down the street and then some random person comes up to her and starts calling her names and throwing cats at her or something. IE, with out provocation.

These thread's given me a lot of food for thought, but, at the same time, I still feel that much of the demonization of her by the right wing is still rather unjust.

At least the 'bleeding heart liberals (btw, the United state's version of a 'liberal' is probably closer to other nation's conservatives) waited until Mr. Bush jr fucked the hell up.

Sounds exactly like her husband.

Even Bill seemed more genuine to me, though.

She's not liberal enough for me. In fact, she's not liberal at all.

Even Bill seemed more genuine to me, though.

He had a role in the start of the Good Friday Agreement so most of N.Ireland liked him.

She's not liberal enough for me. In fact, she's not liberal at all.

Um, Universal Health Care? She chaired the effort to enact it! (and failed miserably)

And this is from the Chicago SunTimes (Jan. 5, 2008):

On Friday, campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton was asked by a reporter if Obama's record had "been sufficiently explored."

She said it had not.

"I think everybody needs to be vetted and tested and that is the way an election is supposed to operate because the last thing the Democrats need is to move quickly through this process -- it is so telescoped -- without taking a hard look at all of us," she said.

"I have a different health care plan than Sen. Obama. We've gone at this, but the fact remains, my plan covers everybody. My plan has a greater likelihood of achieving the goal that we have set, to actually get to universal health care. On a lot of these issues, it's hard to know exactly where he stands, and people need to ask that and to give that information to the voters."


Many people strongly dislike her for this reason alone - many Americans look at Canada, their universal health care, and their ridiculously high taxes and shudder to think at her being president. And would the same people that support Hillary because "it's time for a female president" support a female that happened to be Republican? Doubtful. And if you don't believe that double standard exists, then explain where all the Anita Hill supporters were when Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick and others made their allegations of sexual assault against Hillary's husband?

She's not liberal enough for me. In fact, she's not liberal at all.

Um, universal health care??? She chaired the failed effort to implement universal health care in 1993, and just three days ago she reaffirmed her commitment to implementing universal health care if elected president.

Many Americans shudder at the thought of her being president for this reason alone! We simply have to look at Canada and their ridiculously high taxes to pay for government health care. Others dislike her because of some of the reasons already mentioned (her reported nastiness in private, or the carpet-bagging move to NY, just to name two examples).

I can't stand her, although I guess I can't say that I HATE her.

Well, I for one would tend to trust someone who's highly intelligent and unscrupulous and ambitious a lot more than someone who's dumb as a post and amibitious and unscrupulous...

But that's just me, really ;)

true, but it is better to have someone who's just plain intelligent. Obama graduated number one in his class out of harvard, I'd say thats pretty damn intelligent. Another thing that really bugs me about her is that she's been in this political business too long, she's so old guard she makes most of the Republican politicians look like complete newcomers. Not only that, she voted for the war. From a rather conservative point of view, most of them hate her because she's associated with the policies of Bill Clinton, whom they hate more than the people who despise George Bush. Another reason is I don't want to have it look like theres dynastys going on in the white house. The same two families for past how many years? We need some new blood. Enuf said.

Yes, but Bush isn't liked for 'reasons',

but when it comes to Hillary, it seems like she's just walking down the street and then some random person comes up to her and starts calling her names and throwing cats at her or something. IE, with out provocation.

These thread's given me a lot of food for thought, but, at the same time, I still feel that much of the demonization of her by the right wing is still rather unjust.

At least the 'bleeding heart liberals (btw, the United state's version of a 'liberal' is probably closer to other nation's conservatives) waited until Mr. Bush jr fucked the hell up.

In my opinion she fucked up in voting for the Iraq war.

Her agenda is to be the first women president and I dont believe her interest goes far beyond that, not out of a desire to serve but to make her mark on history nothing more.

Um, Universal Health Care? She chaired the effort to enact it! (and failed miserably)

And this is from the Chicago SunTimes (Jan. 5, 2008):

On Friday, campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton was asked by a reporter if Obama's record had "been sufficiently explored."

She said it had not.

"I think everybody needs to be vetted and tested and that is the way an election is supposed to operate because the last thing the Democrats need is to move quickly through this process -- it is so telescoped -- without taking a hard look at all of us," she said.

"I have a different health care plan than Sen. Obama. We've gone at this, but the fact remains, my plan covers everybody. My plan has a greater likelihood of achieving the goal that we have set, to actually get to universal health care. On a lot of these issues, it's hard to know exactly where he stands, and people need to ask that and to give that information to the voters."


Many people strongly dislike her for this reason alone - many Americans look at Canada, their universal health care, and their ridiculously high taxes and shudder to think at her being president. And would the same people that support Hillary because "it's time for a female president" support a female that happened to be Republican? Doubtful. And if you don't believe that double standard exists, then explain where all the Anita Hill supporters were when Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick and others made their allegations of sexual assault against Hillary's husband?

Yeah conservative women never really have been liked in politics, I've heard such terrible stories about margret thatcher from people, though I don't really know what her policies were.

I don't like her policies, and the fact most of her votes are people going "IT'S TIME FOR A WOMAN PRESIDENT! RAWR!"

I could care less if you're a woman, black, Muslim, or a rock, if you have the policies I want, for the most part, I'll vote for you.

I don't like her policies, and the fact most of her votes are people going "IT'S TIME FOR A WOMAN PRESIDENT! RAWR!"

I could care less if you're a woman, black, Muslim, or a rock, if you have the policies I want, for the most part, I'll vote for you.

Tell me more about this rock...

true, but it is better to have someone who's just plain intelligent. Obama graduated number one in his class out of harvard, I'd say thats pretty damn intelligent. Another thing that really bugs me about her is that she's been in this political business too long, she's so old guard she makes most of the Republican politicians look like complete newcomers. Not only that, she voted for the war. From a rather conservative point of view, most of them hate her because she's associated with the policies of Bill Clinton, whom they hate more than the people who despise George Bush. Another reason is I don't want to have it look like theres dynastys going on in the white house. The same two families for past how many years? We need some new blood. Enuf said.

I'm not sure why experience would necessarily be a bad thing?
And btw, how would you know that Obama is not unscrululous? He most certainly is ambitious, otherwise he wouldn't campaign, would he? ;)

And I personally think the US has been run by dynasties for several decades now, just look at the Kennedies as an example...

i 'love' hillary. i just see her as bought and paid for by the corporate mafia.

she might even not stay bought once she gets in. that would be cool, if she pulled a carter. i'm kind of half way looking forward to something like that. just not absolutely counting on it either.

and the first of anything not in the status quo, almost invariably tends to immitate that status quo in every way other then its one intrinsic difference therefrom. but if we want those differences, we are of course, faced with putting up with those similarities in the first one.

i love every candidate who isn't a white male republican. hillary just isn't my first choice for that reasons already stated.

i'd really like a kussenich or a gravel, but knowing the unlikelyhood of that, a hillary or an obama would/will be just fine. as fine as we can reasonably expect to be allowed.

even an edwards, who seems to have some pretty good ideas himself, is better then anything, ron paul being MAYBE an exception, the retardlicans have to offer.

i don't think we should wimp out from electing the first woman or black to the white house. and that's what i'll see it as if we don't elect either hillary or obama. i think edwards would make a great v.p. for either of them.

but i DO understand the reservations people have about hillary.

mr bill wasn't the worst thing we could have had in office during his term either.

we do need, not only fresh faces but fresh ideas, and i'm not counting on anyone likely to bring us to them. but i'm still hoping whoever gets in might.

=^^=
.../\...

People hate Hillary because they don't understand her or are afraid of her for some stupid made up lie concoted by the right wing spin machine.

To be fair, that description would fit any politician worth his salt.
The usual way to the top ranks of any party is by being ruthless and manipulative (unless daddy pushes you, of course), so I'd be willing to bet that none of the other candidates are any less slippery..

That's the point. People don't mind those qualities in male politicians, but they generally can't stand them in female politicians.

I personally don't like her, because so many women are clamoring to vote for her, simply because she's a woman. Don't get me wrong, it's good that we'll improve voter turnout. But that just seems like a really bad reason to vote.

On top of that, I don't believe she'll be a very apt president, and she'll start a bad precedent for future, and capable, women to run for the job. "Remember the job Hillary did?" :(

I personally don't like her, because so many women are clamoring to vote for her, simply because she's a woman. Don't get me wrong, it's good that we'll improve voter turnout. But that just seems like a really bad reason to vote.

Actually, 3/5 new voters that registered for the NH primary voted for Obama.

To me, she's overly ambitious (in a bad way), two-faced, and manipulative. It seems like she wants to be president for the sole reason of being the first woman president and nothing more. Then there's her nanny-state-esque politics and voting to put more spending into our military than even Bush to seal the deal for me not wanting her in office.

People hate Hillary because they don't understand her or are afraid of her for some stupid made up lie concoted by the right wing spin machine.

Could you provide an example of this? Sounds like you're echoing Hillary's assertion that it was a "vast right-wing conspiracy" against her husband. Keep in mind that the American media is almost universally tilted toward the left (with the exception of Fox News).

String Cheese: You said, "Yeah conservative women never really have been liked in politics, I've heard such terrible stories about margret thatcher from people, though I don't really know what her policies were."

Margaret Thatcher was a prominent conservative in England and a close friend ally of Ronald Reagan in the 80s who was denounced in the US (along with Reagan) as a war-mongerer. The Liberals in the US frantically asserted that those two would lead the world into nuclear war with the USSR.

An interesting example to bring up ... but she's English, not American. Can you name any conservative female American politicians? Most people can't. There were have been a couple Republican women that served as governors in the US during the in the last twenty years (Christine Todd Whitman in New Jersey; Jane Swift in Massachusetts), but they were not well-regarded by the media...

By the way, I apologize to all for the near-duplicate post I made yesterday. I didn't think my first post went through. My bad.

I'm not sure why experience would necessarily be a bad thing?

Large amounts of experience in Washington generally equates to corruption and much stronger ties to large business than to the people.


That's the point. People don't mind those qualities in male politicians, but they generally can't stand them in female politicians.

I keep hearing this, but I don't really think it bears up. You hear those same complaints about male politicians all the time. I know for a fact that I make them.

I keep hearing this, but I don't really think it bears up. You hear those same complaints about male politicians all the time. I know for a fact that I make them.

So far the only people I've heard it from are Clinton-supporters...

Ironically enough, the only time I've heard mention of Obama being black was on BBC world.

So far the only people I've heard it from are Clinton-supporters...

Ironically enough, the only time I've heard mention of Obama being black was on BBC world.

Precisely. Why is it that the only people who seem to constantly bring up Clinton's sex are her supporters? Why is it that any list of reasons for opposition to Clinton is answered with "You just say that because she's a woman!"?

Precisely. Why is it that the only people who seem to constantly bring up Clinton's sex are her supporters? Why is it that any list of reasons for opposition to Clinton is answered with "You just say that because she's a woman!"?

It does form a nice shield against negative criticism. After all, what intelligent person wants to be thought of as sexist? It's not exactly an accusation you can fight, either.

So far the only people I've heard it from are Clinton-supporters...

Well, I'm not a Clinton supporter, and I'm making that argument. I may not support her, but I do think she faces a double-standard.

I keep hearing this, but I don't really think it bears up. You hear those same complaints about male politicians all the time. I know for a fact that I make them.

I still maintain they don't get criticized for it to the same degree. Almost all criticisms I have heard about Clinton relate to personal qualities rather than her positions on issues. I don't see male politicians being criticized about their personalities to the same degree.

Voters might disagree with some candidates without getting too emotional about it. However, when you have a Hillary Clinton with a nasty personality, then people get emotional about it. I think though that there is really two layers to why someone would hate a candidate. First they must disagree on the issues and then they must find the personality disagreeable. I do not think that a voter would hate a candidate with a nasty personality but agrees with that voter on most issues.

Why do I hate Hillary Clinton? Video Games. She doesn't like violence in video games and wants to restrict their sale and their design. She's one step away from Jack Thompson.

Um, universal health care??? She chaired the failed effort to implement universal health care in 1993, and just three days ago she reaffirmed her commitment to implementing universal health care if elected president.

Many Americans shudder at the thought of her being president for this reason alone! We simply have to look at Canada and their ridiculously high taxes to pay for government health care. Others dislike her because of some of the reasons already mentioned (her reported nastiness in private, or the carpet-bagging move to NY, just to name two examples).

I can't stand her, although I guess I can't say that I HATE her.

She is not liberal. She is merely a republican hiding in Democrat clothing.

Be careful of smart politicians. If they're good, they'll do a world of good. But if they're not... Well, just look at what Howard did here down under.

Unfortunately you have to be doubly cautious of smart politicians.

I think a lot of people dislike Hillary because of her shocking politics. Not everyone enjoys watching TV, only to see their Democratic representative bashing another politician.

Why do I hate Hillary Clinton? Video Games. She doesn't like violence in video games and wants to restrict their sale and their design. She's one step away from Jack Thompson.

I'm no fan of her, but, she is no where near as bad as he.

Other then the video game subject (on which she is nowhere near as rabid or delusional, a sparkling model of liberalism and level-headedness by comparison), she has absolutely no resemblence.

This is why:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/juvanya/bwa2.jpg

I keep hearing this, but I don't really think it bears up. You hear those same complaints about male politicians all the time. I know for a fact that I make them.
It's funny too, because while people decry that kind of behaviour, they more often than not reward it at the ballot box.

This (http://blog.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/2007/12/17/an-insight-into-spanking.aspx) is why.

Fundamentalist christians - thanks to Biblical guidance - cannot accept a woman preacher or usurper of power: Woman => Submission in teh bible.

People hate Hillary Clinton because they're afraid of the implications of her gender, simple as that.

The 'hate' of Hillary is not at all what it seems, it's simply an overblown bogeyman invented by the far-right fringe whose 'conservatives are born to rule' mentality doesn't allow for dissenting opinion.

The 'hate' of Hillary is not at all what it seems, it's simply an overblown bogeyman invented by the far-right fringe whose 'conservatives are born to rule' mentality doesn't allow for dissenting opinion.

One can dislike Hillary without being a conservative. In my case though, it is not hate, and it is mainly because she is Obama's only competition.

Wow, just wow. It's interesting how much absolute dismissal of policies that happened in this thread. Why is it the default for any objection to Hillary is that it's because she's a woman? You should probably recognize it's just as much a gross generalization and just as dangerous as sexism itself.

Why doesn't she like Obama? Is she racist? Clearly that must be the only explanation. /sarcasm

I didn't like her husband. I don't like her. She's not as eloquent as her husband and I don't think she's as good a politician. She has most of his faults and not many of his good points. But MORE IMPORTANTLY, she's a warmonger, and her politics blow with the wind. The biggest thing she's stuck to her guns on is universal healthcare and while I applaud the ideals behind that, I think she needs to learn baby steps and get some successes.

The biggest thing that kills me is that she's the "experienced" candidate. If we want to discuss sex, would anyone consider the husband of a politician to be an experienced politician? In what world would being a husband count as experience? Why should we give her a pass because she's a woman and attack people who attack her because she's a woman. How about we just leave her sex out of it altogether and look at HER experience as a politician and not as a wife.

She has less experience. She's less effective. She's more corrupt. She's a poorer public speaker. She comes off badly much of the time. She supports war. She's willing to violate the rights of people in order to "defend" them. She's got tons in common with Bush including her attempts to run on a name. She's gone so far as have her husband campaign for her (like the Bush family did for Bush) and her husband called Obama's campaign a "fairy tale". Which part, Mr. Clinton? He creamed your wife in one state and the other was a horse race. Maybe we should just jump to the conclusion his statement was racist. I mean, obviously, if one objects to a woman they're sexist and a black man they're racist. Right?

I'd rather see her win than Guiliani and most of the Republicans, but that's hardly an endorsement. My issues with her abound and not a one considers her being a woman to have anything to do with it. In fact, I refuse to give her any kudos or free passes for being a woman. I wouldn't let my dentist's husband work on my teeth. And if he became a dentist tomorrow, I wouldn't consider him to have the experience of his wife (she does an amazing job for the record).

I'd love to see a woman elected and be a great president. Frankly, I'd love to see the candidates and who is elected be more reflective of our population as a whole.

That said, that's a terrible reason to want her to win. The most qualified candidate need not be male or white, and obviously often isn't. In this case, I simply don't believe she's the most qualified candidate.

One can dislike Hillary without being a conservative. In my case though, it is not hate, and it is mainly because she is Obama's only competition.

Obama is the rich mans Democrat, his warmongering (especially comments on Pakistan) and other stances show him to be little apart from the loons in the GOP.

Obama is the rich mans Democrat, his warmongering (especially comments on Pakistan) and other stances show him to be little apart from the loons in the GOP.

Thats quite false.

On the political scale, Obama is furthest left, overall, than any other serious candidate.

Thats quite false.

On the political scale, Obama is furthest left, overall, than any other serious candidate.

He doesn't support mandatory health coverage under his universal plan, and Edwards is actually further to the left.

So, why do you hate/dislike this woman? (if you don't hate her or dislike her, what are some reasons that other may?)
Because we've been told to for several years now?

Well, if she is elected, we all have to turn in our penises...apparently...

Eh, get married. I would say ask Sam Kinison, but he's slightly dead.

He doesn't support mandatory health coverage under his universal plan, and Edwards is actually further to the left.

So your complaint is that he isn't going to force people to utilize the plan?

What should the penalty for choosing not to have health insurance be?

Wow, just wow. It's interesting how much absolute dismissal of policies that happened in this thread. Why is it the default for any objection to Hillary is that it's because she's a woman? You should probably recognize it's just as much a gross generalization and just as dangerous as sexism itself.

Why doesn't she like Obama? Is she racist? Clearly that must be the only explanation. /sarcasm

I didn't like her husband. I don't like her. She's not as eloquent as her husband and I don't think she's as good a politician. She has most of his faults and not many of his good points. But MORE IMPORTANTLY, she's a warmonger, and her politics blow with the wind. The biggest thing she's stuck to her guns on is universal healthcare and while I applaud the ideals behind that, I think she needs to learn baby steps and get some successes.

The biggest thing that kills me is that she's the "experienced" candidate. If we want to discuss sex, would anyone consider the husband of a politician to be an experienced politician? In what world would being a husband count as experience? Why should we give her a pass because she's a woman and attack people who attack her because she's a woman. How about we just leave her sex out of it altogether and look at HER experience as a politician and not as a wife.

She has less experience. She's less effective. She's more corrupt. She's a poorer public speaker. She comes off badly much of the time. She supports war. She's willing to violate the rights of people in order to "defend" them. She's got tons in common with Bush including her attempts to run on a name. She's gone so far as have her husband campaign for her (like the Bush family did for Bush) and her husband called Obama's campaign a "fairy tale". Which part, Mr. Clinton? He creamed your wife in one state and the other was a horse race. Maybe we should just jump to the conclusion his statement was racist. I mean, obviously, if one objects to a woman they're sexist and a black man they're racist. Right?

I'd rather see her win than Guiliani and most of the Republicans, but that's hardly an endorsement. My issues with her abound and not a one considers her being a woman to have anything to do with it. In fact, I refuse to give her any kudos or free passes for being a woman. I wouldn't let my dentist's husband work on my teeth. And if he became a dentist tomorrow, I wouldn't consider him to have the experience of his wife (she does an amazing job for the record).

I'd love to see a woman elected and be a great president. Frankly, I'd love to see the candidates and who is elected be more reflective of our population as a whole.

That said, that's a terrible reason to want her to win. The most qualified candidate need not be male or white, and obviously often isn't. In this case, I simply don't believe she's the most qualified candidate.

Hush. Your well-reasoned, true statements have no place here. You might actually force someone to realize that she's just not that good of a candidate for reasons that have nothing to do with gender!

So your complaint is that he isn't going to force people to utilize the plan?

What should the penalty for choosing not to have health insurance be?

Knowing him, "liquidation."

So your complaint is that he isn't going to force people to utilize the plan?

What should the penalty for choosing not to have health insurance be?

death.

death.Death... by tickling! :D

But only if the Goofballs/Backwoods ticket wins.

She is not liberal. She is merely a republican hiding in Democrat clothing.

At first I thought this was a ridiculous thing to say, but then I checked out her platform (at http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/231476/hillary_clinton_platform_for_the_2008.html) ... and I was shocked to discover that she actually does have many 'conservative' views.

She is considered liberal b/c of her universal health care, support for gun control, her CURRENT stance on Iraq (although she voted for the war...), but on the whole, her platform is not particularly liberal at all.

I suppose, in the end, she is disliked because of her personality and because of her marriage to Bill Clinton. She is inextricably linked with him and all of his Administration's scandals, most notably b/c of her "vast right-wing conspiracy" remarks during his impeachment when she was trying to support him - of course that was all before his relationship with Monica Lewinsky was proven to be true.

I just cannot stand her rhetoric or her class-warfare remarks. But after looking at her platform, she does not actually appear to be nearly as liberal as I had initially assumed her to be.

Do I have to be a Republican to be outraged when I see nonsense, or intellectual dishonesty when talking about them?

Or do you see everything in terms of 'us vs. them?'


For someone who isnt a Republican, you sure do seem to care that their feelings being hurt. Because we know how sensitive those Republicans are. :rolleyes:



So, you're so desperate to shoehorn this into that argument that you're comparing the Secretary of State of the United States to a receptionist, and this, in your mind, suffices as a rational argument.

Tell me, when was the last time Amarica had a black president?



You think I made that up?

Is there any evidence to suggest that the people handing out the oreos were motivated by racisim?



Petty name calling? Are you on drugs? Who did I call a name?

So now your accusing me of being a drug addict. Nice.

Reading Is Fundamental. I said the practice of pretending only the 'other side' is racist is intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant.

Calling someone who disagrees with you ignorant = name calling.



So... according to your own words, any person who doesn't like Hillary and is a Republican must therefore be a sexist?


Or is motivated by sexist motives. Republicans aret exatly known as progressive.

Or is motivated by sexist motives. Republicans aret exatly known as progressive.

First of all, ignorant isn't namecalling. It means you're lacking knowledge in a particular area. If it's demonstrable, it would be silly to ignore that your opponent in a debate is ignorant of some imporant bit of information.

Second, you do realize that the way you're grossly generalizing about groups is not all that different than sexism. It's also circumventing the debate.

Third, Democrats haven't presented a black or female president yet either. To suggest that somehow demonstrates that some of the highest offices in the land are equivalent to being a receptionist IS intellectually dishonest. The secretary of state wields power you or I don't have. The CEO of the biggest company I've ever worked for wishes he had that kind of power.

Now, do you have anything reasonable to say or are you going to keep circumventing the discussion to simply accuse people of being sexist and racist?

My dislike for Hillary Clinton is simple based upon issues and personal feelings.

Issues: I do not support her stance on the War in Iraq and the larger War on Terror.

Her stance on healthcare bothers me. Hillary screwed up her shot at healthcare when she was the first lady.

Her phoniness when it comes to healthcare reform. She claims to want Universal Healthcare but gets large amounts of money from Insurance carriers. In general, dogs do not disobey their masters.

Personal:
I find her to be unlikable and she appears to be very phony. She talks to a black audience and suddenly she's "down" with her accent and the lingo. When she talks to a Southern crowd she suddenly has the twang back she had when she Bill had come from Arkansas.

Her carpetbagging in New York makes her suspect.

An entire generation of people have had a Clinton or Bush in the Whitehouse. Hillary is a symbol for more of the same. More of the divided politics we have now. Besides GWB she is the most polarizing figure in America. Simply being who she is will make her less effective in governing. She's for the status quo and we don't need any more of that.

I don't hate her, but I dislike her quite a lot.

I do not. The bitterest American campaign ever (not quite within living memory) was against the last woman who ran for President of the United States. "Free love" in the Victorian Period, what did you expect?



Refresh my memory.

It was the Bush campaign by proxy. McCain actually admonished Bush during a debate an Bush played the "Who mean?" bullshit game. They used it to raise doubt and plant the seed in Southern heads that McCain was sympathetic to minorities, especially blacks. This was mix of the southern strategy + Rove douchebaggery.

My dislike for Hillary Clinton is simple based upon issues and personal feelings.

Issues: I do not support her stance on the War in Iraq and the larger War on Terror.

Her stance on healthcare bothers me. Hillary screwed up her shot at healthcare when she was the first lady.

Her phoniness when it comes to healthcare reform. She claims to want Universal Healthcare but gets large amounts of money from Insurance carriers. In general, dogs do not disobey their masters.

Personal:
I find her to be unlikable and she appears to be very phony. She talks to a black audience and suddenly she's "down" with her accent and the lingo. When she talks to a Southern crowd she suddenly has the twang back she had when she Bill had come from Arkansas.

Her carpetbagging in New York makes her suspect.

An entire generation of people have had a Clinton or Bush in the Whitehouse. Hillary is a symbol for more of the same. More of the divided politics we have now. Besides GWB she is the most polarizing figure in America. Simply being who she is will make her less effective in governing. She's for the status quo and we don't need any more of that.

I don't hate her, but I dislike her quite a lot.

Oh this post is good. Do you have any links for those points you made? no hurry i'm just curious.

Oh this post is good. Do you have any links for those points you made? no hurry i'm just curious.

I know it's wiki but it gives a good overview. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan)

pay special attention to p. 2 and 3 in this article (http://media.www.thetriangle.org/media/storage/paper689/news/2007/11/02/EdOp/Lobbyist.Money.Mars.Hillary.Clintons.Presidential.Campaign-3075311.shtml)

Taking money from Telecom lobbyists (http://www.benton.org/node/8675) also makes her a little less trustworthy. What motivation does she have to keep our privacy in check? WE don't like Bush using telecom to spy on Americans but she'll be more of the same.

I dislike her because she never sticks to her issues, she just switches her views to match whatever is 'popular' a the time.

Pro-war time? She's all Warmonger.

Anti-War time? She's all 'lets have peace'.

Video Games evil, She leads the charge against them.

She blows with the wind.

'Hate' is such a strong word...

But the main reason I would prefer just about ANYBODY over Hillary is this:

Some of the best leaders are people who aren't seeking after power. They're th eones who lead out of necessity, not personal gain. Now, Hillary has already shown a tendency to do absolutely whatever she has to in order to gain the Presidency. She wants power. She wants it for its own sake.

That isn't to say that she doesn't believe in anything. Clearly, she does. The problem is that people who want power for its own sake typically have an agenda of their own to press, and it doesn't matter much what the people want. She talks about change... Well we all agree some changes need to be made but the scope and direction of the changes she'd want make me nervous.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/

Thats unfortunate. The man and his wife did something incredibly good and people are trying to make it into something bad.
I wasnt aware he adopted a child, let alone one from another country.
I have more respect for the man now.

First of all, ignorant isn't namecalling. It means you're lacking knowledge in a particular area. If it's demonstrable, it would be silly to ignore that your opponent in a debate is ignorant of some imporant bit of information.


Calling soneone ignorant because they dont agree with you is name calling. Fail.

Second, you do realize that the way you're grossly generalizing about groups is not all that different than sexism. It's also circumventing the debate.

Republican isnt a gender. Fail.

Third, Democrats haven't presented a black or female president yet either. To suggest that somehow demonstrates that some of the highest offices in the land are equivalent to being a receptionist IS intellectually dishonest. The secretary of state wields power you or I don't have. The CEO of the biggest company I've ever worked for wishes he had that kind of power.

How many black presidents have there been?




Have a nice day. Now, shoot yourself in the head.;)

Have a nice day. Now, shoot yourself in the head.;)

First, calling someone ignorant because they are demonstrably ignorant is accurate and necessary when discussing a topic that requires knowledge.

Read what I wrote, it's LIKE sexism. Not it IS sexism. Reading is core to discussing a topic on an internet forum.

Your last question avoids the point. You're claiming that this is Republicans fault, while stilll ignoring that the "receptionist" you're referring to has more power than than the vast majority of white people have ever had. While I'd agree that racism and sexism are the reason why only white males have been president, when talking about race, what you're saying is silly. There have been 46 presidents and the percentage of black people in the US is around 12 percent. They have had the right to vote less than a quarter of that time. Statistically, it wouldn't be that strange to have not seen a black president since we saw the beginnings of equality. Of course, that's not the reason, but it means you actually have to make more of a point, not just plop a sentence down and flee.

As to the last bit, reported. I believe you've been reported and even warned for such things in the past. Do you think, maybe, you're capable of discussing topics without telling people to kill themselves because they noticed you don't actually have a valid point?

First, calling someone ignorant because they are demonstrably ignorant is accurate and necessary when discussing a topic that requires knowledge.

Calling someone ignorant is name calling.

Read what I wrote, it's LIKE sexism. Not it IS sexism. Reading is core to discussing a topic on an internet forum.

You were comparing calling out people on their bigotry to sexisim. Thats retarded.

Your last question avoids the point. You're claiming that this is Republicans fault, while stilll ignoring that the "receptionist" you're referring to has more power than than the vast majority of white people have ever had. While I'd agree that racism and sexism are the reason why only white males have been president, when talking about race, what you're saying is silly. There have been 46 presidents and the percentage of black people in the US is around 12 percent. They have had the right to vote less than a quarter of that time. Statistically, it wouldn't be that strange to have not seen a black president since we saw the beginnings of equality. Of course, that's not the reason, but it means you actually have to make more of a point, not just plop a sentence down and flee.

Ok, since the Civil Rights movement how many blacks have been president? None. Why is this, because America is ruled by a majority of rich people who dont want 'those dem negros' to get in power.

As to the last bit, reported. I believe you've been reported and even warned for such things in the past. Do you think, maybe, you're capable of discussing topics without telling people to kill themselves because they noticed you don't actually have a valid point?


Way to miss the point. :rolleyes:

Way to miss the point. :rolleyes:

Maybe if you keep repeating that it will suddenly become a problem, but calling someone ignorant in regards to a topic in which they are proving to be ignorant of knowledge necessary to the discuss is perfectly acceptable and often even necessary. Complaining is just that. It's not impressive and doesn't address the problem at all.

When you say ALL republicans are bigots, you're behaving just like a sexist. It's called a gross generalization. Unless you can prove all Republicans are bigots, then you'd do better to speak to individuals, much like when talking about women or men, it's best to talk about individuals rather than grossly generalize about the entire group. I realize you don't understand, but your ignorance of generalization doesn't make you're logical fallacies go away.

Again, please make an argument about the black president thing. Since the civil rights movement there have been 10 presidents. It's not statistically unusual for there not to have been a black president. Of course, it's not as if it's random, but your claim that there have been none does not stand alone. Stop being lazy and make an argument.

Meanwhile, what does that have to do with Republicans. I think you've lost your point. The Democrats have not put a minority either. They've not done anything. At all. Democrats have no better claim to having risen above racism. In fact, given some of things going on in the race 'against Obama', I'd say that the Dems have some 'splaining to do.

Um, "way to miss the point"? I missed the point of you telling me to shoot myself in the head? I don't believe I did. I've noticed it's what you do when you don't have an argument. In fact, it's just what you do. You don't seem to recognize that telling people to fuck their mother and shoot themselves in the head isn't appropriate for debate. How about you try, you know, actually providing evidence and arguments for your claim?