I see it everywhere in the media, and I don't see any real reasons. Now, personally, I like Obama (and most of the other candidates mote), but I'm wondering why everyone thinks Hillary is a bitch?
Okay, I've been waiting to say this for some time:
It's because she's a woman.
No, really, gender is in fact the very core of the issue.
And yet, it's not overt sexism on the part of (most of) her detractors, but instead it's by and large due to the way she must portray herself in order to combat gender realities and stereotypes.
There's the idea (whether valid or not) that women are 'soft' on a lot of issues. In order to be successful in politics (currently still very much a man's world), a women must put on a stiffer exterior than a man would.
This results in a polarization between people that see an authoritarian (or a woman that doesn't know her place: a 'bitch') and those that see a strong leader (or a strong and independent woman).
I think you're right.
Although honestly, is Hillary being any "tougher" than a male candidate would be in her place? If a man said and behaved exactly as she has been, I don't think anyone would associate him with excess rigidity. If anything he'd be considered a wuss.
I think it's all about how we perceive powerful women; a nasty double-standard.
But then of course she DID vote in support of Iraq invasion, so it's not like I'll let her off easily. Anti-Hillaryism is politically justifiable, although I doubt the popular media that lambastes her is primarily concerned with political issues.
Clinton is disliked because she is farther to the right than Obama, though she's generally been left of the third major Democrat, Edwards. Also, like Edwards and pretty much every other Democrat except Kucinich and Obama to a certain extent, she is in the pockets of special interest groups. Different groups from the ones espousing the Republican Party, certainly, but they're lobbyists all the same.
You can't consider any of these mainstream American candidates to be left at all is wrong, we're only talking relatively. The gun banning, isolationist, and affirmative action programs "progressive" Democrats espouse are downright scary.
> The gun banning, isolationist, and affirmative action programs "progressive" Democrats espouse are downright scary.
I find it odd that anyone would find these things scary.
And don't self-identified Democrats carry more with non-interventionism or internationalism rather than isolationism?
Also, Isolationism was espoused by the Republican party in the first half of the twentieth century, and by some long shot Republican candidate today who shall remain nameless for the sake of thread integrity.
What, RON PAUL 08???
DID SOMEBODY SAY RON PAUL 08??
BECAUSE I WAS SURE I HEARD SOMEBODY SAY RON PAUL 08!!!11!
Now there is a scary candidate.
Hillary squicks me for the same reason George W Bush squicked me back in 2000.
It's not just that she has the same last name as the previous president -- it's that her victory is seen as a foregone conclusion for that reason, like there are piles and piles of Washington insiders who are investing all their resources into helping her ascend. And remember how all the people from the first Bush presidency came back for the second Bush presidency?
Granted, it's hard to imagine Hillary's presidency being as disastrous as GWB's, considering the level of peace and prosperity we had during the first Clinton presidency. But that first Clinton presidency saw some bad, bad laws being signed, like the COPA, the DMCA, and all those gun control laws. I'm not a big gun guy myself, but I have enough friends who are to care about this. (Indeed, gun control is a lot like DRM, in that it only punishes law abiding citizens, though that's another thread.)
Obama gives me the same creepy cult-following feeling that Ron Paul has, except he has a fighting chance, and nobody's pointed out his gigantic policy flaw to me yet. Probably because they don't have to, considering Hillary will win by such a landslide.
That's kind of why I think Ron Paul has a chance: pundits are desperately trying to keep him down. Notice how many people are shouting him down for being "isolationist". They could just as easily focus on all the government programs he wants to shut down, by painting them as essential, but they're not. I'll bet a million internets that within the next three years, there'll be a book that traces the isolationism meme back to some source that's heavily invested in us spending lots of money on foreign wars.
>>1 im not even american and couldnt give a fuck about american politics unless it directs australia or the world economy in some way or another. i dont like hilary clinton because she is a women and is trying to do a mans job.
>>2 I thought it was because she's a Trotskyite Ice Queen from Hell.
Silly me, it was all about the vagina.
> Ice Queen
She has received more donations from drug companies etc. than any other candidate. She is a whore to corporations, just like GWB. American will go down the drain and the gap between wealthy and poor will only widen when she is elected. Universal health care will basically guarantee the permanent impoverishment of the poor, as they will pay more taxes (or the economy will become weaker and they'll pay more for goods and services) in order to sustain the UHC program. Now, even the poor who try hard to be healthy and improve themselves will be carrying the weight of the majority who won't and will be living like leaches off of the system.
If Hillary wins, this country will turn to shit.
Also, I hate how women vote for Hillary just because she's a woman. I know a handful of women who literally changed their vote because Hillary cried, and stated it as such. Pathetic.
>>9
I doubt that a Trotskyist would sell out to corporations as easily as she has.
Personally, I would have liked to see Kucinich win, but since we're talking about a country of right-wing apathists who see healthcare as bad and guns as good, I guess the best I can hope for is Obama.
> If Hillary wins, this country will turn to shit.
It already has turned to shit, you just aren't seeing the effects yet. Whether Hillary does or does not do any of the above-mentioned, it's too late either way. Bush Jr.'s administration was one of the worst things that could have possibly happened to the US; they sold off its future in a gamble.
(Of course the tragic part is that the people who have to pick up the pieces of this fiasco will be the ones who receive the blame, not the true cause!)
None of America's creditors has any hope of ever recouping their loans. The US imports far more than it exports, doesn't really have any heavy industries compared to other industrialized nations, and likes to call itself a service economy despite trying to outsource as much as possible. About the only thing it does have is natural resources -- it must be nice to rank where second- and third-world countries do, since that's all they have too.
The US is still afloat only because of that agreement with Saudi Arabia to tie petroleum to the US dollar, which effectively allows the US to print as much money as it needs and export the resulting inflation to everyone else.
Eventually someone is going to say, "Shit, this is going to hurt terribly, but it's time to cut our losses, because it's only going to get worse." Everyone else will see this and say, "Uh oh, I'd better do that too before everyone else does and there's nothing left for me to claim." Then the US will become an economic crater in the ground (and cause massive economic repercussions around the world, but that'll be the least of your concerns at that point).
Me, personally? I don't know what to think of Clinton except that she has consistently voted like a hawk. The US economy desperately needs to divest itself of all unnecessary expenditures, and the largest of those is that idiotic war. It probably sounded like a good plan at the time, but the US has no hope of holding on to Iraq and controlling the world oil supply by proxy. It was a big gamble, the US lost, and continuing the escapade will only bring the nigh-inevitable economic collapse sooner.
Remember, Bill Clinton managed the almost impossible and brought the US deficit (not the real problem: debt) to zero, but there was no major war most of the time, and it still took him his entire presidency to achieve it.
I'll be honest. It's partly because she's a woman. Unlike the other countries, my fellow Americans are assholes, and would do anything to stop her because she's a woman, though barely.
Also, she's a cold, cruel woman who won't shut up about her "experience". First Lady is NOT experience. She's only Senator because of Bill. She didn't talk about change until Obama did. I'm pretty sure she couldn't keep our nation secure, either. No other candidate in the race is worse than her, Democrat or GOP.
>>14
I guess it's just me, but I'd much rather see a woman in office than a black. I like women. I love women. And I like some blacks. The ones that go to college with me... but I also get called a white devil by many blacks. It's rare, if ever, that I get hated by women for my genitalia.
Besides, Obama talks a lot more about crap and a lot less about actual policy than Hillary. I realize that she is quite a cold woman, but then our wonderful president GW has had thousands of people killed, worsened the education system, and destroyed our country's economy. That seems pretty damn cold to me.
I actually like Edwards the best, but due to his enormous lack of funding compared to Obama and Clinton, and the media completely ignoring him for much of the campaign, he doesn't stand a chance.
Hillary has always seemed creepy to me. I really don't have much experience with listening to her speak, etc, but I've just always gotten a bad feeling about her; Not any woman, who I'd be cautious about and judge carefully because I know that I have gender roles ingrained into my head, but Hillary in specific.
Plus, as has been said above, she's hawkish. I see her as someone who is happy with continuing war. I also associate her with big money and political powers. She's tied to the systems of the past in my view, and that is reason for me to distrust her.
As for Obama, I can't say I've had much experience with him, either. He seems very fake, uncertain of how to act, etc., but I think that he's intelligent enough to get and work with advisers. I also don't think he'd be so hasty to rush into situations or solutions. When eh says he'll talk with dictators, I think he means it. I also see Obama as very cold and calculating in some aspects, and that's a good thing for leadership in this case. HE isn't the lovey-dovey pushover some people seem to make him out to be, in my eyes.
obama is good at talking but so was Hitler, people hate Hillary because the press asks her more critical questions and because obama is suported by the press
On one hand, you have a strong, dynamic speaker who is able to energize a room with a simple speech, mobilize the youth of the nation, and whip minorities into a frenzy.
On the other, you have a slightly more impersonal person who, when excited, seems to be almost forcing it, and whose political support comes mostly from older citizens and the "establishment" portion of the party.
Of course Hillary is going to seem like a bitch, especially when you've got a people's (and media's) darling like Obama around.
>>2 covered it. A lot of people think she's a "bitch", but can't really explain why. The reason begins with an 's' and ends with 'exism'.
Hillary is the candidate of choice for older Democrats. People who have meaningful recollections of the bounty of the Clinton years. Obama is the candidate of young, idealistic types who are stupid enough to believe Obama's endless, implausible promises.
I liked ron paul. Personally, I would have liked to see either the domocrats or repubilicans have a Paul- Cuccinnich ticket. Bi partisan and very much going back to the thngs that made this country free and great. Issolationism would have saved us from shit like 9/11. The reason we are internationally hated is because of our meddling. This is also why obama beat hilary. obama is more like cuccinich (who is more like ron paul) than the other dems. The typical democratic platform pushes an agenda that largely dissolves the us in favor of something like the NAU. Also, she voted many authoritarian policies in as Senator of new york and, as stated earlier is a whore to big corporationsd and a war junky. shes bad news. Id put her in for VP just to get Obama more support but Id keep her far from the decisionmaking process. She is just like bush.
>>23
paul and kucinich had only one policy in common, getting out of iraq. it would have made for a rather dysfunctional ticket.
clinton as veep won't do obama any good. her 'experience' is a sham compared to other potential running mates, and whatever votes she may bring the ticket from disaffected feminists will be far fewer then the voters he'd get by picking a swing state gov/congressman.
Hillary is the mother of NAFTA and outsourcing. Her fine work has destroyed the IT industry in the US. Fuck her. I hope she dies.
>Hillary is the mother of NAFTA and outsourcing. Her fine work has destroyed ALL industry in the US. Fuck her. I hope she dies.
fixed
What is going on with these "puma" women who say they will vote for McCain now? All these Hillary supporters who are now vowing to vote for McCain are just reinforcing the stereotype that women are more emotional than rational. Obama and Hillary are close on the issues, so why huff and swoon because the democratic party is backing Tweedledee instead of Tweedledum? Stop being sore losers and try what Obama says, and "get over it" You know what really makes me laugh? It's that Hillary lost to a black man instead of a white, so her discrimination/sexism claims just sound like whining. Boohoo! So what if she has more experience, most of it is as being "part of the problem." And most "liberal" women seem to just shrug or smirk when a man loses a job to someone less experienced, because they see it as "affirmative" action. So now they're learning, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
What experience does Hillary have anyway, except for her inability to pass healthcare reforms? And she set a great example for women everywhere by staying married to a lying philanderer.
> And she set a great example for women everywhere by staying married to a lying philanderer.
Taking the high road, huh?
Wait a few years.
In a few years she'll be even more ancient than she is now. Do you think she will campaign from a wheelchair? And Dems will not blow money on a second campaign for a proven loser -- just ask Kerry, Gore, Dean, etc. This was Hillary's only shot at the presidency, and she blew it.
>>22
yes, hillary is a sexist. that's why i don't like her.
i doubt this. Paul, himself, admitted on television that he and cuccinich usually vote on the same side of issues more often than not. he named cuccinich when asked who he would have chosen as his running mate the last time he was on bill maher.
>>30
Wait for >>28 to get a few years of perspective. AKA grow up.
Everyone lies. Everyone lies under oath too, for those of you who haven't been to court yet. Likewise, many men and women have some excitement on the side.
That doesn't make it right, but pretending otherwise and trying to be a hypocritical moralistic dork is pathetic.
For you Jesus freaks, got a log in your eye?
Uh, shit. I forgot my main point:
Life isn't simple. It's easy to say, "Hey, he betrayed you. Drop him!" but it's quite another thing to do it. Unless you've been there, you have shit all to say about her decision.
PS. I don't like Hillary, but for non-stupid reasons.
It sounds like you have been there before #33-34 -- gee, that's too bad for you. Hillary knew Bill was cheating on her long before Monica. Ever hear the names Jennifer Flowers or Paula Jones? The fact that Hillary did not have enough self-respect to move on is pathetic. Maybe she used your argument that "oh well, everyone lies," but think of this: imagine if Hillary had a trail of affairs that stretch all the way back to the governer's mansion; do you think Bill would have stayed with her? Making excuses for staying in a situation like this makes you seem like the dork.
> It sounds like you have been there before #33-34
Fortunately not. I've just been around enough to know it's not IF A THEN B. Breaking up is unpleasant. When you're married and everything is tangled up (kids, property, finances, friends, family, etc), it's far, far worse.
> The fact that Hillary did not have enough self-respect to move on is pathetic.
See, here's the problem: you're not her. You don't know what her motivations are. Perhaps she's concerned about her kid. Perhaps she's into open relationships. Perhaps she values power. Perhaps she worries about her finances. Who knows.
I've known women who worried about all of these things. Some of them were strong people too.
> Making excuses for staying in a situation like this makes you seem like the dork.
Realizing life isn't simple is an excuse? Just wait a few years.
Well #33-34/36, if Hillary really was "concerned about her kid" then she would have left Bill back after his 3rd or 4th fling hit the newspapers. Imagine how Chelsea must of felt to see her mom stay with someone who treated her like garbage with years of infidelity. It's one thing if he made a mistake and regretted it, but it's another for him to habitually stray. Anyway, I don't really care about their marriage problems -- the real problem is that the Clintons have very little integrity, and a lot of people are suffering because of it. They rammed NAFTA through before putting a system in place to inspect the "free trade" flooding in, and so we get toys painted in lead, pills filled with cement powder instead of medicine, pet food filled with chemicals that killed animals across the country . . . . I'm just glad they won't be back in the white house to do more damage.
> Imagine how Chelsea must of felt to see her mom stay with someone who treated her like garbage with years of infidelity.
Uh, huh. And how do you know he treated her like "garbage"?
I know a chap who treats his wife amazingly well. He'd be the ideal husband if he would stop sleeping with a different woman every few months behind her back.
So the question becomes: do all the benefits of sticking with this guy outweigh the drawbacks? That's her decision, based on many rational and emotional factors that I don't know about; she seems to love him anyway.
> Anyway, I don't really care about their marriage problems
Good. There are real reasons to have problems with Hillary.
This is what really pisses me off: we have people bringing up ridiculously irrelevant minutiae instead of real issues. Who gives a fucking flying shit about someone's personal life when there's a nation becoming poor or people dying because of decisions being made as part of public policy?
Watching a person's private life instead of the important public actions is tabloidism: Theatre for retards. Shit that doesn't matter.
> Watching a person's private life instead of the important public actions is tabloidism
I disagree. The private life reflects character and tells you in advance whether a person is trustworthy and what kind of decisions that person will tend to make. This is a very old truth and even the Romans knew that Caligulas make poor emperors.
The Klintonistas drowned America in a tidal wave of corruption and slime that was a perfect mirror reflection of their loathsome gutter-slime personal behavior and base venality as human beings. That they would give us NAFTA and worse was therefore rather predictable.
>>39
Fail. That clinton is a horny bastard that cannot keep it in is pants is no directly related to the fact that he ass a special interests whore. People's personal lives CAN give you information on how someone will make decisions (Sir Elton John would be unlikely to pass any laws forbidding gay marriage). That doesn't always work. Caligula was insane and that makes your arguement a strawman arguement (for mor info on what a strawman arguement is, check wikipedia or any other reputable encyclopedia of your choice.)
If what you said were true, it would make President Bush an environmentalist worth of Greenpeace (which he is NOT). His texas ranch is about as green as you can make it. It is the envy of every environmentalist for low emission energy production that utilizes solar and wind energy for power and thermodynamics to keep the house cool in summer and warm in winter. That is his private mansion and it is part of his PRIVATE life. The problem is, he didn't build it that way because he is pro environment. It just cheaper than buying oil (he should know!- the last time he messed with oil in texas he went bankrupt).
Using someone's private life to guage their worth as a leader is only releveant in very narrow scenarios that are specific to the individual (ex. gay legislators on same sex marriage) unles the individual is so unstable that they are unfit for office to begin with.
I just hate hillary because she is like Joe Lieberman. She's on the democratic party ticket but shes just another neocon. She's in favor of benifitingg corporations by making labor cheaper for them at the expense of the average american via outsourcing and She favors intrusive police powers like those in the patriot act.
(ex. gay legislators on same sex marriage)
Unless they're simultaneously Republican.
Oh my, I feel bad for you #38 if you have to ask "and how do you know he treated her like "garbage"?" We know this because he repeatedly had affairs with other women. This showed a total disregard for her feelings, and possibly her health since he risked getting a disease from these other women and giving it to her. And imagine how creeped out Chelsea must have felt when she heard about the affair with Monica, who I believe was her age.
As for you #40, the problems we have with Bush are not from his position on the environment -- the environment was already going down the tubes long before he got into office, and no policies can stop the climate changes. The more immediate problems we have with Bush is that he is a crusader, much like the earlier crusaders who led campaigns into persia to spread christianity. When you consider that Bush was a coke addict who overcame his partying by turning to the church, then his past PRIVATE behavior helps explain his current mindset as a zealot. People asked if he talked with his father for advice before invading Iraq, and he replied "I spoke with my father in heaven." It's too bad people didn't consider his private life more before electing him, and then opt for someone more secular.
But back to Hillary. As much as I dislike her, I also feel sorry for her. She keeps buying into situations that end up betraying her. She married Bill and he cheated. She is wed to the DNC, yet the superdelegates turned on her and voted for Barrack. I would like to give her a line from a MyChemicalRomance song, and tell her "maybe when they knock you down and out, that's where you ought to stay." She would probably enjoy her life more if she stayed out of the public spotlight.
It's too bad we can't elect Ron Paul.
> We know this because he repeatedly had affairs with other women.
> Just wait a few years.
I hope you are not some sort of fortune-teller #43. You keep telling me to wait a few years, and it starting to scare me.
Life is great. It also has shitty parts.
When I look back at the things I used to believe when I was younger...
I'm not sure that's a good thing. :(
>>40
Not so fast.
If a man's own wife can't trust him to keep his promises, how can 300 million strangers?
>>46
because people are more likely to lie to those they care for the most on a personal level. I care more about what my father's opinion than that of the entire constituency of Texas. Hence, I can admit to all of Texas that I smoke pot but i would virulently deny this to my father. why? because I dont want him to think ill of me.
Also, keep dishonest in context. Bill didn't want to get caught cheating on his wife because that carries with it HUGE headaches (divorce, listening to the bitching, pissed off kids, didn't want her to get hurt but couldn't keep it in his pants, ect). we all know the vast majority of politicians do this. Bill's support went up when it was revealed that this is what happened because most people can identify with lying to those you love to avoid hurting them. didn't your parents ever take you to get a shot and tell you it wouldn't hurt?
This is not the same as saying " OMFGWTF, NO! SADDAM HAS THE BOMB!1!! /I/ NAO!!!UMD!" like certain, re-elected republicans i know of.
Hitler was a war veteran, believed in strict chivalry, was well mannered, abhored liars, owned two dogs, went to church on sunday, and was good with children. He also brought about the mass exterminations of millions of Jews, Gypsies, Jehovas witnesses, Communists, Anarchists, Blacks, handicapped people, and gays.
Ted Bundy used to help old ladies cross the street and would dress up as a clown to entertain little kids at hospitals.
Ya, Their personal lives were REAL good indicators of their qualities as leaders...
in before Hitler-bundy 08
> Hitler-bundy 08
I know this is pathetic, but...
I'd vote for that ticket.
If we're going to have totally evil bastart overlords, at least they can act like totally evil bastard overlords. Admit it: you'd love it too.
>>47
I am no fan of Dubya, but I suppose I can't blame him for believing it after Klinton and the rest of his party spent eight straight years telling us that Saddam was going to have the Bomb any day now.
Do you doubt me? Would you like some quotes?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
I think Bush was a neocon puppet from start to end, but let's look at those statements a little:
Bush should have believed what the Pentagon was telling him, not some stupid talking points made for public consumption by other politicians. Did Ron Paul believe what he was told about the economy?
Bush is an utter imbicile handing things he cannot handle, but that's besides the point. The Democrats are full of fucking fail, but trying to pin Republican fail on them too is really sad shit dude. Aren't the Republicans the party of responsilibity?
A better voting system is needed to destroy both of them.
>>50
In all seriousness, I do not see even that much difference between the political parties in the US. Taking a tip from one Mencius Moldbug (Google for him; he has a very verbose, crypto-erudite blog) I have begun calling them the Inner Party and the Outer Party, the Two-That-Are-One. This is of course a metaphor, but I think it also opens the mind to thinking about the US political situation in new and useful ways.
Hilary is totally hot