Why do they hate Hillary Clinton so much?

christiefan915

Catalyst
This writer is trying to explain what I've been asking for a long time. Excerpts from the article below. I'm still voting for Bernie, though.

(CNN) Before I got out of bed this morning, my wife asked: "Why do they hate Hillary Clinton so much?"

Although I voted in the primary for Bernie Sanders, my senator from Vermont, I don't dislike Clinton in the least. Quite the opposite. I will happily vote for her in November. She is an admirable public servant, despite her obvious flaws, which are mostly the consequence of her decades in positions of authority. Every coin has two sides.

Her work as first lady certainly gave her a close view of life in the Oval Office -- a time of "daring and hubris," according to The New York Times' Peter Baker and Amy Chozick, when she learned how the levers of power work. Having served as a U.S. senator for eight years, she knows how Congress functions -- or doesn't. And she has a vast comprehension of foreign affairs, having visited 112 countries during her years (2009 to 2013) as secretary of state -- more than any previous person in that post.

Her achievements in Congress and at the State Department can't be denied, though many will try. Don't forget her courageous China speech on the rights of women, her aggressive work on climate change and her skill as a senator in guiding the Children's Health Insurance Program through Congress. She helped to negotiate a ceasefire with Hamas during a tense moment in Israel. I think of her successes in forging alliances in South America, Africa and Asia, and her part in establishing tough sanctions against Iran. That's only the beginning. And yet people hate her. Her negative ratings, in fact, have been shockingly high for someone this close to the nomination of her party. Indeed, one of the most frequently posed questions to the candidate herself is some version of "Why don't they like you?"

Of course, Republicans have known for a long time that Hillary Clinton is an unusually strong candidate, and this terrifies them. So they have seized on talking points like Benghazi (for which she bears little or no responsibility) and her email scandal. On the latter, even columnist Ruth Marcus -- certainly no fan of Clinton's -- recently wrote in The Washington Post that "there is no clear evidence that Clinton knew (or even should have known) that the material in her emails was classified." As we've seen, neither Benghazi nor the email trouble are likely to put off Democratic voters, who regard them as Republican talking points...

It's perhaps too easy to blame sexism for the nastiness that colors the opposition to Clinton. Yet one sees misogyny bubbling out in the comments section of articles on the Web, where no sentiments -- however crude -- are off limits. They attack her voice, her hairstyle, her pantsuits, her laugh. On and on. Clinton gets slammed for "shouting" and not smiling enough, though these are criticisms we don't hear about the male candidates. The main thing to dislike about Hillary Clinton seems to be her gender, and one can only begin to imagine the kind of language Donald Trump will summon in the general election...

Serious criticism of Clinton does arise. Some believe, for instance, that she doesn't tell the truth. Or that she's beholden to Wall Street. Or that she got four people killed in Benghazi. Others insist that she played fast and loose with her emails, risking national security and breaking the law. She does shade the truth at times, as do all politicians, including Sanders. Politifact, an excellent website, measures the truth-quality of statements by everyone running for president on both sides of the aisle, and Clinton comes out as perhaps the most truthful of the pack, even more so than Sanders -- although the two are more or less even, telling the whole truth or something like the truth about half the time. (By contrast, only 9% of the statements made by Donald Trump and reviewed by Politifact were rated "true" or "mostly true." More than three quarters of Trump's statements were rated "mostly false," "false" or "pants on fire.")

The main reason that Republicans, in particular, hate Clinton is that she will probably beat Trump or Cruz or anyone thrown up by the GOP in the general election. The abuse of Hillary Clinton must stop. She's not perfect. But she's smart, experienced and compassionate, and she will step into the Oval Office better prepared to take on an exacting job in difficult times than almost anyone in recent memory.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/20/opinions/why-the-hate-for-hillary-clinton-opinion-parini/index.html
 
Interesting that a gentleman so against the Iraq War would be such a big defender of Hillary Clinton and make no reference to it among her faults. Of course it's mostly those on the left that are upset at Hillary for that vote.

For starters we live in a highly divided country politically and the reality is Republicans are not going to like Democratic nominee for President and vice versa. On top of that you have a person that lacks charisma/likeability, has a long history of ethical controversy's, isn't very honest and changes positions regularly.

There are a lot of Republicans, myself included, that absolutely abhor the idea of a socialist such as Bernie Sanders getting close to the Presidency. However I and many others will credit Bernie for generally being a man of principle and sticking to what he believes. Hillary doesn't garner that respect.

The author claims "the abuse of Hillary must stop". Sorry sir, it doesn't work that way. You don't get a free pass to the Presidency. Hillary is a smart woman. She knew she would run for President one day and has made subsequent decisions accordingly. This 'whoa is me, poor Hillary' doesn't fly with most people.
 
Her work as first lady certainly gave her a close view of life in the Oval Office -- a time of "daring and hubris," according to The New York Times' Peter Baker and Amy Chozick, blow jobs and scandal after scandal...
Having served as a U.S. senator for eight years, she knows how Congress functions -- or doesn't. and no achievements
And she has a vast comprehension of foreign affairs, having visited 112 countries during her years (2009 to 2013) as secretary of state -- more than any previous person in that post.
Like Carley pointed out, thats an activity, not an achievement...amounts to 2 vacations a month and nothing more.

Her achievements in Congress and at the State Department can't be denied, though many will try. Don't forget her courageous China speech on the rights of women, her aggressive work on climate change and her skill as a senator in guiding the Children's Health Insurance Program through Congress. She helped to negotiate a ceasefire with Hamas during a tense moment in Israel. I think of her successes in forging alliances in South America, Africa and Asia, and her part in establishing tough sanctions against Iran. That's only the beginning. And yet people hate her. Her negative ratings, in fact, have been shockingly high for someone this close to the nomination of her party. This is spin about nothing, invented 'achievements' that amount to nothing

Of course, Republicans have known for a long time that Hillary Clinton is an unusually strong candidate, and this terrifies them. So they have seized on talking points like Benghazi (for which she bears little or no responsibility) and her email scandal. On the latter, even columnist Ruth Marcus -- certainly no fan of Clinton's -- recently wrote in The Washington Post that "there is no clear evidence that Clinton knew (or even should have known) that the material in her emails was classified." As we've seen, neither Benghazi nor the email trouble are likely to put off Democratic voters, who regard them as Republican talking points...

And as for her having no responsibility for the Libyan fiasco or Benghazi ?....thats laughable....she claimed full responsibility, but never said for what ?
I guess handing that country over to the radical Muslims ...that was the outcome.
 
Last edited:
Her work as first lady certainly gave her a close view of life in the Oval Office -- a time of "daring and hubris," according to The New York Times' Peter Baker and Amy Chozick, blow jobs and scandal after scandal...
Having served as a U.S. senator for eight years, she knows how Congress functions -- or doesn't. and no achievements
And she has a vast comprehension of foreign affairs, having visited 112 countries during her years (2009 to 2013) as secretary of state -- more than any previous person in that post.
Like Carley pointed out, thats an activity, not an achievement...amounts to 2 vacations a month and nothing more.

Her achievements in Congress and at the State Department can't be denied, though many will try. Don't forget her courageous China speech on the rights of women, her aggressive work on climate change and her skill as a senator in guiding the Children's Health Insurance Program through Congress. She helped to negotiate a ceasefire with Hamas during a tense moment in Israel. I think of her successes in forging alliances in South America, Africa and Asia, and her part in establishing tough sanctions against Iran. That's only the beginning. And yet people hate her. Her negative ratings, in fact, have been shockingly high for someone this close to the nomination of her party. This is spin about nothing, invented 'achievements' that amount to nothing

Of course, Republicans have known for a long time that Hillary Clinton is an unusually strong candidate, and this terrifies them. So they have seized on talking points like Benghazi (for which she bears little or no responsibility) and her email scandal. On the latter, even columnist Ruth Marcus -- certainly no fan of Clinton's -- recently wrote in The Washington Post that "there is no clear evidence that Clinton knew (or even should have known) that the material in her emails was classified." As we've seen, neither Benghazi nor the email trouble are likely to put off Democratic voters, who regard them as Republican talking points...

And as for her having no responsibility for the Libyan fiasco or Benghazi ?....thats laughable....she claimed full responsibility, but never said for what ?

I love how you make her pay and pay and pay for her husband's actions. Hypocrite much? Where's your outrage over three-times married serial adulterer and womanizer Trump?
 
I love how you make her pay and pay and pay for her husband's actions. Hypocrite much? Where's your outrage over three-times married serial adulterer and womanizer Trump?
Shes the one that claimed a bimbo eruption, defended her rapist partner and bitched about a vast right wing conspiracy....
So he married 3 times, had problems with wives, so what?....You defended Billy Blow back then and hold this against Trump?....Millions of people get divorced and remarried...its hardly
a unique phenomenon....
anyway, the subject is Hillary, not Trump.
 
Interesting that a gentleman so against the Iraq War would be such a big defender of Hillary Clinton and make no reference to it among her faults. Of course it's mostly those on the left that are upset at Hillary for that vote.

For starters we live in a highly divided country politically and the reality is Republicans are not going to like Democratic nominee for President and vice versa. On top of that you have a person that lacks charisma/likeability, has a long history of ethical controversy's, isn't very honest and changes positions regularly.

IOW she's the same as any other candidate running, to a greater or lesser degree. And in all honesty people didn't like her starting when she was FLOTUS and I didn't get it then, either. Cons revered an airhead like Nancy and an elitist like Barbara; what made those two more admirable than Hillary? I swear it's because they took the servile position and cons don't like uppity women.

There are a lot of Republicans, myself included, that absolutely abhor the idea of a socialist such as Bernie Sanders getting close to the Presidency. However I and many others will credit Bernie for generally being a man of principle and sticking to what he believes. Hillary doesn't garner that respect.

Cawacko why are you buying into the meme that Bern's a socialist? He's not a Marxist-Leninist and an authoritarian. I don't recall him saying the state should own the means of production. He may call himself a democratic socialist but he's actually a registered Democrat.

The author claims "the abuse of Hillary must stop". Sorry sir, it doesn't work that way. You don't get a free pass to the Presidency. Hillary is a smart woman. She knew she would run for President one day and has made subsequent decisions accordingly. This 'whoa is me, poor Hillary' doesn't fly with most people.

Why does Hillary have to get abused for her looks, her clothes, her voice or her laugh? Nobody pulls that crap on the men running other than poking fun at Trump's hair. Nobody says Cruz's suits don't look good on him or Kasich should avoid parting his hair on the right. It's a complete double standard.

I don't know if Hillary *always* knew she'd run for president some day and neither do the rest of you. It was all conjecture. I take the author's point that Hillary should be considered on her positions and platform. Yes, Hillary voted for the Iraq war and I hold that against her, along with her general hawkishness. Yet as far as I know all the repub candidates are hawks but nobody wants to talk about that. The repub candidates still standing don't have any problem with putting boots on the ground in the ME even now.

I don't much like Bern's position on guns or Israel but the election's too important to be narrowed down to those two issues. I'm voting for the one who I agree with on the majority of issues.
 
Shes the one that claimed a bimbo eruption, defended her rapist partner and bitched about a vast right wing conspiracy....
So he married 3 times, had problems with wives, so what?....You defended Billy Blow back then and hold this against Trump?....Millions of people get divorced and remarried...its hardly
a unique phenomenon....
anyway, the subject is Hillary, not Trump.

Since the subject is Hillary *you* shouldn't have brought up Bill's actions from 20 years ago. And if you aren't familiar with the Arkansas Project, let me refresh your memory. Click on the blue words.
 
IOW she's the same as any other candidate running, to a greater or lesser degree. And in all honesty people didn't like her starting when she was FLOTUS and I didn't get it then, either. Cons revered an airhead like Nancy and an elitist like Barbara; what made those two more admirable than Hillary? I swear it's because they took the servile position and cons don't like uppity women.

Remember when her husband was elected and she chimed in, 'you get two for one'....she really thought she was a co-president and it did piss people off...and to
get the ball rolling, she acted like she was co-president.


Cawacko why are you buying into the meme that Bern's a socialist? He's not a Marxist-Leninist and an authoritarian. I don't recall him saying the state should own the means of production. He may call himself a democratic socialist but he's actually a registered Democrat.
He a registered Democrat now, how else could he run....he was an independent before that and he defines himself a 'socialist'.....

Why does Hillary have to get abused for her looks, her clothes, her voice or her laugh? Nobody pulls that crap on the men running other than poking fun at Trump's hair. Nobody says Cruz's suits don't look good on him or Kasich should avoid parting his hair on the right. It's a complete double standard.
How could you say its a double standard when you just point out exactly the opposite....there has been caricatures of politicians for decades making fun of their looks...

I don't know if Hillary *always* knew she'd run for president some day and neither do the rest of you. It was all conjecture. I take the author's point that Hillary should be considered on her positions and platform. Yes, Hillary voted for the Iraq war and I hold that against her, along with her general hawkishness. Yet as far as I know all the repub candidates are hawks but nobody wants to talk about that. The repub candidates still standing don't have any problem with putting boots on the ground in the ME even now.

I don't much like Bern's position on guns or Israel but the election's too important to be narrowed down to those two issues. I'm voting for the one who I agree with on the majority of issues.

You can't be serious that you can't see Hillary has been running for President since 1992...
and
Sanders will not be nominated, he never had a chance, so you WILL be voting for Hillary come November.....get used to it.
 
Since the subject is Hillary *you* shouldn't have brought up Bill's actions from 20 years ago. And if you aren't familiar with the Arkansas Project, let me refresh your memory. Click on the blue words.

I actually brought up Monicas actions and mentioned the many scandals Hillary was involved in, personally.

the Clintons were never charged, but 15 other persons were convicted of more than 40 crimes way back then....and now
 
IOW she's the same as any other candidate running, to a greater or lesser degree. And in all honesty people didn't like her starting when she was FLOTUS and I didn't get it then, either. Cons revered an airhead like Nancy and an elitist like Barbara; what made those two more admirable than Hillary? I swear it's because they took the servile position and cons don't like uppity women.



Cawacko why are you buying into the meme that Bern's a socialist? He's not a Marxist-Leninist and an authoritarian. I don't recall him saying the state should own the means of production. He may call himself a democratic socialist but he's actually a registered Democrat.



Why does Hillary have to get abused for her looks, her clothes, her voice or her laugh? Nobody pulls that crap on the men running other than poking fun at Trump's hair. Nobody says Cruz's suits don't look good on him or Kasich should avoid parting his hair on the right. It's a complete double standard.

I don't know if Hillary *always* knew she'd run for president some day and neither do the rest of you. It was all conjecture. I take the author's point that Hillary should be considered on her positions and platform. Yes, Hillary voted for the Iraq war and I hold that against her, along with her general hawkishness. Yet as far as I know all the repub candidates are hawks but nobody wants to talk about that. The repub candidates still standing don't have any problem with putting boots on the ground in the ME even now.

I don't much like Bern's position on guns or Israel but the election's too important to be narrowed down to those two issues. I'm voting for the one who I agree with on the majority of issues.

Look at your comments about Nancy and Barbara. It's really no different than Hillary. Partisans are gonna partisans. The HUGE difference with Hillary as FLOTUS was she said all along she and Bill were a two for one combo and when she threw herself into the heart of the healthcare battle that was a game changer. Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush did nothing like that (nor any other recent FLOTUS). You can't take the lead in that and then claim to be off limits.

Bernie has called himself a democratic socialist over and over. He doesn't try to hide it. I abhor a Democratic socialist as much as a socialist. He spent his whole career, until last year, as an Independent. Hillary Clinton ripped him on it during the debates that he was never a Democrat.

Hillary is not likeable, she does not have the charisma of her husband or Obama. If you want a male example look at Ted Cruz. I've rightfully heard numerous times he has a face you just want to punch. Your girl Desh has said he can't be President because he's too ugly. Cruz has that slimy look/feel to him. It's not a double standard. Men have to deal with that sh*t as well. Go back to the first Kennedy/Nixon debate.

That's just willful disbelief if you don't think Hillary has thought about running for President, and what it would take to do so, for years. Not all that different from most who run for the office.

You are free to vote for who ever you would like. You posted this article asking why people don't like Hillary. I listened to plenty of NPR and left-wing Free Speech Radio during this primary and there were numerous liberals talking about they don't trust Hillary. Not right wingers, liberals were saying this. I'd surmise many of them will probably still support Hillary in the general but they still said it.

Look at her high unfavorable ratings. They aren't coming from just Republicans.
 
This writer is trying to explain what I've been asking for a long time. Excerpts from the article below. I'm still voting for Bernie, though.

(CNN) Before I got out of bed this morning, my wife asked: "Why do they hate Hillary Clinton so much?"

Although I voted in the primary for Bernie Sanders, my senator from Vermont, I don't dislike Clinton in the least. Quite the opposite. I will happily vote for her in November. She is an admirable public servant, despite her obvious flaws, which are mostly the consequence of her decades in positions of authority. Every coin has two sides.

Her work as first lady certainly gave her a close view of life in the Oval Office -- a time of "daring and hubris," according to The New York Times' Peter Baker and Amy Chozick, when she learned how the levers of power work. Having served as a U.S. senator for eight years, she knows how Congress functions -- or doesn't. And she has a vast comprehension of foreign affairs, having visited 112 countries during her years (2009 to 2013) as secretary of state -- more than any previous person in that post.

Her achievements in Congress and at the State Department can't be denied, though many will try. Don't forget her courageous China speech on the rights of women, her aggressive work on climate change and her skill as a senator in guiding the Children's Health Insurance Program through Congress. She helped to negotiate a ceasefire with Hamas during a tense moment in Israel. I think of her successes in forging alliances in South America, Africa and Asia, and her part in establishing tough sanctions against Iran. That's only the beginning. And yet people hate her. Her negative ratings, in fact, have been shockingly high for someone this close to the nomination of her party. Indeed, one of the most frequently posed questions to the candidate herself is some version of "Why don't they like you?"

Of course, Republicans have known for a long time that Hillary Clinton is an unusually strong candidate, and this terrifies them. So they have seized on talking points like Benghazi (for which she bears little or no responsibility) and her email scandal. On the latter, even columnist Ruth Marcus -- certainly no fan of Clinton's -- recently wrote in The Washington Post that "there is no clear evidence that Clinton knew (or even should have known) that the material in her emails was classified." As we've seen, neither Benghazi nor the email trouble are likely to put off Democratic voters, who regard them as Republican talking points...

It's perhaps too easy to blame sexism for the nastiness that colors the opposition to Clinton. Yet one sees misogyny bubbling out in the comments section of articles on the Web, where no sentiments -- however crude -- are off limits. They attack her voice, her hairstyle, her pantsuits, her laugh. On and on. Clinton gets slammed for "shouting" and not smiling enough, though these are criticisms we don't hear about the male candidates. The main thing to dislike about Hillary Clinton seems to be her gender, and one can only begin to imagine the kind of language Donald Trump will summon in the general election...

Serious criticism of Clinton does arise. Some believe, for instance, that she doesn't tell the truth. Or that she's beholden to Wall Street. Or that she got four people killed in Benghazi. Others insist that she played fast and loose with her emails, risking national security and breaking the law. She does shade the truth at times, as do all politicians, including Sanders. Politifact, an excellent website, measures the truth-quality of statements by everyone running for president on both sides of the aisle, and Clinton comes out as perhaps the most truthful of the pack, even more so than Sanders -- although the two are more or less even, telling the whole truth or something like the truth about half the time. (By contrast, only 9% of the statements made by Donald Trump and reviewed by Politifact were rated "true" or "mostly true." More than three quarters of Trump's statements were rated "mostly false," "false" or "pants on fire.")

The main reason that Republicans, in particular, hate Clinton is that she will probably beat Trump or Cruz or anyone thrown up by the GOP in the general election. The abuse of Hillary Clinton must stop. She's not perfect. But she's smart, experienced and compassionate, and she will step into the Oval Office better prepared to take on an exacting job in difficult times than almost anyone in recent memory.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/20/opinions/why-the-hate-for-hillary-clinton-opinion-parini/index.html

She is a political whore who has been in Washington since Nixon where she started her lying, an has been lying since, she's likely had people killed to cover her transgressions. She is anti woman, anti second amendment, and should be in the process of going to jail for her email indiscretions. Four men died to cover up her gun running in Benghazi, need more.
 
I actually brought up Monicas actions and mentioned the many scandals Hillary was involved in, personally.

the Clintons were never charged, but 15 other persons were convicted of more than 40 crimes way back then....and now

Hillary didn't participate in Monica's actions, don't be disingenuous. You're trying to link Hillary with Bill's perjury.

Was there evidence to convict the 15 others? I guess you're forgetting it was republicans who investigated the Clintons and republicans who decided if they were or weren't guilty of crimes.
 
She is a political whore who has been in Washington since Nixon where she started her lying, an has been lying since, she's likely had people killed to cover her transgressions. She is anti woman, anti second amendment, and should be in the process of going to jail for her email indiscretions. Four men died to cover up her gun running in Benghazi, need more.

"Political whore", "had people killed to cover her transgressions" ... exactly why liberals think you cons are start raving bonkers.
 
Hillary didn't participate in Monica's actions, don't be disingenuous. You're trying to link Hillary with Bill's perjury.

Was there evidence to convict the 15 others? I guess you're forgetting it was republicans who investigated the Clintons and republicans who decided if they were or weren't guilty of crimes.

I didn't say Hillary participated in Monica's actions nor did I say Hillary had anything to do with Bills perjury.....all I say was she was involved with scandals during those years...

Republicans didn't judge them on any crimes before the impeachment of Billy and then it was Democrats that found Billy not guilty....
There was no solid evidence to judge Hillary on, Witewater, IRS records, travelgate, etc.......they asked questions and she denied knowing anything about anything....case closed
 
"Political whore", "had people killed to cover her transgressions" ... exactly why liberals think you cons are start raving bonkers.

Hahaha......funny how many suicides and accidents and food poisonings happened to people involved with that group of people back then.....odd indeed.....

They would never stoop to do ill to anyone, would they...?
 
Back
Top