5 ms·

Thanks for sharing. Can you elaborate on #1. I never really understood the level of hatred Hillary received. To me she seemed like any other politician.

by saeranv 10y ago

austenallred 10y ago
I'll be honest; I don't entirely understand it, either. The general sentiment is that she's a crook and corrupt to a much, much greater degree than other politicians.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Conservative talk radio, and other similar media, have spent decades vilifying her. According to them, she has helped her husband prey on women, has had people killed to cover up crimes, is trying to push for a takeover of the US by the United Nations, and much, much more. Not much of this is connected to reality, but that just doesn't matter.
  - Arizhel 10y ago
    The part about her helping her husband prey on women has at least some truth to it. There's no shortage of women over the decades who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault; I think it's rather silly to claim that Billy is completely innocent. So just as with any rapist, a woman who insists on staying married to such a man and backing him up in public can be seen as "enabling" him. Honestly, I don't think all this anti-Hillary stuff is unfair either. There's no shortage of Democrat politicians who do NOT have all the baggage that either Bill or Hillary have accumulated over the years. What kind of dirt does anyone have on Al Gore, for instance? Conservatives might disagree about his environmental claims, and some people might still be mad about his ex-wife's record lyrics labeling campaign (but he and Tipper got divorced some time ago, so I think it's unfair to hold him to that now), but that's about it. I've certainly never heard of him sexually assaulting women. And I can say the same about most Democratic politicians, famous or not. So why did the DNC insist on picking a candidate with so much baggage? They're really the ones to blame for losing this election.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      I'm not talking about "enabling" like not getting a divorce, I mean stuff like having witnesses killed. I became convinced this past fall that the criticism was utterly unfair, because her fiercest opponents could never come up with anything beyond "emails" and "Benghazi" over and over again. In any case, it doesn't matter whether it's fair, they shouldn't have run her. If she's widely hated then that affects things regardless of whether it's "fair."
    - rrauenza 10y ago
      I don't think it is so much staying married as it is actively enabling him by working to discredit his accusers. She was an active participant in formulating the strategies to discredit them: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435941/hillary-clinton-enabled-bill-clintons-abuse-women-her-own-standards http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435941/hillary-clinton...
    - macintux 10y ago
      The frustrating part about this, of course, is that while Hillary was accused of being an enabler, Trump has been accused of not only being an admitted sexual assaulter but actually raping an underage girl. Not "merely" statutory rape either. Such a proud day for our country when he was elected.
      - Arizhel 10y ago
        Such a proud day for our country back in November when we had these two "fine" people running against each other for the highest office in the land. Honestly, if Hillary was the best we could do for an opposing candidate, then maybe we deserve Trump, if not someone much worse.
        macintux 10y ago
        The rest of the world didn't deserve Trump.
        Arizhel 10y ago
macintux 10y ago
It seems like the GOP picked her as a target when she was First Lady and never, ever let up on demonizing her. Unsurprising that 20 years of destructive characterization stuck. She did herself no favors by being more or less a typical politician in a lot of regards. When you're trying to defeat that much mudslinging, it's helpful to behave above reproach.
rrauenza 10y ago
Off the top of my head ... whitewater, healthcare during Clinton presidency (people didn't think the first lady should have such a large role in public policy), Hillary demonizing Bill's female accusers, "landing under sniper fire" in Bosnia, Vince Foster's death, Benghazi deaths, Benghazi root cause (particularly the initial narrative that it was due to the youtube video). Also the sense that it was "her turn" -- a sense of entitlement -- it was obvious the Democratic Party Leadership was "granting" her the nomination. Part of it I think, too, is the rise of Rush Limbaugh and the right radio who wanted to undermine Bill Clinton, so they incessantly attacked both Hillary and Bill. This also might begin to explain a little of the heart of the sentiment: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437345/hillary-clintons-lies-make-her-unpopular http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437345/hillary-clinton...
- rrauenza 10y ago
  Another aspect I forgot is that the Clinton's have often been unnecessarily secretive. For example, they weren't forthcoming about her pneumonia. Some thought that even the email server was driven by a desire to be secretive, even when not necessary. This behavior tends to make people suspicious -- but on the other hand, people were also out to discredit them. http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/26/cnn-host-wikileaks-showed-people-who-love-and-support-hillary-really-think-shes-nuts-video/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/26/cnn-host-wikileaks-showed-...
Balgair 10y ago
Hillary has had a very long career with many highs and many lows, so there really isn't a single reason anymore on why she is hated; many people have many reasons that may go back 30 years or more. Here are some google hits on why: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2017/02/the_first_month_of_the_trump_presidency_has_been_more_cruel_and_destructive.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/stop-pretending-you-dont-_b_12191766.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/stop-pretending-y...
- lazugod 10y ago
  Are they good reasons? Should I be hating her?
  - croon 10y ago
    No, but that wasn't the question. If we could run a collective by facts and optimal herd ideology, democracy would be obsolete. The only thing we can do is understand WHY something happens, then try to work to change it (if it's bad, which is an entirely different can of worms of a problem).
    - Balgair 10y ago
      >> If we could run a collective by facts and optimal herd ideology, democracy would be obsolete. Haha! Yes, democracy would be very obsolete, and also just about everything else that makes a society more than one giant ant-bee-termite-like hive mind.
CM30 10y ago
In part it's likely because she's married to Bill Clinton. She's basically seen as an example of a political 'dynasty' in the same way as George HW Bush, George W Bush and Jeb Bush. Part of an 'establishment' that doesn't seem like it'll change very much, especially when contrasted to Trump's claims of draining the swamp and overthrowing the system.
Stubb 10y ago
When you get a government security clearance, you sign an SF312 (non-disclosure agreement) where, among other things, you agree to safeguard classified information and acknowledge that you understand the criminal penalties for negligent handling. Then she's caught sending & receiving classified info through a personal email server. Any normal person would expect to land in jail immediately under those circumstances. This isn't just unethical behavior, it's flat-out criminal.

Thanks for sharing. Can you elaborate on #1. I never really understood the level of hatred Hillary received. To me she seemed like any other politician.

by saeranv 10y ago

Thanks for sharing. Can you elaborate on #1. I never really understood the level of hatred Hillary received. To me she seemed like any other politician.

austenallred 10y ago

I'll be honest; I don't entirely understand it, either. The general sentiment is that she's a crook and corrupt to a much, much greater degree than other politicians.

mikeash 10y ago
Conservative talk radio, and other similar media, have spent decades vilifying her. According to them, she has helped her husband prey on women, has had people killed to cover up crimes, is trying to push for a takeover of the US by the United Nations, and much, much more. Not much of this is connected to reality, but that just doesn't matter.
- Arizhel 10y ago
  The part about her helping her husband prey on women has at least some truth to it. There's no shortage of women over the decades who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault; I think it's rather silly to claim that Billy is completely innocent. So just as with any rapist, a woman who insists on staying married to such a man and backing him up in public can be seen as "enabling" him. Honestly, I don't think all this anti-Hillary stuff is unfair either. There's no shortage of Democrat politicians who do NOT have all the baggage that either Bill or Hillary have accumulated over the years. What kind of dirt does anyone have on Al Gore, for instance? Conservatives might disagree about his environmental claims, and some people might still be mad about his ex-wife's record lyrics labeling campaign (but he and Tipper got divorced some time ago, so I think it's unfair to hold him to that now), but that's about it. I've certainly never heard of him sexually assaulting women. And I can say the same about most Democratic politicians, famous or not. So why did the DNC insist on picking a candidate with so much baggage? They're really the ones to blame for losing this election.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I'm not talking about "enabling" like not getting a divorce, I mean stuff like having witnesses killed. I became convinced this past fall that the criticism was utterly unfair, because her fiercest opponents could never come up with anything beyond "emails" and "Benghazi" over and over again. In any case, it doesn't matter whether it's fair, they shouldn't have run her. If she's widely hated then that affects things regardless of whether it's "fair."
  - rrauenza 10y ago
    I don't think it is so much staying married as it is actively enabling him by working to discredit his accusers. She was an active participant in formulating the strategies to discredit them: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435941/hillary-clinton-enabled-bill-clintons-abuse-women-her-own-standards http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435941/hillary-clinton...
  - macintux 10y ago
    The frustrating part about this, of course, is that while Hillary was accused of being an enabler, Trump has been accused of not only being an admitted sexual assaulter but actually raping an underage girl. Not "merely" statutory rape either. Such a proud day for our country when he was elected.
    - Arizhel 10y ago
      Such a proud day for our country back in November when we had these two "fine" people running against each other for the highest office in the land. Honestly, if Hillary was the best we could do for an opposing candidate, then maybe we deserve Trump, if not someone much worse.
      - macintux 10y ago
        The rest of the world didn't deserve Trump.
        Arizhel 10y ago

macintux 10y ago

It seems like the GOP picked her as a target when she was First Lady and never, ever let up on demonizing her. Unsurprising that 20 years of destructive characterization stuck. She did herself no favors by being more or less a typical politician in a lot of regards. When you're trying to defeat that much mudslinging, it's helpful to behave above reproach.

rrauenza 10y ago

Off the top of my head ... whitewater, healthcare during Clinton presidency (people didn't think the first lady should have such a large role in public policy), Hillary demonizing Bill's female accusers, "landing under sniper fire" in Bosnia, Vince Foster's death, Benghazi deaths, Benghazi root cause (particularly the initial narrative that it was due to the youtube video). Also the sense that it was "her turn" -- a sense of entitlement -- it was obvious the Democratic Party Leadership was "granting" her the nomination. Part of it I think, too, is the rise of Rush Limbaugh and the right radio who wanted to undermine Bill Clinton, so they incessantly attacked both Hillary and Bill. This also might begin to explain a little of the heart of the sentiment: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437345/hillary-clintons-lies-make-her-unpopular http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437345/hillary-clinton...

rrauenza 10y ago
Another aspect I forgot is that the Clinton's have often been unnecessarily secretive. For example, they weren't forthcoming about her pneumonia. Some thought that even the email server was driven by a desire to be secretive, even when not necessary. This behavior tends to make people suspicious -- but on the other hand, people were also out to discredit them. http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/26/cnn-host-wikileaks-showed-people-who-love-and-support-hillary-really-think-shes-nuts-video/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/26/cnn-host-wikileaks-showed-...

Balgair 10y ago

Hillary has had a very long career with many highs and many lows, so there really isn't a single reason anymore on why she is hated; many people have many reasons that may go back 30 years or more. Here are some google hits on why: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2017/02/the_first_month_of_the_trump_presidency_has_been_more_cruel_and_destructive.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/stop-pretending-you-dont-_b_12191766.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/stop-pretending-y...

lazugod 10y ago
Are they good reasons? Should I be hating her?
- croon 10y ago
  No, but that wasn't the question. If we could run a collective by facts and optimal herd ideology, democracy would be obsolete. The only thing we can do is understand WHY something happens, then try to work to change it (if it's bad, which is an entirely different can of worms of a problem).
  - Balgair 10y ago
    >> If we could run a collective by facts and optimal herd ideology, democracy would be obsolete. Haha! Yes, democracy would be very obsolete, and also just about everything else that makes a society more than one giant ant-bee-termite-like hive mind.

CM30 10y ago

In part it's likely because she's married to Bill Clinton. She's basically seen as an example of a political 'dynasty' in the same way as George HW Bush, George W Bush and Jeb Bush. Part of an 'establishment' that doesn't seem like it'll change very much, especially when contrasted to Trump's claims of draining the swamp and overthrowing the system.

Stubb 10y ago

When you get a government security clearance, you sign an SF312 (non-disclosure agreement) where, among other things, you agree to safeguard classified information and acknowledge that you understand the criminal penalties for negligent handling. Then she's caught sending & receiving classified info through a personal email server. Any normal person would expect to land in jail immediately under those circumstances. This isn't just unethical behavior, it's flat-out criminal.