The Clinton Thread: All things Hillary

[Elizabeth]

You are kidding right...??
We are down to quoting Shakespeare..??
And Hamlet at that.....well hell, how about King Lear, I'm pretty sure I can dig up a few lines from Lear that fit this thread, and maybe Keats also (doubtful).
Frost not so much.......
 
Love,
Liz

[MissBarbara]

Frost not so much.......

I don't know about that:

"...and miles to go before I sleep..." sounds to me like a very fun evening of frolicking with one's lover.

But that's getting off topic.

[Lois]

Actually they do have a child together.  Also, people close to them have hinted that they have an open relationship.  Bill was even quoted as saying, referring to Hillary, "She's had more pussy than I have."

Just because they don't have a traditional relationship does not mean their relationship is not strong.  The article comes from the presumption that all relationships are monogamous and anything indicating non-monogamy is a sign the relationship is in trouble and not based on love.

[watcher1]

I like Hillary.  I like her husband.  I would have voted for a third term for Bill.  I look forward to helping elect Hillary twice.

Toe, I think you hit the nail on the head.  I think Hillary's camp is counting on those who liked Bill to carry over into votes for her. She is also counting on the Black vote and to some extent, the women's vote, as Sanders seems to be polling much better with the younger women.

[joan1984]

You mean you count Webb Hubble's girl?

Actually they do have a child together.  Also, people close to them have hinted that they have an open relationship.  Bill was even quoted as saying, referring to Hillary, "She's had more pussy than I have."

Just because they don't have a traditional relationship does not mean their relationship is not strong.  The article comes from the presumption that all relationships are monogamous and anything indicating non-monogamy is a sign the relationship is in trouble and not based on love.

[Lois]

So why do people hate Hillary so much?  Most people have never even met her.  I remember the right wing hate machine went after her the moment Bill was elected.  At first they made fun of her appearance "not feminine enough, and who does her hair?"  Sexist comments, but she listened and got a makeover.  Then she became a "Bitch", a term I've come to understand as meaning "any strong woman that terrifies the caveman conservatives that want women to stay subversive to men."

To be blunt, most attacks I've seen against Hillary are sexist in nature.

How many people know that Hillary started off as Republican?  If political ambition was all she was about why in the world would she change her party affiliation to Democrat in ARKANSAS?

The truth is that Mrs. Clinton is still fairly conservative.  She's also a "hawk" militarily, meaning she has not hesitated to advocate a military solution when further diplomacy might have been the best option.  I suspect Hillary was an Eisenhower Republican, disillusioned by Nixon, as I suspect many Republicans were in her day.  Furthermore, the Democratic Party is now far more conservative than it was in the days of Kennedy.  So she sits politically, more in tune with Eisenhower than Reagan.


So just what are people afraid of?  Many have heard stories about her temper--mostly as it has been directed (justly no doubt) at her errant husband. However, I've never heard of her throwing a temper tantrum in the Senate isles or anywhere else.  It is also worth noting that all the many people who have worked for her over the years attest that she is a good boss. Demanding, yes, sometimes preoccupied (goes with the territory IMO), but fair and generous in her praise.  She has expressed genuine concern about her colleagues and subordinates, and she has been unerringly polite and gracious in public.

Now contrast this with some of Hillary's past colleagues in the Senate and current competitors for the presidency.  Front runners Cruz and Trump are positively famous for blowing their stacks, shaming and abusing their staff, and even occasionally ranting and raving. Cruz in particular is HATED by his colleagues in the Senate.

So what is the real fear?

Then are some that worry electing Mrs. Clinton to the Presidency will spread the disease of Clintonism. But what are the symptoms of this dread malady on the body politic? Low unemployment? High growth? Low inflation? Soaring productivity?

Too liberal? But too liberal compared with whom? Charles Schumer? Paul Wellstone? Brian Schatz?  Chris Murphy?  Elizabeth Warren?  Bernie Sanders?

So what are the Hillary-bashers so scared of?

[MissBarbara]

So why do people hate Hillary so much?  Most people have never even met her.  I remember the right wing hate machine went after her the moment Bill was elected.  At first they made fun of her appearance "not feminine enough, and who does her hair?"  Sexist comments, but she listened and got a makeover.  Then she became a "Bitch", a term I've come to understand as meaning "any strong woman that terrifies the caveman conservatives that want women to stay subversive to men."

To be blunt, most attacks I've seen against Hillary are sexist in nature.

How many people know that Hillary started off as Republican?  If political ambition was all she was about why in the world would she change her party affiliation to Democrat in ARKANSAS?

The truth is that Mrs. Clinton is still fairly conservative.  She's also a "hawk" militarily, meaning she has not hesitated to advocate a military solution when further diplomacy might have been the best option.  I suspect Hillary was an Eisenhower Republican, disillusioned by Nixon, as I suspect many Republicans were in her day.  Furthermore, the Democratic Party is now far more conservative than it was in the days of Kennedy.  So she sits politically, more in tune with Eisenhower than Reagan.


So just what are people afraid of?  Many have heard stories about her temper--mostly as it has been directed (justly no doubt) at her errant husband. However, I've never heard of her throwing a temper tantrum in the Senate isles or anywhere else.  It is also worth noting that all the many people who have worked for her over the years attest that she is a good boss. Demanding, yes, sometimes preoccupied (goes with the territory IMO), but fair and generous in her praise.  She has expressed genuine concern about her colleagues and subordinates, and she has been unerringly polite and gracious in public.

Now contrast this with some of Hillary's past colleagues in the Senate and current competitors for the presidency.  Front runners Cruz and Trump are positively famous for blowing their stacks, shaming and abusing their staff, and even occasionally ranting and raving. Cruz in particular is HATED by his colleagues in the Senate.

So what is the real fear?

Then are some that worry electing Mrs. Clinton to the Presidency will spread the disease of Clintonism. But what are the symptoms of this dread malady on the body politic? Low unemployment? High growth? Low inflation? Soaring productivity?

Too liberal? But too liberal compared with whom? Charles Schumer? Paul Wellstone? Brian Schatz?  Chris Murphy?  Elizabeth Warren?  Bernie Sanders?

So what are the Hillary-bashers so scared of?

I think the problem with this little essay is the same as the problem with the OP in this thread: words are given different meanings, and concepts are explored in different ways.

I don't hate Hillary Clinton, and I'm not a Hillary basher. But I don't like her, not one bit.

But, come November, if it's Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump (or Ted Cruz, or any of the other GOP candidates) on the ballot, I'll vote for her without a second's hesitation.

Why don't I like her? One of the first sentences in this piece shows the main reason I don't like her:

At first they made fun of her appearance "not feminine enough, and who does her hair?"  Sexist comments, but she listened and got a makeover.

In other words, she sways with the breezes of public opinion, personal integrity be damned. Ironically, her equally-maligned predecessor was the opposite in this particular respect: she looked, and dressed, like a frumpy older woman, and she didn't give a damn what others thought about it.

Then there's this line:

To be blunt, most attacks I've seen against Hillary are sexist in nature.

If that's true, then you've had your head in the sand since January 1993.

While it's true that during her first years as First Lady, some on the far right did attack her using sexist comments and observations. But since then, most criticisms have nothing to do with sexism, and everything to do with disagreement with her policies, her positions, her statements, and her personal integrity. Look at the many criticisms directed at her during her current presidential campaign, from candidates both across the aisle and within her own party.

Finally, to call Hillary Clinton "fairly conservative" is laughable on its face. No, she's certainly not a liberal, despite what those on the Right like to say, but she's not a Conservative by any definition of the word (and, for the record, neither Nixon nor Eisenhower were Conservatives). How many Conservatives do you know that support abortion rights, gay rights, or government expansion to support social services? Not many, I'd suspect.

[Lois]

Hillary is conservative as defined in the times of Kennedy, but it is all relative.  She is actually a moderate, and that's a good thing.

While my own politics are closer to  those of Bernie Sanders, I also realize the USA is not ready for a truly socialist president.  A moderate is what we need and being a moderate is what would make Hillary a good president.

Moderation is an honorable way to live and govern. In fact, it’s the best way, because America and the world are too complex to fit any ideology perfectly.

[Hoss]

Cannot say that I am a fan. .....but it is scary from where I sit in another bastion of the free world,when I look at the alternatives you guys have on both sides of the political spectrum. ...surely there has to be someone who hasn't come to the fore as yet. I cannot remember such a limited selection of candidates in decades. ...it is a worry!!!!!!!

[MissBarbara]

Hillary is conservative as defined in the times of Kennedy, but it is all relative.  She is actually a moderate, and that's a good thing.

While my own politics are closer to  those of Bernie Sanders, I also realize the USA is not ready for a truly socialist president.  A moderate is what we need and being a moderate is what would make Hillary a good president.

Moderation is an honorable way to live and govern. In fact, it’s the best way, because America and the world are too complex to fit any ideology perfectly.

You could make a compelling argument that JFK was a moderate, leaning to the Right. His reputation, you know,the whole Camelot thing, positions him as one of the last great liberal presidents, but his words and actions while in office belie that assertion.

Yes, he won the election -- by the narrowest of margins in U.S. history -- by placating the liberal wing of the Democratic party, but he clearly wasn't one of them. And the liberals grew unsatisfied with many of stands, including the execution of the war In Vietnam and Civil Rights.

I agree that Hillary is a moderate. Moderation, in general, is a good thing, and it's occasionally so in politics. But a politician who seeks compromise between the two parties isn't necessarily a moderate. And many political moderates (e.g. Carter) are neither/nor officeholders, placating neither side, and ultimately proving themselves ineffective, especially with regard to Congress.

[Lois]

So true.

[joan1984]

Hoss, I think the speed of communication, and availability of various means of such communication, where each News outlet feels it must compete for the minds of the age group they are targeting for their advertisers, so every Tweet, or YouTube winds up in a high speed splatter over the "news" and "entertainment" shows, 24/7... and thus, it looks like chaos...

You can see clearly how unprepared some are for 'Prime Time', and see how untrustworthy some are, watching them, even with a favorable Press treatment, bungle seemingly softball questions, looking for the 'gotcha' in it...

e.g.: Hillary in the last few days, when asked about lying to voters... went way out of her way not to say NO... and surprisingly the CBS News Host did not simply let it drop, and she dodged and equivocated further, voice rising, eventually blaming the Republicans for everything... before he let her off the hook and moved on without a clear "NO, I have not lied to voters" reply. She has been around her husband too long, or maybe taught Bill some techniques...

Today, the noise of the Campaign gets through, where in the past, certainly before 2006/7/8 Election Campaign years, those nonviable fell by the wayside, and you only heard a summary by a Network commentator of events in far flung States, if there were Primary elections at all.

As Ozzie Meyers (Congressional Representative from Philadelphia) would say... "Money talks, and bullshit walks"...  This year, maybe not so much? Will see...

The fact that many candidates are inept, not good at public speaking, are weasels who can be expected to say anything to be elected, was known in the past by those following closely, but hardly seen by the masses.

The shock of having the final two, the Democrat and the Republican nominees, who sometimes used this 'insider' info against one another in various States, is gone.

You are seeing all the minutia now, in less than graceful statements made in some cases live on TV during a inter party Debate, in others the back and forth on-line, the 'he said/she said' between the campaigns, as they seek to retain and gain donors, and voters, for the next Primary.

Will see how this settles down, and whether 'Millennials' get the Candidates they want, or whether the Party Establishment(s) pulls the rug out, imposing its will, as usual.

Cannot say that I am a fan. .....but it is scary from where I sit in another bastion of the free world,when I look at the alternatives you guys have on both sides of the political spectrum. ...surely there has to be someone who hasn't come to the fore as yet. I cannot remember such a limited selection of candidates in decades. ...it is a worry!!!!!!!

[Lois]

Let's check Hillary's Truth-o-Meter score against the GOP front runners:

Hillary Clinton
True (25%)
Mostly True (26%)
Half True (21%)
Mostly False (14%)
False (12%)
Pants on Fire Lies (1%)

Donald Trump
True (1%)
Mostly True (6%)
Half True (16%)
Mostly False (18%)
False (39%)
Pants on Fire (19%)

Ted Cruz
True (5%)
Mostly True (15%)
Half True (13%)
Mostly False (29%)
False (32%)
Pants on Fire (7%)

So please Joan, don't talk about Hillary's "lies" when the guys you like lie so much more.  

Perception is not always reality.  If you listen to enough lies, they alter your perception so that you can't tell delusion from facts.  I think Hillary has been the victim of these lies, more than she has lied herself.

http://www.politifact.com/

[watcher1]

[Lois]

Cool!

[watcher1]

I love Hillary.  Already voted for Super Tuesday.

Admit it, Toe.  The Hookers for Hillary offered you a freebie for your vote. 

[Katiebee]

Probably got a blow job and his salad tossed.

[watcher1]

Probably got a blow job and his salad tossed.

Whatever happened to a "chicken in every pot" if elected?  Hard decision between a chicken and a blow job......

[herschel]

My complaint with Hillary is we will get eight more years of the same old shit that got us where we are now. My complaint with Trump is we will get eight years of wacko chaos. When in doubt, fall back and reflect. I think I'll do what I've been doing since Nixon, which is nothing. Unfortunately that hasn't worked either. But at least it wasn't my fault. Amor pecuniae radix totum malorum est.

[MissBarbara]

...I think I'll do what I've been doing since Nixon, which is nothing. Unfortunately that hasn't worked either. But at least it wasn't my fault. Amor pecuniae radix totum malorum est.

I'll match you quote for quote:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."