Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Why I hate Hillary Clinton

vastleft's picture
  • Because in my considered judgment, having another president named "Clinton" would be lame
  • Because she's so old, and the Baby Boomers ruined everything. Youth voting is inspiring. Older voters? Ho-hum.
  • Because she thinks the progressive fights of the 1960s and 1990s are still worth fighting
  • Because the Republicans proved that her husband cheated on her
  • Because the Republicans drummed up fake scandals about her that were proven untrue
  • Because rightwingers consider her a fat, Marxist lesbian. No way do I want to support someone that Republicans hate.
  • Because her alleged faux pas are all damnable, unlike Obama's actual statements, which are always beyond reproach
  • Because, unlike Obama, she doesn't inspire cult-like devotion
  • Because the Obama campaign twisted her and her husband's statements to paint her as a racist
  • Because the media repeatedly tells me that, despite her centrist policies, she's "polarizing"
  • Because her campaign is focused on energizing Democrats instead of those all-important Independents and repentant Republicans (in case there are any)
  • Because the Democrats barely have a chance to win and need to choose the trendiest candidate, despite close (and clouded) vote counts in 2000 and 2004, and a massive win in 2006
  • Because her husband ran on that awful, triangulating "third way," unlike Obama's awesome triangulating post-partisanship
  • Because she's too much like a Republican, and not in some undefinable awesome way that appeals to Republicans but is really incredibly progressive
  • Because she supported the war since the beginning, while Obama was gracious enough to wait until he was in the Senate to support the war
  • Because saying "hope" and "change" will make our problems go away. As long as we say them enough, of course (and she doesn't).
  • Because she doesn't make contentless pap sound like inspiration
  • Because she just wants to be "right" instead of admitting that Democrats are 50% responsible for all of our current problems.
  • Because it would be inspiring to have a black president (even to our enemies, who would be instantly disarmed by it!), as opposed to if we had a woman president, which would be meaningless
  • Because she doesn't realize liberals should be shamed for not being sufficiently religiose
  • Because Jesus didn't personally call her to lead us to the Promised Land

* * *

Prophylactic for the humorless: this is satire. If you think it wasn't, go back and re-read, and then consider adding some irony to your diet.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

now...that's inspiring.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Yes, I'm an anonymous coward who HATES Hillary for the same reasons you do! ;-).

It is so refreshing to find such a brilliant assessment. The major blogs (what I call the "Blog Stream Media") have really gone into a pseudo-right-wing gutter. As I see it, when you're outrageously biased, you're outrageously biased, and it doesn't matter if your name is DailyKos, Huffington Post or Faux News.

I'm back to attempting to locate alternative information sources and yours is one of them.

Thank you.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

With Hillary, it's impossible for her to be seen as anything other than evil in the eyes of many people. Some Democrats state how "unfair" it is, but it's a "fact." Mind you, these are the same people who condemned Shaheen when he suggested that the right would demonize Obama for his past cocaine use and yet with Clinton, it's, "Let's not even bother fighting back against the smears, but join the rabid right on the fun!" No wonder whenever I ask someone why they choose Obama over Clinton, they inevitably base it on downright lies (e.g., she's Bush-Cheney lite; he's a die-hard progressive) or impossibility (i.e. unity).

The OFB will believe tomorrow will be an "upset" when the contest has been blatantly rigged. The so-called press and the vast majority of "liberal" blogs have been unhinged when it comes to vilifying Clinton on baseless accusations while ignoring Obama's actual use of divisive, misleading tactics (e.g., sabotaging UHC for political gain).

And I hate to admit it, but I believe the source of this knee-jerk demonization of Clinton (and, thus, sanctification of Obama) has been misogyny. How can we not take that into account considering it's the only bigotry openly celebrated by all? Even during Bradley v. Gore, the anti-Gore reflexive bashing was nowhere near as intense.

hypnot's picture
Submitted by hypnot on

vastleft, I don't hate Hillary Clinton, but I'd like to like her more. I have trouble skipping past this observation:

"Because she supported the war since the beginning, while Obama was gracious enough to wait until he was in the Senate to support the war"

OK. First, there is a difference in supporting the war from the beginning. It places Clinton at one of the constitutional levers that launched an unprovoked attack against a nation that was at peace with us. If democracy is a system of accountability, she owes us an answer for why she made the choice that she did--an answer that will convince us that she won't do anything as mean and stupid again.

I have read some of her explanations, and I have not found any reassurance in them. I am not convinced that, as president, she would not decide to initiate a war without making the effort to collect adequate information and without bringing her whole head and heart to bear on the decision.

Obama may be hiding behind the fact that he wasn't asked to vote on the initial authorization, but that's the way it is. Those who continue to authorize this war justify it on the grounds of this nation's responsibility to our troops and to the poor Iraqis who collaborated with them. I am disappointed in their lack of imagination.

Because I don't hate Clinton or Obama and because I know that the Republicans must be driven from power, I am hoping (I know I shouldn't, but I can't help myself, and Obama doesn't own it) that both of them give me more to love. It's not too late for either of them to repudiate weak and mistaken decisions and to propose a sane and swift path back to the inevitable conclusion: U.S. troops out of Iraq.

I miss Edwards, Kucinich, and the rest of the Democratic pack, who tried to guide the discussion away from perpetuation of this crackpot right-wing nightmare. But if Clinton & Obama want to continue the process without them, I'm all for it.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

and i take poor comfort in despairing knowledge of the fact that obama wants to increase the size of our military and has said little to assure me that he wants to quick, complete withdrawl from iraq.

in this race, no remaining candidate lacks blood on their hands. once again i'll pull the level against the greater evil, and beg the gods to forgive my implied support of a lesser one.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

The founding fathers rejected King George (or he did himself). This country decided against royal families. I refuse to turn 28 years of executive rule of the USA over to the Bush family and Clinton family.

Maybe it is unfair to punish Mrs. Clinton because Mr. Clinton was president, but can't they at least let someone else lead for four years in between? I am very scared of this concept of Bush-Clinton over and over again.

Besides how hard is it to come up with a candidate who will sign a withdrawl order their first day in office. WTF is wrong with candidates not promising it, and primary voters not voting for it.

I am zealously praying that Jeb or Marvin step up in eight years to teach you all a lesson. I think Chelsea is still too young in eight years, but not in 16! Talk about SNAFU.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

I do feel strongly about the dynasty thing. Of course I supposed one could make the argument about Cheney's reign of terror, or Rummy. And they probably have had more influence and longer dynasty of their own...

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

So Robert Kennedy would have been outs with you? Or is Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama a bad thing in your eyes? How about FDR?

It's kind of hard to take the dynasty thing seriously when people keep comparing Obama favorably with members of America's biggest dynasty.

I think the Bush family has the Clintons cold on dynasties, too, btw. How many members of the Bush family are in politics? How many Clintons? If Chelsea runs for President after Hillary is an 8 year incumbent, then I'll start to get fatigue, but right now if you were to take Hillary's name away from her I'd still find her an impressive candidate.

Sorry Intranets, I know it's a big thing for you. I just don't see it as a big enough argument to validate a vote for Obama. Edwards, maybe. :-P

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

I hate Hillary because...

For twelve of the last 20 years there was a president named Bush.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

I hate Hillary because she's played the gender card by insisting on being a woman while Obama renounces such politics of division. Instead he insists on transcending gender by having Caroline Kennedy, Maria Shriver, Oprah, and Michelle Obama directly appeal to totally random supporters.

Oh, and she killed Vince Foster. She even took out the witness, Buddy the Dog--Man's best friend!--who stood in her way towards global domination!

Vote Against Hitlery! Do it for Buddy!

Seriously though, Stanley Fish had a blog post about the rabid, irrational hatred/fear of HRC today:
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/03...

Submitted by lambert on

But eating his baby? That's a little over the top, but so what?

I like a President who's enthusiastic about things.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/4/11161...

Sen. Hillary Clinton teared up this morning at an event at the Yale Child Study Center, where she worked while in law school in the early 1970s.

A doctor, who was introducing Clinton, began to choke up, leading Clinton's eyes to fill with tears, which she wiped out of her left eye. At the time, the doctor was saying how proud he was that sheepskin-coat, bell-bottom-wearing young woman he met in 1972 was now running for president.

So how do some OFB react? I know this may sounds harsh but cry again b4 another close election? Is there a pattern there and Definitely. planned to the T..

They seriously put all our joking to shame. Hillary is going down; I just wish it was not totally based on hate.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

I wasn't a voter in the 60s, but I think having a royal family in the US is a bad idea, and I'm really not a big fan of someone have undue political power just because of a family name and that applies to all Kennedy's. I'm a big supporter of citizen governance where you have a job, work for a short while in political office, then go back to your job. Also, I believe people in general thought the FDR dynasty was a little much (hence two terms now).

And I like the comment about 'Bush was 12 of 20 years', but that is a reason why I won't vote from Jeb or one of the lesser known Bush clan. It is a valid concern that if HRC is elected, that means at a minimum 28 years of Clinton's and Bush's. (12% of the history of US Presidents) And frankly the country can't survive that much goddamn Yale.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

that he will not be receiving your vote. :)

Really, all the "dynasty" Bush/Clinton stuff does not excite me that much. Nor does the fact that FDR was elected to four terms strike me as all that ominous, given that the word "elected" is indeed still in there.

Where Intranets strikes a very good point is in the "citizen governance where you have a job, work for a short while in political office, then go back to your job" line.

Because regardless of whether you serve one term or any number more, it's the fact that it is impossible for anybody not independently wealthy to run for office at just about any level these days. City council/county board, yeah they don't usually pay anyway so you have to keep a job. Mayor, maybe. Although it would be a bitch to get to all those weekday Chamber of Commerce and Lions Club luncheons and still get back to your workplace on time.

State rep...well, you could try, assuming you have the energy and gas money to run speaking to groups at nights and on weekends. And assuming your employer doesn't disapprove of your actions and sack you anyway. They are not in any case going to guarantee to hold your, or any, job until you wander back 2 or 4 or 6 years later.

Above that? Fuggedaboutit.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Well, of course it was fake. Hillary has no emotions. She is a cold frigid bitch, everyone knows that!

This pile on against Clinton every time she shows emotion is even sadder because Obama's entire campaign is based on emotion - how he makes people feel, how they respond to him. And Edwards choked up every time someone walked by.

But whenever Clinton connects with voters, it's an act. And, note, Clinton is more likely to tear up than Obama because Clinton tends to connect in a personal way with individual voters and supporters. Obama connects through speeches, but is rumored to be fairly "cold" in one-on-one settings.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

That would make him the opposite of Gore and Kerry, who are considered much more charming in person than the way they came across in their campaigns (Gore, of course, has lost much of that old stiff-upper-lip demeanor since then).

It takes a really special guy like George W. Bush to be so lovable in both private and in public, I guess.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Yeah, I should've been clearer, that I wasn't criticizing Obama. It's a rare politician who is great at everything. I've just read a couple of newspaper accounts that make him seem more cerebral and less warm in intimate settings. That doesn't have anything to do with his qualifications as president, one way or the other. It's just a difference between him and Clinton, who isn't a great speech giver, and one that makes him less likley to choke up, I think.

I do not see how anyone could find Bush charming in person or on television. It's not his politics because I can find Republicans charming. But Bush has that frat-boy, smug humor and I absolutely hate that in anyone. I do think it says something about what kind of person they are - awful.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

I didn't take it as giving me a hard time, it's just when I went back and read my post I realized it might sound like I'm criticizing Obama when I'm not.

At least not for that. Heh.

And, yes, Bush is a horrible human being in addition to being a horrible president (not that those two things in his case are unconnected).

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Why I hate about Hillary's supporters is that they can't seem to see that there is any truth behind people's criticisms of her or people's support of anyone else.

Submitted by lambert on

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

She voted for the war. She voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, giving book a declaration of war on Iran whenever he wants it.

I don't hate her, and will supprt her if she gets the nod, but we can do better than this.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Sorry, meant to say, "giving BUSH a declaration of war on Iran whenever he wants it."

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

1. Obama wasn't in the Senate, so he couldn't have voted for or against the war, and he admits -- despite having spoken out against the war from outside of DC -- that he doesn't know how he would have voted. His multiple votes to fund the war don't reassure me that he would have held his ground.

2. Obama didn't show up for the Iran vote

Those are, indeed, two bad votes for Hillary. But there's little sense that Obama would have been reliably better. And skipping Kyl was pretty facile, doncha think?

Hillary seems more committed to getting the war ended soon, and I don't imagine that either of them would trump up such a war on their own. Though Obama's saber-rattling toward Pakistan suggests that he may feel he has more to prove, macho-militarywise, and that is worrisome.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Hillary Clinton is a machine. A machine that has designed itself to accomplish any task that gathers power under its control.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

It's because she's a woman. Oh, and that's not a question, we know. All women are evil. Look at Lilith and Mary Magdelene! From the dawn of society, it has remained the duty of men, of all religions, to immobilize women. Any woman who stands equal shall be demonized and silenced by any means necessary. Whether it's by enlisting ignorant indoctrinated women or simply utilizing the tools that own the media or those who have mastered AOL chat rooms, Facebook, YouTube, and MySpace...this one task will always be the priority. "Turn the dirty machine's power button off!" It doesn't matter if it's your mother, your daughter, or your wife...all women are dirty machines. HAVE VAGINA WILL SIN!

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

She has an answer for everything. She has no room in her belief to change her mind. Like George Bush, she has a fixed belief about how the world is, when what her life should have taught her is that the world is always changing. To survive you have to be willing to be wrong and to change your mind. She cannot conceive of being wrong about anything. Isn't this w. all over again???

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

I'm quite sure that HRC never wanted to go to war with Iraq, certainly not after inspections were successful. I say that, because unlike Bush, she's not batshit crazy.

I'm glad she's not changing her mind about wanting our troops home.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Cult leaders do not change, except upon their whims, because every whim they have is reinforced by fawning followers.

Reasonable Obama supporter prophylactic: this does not mean you.

"Hillary Is Evil" / "W.O.R.M." players: this does mean you.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

I wouldn't vote for Hillary if my depended on it. The Clinton's are professional liars, cheaters and they will steal the gold right out of your mouth and you wouldn't even know it. It makes me absolutely sick to see all my fellow females make such ass's of themselves when they meet her on the campaign trail. We don't need to go back in history to when whild Billy was president nor do we need to go back to when Hillary was in college. We need a new fresh start and not business as usual. Hillary wouldn't know the truth if it fell on her head and the only thing Bill is after is a free ride and all the ladies he can handle...without Hillary knowing about them (yeah, right). Wake up people, the Clinton's are not what this country needs.

Submitted by lambert on

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

Just thought I'd jump on the bandwagon. Of course so is McCain, so I guess "the devil you know" argument should be Hillary's new ad campaign.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

The Democratic candidates are just as bad as the Republicans. There's no difference! Did we learn nothing from 2000? Is Bush really the same as Gore?

Obama's unity schtick makes me want to gouge my eyes out and I'm especially not going to want to hear it - and watch the pundits swoon over it - tonight after enough members of his party UNITED with the Republicans to gut the Constitution and the rule of law. When was the last time any unity resulted in something liberals want? And no that shitty and completely inadequate raise in the minimum wage doesn't count.

And yet, I know no matter how much he drives me crazy, Obama is still miles better than McCain.