Why Do You Hate Hillary Clinton?

There is a recommended diary at daily kos which epitomizes to me how ridiculous the blogs have become. It is all about, well nothing, not about issues at all. Consider these “points.”

I can’t understand what she believes in, really believes in. Other than being the first woman president; other than playing the ultimate post-menopausal “it’s my turn” role, why does she want the job, and what is she going to do if she gets it?

Besides being incredibly vacuous (my earlier diary on clammy c’s diary about “why you want to be President” explains why), isn’t this absolutely incredibly sexist? “POST MENOPAUSAL?” And yet this casual sexism raises nary an eyebrow. Even Daily Kos FPer Hunter endorses this drivel. Pathetic.

I don’t represent corporations in my practice. A lawyer has a duty to zealously represent  her client. That’s really hard to do if you don’t like what your client has done, or does. From everything I’ve read, Senator Clinton was able to do this, and do it quite well. I have talked to other corporate defense attorneys, people who I like, and they often feel terribly conflicted. They have to teach their children right from wrong, but then they pay their tuition bills by representing polluters or companies that knowingly sell dangerous products.  I’ve never read that Senator Clinton felt any angst about this conflict, and it appears that she is extremely proud of her work on behalf of her former clients.  Maybe she’s managed to completely compartmentalize it. I don’t think I like that.

Of course this is personal for me. But standing apart from that, wtf does this mean? She does not represent corporations? How about rapists? Child molesters? Does she wonder about her good friemds who represent evil corporations? Do they go out of there way to impress upon her how conflicted they are? Again, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that this drivel is recommended and praised demonstrates just how stupid Daily Kos has become.

I hear her supporters  gushing about her accomplishments. Maybe I’m jaded because of what I do, but I don’t get it. . . .

Now THERE is a good reason to hate Hillary. Sheesh. Again, recommended and praised as a great diary. How stupid is Daily Kos now?

The fait-accompli attitude really rubs me the wrong way. We are having more debates and forms than ever, and the Clinton campaign is acting as if it’s all a mere dress rehearsal, and they’re going through the motions.

Again, wtf? Is Hillary skipping debates? Fait accompli attitude? One more time, this is a highly praised and recommended diary? Daily Kos sucks.

I don’t know much about Iowa, but I know that New Hampshire is not very much like Texas or the Carolinas. There’s a visceral hatred of all things Clinton in the south, and I don’t see us picking up any ground with Clinton at the head of the ticket.

Now there is a good substantive reason to hate Hillary – the South hates her. Hell, on that reasoning, give up being a Dem. Okay, this is supposed to pass for strategic political thinking I suppose, but this is a praised and recommended diary at daily kos. Not a poll is cited to buttress this.

Conclusion, Daily Kos sucks. Now, a test for Docudharma. I am sure many of you dislike Hillary Clinton. Please explain to me why. And please do a better job than this awful diary. 


Skip to comment form

  1. Because I crave neither existence or non-existence.

    I don’t like Hillary because I oppose her on policy issues.

    Like Kyl-Lieberman.

    I think she has a history of triangulating and is the most conservative Democrat running.

    I think she is less electable than some, but last time around I got sucked into that argument with Kerry and look how that turned out.

    I.  Was.  Wrong!

  2. Thought it’s really late to ask me all the reasons I hate everybody.

    She is the symbol of Beltway Bozo status quo.

    She and Bill will throw nice parties ever month that Mrs. Timmeh (whoever she is) can snarf down snacks and laugh at the bon mots of Tweety and Mrs. Greenspan.

  3. Now there is a good substantive reason to hate Hillary – the South hates her.

    In fact, my understanding is that she was leading Rudy in Arkansas, Oklahoma (!!), Kentucky (!!), and Florida. In fact, she was leading by a bunch in Arkansas. I am not voting for her because of the issues, but she is not as unelectable as people make her out to be.

    • Armando on November 8, 2007 at 10:13

    This is why I would never go back to daily kos. I could not resist lambasting that diarist which would lead to a pointless flame war.

  4. 51 recs and 127 comments.  Generally, those sorts of numbers mean a diary is generating more disputation than praise.

    51 recs doesn’t justify a “Daily Kos sucks” conclusion.  And I bet you’re aware of that.

    As for why it’s on the rec list, I imagine it’s because of

    (1) the title — a lot of people are against Clinton and can’t quite say why, so overt attempts at articulation are welcomed.  That in itself is not a bad thing at all — writers can be prized for their ability to say in clear ways what readers wish to express.  Hearing something said exactly right is extremely gratifying, even if what is said is nothing new.  Not to say that the diary question says anything “exactly right” — but it does promise to try, in the title.

    (2) The author appears to be a lawyer.  People respect lawyers.  Most especially, lawyers they agree with. 

    (3) It is not overtly written in a pugalistic manner.  Diarist repeatedly says diary is not meant to be “anti-Hillary”.

    (4) She makes the apparently “insider baseball” point that many successful women lawyers have done as much or more than Clinton has.  Insider info, or apparent insider info, is always welcome.

    And so on.


    The reason people dislike Clinton is that she appears to be overton-windowing the conversation in a direction away from what progresives took to be the obvious direction it would take in this cycle.  Given a near-lock on the White House, and given a national mood thoroughly sick of the current strain of Republicanism, it seems that the only thing Dems have to do is negotiate amongst themselves as to what sort of candidate they want to put into the general.  A golden opportunity, then, to move the conversation left.  But instead of a vacuum on the right flank, we find a Dem happy to fill the role, or at least to fill it rhetorically.  This is appalling and distressing.  A great chance for progressive change and Clinton prizes a niche???

    I take it that the reasons people are anti-Clinton are those, roughly.  I personally find some of it confusing and simple-minded.  Her rhetoric — her “talk to the hand, netroots” performance, for example — is of no importance; no more important than Edwards’ equally-self-conscious “I love the netroots” performance. 

    Now, that’s some of it.  Another part might be that a lot people are genuinely afraid that the Cheney White House will be the new status quo, and only a nominee clearly committed to ending the Unitary Executive can be trusted to end it.  For whatever reason, people don’t think Clinton is clearly committed to it.

    For myself, by the way, I am underwhelmed by all the front-runners.  As far as I’m concerned the Dems have a lock on the White House (only the MSM need of a “horse-race narrative” makes the matter look in doubt) and so we ought to be talking more about Dodd and even Kucinich.  (I dunno who “we” is in the previous sentence.)

    • RiaD on November 8, 2007 at 13:39

    She’d be my last choice, as of now.

    I don’t like the idea of Bush Clinton Bush Clinton. It feels like un-democracy to me.

    I don’t like the huge amounts of corporate cash…follow the money to see where loyalties lie- for any of them.

    I don’t like her using gender…first female pres…no, I won’t vote for her because shes a she…especially since I’ve seen no evidence she actually understands the issues the majority of the women I know have. Maternity leave, day care, health care, educational opportunities.

    I think its a huge mistake to assume that because she is Ms.Bill we’ll return to the US of 1999. Ain’t gonna happen.

    I don’t like that her website is vague on her plans for the country.

    I want someone who sees a future for the whole country, not just the wealthiest few. I want someone who will work towards finding what issues nearly all want changed, and change them. I want someone who sees the country we can become and the path to get us there. I want someone whose appointees will be the best qualified for the job, not the closest friend owed a favor.

  5. the antidote.

    • TheRef on November 8, 2007 at 14:25

    on the direction that air flows through the orifice called DK. However, I am quite happy to see each of the Democratic candidates challenged whether on atmospherics, the issues or individual traits. For any candidate to withstand the onslaught that will come about post-primary, he or she will need a very tough skin …very adept repartee, and an ability to understand and advocate on the winning side of any issue. As you so elegantly stated, many of the one sided arguments over there are sophomoric in content and down right dumb in statement.

  6. Ah, a perfect place for a little venting of my own. Back in ‘your day’, Big A, a little known diarist like myself could at least get a good discussion going in a non-recommended diary. You didn’t seem to always need to get recommended to be able to explore issues in some depth.

    Now, it has the feeling of an all or nothing show.

    That said, here are some thoughts on Hillary Clinton:

    1) I think her history shows she is actually more personally liberal than her husband. Whether her current centrist positions hold if she becomes President remains to be seen.
    2) I don’t like the ‘old guard’ people she has surrounded herself with. Many of her folks appear smarter than others in the old guard, but they are still stuck in a play the middle strategy.
    3) I believe Bill Clinton remains hugely popular in the rest of the world and this would help Hillary with international dealings in the early days of her Presidency.
    4) I hate her vote on Kyl-Lieberman, for reasons already documented.
    5) I like her positions on many of the other issues of the day.
    6) Since progress on these issues is all that matters, I worry her high personal inherited negatives combined with an obstructionist minority in Congress will hurt her ability to actually make progress during her Presidency.

    My biggest fear is 4-8 more years of ‘holding the line’ againt further Republican efforts to ruin the institution of Government. I don’t think ‘holding the line’ is good enough. We need to make progress on the big issues facing the country, and I wonder if President Clinton will have the ability to overcome the obstructionists and actually Get Things Done. To be fair, I wonder if anyone could win against the built in problems another Clinton in the Oval Office would need to overcome.

    I will say this. IF she wins, and IF she is able to actually make progress on the issues (all that matters), I will be very impressed with her skills.

    I know there are no links to back any of this up, but hopefully you’ll find this a little more substantive to play with.


    PS – Did you see you made that article in MSNBC?

    • lezlie on November 8, 2007 at 15:21

    we are both women would be just as sexist as not voting for her because of gender. Take gender out of the equation and she is just another Al From DLC clone they want to cram down our progressive throats a la Kerry.

    The things that bother me about her personally are her obsessive need to prove herself and her air of entitlement. Yes, I’ve met her; yes I feel she is insincere.

    In terms of policy, her vote for Kyl-Lieberman floored me after Democrats letting her know how disappointed we were about the Iraq vote… it means she doesn’t listen to or even consider the base of the party. There’s a name for people like like, we call them Republicans, or Republican-lite, if you prefer.

    Then there’s her vote on flag burning, which isn’t really a problem. It was a craven political move to the right… there’s that sense of entitlement again…

    I don’t like her policy decisions, I don’t like her personally… will I vote for her if she’s running against Guliani, or Romney, or Huckabee?  Of course, I voted for Kerry, although I still have a nasty taste in my mouth over that one… tastes like capitulation!

    • Robyn on November 8, 2007 at 16:26

    …either in the Governor’s Mansion or the White House.  I can’t believe what is being said about Senator Clinton.  It is not about the woman I know.

    I’m an undecided voter, Feingold being my original choice even though he is a little too conservative for my taste.  But the hatred of all things Hillary astounds me. 

    • robodd on November 8, 2007 at 18:11


  7. most damaging to the hater.  (Well, there are always exceptions; I do hate BushCo.)

    Anyway, I do not support Hillary Clinton (though I would vote for her in the general, if necessary).  Here’s something I posted over at Planet Orange back in January (I bold-faced the Clinton stuff so you can skip the rest if you like):

    Gore-Obama in 2008!
    by Faheyman Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:57:07 PM EST

    As a partisan Democrat, I can only wish the Republican front runners-McCain, Giuliani and Romney-good luck as they try to re-invent themselves in order to curry favor with the right-wing activists who will dominate the Republican primaries.

    I’m all about the Democrats.  And I say that we must now rally around the best ticket that can bring us victory in 2008:

    Al Gore for President and Barack Obama for Vice President.

    First, why Obama for Vice President?

    I’m not sure he’s actually running for president; in fact, he may be pursuing a brilliant strategy for the number two slot, which he would own.

    No need to enumerate his intellectual, racial, personal, charismatic, eloquent charms.  He’s got the Democratic nomination for V.P., case closed, if he wants it.

    So, then, why Al Gore for President?

    Let’s dismiss the putative front runner, Hillary Clinton.

    Yes, America is ready to elect a woman for President, but not Hillary.  Too much  baggage:

    –She voted for the war in Iraq-a major albatross around her neck in the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire and other early primaries.

    –She is one of the most polarizing politicians in the country, in part because she is perceived as a middling “triangulator,” like her husband.

    –And, here’s  the  heaviest baggage of all:  No voter can ever think of anyone named “Clinton” without thinking about Bill Clinton’s puerile incontinence, which ruined his presidency and thereby foreclosed Al Gore’s chances in 2000.

    Which brings us back to Al Gore.

    He is the world’s conscience on global warming.  And he will be a champion for universal health care. I well remember him addressing the 1994 postal workers convention in Detroit, where he said then, as I am sure he will say in 2007:

    “And let me tell you one other area where–with your help–we’re going to win.

    “Health care.

    “The standard’s universal coverage.  You know it-you’ve been fighting for it for years.  I know it. The  American people know it.

    “There are those who disagree.  The champions of gridlock…those who put their party in front of  their people…those who are at the beck and call of the special interests, they have a different standard.  Standard fare, politics as usual.”

    And did I mention Al Gore’s early, strong opposition to the war in Iraq?

    Does anyone really think George Tenent or Richard Clarke would have had to chase down Al Gore to get his attention before 9-11?

    Moreover,  if all  the above doesn’t sell, Al Gore might try out these campaign slogans:

    –“I won it in 2000-I can win it again!”

    –Or, “Give me back my presidency, and let’s return this country to sanity!”

    I believe Hillary Clinton, if she does head the ticket in the general, will do grave damage to the down-ticket candidates.  (Of course, given how effective our 2006 candidates have been in their “leadership,” maybe I shouldn’t care too much.)

  8. Mark Penn, Blackwater, NAFTA, China, DLC, Goldwater, deregulation, Iran, Globalism of the worst sort, ‘free market’, privetazation, Margret Thacher, dynasty, crony capitalism, and I’m sick of Clintons and Bushes. We have better candidates who get lost because she has sucked the air out of this the most important primary election in our lives. 

    • oculus on November 8, 2007 at 21:33

    try and defend her from her irrational haters.  Then she voted for Kyl-Lieberman and gave explanations that do not justify that vote.  So, I don’t defend her anymore.  I do admire the way she has run her campaign, her work on health care early in Bill Clinton’s administration, and her recent votes not to fund Iraq war without date certain. 

    • oculus on November 9, 2007 at 02:14
    • KrisC on November 9, 2007 at 22:17

    I just don’t trust her…

    Haaretz “The Isreal Factor” ranks Hillary #2 “Best for Isreal”, therefore I believe she is very PRO-AIPAC. 

    I’m not ANTI-Isreal or ANTI-Jew, I just think that AIPAC is a very dangerous organization.

  9. I don’t hate Hillary Clinton but I also do not support her candidacy.  She supported the resolution to give Bush the power to invade Iraq, which was a violation of her oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, which does not give Congress the power to pass such a resolution but which does give Congress, and only Congress, the power to declare war.  She claims that if she knew then what she knows now that she would have voted differently, but does anyone actually believe that?  I knew the reasons to invade Iraq were bogus and I was never married to the President of the United States and I was never a senator who served on the Senate’s Committee on Armed Services.  It is obvious to me and any clear-thinking person that she knew better than to support the illegal war resolution, but she did so because that was what she thought she needed to do to appear tough so she could be elected president.  That was worth the lives of thousands of American troops and many more thousands of Iraqi citizens to her.  That vote was totally inexcusable and no one can convince me otherwise.  It proves beyond any reasonable doubt that she is completely unfit to hold office.

    I oppose her for other reasons, such as her vote for the unpatriotic USA PATRIOT Act, which again shows her disregard for the U.S. Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.  Without the Bill of Rights, this is nothing like a free country.  She has proved, along with many other spineless members of both Republican parties, that she is against personal freedom.  She is also very dishonest, although that seems to be a quality that most voters seem to really like.

    No one who likes peace or freedom has any reason to support Hillary Clinton, unless that person is dangerously ignorant.

Comments have been disabled.