Will the orgy of Anti-Clinton hate and invective backfire?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern
Pop psychology anyone?

The two women who work in my office dispise Hillary. I mean really really dispise her.

I suppose you don't see many women here blasting her. But then we don't seem to have many anyway.

The only female political columnist I can think of is Maureen O'Dowd. I thought she just recently put out a column blasting Bill & Hillary for lying?

Fern

What I have noticed is that lots of people say they hate Hillary, but when you ask them why a whole ton of them have no reason whatsoever. If they do give a reason, its usually some vague one based on a percieved personality trait she has, maybe some sort of generalized idea (ie. she's a bitch! she's corrupt!) without any evidence to back it up. I guess that's what happens when you've been being consistantly bashed by the right wing noise machine for more then a decade.

I just think that any woman who has the ambition and the attributes to rise this high is going to be a woman that a lot of America finds unappealing from a personality standpoint. Once people find her unappealing in that way, it's only a small jump for people to rationalize their dislike in some other way.

I think the question most Hillary haters secretly ask themselves is "Okay, I know I hate her... now why?" as opposed to the other way around.

The answer is simple: she and her followers are divisive. She's the Democratic equivalent of GWB. You're either with her or against her. And if Hillary gets elected, it will be 4 more years of petty partisan bickering with the usual nothing getting done.
That's not a personality trait or a "rationalization," that's a fact.

When Obama talks about change, that's what he's talking about: a change away from the bitter partisan politics that have dominated this country for the past 20 years. And you'll notice the people who are most upset by that prospect: the hacks (on both extreme sides).
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern
Pop psychology anyone?

The two women who work in my office dispise Hillary. I mean really really dispise her.

I suppose you don't see many women here blasting her. But then we don't seem to have many anyway.

The only female political columnist I can think of is Maureen O'Dowd. I thought she just recently put out a column blasting Bill & Hillary for lying?

Fern

What I have noticed is that lots of people say they hate Hillary, but when you ask them why a whole ton of them have no reason whatsoever. If they do give a reason, its usually some vague one based on a percieved personality trait she has, maybe some sort of generalized idea (ie. she's a bitch! she's corrupt!) without any evidence to back it up. I guess that's what happens when you've been being consistantly bashed by the right wing noise machine for more then a decade.

I just think that any woman who has the ambition and the attributes to rise this high is going to be a woman that a lot of America finds unappealing from a personality standpoint. Once people find her unappealing in that way, it's only a small jump for people to rationalize their dislike in some other way.

I think the question most Hillary haters secretly ask themselves is "Okay, I know I hate her... now why?" as opposed to the other way around.

The answer is simple: she and her followers are divisive. She's the Democratic equivalent of GWB. You're either with her or against her. And if Hillary gets elected, it will be 4 more years of petty partisan bickering with the usual nothing getting done.
That's not a personality trait or a "rationalization," that's a fact.

When Obama talks about change, that's what he's talking about: a change away from the bitter partisan politics that have dominated this country for the past 20 years. And you'll notice the people who are most upset by that prospect: the hacks (on both extreme sides).
Yes, but this fact--and it is one--is as eskimospy said not based on much actual tangible rationality.

Personally I don't think it matters. People cannot say why they dislike here, but the fact is they do. She IS reviled and she WILL push voters to the republican camp if she is nominated. Possibly enough to lose the election (again).

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I think the question most Hillary haters secretly ask themselves is "Okay, I know I hate her... now why?" as opposed to the other way around.

The answer is simple: she and her followers are divisive. She's the Democratic equivalent of GWB. You're either with her or against her. And if Hillary gets elected, it will be 4 more years of petty partisan bickering with the usual nothing getting done.
That's not a personality trait or a "rationalization," that's a fact.

When Obama talks about change, that's what he's talking about: a change away from the bitter partisan politics that have dominated this country for the past 20 years. And you'll notice the people who are most upset by that prospect: the hacks (on both extreme sides).

Hillary haters don't like her because they find her divisive and they find her divisive because they hate her. Her voice, her bitchiness, her attitude, her pantsuit, whatever.

And I object to this fantasy that when Obama gets elected partisanship will evaporate. Bush was "the uniter" also. He "reached across the aisle" to "achieve consensus" and "worked with Demorats" to "get the job done." It's all crap.

There can be no consensus on most issues.
Obama wants out of Iraq as soon as possible. All the Reps will fight him tooth and nail.
Obama wants universal healthcare. Dreamland.
Obama will sign a bill raising taxes but it will first have to get through Congress where Reps will all vote nay, and a smiling Obama won't get them reelected if they vote his way.

Would it be great if everyone could just hold hands, get along and pass legislation? Sure. It's going to take fighting and pushing to get done, not pats on the back.

I'll vote for Obama if he gets the nomination but I'm not under any illusions about his ability to get congressional republicans to agree with him.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Quite frankly, my final decision to not vote for Hillary was clinched once and for all when her puppet followers began using the term "Hillary haters." That alone is sufficient evidence of divisiveness for anyone with an objective brain, and consequently reason enough to steer clear of someone obviously unwilling (hell, who doesn't even want) to generate the kind of independent and bipartisan backing necessary to win the votes of half of America.
I don't need to hate someone to not want to vote for them for POTUS. Are you an Obama "hater" because you're supporting Clinton in the primaries, sirjonk? Are you an Edwards "hater?" Why do you hate Kucinich so much that he had to drop out of the race?
See how this works? You're tools. How you think you can ride this to the White House is utterly beyond me. But you're doing a great job of creating a Democratic candidate that most of moderate and independent America will want to vote AGAINST in a year when a Dem should have been a sure-thing.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Quite frankly, my final decision to not vote for Hillary was clinched once and for all when her puppet followers began using the term "Hillary haters." That alone is sufficient evidence of divisiveness for anyone with an objective brain, and consequently reason enough to steer clear of someone obviously unwilling (hell, who doesn't even want) to generate the kind of independent and bipartisan backing necessary to win the votes of half of America.
I don't need to hate someone to not want to vote for them for POTUS. Are you an Obama "hater" because you're supporting Clinton in the primaries, sirjonk? Are you an Edwards "hater?" Why do you hate Kucinich so much that he had to drop out of the race?
See how this works? You're tools. How you think you can ride this to the White House is utterly beyond me. But you're doing a great job of creating a Democratic candidate that most of moderate and independent America will want to vote AGAINST in a year when a Dem should have been a sure-thing.

Clinton Hater
http://www.citizensunitednottimid.org/

And I'm disappointed that the supporters of a candidate made up your mind for you, hopefully you'd let the candidates speak for themselves.

And "those who do not plan on voting for hillary because they find her divisive and bitchy" is just too long to type out. Read through this board on the number of people who call her a bitch or worse names, call her the antichrist, say she'll destroy the country, etc. These are haters, and they're not in the minority.

No I don't hate obama, he's my 2nd choice. I don't go around bashing him either or calling him names. If I did, you could in fact label me an Obama hater. Senseamp calls Obama a demagogue nearly every sentence, I think it's fair to characterize that as 'hating'.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Clinton Hater
http://www.citizensunitednottimid.org/

And I'm disappointed that the supporters of a candidate made up your mind for you, hopefully you'd let the candidates speak for themselves.

And "those who do not plan on voting for hillary because they find her divisive and bitchy" is just too long to type out. Read through this board on the number of people who call her a bitch or worse names, call her the antichrist, say she'll destroy the country, etc. These are haters, and they're not in the minority.

No I don't hate obama, he's my 2nd choice. I don't go around bashing him either or calling him names. If I did, you could in fact label me an Obama hater. Senseamp calls Obama a demagogue nearly every sentence, I think it's fair to characterize that as 'hating'.

Hey, nice T-shirt!! :cool:

IMO a candidate's base is just as important as the candidate themselves. It is incumbent on a candidate to serve the interests of the people who elected them. That's just the way it is.

Otherwise, I agree with what you're saying. I don't think you'll find any examples of me "hating" on Hillary, or calling her names. I'm just not going to vote for her, and I've grown more than a bit tired of her bots here and their incessant trolling (i.e. techs, senseamp).

But yeah, these "haters" are not in the minority, and that is not going to change between now and November. In fact, it's only going to get worse.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern
Pop psychology anyone?

The two women who work in my office dispise Hillary. I mean really really dispise her.

I suppose you don't see many women here blasting her. But then we don't seem to have many anyway.

The only female political columnist I can think of is Maureen O'Dowd. I thought she just recently put out a column blasting Bill & Hillary for lying?

Fern

What I have noticed is that lots of people say they hate Hillary, but when you ask them why a whole ton of them have no reason whatsoever. If they do give a reason, its usually some vague one based on a percieved personality trait she has, maybe some sort of generalized idea (ie. she's a bitch! she's corrupt!) without any evidence to back it up.

-snip-

We've got plenty of reasons, all we need to do is remember (as she puts it) her "35 years of experience".

Personality traits are important. That just can't be dismissed. And these traits are proven fact. Period:

- Lying? The Clintons are both proven liars. You can use a "politer" term, but they take it to extremes. Jeebus, even their supporters acknowlege this.

- "Authenticity"? They both go the way the wind blows, again they take it to an extreme.

- Then there's the whole drivers license for illegal aliens thingy.

I could go on, but damn. Stating or implying that dislike of HRC is not based on any facts is well, so silly I'm not gonna bother anymore.

Fern

 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,673
482
126
Backfire? It hasn't even started yet. If you think the scrutiny she is under now is bad, just wait.

The Democrats are basically determined to hand this election to the Republicans, again.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
Just a comment on the Washington 'insider' angle. Bush was not a Washington insider at the time of his election. But he was establishment. I would argue that what the US really needs for a fresh start is not a 'non-insider as such, but a solid candidate that is not of the establishment. Of course the very election game is rigged to the max so that will never happen. Thus the US is doomed to follow the current trajectory. Of the remaining candidates Ron Paul is probably the one candidate that would offer a different solution to the one the establishment wants to take the US.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
No, techs, it will not backfire. :laugh:

What is happening is that Bill Clinton is single handedly tearing apart the Democratic Party. It's no longer a guy here or there criticizing and blasting him for conduct unbecoming of a former President, now it is big party figures who are disgusted with his behavior - and they realize that it is not helping Hillary at all.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,739
6,760
126
Originally posted by: GrGr
Just a comment on the Washington 'insider' angle. Bush was not a Washington insider at the time of his election. But he was establishment. I would argue that what the US really needs for a fresh start is not a 'non-insider as such, but a solid candidate that is not of the establishment. Of course the very election game is rigged to the max so that will never happen. Thus the US is doomed to follow the current trajectory. Of the remaining candidates Ron Paul is probably the one candidate that would offer a different solution to the one the establishment wants to take the US.

Yup, and just coincidentally, he's crazy.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
No, techs, it will not backfire. :laugh:

What is happening is that Bill Clinton is single handedly tearing apart the Democratic Party. It's no longer a guy here or there criticizing and blasting him for conduct unbecoming of a former President, now it is big party figures who are disgusted with his behavior - and they realize that it is not helping Hillary at all.

That's your opinion.
It was also your opinion that Hillary would lose New Hampshire and that W was worth voting for in 2000 and 2004 :D
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: GrGr
Just a comment on the Washington 'insider' angle. Bush was not a Washington insider at the time of his election. But he was establishment. I would argue that what the US really needs for a fresh start is not a 'non-insider as such, but a solid candidate that is not of the establishment. Of course the very election game is rigged to the max so that will never happen. Thus the US is doomed to follow the current trajectory. Of the remaining candidates Ron Paul is probably the one candidate that would offer a different solution to the one the establishment wants to take the US.

Yup, and just coincidentally, he's crazy.

You mean RP or Bush? Bush is a certified loon for sure, RP is just a 'normal' Texan :p.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: GrGr
Just a comment on the Washington 'insider' angle. Bush was not a Washington insider at the time of his election. But he was establishment. I would argue that what the US really needs for a fresh start is not a 'non-insider as such, but a solid candidate that is not of the establishment. Of course the very election game is rigged to the max so that will never happen. Thus the US is doomed to follow the current trajectory. Of the remaining candidates Ron Paul is probably the one candidate that would offer a different solution to the one the establishment wants to take the US.

Yup, and just coincidentally, he's crazy.

No, there's no coincidence at all.

Crazy is anything outside the norm. Even if the truth is that those in the majority are crazy, they're still the majority and therefore define the norm.

But I'm sure you knew all that, and your answer was tongue in cheek. ;)
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Vic
Quite frankly, my final decision to not vote for Hillary was clinched once and for all when her puppet followers began using the term "Hillary haters." That alone is sufficient evidence of divisiveness for anyone with an objective brain, and consequently reason enough to steer clear of someone obviously unwilling (hell, who doesn't even want) to generate the kind of independent and bipartisan backing necessary to win the votes of half of America.
I don't need to hate someone to not want to vote for them for POTUS. Are you an Obama "hater" because you're supporting Clinton in the primaries, sirjonk? Are you an Edwards "hater?" Why do you hate Kucinich so much that he had to drop out of the race?
See how this works? You're tools. How you think you can ride this to the White House is utterly beyond me. But you're doing a great job of creating a Democratic candidate that most of moderate and independent America will want to vote AGAINST in a year when a Dem should have been a sure-thing.

Clinton Hater
http://www.citizensunitednottimid.org/

And I'm disappointed that the supporters of a candidate made up your mind for you, hopefully you'd let the candidates speak for themselves.

And "those who do not plan on voting for hillary because they find her divisive and bitchy" is just too long to type out. Read through this board on the number of people who call her a bitch or worse names, call her the antichrist, say she'll destroy the country, etc. These are haters, and they're not in the minority.

No I don't hate obama, he's my 2nd choice. I don't go around bashing him either or calling him names. If I did, you could in fact label me an Obama hater. Senseamp calls Obama a demagogue nearly every sentence, I think it's fair to characterize that as 'hating'.

I support Hillary because I believe we need to reverse the damage of the last eight years.
Bush and the Republicans have tried to reverse 60 years of progress, and largely succeeded.
We need divisive to get things done. Of course there is tremendous resistance to doing anything different than has been done before. Witness the farm bill.
I think Hillary is the only one with the balls to do it.
And I don't want a Reagan lite. Reagan ran one of the most corrupt admins ever.
And as an additional benefit, if Hillary is elected, I'll get to hear Clinton haters whine for the next four years.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,673
482
126
Originally posted by: GrGr
Just a comment on the Washington 'insider' angle. Bush was not a Washington insider at the time of his election. But he was establishment. I would argue that what the US really needs for a fresh start is not a 'non-insider as such, but a solid candidate that is not of the establishment. Of course the very election game is rigged to the max so that will never happen. Thus the US is doomed to follow the current trajectory. Of the remaining candidates Ron Paul is probably the one candidate that would offer a different solution to the one the establishment wants to take the US.

Bush wasn't an insider, but a lot of people that he put on his staff sure were. Cheney and Rumsfeld, for example.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: marincounty
And as an additional benefit, if Hillary is elected, I'll get to hear Clinton haters whine for the next four years.
I sleep well at night knowing that this is the mentality and motivation that governs our country. :roll:

I'm voting for Obama so all you whiners (and gloaters) -- left and right -- will shut the fsck up.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: GrGr
Just a comment on the Washington 'insider' angle. Bush was not a Washington insider at the time of his election. But he was establishment. I would argue that what the US really needs for a fresh start is not a 'non-insider as such, but a solid candidate that is not of the establishment. Of course the very election game is rigged to the max so that will never happen. Thus the US is doomed to follow the current trajectory. Of the remaining candidates Ron Paul is probably the one candidate that would offer a different solution to the one the establishment wants to take the US.

Yup, and just coincidentally, he's crazy.

No, there's no coincidence at all.

Crazy is anything outside the norm. Even if the truth is that those in the majority are crazy, they're still the majority and therefore define the norm.

But I'm sure you knew all that, and your answer was tongue in cheek. ;)
No, I'm pretty damn sure he said, and meant, that Ron Paul is a fvcking loon.

nice try though...
 

maverick44

Member
Aug 9, 2007
111
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Quite frankly, my final decision to not vote for Hillary was clinched once and for all when her puppet followers began using the term "Hillary haters." That alone is sufficient evidence of divisiveness for anyone with an objective brain, and consequently reason enough to steer clear of someone obviously unwilling (hell, who doesn't even want) to generate the kind of independent and bipartisan backing necessary to win the votes of half of America.
I don't need to hate someone to not want to vote for them for POTUS. Are you an Obama "hater" because you're supporting Clinton in the primaries, sirjonk? Are you an Edwards "hater?" Why do you hate Kucinich so much that he had to drop out of the race?
See how this works? You're tools. How you think you can ride this to the White House is utterly beyond me. But you're doing a great job of creating a Democratic candidate that most of moderate and independent America will want to vote AGAINST in a year when a Dem should have been a sure-thing.

Exactly, whatever her supporters might say, she is a fairly mediocre candidate. Lacklustre speaches, constantly shifting stances between the left and the right, on war, on healthcare and on immigration. Heck, even Edwards has a better platform. And as for voting for "experience" why not choose Joe Biden one of the most experienced senators in the democratic party.

All she has is her last name and thats it. It might be worth voting for in any other election but this time around quite frankly almost EVERY democratic candidate edges her out in some way or the other
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: techs
Wow. As much as people hate George Bush for what he has done as President, the Anti-Clinton crowd makes them look like sissies!.
Have you ever, ever seen such hatred, lies, innuendo against someone who has only been a short term Senator?
In fact, the only Democrat I can think of who was so hated, villified and smeared by the Republicans was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Please get help. It's absolutely fascinating to me that some of the very same people who were so critical of the blind, irrational support of the Bush faithful are equally and oppositely delusional in their support of Hillary Clinton. Wake up and spell the donkey shit for crying out loud. H.Clinton isn't the worst person who's ever run for President, but she is certainly a mediocre candidate. More importantly, she is the epitome of the partisan D.C. insider, the exact thing so many of you railed against for the last few years, and she is the one Democratic candidate most likely to lose in November.

You see this clearly -- "the only Democrat I can think of who was so hated, villified and smeared" -- yet your cognitive dissonance refuses to acknowledge the implications, even as your nose is rubbed in it dozens of times per day. You rationalize that it is "the Republicans" who oppose Clinton, even though anyone who is at all objective can see her opposition cuts across party and ideological boundaries. Yes, lots of Republicans loathe her, but so do many independents and a fair number of Democrats. She is divisive. She is polarizing. She is in too many ways GWB's doppelganger. That's not what America needs.

I'll certainly grant you Clinton is far more intelligent and capable than Bush. (Who isn't?) That's not enough in my book. The Dems have an exceptional opportunity to raise the bar this year. They've fielded several smart and capable candidates this year; Clinton is the only one that carries so much negative baggage. Unfortunately, there are too many like you who want to pay back the Republicans with the same bitter, small-minded partisanship that has ruled D.C. of late. You are turning your back on great candidates who could really pull America up just so you can stick one to the right. It's sad, it's destructive, and it very likely will result in you getting your asses kicked once again come November.

With that said, I don't suggest anybody base their vote on who they think can win. If you truly feel H.Clinton is the best candidate, then vote your conscience and let the chips fall where they may. If the Republicans nominate an equally deficient candidate, maybe we can finally raise serious interest in third parties. None of them have a chance of winning in 2008, of course, but if we can start changing the presumption that third parties aren't viable, maybe in a few more elections we can put this destructive two party system behind us. Americans will never be represented well as long as it controls our government.



Anyone who's been around P&N knows I'm hardly a right-winger. Indeed, I've regularly been called things like "commie-lib" by dimwits here who never could grasp the difference between anti-Bush and liberal. Here's your chance to show you're smarter than they are, because I'll tell you right now I won't be voting for Hillary Clinton. While I don't find her repugnant, I also don't find her to be a good choice to lead this country. We'll see who the Republicans nominate, but if the Dems go with Clinton I will likely vote for a third-party candidate.

You can now hop on the short bus too by dismissing me as a "Republican", or you can open your mind and recognize there are a lot of other independents and even Democrats who have similar reservations. The choice is yours. You don't have to agree with me about her, but you're deluding yourself if you dismiss all the anti-Clinton criticism as being "smeared by the Republicans."

(And for the record, I don't think we've seen the Republican smears start yet, not really. They'll hold their big guns until the primaries are over and more people are watching the main event. Anything they do now will be forgotten by November. As I said several months ago, if the Dems do run Clinton, the Republican slime machine will have 51% of voters convinced she aborts babies for her lunch and is the love spawn of Hitler and Satan. Just watch.)
Hey techs, where'd you run off to? I know you're around -- you've continued spamming Clinton ads -- yet you seem to be avoiding this thread. I want to know if you're still objective enough to recognize it's not just Republicans who have issues with Hillary Clinton, or whether you've chugged so much Kool Aid you're just as lost as those who worship GWB. If you could actually address some of the other points raised, that would be extra-helpful to your cause. Surely if your support for Clinton is well-informed and well-founded, you'll be able to easily explain how Clinton's strengths outweigh these many liabilities.



Maybe its a sign that Hillary is going to be a great President.
I wanted to comment on this separately because it's a great example of just how irrational you've become. You compare H.Clinton to GWB in noting both are widely despised, yet you then somehow suggest this indicates Clinton may be a great President. Really? By that (il)logic, I guess you must believe Bush is a great President, right? Indeed, that must be why you despise Bush yourself, because he's such a great President. Right? Or maybe, just maybe, it's because Bush's opponents recognize just how bad he is for America ... and Clinton's opponents recognize comparable flaws in her. Maybe? Something to think about if you can find a moment of lucidity.
Oh yeah, and I'd still love to hear you explain your thought process here. Is Bush a great President in your book? He's even more reviled than Hillary Clinton.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Yeah, that's what I thought. Techs, you're a tool, as bad as any of the Bush shills. Get well soon.
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,302
1
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Oh yeah, and I'd still love to hear you explain your thought process here. Is Bush a great President in your book? He's even more reviled than Hillary Clinton.

You bring up a good point, actually. GW Bush was hated by just as many people that hate Hillary, yet he was elected... twice. Well, thanks to our backasswards electoral system anyways.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Hopefully not, Billary blows and anything to keep "it" out of the oval office is awesome IMHO.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Judging by the SC primary I'd say this thread should have been entitled:

Will the orgy of Anti-Obama hate and invective by the Clintons backfire?

Fern