Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

The loathing of Hillary Clinton unites everyone from the ultraright to the ultraleft -- but why?

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

A Challenge to Hillary Bashers: Explain Why You Hate Her

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, AlterNet. Posted December 10, 2007.


The loathing of Hillary Clinton unites everyone from the ultraright to the ultraleft -- but why?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The occasion was a symposium on the presidential candidates held by the Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable, which sponsors a weekly public policy discussion series in Los Angeles. Midway through a heated discussion over the relative merits of Democratic presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton a member of the audience let loose with an impassioned I can't stand Hillary blast and punctuated it with the quip, I'd vote for anybody but her. I asked him a simple question: Why do you hate Hillary?

He sat with his mouth wide open and a perplexed glaze on his face, no sound issued from him. His mute response was no surprise. My question to him is the same question to the legions that slam Hillary; tell me specifically what terrible thing she's done that stirs such froth around your mouth. Skip the personal attacks, vitriol, innuendos, slurs, and don't repeat hearsay, gossip, or what you heard someone say about Clinton, and that includes Bill. Give me one tangible thing that she has done to piss you off so much that you are proud to be a charter member of the anybody but Hillary club. Name one tangible thing?

I asked the man in audience to tell me one thing that she's done politically or even personally that ticked him off so that without batting an eye he'd say that the thought of her winning sends him into a paroxysm of rage. The question continued to dangle for a long and pregnant moment with no response.

He, of course, is no different than the swarm of other Hillary bashers. The visceral dislike, even loathing of her, is so deep and broad that it welds together a strange mesh of the usual suspect Hillary haters from the Christian fundamentalists, ultraright Republicans and conservative talking heads, through a bevy of her former Hollywood pals and Bill Clinton campaign bankrollers, all the way to self-styled progressives and ultraradicals. They have absolutely nothing in common other than the ecstasy they get from pounding Hillary for her alleged political and personal sins.

But what are they? And what did she do that has earned her the label of everything from the devil incarnate (the late Jerry Falwell) on the right to branding her a shill for fat cat lobbyists and corporations on the left. That's just cheap shot name calling, trashing, and vilification from the rank and file. But the press has also gleefully jumped in on the Clinton beat down. It spins, twists, massages in reverse and blows to smithereens any and every piece of nasty Clinton gossip or dig.

I asked the Hillary hater a third time to name one specific thing that she's done to earn his obsessive enmity. The silent Hillary denouncer after some fishing, fumbling and stalling, said that she cheerled Bush on the Iraq war when she voted to authorize it, OK. But so did her Democratic presidential rival John Edwards, and though Obama says that he wouldn't have voted for it if he had been in the Senate then. However, in two subsequent votes he backed spending measures that continued war funding. If the other top gun Democratic presidential contender Bill Richardson had been in the Senate he almost certainly would have backed war authorization.

In fact, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus was sharply divided over support of the original Iraq war resolution in 2002 that gave Bush authority to wage war. Edwards later apologized for backing the resolution. Obama joined with thirteen other Democratic Senators to oppose the crucial big money Iraq war appropriations bill in May. One of the other thirteen senators was Clinton. She is no different than other Democrats that have cut and run from Bush's war. They all recanted when public opinion turned sour on the war and Bush and it suddenly became politically fashionable and popular to do so.

The Iraq war support certainly doesn't explain the vehemence of the Hillary targeting. Her centrist, cautious, and sometimes fuzzy stance on health care, education, taxes, and immigration are legitimate issues to dissect, debate, and criticize. But these are issues that all of the contenders can and should be held to the fire on. They are fair game for that. But intense political debate and disagreement on the crucial public policy issues in and of themselves is simply not enough to stoke visceral dislike of a candidate, let alone explain the intense hate for Hillary.

My challenge then to all Hillary bashers is the same as it was to the guy at the Urban Policy Roundtable in Los Angeles; tell me exactly why you hate her so much?

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election 08, media, hillary clinton

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I agree and YET
Posted by: JSquercia on Dec 10, 2007 4:41 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with you that Hillary Haters seem long on vitrol and short on reason . Some accuse her of being too political and having no core values . Yet when you show them the duplicitous nature of Mitt Romney( who ran a pro choice liberal when running for Governor and now is a pro life when campaigning for the nomination ) or Rudy ( who was for Gun Control as Mayor but not so now) they are speechless .
That being SAID I find it a dangerous thing for her to be the Democratic Nominee and for precisely the reasons in the article . She generates ENORMOUS negatives even among women
THAT is NOT good news for the Dems and may explain why Murdoch is backing her . Whatever the reason I feel that if we nominate her we will once again SNATCH defeat from the jaws of Victory . If ANY of the Republican Nominees wins the Presidency we may NOT be able to salvage our Republic

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I agree and YET Posted by: newtype_alpha
» second that Posted by: MobileSucks
Two huge reasons to not vote for Hillary
Posted by: sg on Dec 10, 2007 4:44 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) Her duplicity and downright lies with regards to the non-threat that Iraq posed, as laid out in exquisite detail by Scott Ritter and other UNCSCOM inspectors THREE YEARS BEFORE THE INVASION.

2) Even after she voted to authorize an illegal war on trumped up charges against Iraq, she followed the precise pattern she followed on her Iraq vote in voting for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Of course, Hillary would be better than any of the GOP candidates, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

On a purely pragmatic level, I don't think Hillary or Obama can win the White House in '08. As much as Americans claims to be way past issues of gender and race, I can't see enough people getting past the idea of a woman or black man being the "leader" of the country. I don't think we're there yet, especially in these xenophobic times.

I expect the Dems to nominate Hillary and then she'll get smacked up in the general election by Romney or Huckabee.

And at any rate, getting the "right person" in the White House, ain't gonna make a damn bit of meaningful, progressive difference unless massive numbers of people are willing to get out there and change the moral and political atmosphere to make change possible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree, 2dog- Posted by: Ellie1
» such confidence Posted by: MobileSucks
Why?
Posted by: DPS on Dec 10, 2007 6:58 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i don't like Hilary is because she doesn't stick to her ground, or ideals, like Kucinich does. but i don't hate her for it. she's a politician, and that's what you have to expect out of her. anything truthful is bonus.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why? not? Posted by: niliadis
Hilliary is not visionary enough
Posted by: sliver on Dec 10, 2007 8:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I also feel the visceral anger when I imagine Hillary becoming president. The reasons are many.

We need a visionary leader for this country, someone like Dennis Kucinich or Al Gore. Hillary is not a visionary. Her vision is to become President. It doesn't go much further. I loved her vision 10 years ago, but that we should be past that now. We need a new leader with a new vision.

Secondly, I don't want a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton presidency. That would be horrible. We would be the laughingstock of the world, more than we are already.

When I listen to candidates, I get an inner feeling about who "gets it" and who doesn't. Obama mostly gets it, Edwards totally gets it, and Kucinich owns it. But Hillary doesn't seem to get to the heart of issues, and talks around them. I am tired of phony rhetoric, and I want a President who knows how policy affects regular people.

Finally, Hillary is getting the most money from corporations and lobbyists. Her allegience is to corporations, not to the American people. In that way she is no different than Bush.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is easy
Posted by: Dboy on Dec 10, 2007 9:26 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) Iraq. She's a colonialist. She's a neo-con. Voted for the war. She only finds fault with the execution of it, not the war itself.

2) She'd raise taxes. The last thing this government needs is more money. Why can't they get from their supporters(corporations). Americans pay the taxes, corporations get the representation.

3) Slimy. Expect 4 more years of lies. She's Bush in a dress.

4) Has done nothing in the Senate which demonstrates her ability to be President.

5) She's said nothing about restoring democracy, therefore I must assume she's happy with the destruction of it. Free Speech Zones? Nope. Black Water Mercenaries? Nope. Due Process? Nope. Corporate personhood? Nope. Torture? It's just a talking point.

6) Cannot trust anything she has to say, so there's no reason to spend a vote on her. "Better than Bush" is not enough of a reason.

7) She would expand government. Last thing we need is more government. They have proven themselves to be unworthy of trust, and unable to do anything productive.

8) Where's the Iraq exit strategy? Oh yeah, there isn't one, because there's going to be no exit from Iraq. She's going to continue Bush policies in the middle east.

9) Hillary Clinton is one of the top Democratic recipients of pro-Israel funds. I want a President who is working for the USA, as a full-time job. Not working the night shift for Israel.

10) Since she's been bought and paid for by Israel, she would attack Iran if the opportunity(excuse) presented itself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sometimes you can never tell Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: This is easy Posted by: Tombo
simple answers to a simple question
Posted by: disconcerted08 on Dec 10, 2007 10:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will refrain from saying that I just don't trust Hillary since that is not a "tangible" reason. But the tangibles still give me plenty of reason not to like her. Here are a few:

1. She voted for the Iraq war (and later said she did not read the State Dept. brief on WMD's)
2. She voted for the Patriot Act.
3. She voted to RENEW the Patriot Act 5 yrs. later!!
4. She is a hawk on Iran.
5. She's letting that shiester Terry McAuliffe run her campaign.
6. She took money from Murdoch!!!

There are plenty of other reasons why Hillary is not to be trusted. The American worker has been getting screwed hard the last 25 yrs. I don't see someone with giant stake in Walmart doing anything to change that. Hillary, put your money where your mouth is!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary is sold out and has sold out American Freedom(Like Bush)
Posted by: drblack on Dec 10, 2007 11:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Voted for Patriot Act....Voted to renew it. This is the most Orwellian and unAmerican law since Reagan's Omnibus Drug Bill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I will not under any circumstances vote for Hillary...
Posted by: newtype_alpha on Dec 10, 2007 11:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... because, unlike most Hillary supporters (niliadis, for example) my knowledge of her political career is not limited to her campaign press releases and that ghost-written stack of kindling she calls a biography. Once upon a time, Hillary was a crusader for civil liberties, for democracy, for the best traditions of American freedom and justice. But time has a way of changing people, and Washington D.C., doubly so. The Hillary Clinton who genuinely cared about Liberty and Justice For All is long gone, replaced by a sock-puppet of the military industrial complex who cares only about furthering her own political career. She'll bandwagon with anyone--and I do mean ANYONE--who she thinks will help her get what she wants, from the Communist Party to the PNAC and anything in between; she's the best presidential candidate money can buy.

Other comments above have succinctly summed up the reasons why I will not under any circumstances vote for Hillary Clinton. And I'll add one more to the pot: a few months ago during the first Youtube debate, the candidates were asked whether or not they would hold meetings with foreign leaders--even America's enemies--to discuss peace. Clinton's response was impressively cynical: "I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse." You combine this with her stance on Iran and Syria and you get the overall message: Hillary believes in a form of diplomacy that involves aircraft carriers, threats, sanctions, isolation, unilateralism. This is nothing more than a thinly-veiled rehash of Bush-style imperialism.

I refuse to vote for Hillary because I refuse to vote for an imperial president. I have no desire to dominate the rest of the world economically, politically or militarily, so I will not vote for any president who does.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So many good answers...
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Dec 11, 2007 4:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wore out the "5" key on my computer.

If only some of the above commenters were at that symposium. That would have been fun to watch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My Reasons
Posted by: Axiom69 on Dec 11, 2007 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't care for Hillary because I wan't a President who is willing to stand up for what they believe in even when it's unpopular. I believe MLK said something to the effect of "A measure of ones character isn't where they stand during times of comfort but where they stand during times of trial and controversey? Does Hillary ever take a stand without having run it by the polls and focus groups? Other than voting for the Iraq war (which was popular at the time) has she taken an "unpopular" stance on ANYTHING soley because it was the right thing to do?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can explain it in one word - AIPAC
Posted by: rugger on Dec 11, 2007 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She is in bed with AIPAC and zionist ideology.

She won't say so publicly, but that is the reason she voted for the Iraq war, and why she voted to label the Iranian guard as a terrorist organization.

I'm a life long Dem, but depending on the Republican candidate, I'd switch parties before I'd vote for her. It's unfortunate because I was hoping to be bale to elect a woman president, but she's not the one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Confused by your unquestioning support for HRC and anti-Obama stance
Posted by: tomvanheeke on Dec 11, 2007 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not hate Hillary but I do profounsly disagree with her on some issues and this coupled with the obvious greatness of Barack Obama have led me to support him. To suggest that Obama is secretly an Iraq War cheerleader in the Hillary mold is patently untrue. He opposed this war in 2002 and has continued to do so since then making speeches on several occasions highlighting his opposition. The votes on war funding are extremely difficult votes to make because no one, regardless of their view on the war, wants to jeapordize the troops. As long as our soldiers are in harm's way they should have all the support they need. This is not the same as supporting the war and Obama is the only major candidate in either party to have taken a consistent anti-war stance since the start. Further, Hillary's apparent gleeful willingness to join in the saber-rattling with regard to Iran is a dangerous reminder of her lack of judgment over foreign policy issues.
In saying this however, it should be made clear that I think her a vast improvement over any of the Republicans and she would be an adequate President. But this is the problem: adequate ain't gonna cut it. We need inspirational leadership and judgment (which she has proven she does not have) to tackle America's and the world's problems and to bring about the change we need. Obama brings all this and more to the table.

I do not hate Hillary but I disagree with her on what I think are wholly reasonable points of contention. The question we should be asking is why do you, sir, appear to dislike Obama or the other Democratic candidates so much? Why do you like Hillary so much?

Obama '08!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't hate her
Posted by: wwittman on Dec 11, 2007 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't HATE her, but I want a LIBERAL

she's not

she moves relentlessly and calculatedly toward an imaginary "middle" that she feels will make her popular (or just electable)
just like her husband, but without his brilliance and empathy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hate is an appropriate word
Posted by: DesertStone on Dec 11, 2007 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She is a neocon parading herself as a liberal. She doesn’t come close to representing liberal ideals if she did she wouldn’t be a Zionist or apologist for the genocide of Palestinians. I find her and her arrogant idiocy personally offensive. If she is the chosen candidate I will not vote.
At a recent debate when she was asked how she would handle working with leaders of the Middle East as a woman, her response was very pompous and a little pathetic from an American, given that the Islamic world has already had its first woman president. While here in the 21st century in enlightened America the very idea of a woman or a black man being president is historical and baffling to people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Please ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Just couldn't pass this up Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: Just couldn't pass this up Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Please ... Posted by: StrayCat
some legitimate reasons
Posted by: hughess05 on Dec 11, 2007 10:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there are definitely legitimate reasons to hate Hillary. Alternet posted a story in the last month describing how Hillary gets more funds from defense companies than any other Democratic OR Republican candidate. Thus ensuring her anti-war rhetoric will be just that.
There are similar issues with her healthcare plan. While during Bill's administration she seemed ready to challenge pharmacueticals and insurance companies, she is simply buying into it further, and now with an unreasonable mandate program.
None of the candidates are ideal, but I would hate to see a closeted Republican in the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Um...hello!
Posted by: thaumaturgistguy on Dec 11, 2007 11:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know Bill is not Hillary and Hillary is not Bill, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they share very similar political views, philosophies, and tactics.

-Triangulation - She will pander to anyone to get power and stay in power. This political theory is what brought us the Defense of Marriage Act, Don't Ask Don't Tell and other gems like that.

- Liberal she ain't - she is dead center if not leaning right. We need someone much farther to the left to help swing the balance away from the far right wing government that we have had since 2000.

- Monarchy - If she is elected that would mean the most powerful political offices in our country have been held by two families for as long as I have been alive (born in the early 80's) Bush Sr under Reagan...then Bush Sr himself...then Clinton for two terms...then Bush Jr for two terms...now Clinton again? There are monarchs who have reigned for less time than these two families have held sway over our government.

Edwards has come out most strongly against corporate power, for gay rights, and for universal health care. Barring him I'd be more than happy for Obama to take it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In a nutshell
Posted by: DefeatBush on Dec 11, 2007 4:19 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have nothing against Hillary Clinton as a person.

I reject her as a Presidential candidate and Democratic Party leader because she promotes global neoliberalism backed by US militarism. She represents the DLC vision for the Democratic party, which I absolutely abhor.

DLC-type neoliberal-militarism shares the same fundamental goals as Republican neoconservativism, but with a bit more emphasis on multilateralism. In otherwords, it aims to be a more competent and efficient form of military-backed predatory corporate globalization. I can't support that global agenda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

to the author
Posted by: ShoShenQ on Dec 11, 2007 7:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
will you even read the replies, I doubt it.

Anyway, you can count on the Dems to nominate another lame duck, thinking about it, it doesnt matter, demopublicans=republicrats=corrupted souls.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kucinch Is Better
Posted by: hole11 on Dec 11, 2007 9:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do you hate Guilliani and you can come up with about the same reasons to hate Hillary. Only Guilliani got divorced.

Really we don't need a New Yorker or a legacy in the White House. She has connections mainly with the republican party. She hasn't spoke out against NAFTA and there are plenty of women that I would rather vote for who are not attorneys.

Seriously Hutchinson, how much money have you made on cows? Don't put yourself in her pocket.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Kucinch Is Better Posted by: blincks
That Voice
Posted by: finzi on Dec 12, 2007 4:06 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All of the above. But also simply that unflinchingly shrill, spinescraping voice of hers. There is an attitude of unrelenting self-righteousness to which she is patently not entitled.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Her voice is NOT shrill! Posted by: harpy
Why do I hate Hillary Clinton?
Posted by: Tom Degan on Dec 12, 2007 4:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's an absurd question but I'll answer it: I don't. I'm perfectly content to have her as my Senator even though she's not the best one we've ever had (far from it - that title belongs to Daniel Patrick Moynahan)

An article on ALterNet this morning is called, "How Hillary Can Lose the Election". It should be Called, How Hillary Will Lose the Election". Forgive me for souning like a broken racord but why do you think the big pharmacuitical companies and Rupert Murdoch have been funding her campaign? It's either one of two (or both) reasons:

1. They know she can't win and they are determined that she will be the nominee

2. They have her in their pocket.

Not a very rosie scenario any way you slice it or dice it. We're you aware of the fact that John Edwards leads every poll in winning the election next year against all Republican contenders? Why isn't the corporate media reporting this fact? BECAUSE THEY WANT HILLARY CLINTON TO GET THE NOMINATION!

C'mon, folks! Wake up!

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
Spin, Smoke and Mirrors

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» John Edwards for President Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: John Edwards for President Posted by: todayspeaker
gemajabe
Posted by: gemajabe on Dec 12, 2007 4:32 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She is hated, as the author knows but does not clearly state, because of gender bias. Gender bias is alive and well in this society. It goes across all points of view and women as well as men subscribe to it. Hillary Clinton (note that she is always referred to by her first name) is a true politician. Like her rivals but no more than her rivals, except the far left ones who have nothing to lose, she has equivocated, taken corporate money and compromised principle in order to win. So have Obama and Edwards. However, unlike Obama and Edwards, she is a female, A female with power who has a real shot in a country that has NEVER ran a serious woman candidate-a candidate who might actually win. This is scary on a gut level to many men. It is clearer with Republican men, because most of them have their sexist religions to back them up and Democratic men also cloak it Better. "It's not the right time, she's not the right woman, she can't win, it's a conspiracy by the right to give her the nomination." The excuses go on and on and come out of the mouths of liberal males, who will deny to their last breath that a women in power scares them. The respondent who called Hillary Clinton "Bush in a dress" expressed gender bias most clearly. It's sad, but someday with some woman, if not this one, it will end. I hope in my lifetime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: gemajabe Posted by: Dianka
» RE: gemajabe ....Bushit Posted by: DaBear
» RE: gemajabe ....Bushit Posted by: Doug in Mount Vernon
Hillary (D-Punjab)
Posted by: Baal_Labs on Dec 12, 2007 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you really want to know? Just listen to her:

“I am delighted to be the Senator from Punjab as well as from New York”

I am a career computer programmer. Most of my friends are (or rather, were) IT professionals. Nearly all of us have been driven out of our lifelong careers because of the Neo-Liberal destruction of the American workforce in order to enrich corporate CEOs, as practiced by Hillary and Bill and their buddies in the Bush cabal. Hillary has been relentless in her push to increase quotas for guestworker visas such as the H1B, L1, and the upcoming F4, which allow 25 year old young men from India (mostly of the Brahmin caste thus supporting continuing racism in india) to replace 45+ year old Americans (and displacing nearly all Blacks and women in IT--last hired and first fired...once again supporting discrimination against minorities in the US). The guestworkers then become the backbone of the offshoring operations to destroy even more American jobs, and the destruction of even more American families.

I've had to pick the toys of a five year old off the lawn after her grandmother, her sole support, was evicted after being unable to find any work as a system administrator, and the only job available (part time in a flower shop) was unable to pay the rent. Other friends are now driving trucks or cleaning bedpans.

I'm the only one left still trying to make a career in IT, and I've been unemployed for five of the last seven years, and have to take large pay cuts to get the short term jobs I can get.

What Hillary, as Senator from Punjab and head of the India Caucus, has done to destroy American families would only increase under her presidency. So I can never support her or vote for her. Ever.

Due to Hillary and the Neo-Liberals (many of them faithfully supported by those here at Alternet), I may well get to spend my retirement fighting over which cardboard box I get to place over which heating grate. So will many of you who are too naive and gullible to realize that it *will* happen to you just like it did to me and so many of my friends. But I have pledged to spend my unemployment working full time fighting against the election or re-election of any politician who sells out American workers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hillary (D-Punjab) Posted by: rouserk
» RE: Hillary (D-Punjab) Posted by: numen
» RE: Hillary (D-Punjab) Posted by: StrayCat
The Democrat Demimondaine and Consummate Pandering Politician: Hillary Clinton
Posted by: wawa on Dec 12, 2007 5:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On February 1, 2007 Senator Hillary Clinton prostituted we the people of America in her pandering address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee/AIPAC.

Senator Clinton claimed, "Both Israelis and Americans know so well, a democracy is far more than just holding elections. Democracy has to spring from an active and open citizenry dedicated to tolerance, to respect for differences, to the rule of law, to policies that lift us up not tear us down as fellow human beings, and to the value of human life."


American Israeli, a 2006 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee, the Founder and Coordinator of ICAHD/Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions has consistently affirmed that, "Israel is a not a democracy but is an Ethnocracy, meaning a country run and controlled by a national group with some democratic elements but set up with Jews in control and structured to keep them in control." [Chapter 2, "Memoirs of a Nice Irish-American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory", eileen fleming]

When Israel became a state in 1948, it was contingent upon upholding the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which guarantees in Article 13 that:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Israel encourages any Jew without any pre-existing historical tie to the land to migrate under the Law of Return and all receive immediate citizenship and all rights and privileges including state-financed language and Jewish history immersion, free and subsidized housing, job placement and welfare assistance while seeking employment, medical, dental and other benefits.

Israel abetted by USA blind allegiance has blatantly refused to uphold UN Resolution 194, which guarantees the Right of Return-or compensation to the indigenous population which was forced from their homes in 1948 and 1967. Clinton is unmoved by the facts on the ground that the indigenous peoples of that land have been denied human rights and dignity and that they are illegally dominated and oppressed with the aid of USA's "$1.8 billion a year in military aid and $1.2 billion in economic aid, plus another $1 billion or so in miscellaneous grants, mostly in military supplies, from various U.S. agencies. Tax exempt contributions destined to Israel bring up the total to over $5 billion annually." [Page 24, Understanding the Palestine-Israeli Conflict, Dr. Phyllis Bennis. www.tari.org ]

Clinton continued to satisfy the ignoble lusts of AIPAC as she continued to deny the truth, "Israel is a beacon of what's right in a neighborhood overshadowed by the wrongs of radicalism, extremism, despotism and terrorism. We need only look to one of Israel's greatest threats: namely, Iran. Make no mistake, Iran poses a threat not only to Israel, but to the entire Middle East and beyond… U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table."

On Feb. 10, 2007, Dr. Phyllis Bennis, a secular Jew, journalist, prolific author, Mid East analyst and Co-founder and Co-Chair of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation stated, "Iran has signed the NPT, which allows them the right to have nuclear power and to enrich uranium. The 185 non-nuclear states have agreed to give up the right to have nuclear weapons and the five nuclear powers that signed the NPT agreed to get rid of their nuclear weapons...

TBC

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TBC 3
Posted by: wawa on Dec 12, 2007 5:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If The Wall were actually built on Israeli land, Clinton could get a pass on her procuring for AIPAC funds, but a map of The Wall super-imposed upon Palestinian aquifers clearly illuminates that The Wall is all about grabbing land and resources from the indigenous peoples of that land.

Reported in the august, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, "Financed with U.S. aid at a cost of $1.5 million per mile, the Israeli wall prevents residents from receiving health care and emergency medical services. In other areas, the barrier separates farmers from their olive groves which have been their families' sole livelihood for generations." [Page 43, Jan/Feb. 2007]

In Jeff Halper's April 2005 edition of Obstacles to Peace, A Re-Framing of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, he wrote, “Missing from Israel’s security framing is the very fact of occupation, which Israel both denies exists…and that “security” requires Israel control over the entire country…rendering impossible a just peace based on human rights, international law, reconciliation.” [Page 1]

During one of my four interviews with Jeff, he told me this joke:

“The Israeli government simply does not want to take responsibility and the USA government ignores the situation. Do you know why Israel does not want to become America’s 51st state? Because then they would only have two senators!"

They certainly have one vocal demimondaine and ultimate craving consummate pandering politician who is currently lusting for the American Presidency.



Eileen Fleming, Reporter and Editor
Http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author "Keep Hope Alive" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"
Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I won't vote for her
Posted by: karyse on Dec 12, 2007 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because she is spineless and for the other reasons stated eloquently above. I am vehemently PRO-Constitution and her unwillingness to reject the so-called Patriot Acts is enough to make my blood boil. Go Dennis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hating Hillary
Posted by: jannahanna on Dec 12, 2007 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps someone can tell me why I first began receiving rabid anti-Hill emails while Bill was being bashed. It was shocking at first, almost as if it was all her fault. I think it just grew from there. But it doesn't make any more sense now than it did then.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hilary Clinton's Support for Crimes Against Humanity
Posted by: Jeffrey Levy on Dec 12, 2007 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are hundreds of reasons to regard Hilary Clinton with contempt, as is amply shown by her record and by the comments currently posted in the present discussion.

I will add my own Top Three listing here.

Hilary Clinton stood by silently while the trade embargo against the Iraqi people, enforced and maintained by her husband, killed 850,000 Iraqi children. To state the obvious: Clinton supported alarge scale crime against humanity here.

Hilary Clinton voted in favor of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which together have, so far, led to the deaths of more than one million civilians. More than 500,000 of the dead are children. To state the obvious once again: Clinton has supported a large scale crime against humanity and war crime here.

Hilary Clinton supports Israeli policies that every day violate the human rights of three million Palestinians. To state the obvious: Clinton continues to support this ongoing crime against humanity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuff Said?
Posted by: tkwilson on Dec 12, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does that answer your fatuous question Earl?
Hope so.
This isn't about Hillary being a woman or even a politician. It's about here being a lying war crimes appeaser. And no she's not the only one, but she is, by virtue of her position and the real opportunity she has had to influence US government decisions, which few of the rest of us have, one of the worst.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Dec 12, 2007 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its when I see articles like this that I realize all over again something I have known for a long long time.. that the Democrats are completely out of touch even with their own "base" and that they are wholly beholden as a party to the agenda of corporate America.. not to voters. They are wholly anti-democratic. I say this because choosing between the two candidates that corporate interests have picked as acceptable is NOT democracy.

Hillary will most likely be selected as the candidate for the Dems, and hardly anyone actually wants her outside of blind followers, sexists who will vote for her because of the "qualifications" in her pants, and the party/corporate elite. She stands a good chance of losing. But why should the corporate elite care? They support both sides.. and both sides choose candidates that are approved of by corporate interests.

The idea that we live in a democracy isn't a farce. Its an outright lie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» She is NOT a bitch Posted by: harpy
it's a woman thing
Posted by: lighthouserose on Dec 12, 2007 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason I hate Hilary has nothing to do with her politics. I think she's a perfectly competent politician and would make a fine president, if elected. Depending who she were running against, I could easily see voting for her and being fine with my vote.

The reason I dislike her on a gut level I think is an instinctual woman thing.

That is, when her husband was being a louse, running around with interns, she didn't kick him to the curb. I personally have a big fear about a husband cheating on me. I think it would cause me a lot of pain and that's why I strive to find a trustworthy man who'll treat me right.

So when I see another woman accepting behavior I abhor, that is what makes me angry - all politics aside. It's on that level - and only on that level - that I have trouble with Hilary.

But like I said, I think she's a fine politician, and would make a fine president.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: it's a woman thing Posted by: rouserk
I don't hate her but . . .
Posted by: covalentbonded on Dec 12, 2007 8:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
she voted to go to war with Iraq (she was not fooled by evil men in the White House), she voted on making the Qods force a "terrorist organization" (repeating the same mistake and with probably the same "explanation" when it goes south), she voted for Patriot Act I and II, she co-sponsored flag desecration bill, she votes to continue funding an illegal/immoral war, she objects to the war on Iraq (only after it became "safe") on the grounds of inefficiency, not morality or legality. She helped "deform" welfare as we know it. She failed in her health-care proposal. She fails to call for the impeachment of Bush/Cheney and the rest of the liars that routinely lie to her and the rest of the Senate. She admits to never having read the NIE which preceded Bush war on Iraq. She was a Director of Wal-Mart (not a friend to the working-class)

But mostly? She has an unquenchable "will to power" and I think she is closer to the Machavellians running US policy currently than she would admit to. She "stood by her man" because without Bill she is not going to have a power base. She is, what I would call a feminist of convenience, using "feminism" as both a crutch and a weapon. She started out a GoldWater Republican (and leopards do not change their spots)

This is a person that truly represents the other wing of the National WarParty (motto: Our oil is under their sand and we aim to correct that). She will be the candidate of the too loyal opposition and for that reason I urge Americans to strike/boycott in 08!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

because of health care
Posted by: garella on Dec 12, 2007 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Health care is perhaps Hillary Clinton's signature issue. But during Bill Clinton's presidency, Hillary took the lead on a plan that was a love letter to the five giant corporate insurers, that would have handed them control of over a trillion dollars of health care spending, newly privatizing $400 million in public money. A plan that she developed in partnership with those corporate giants at Jackson Hole. A plan that earned the opposition of hundreds of smaller insurers. Remember Harry and Louise? The big insurers had no part in that campaign. A plan that was far too complex to sell to the electorate. Rather than take on the health insurance industry as a whole, she took sides with its wealthiest and most powerful segment. This was against the people's interest. Millions have suffered for it and continue to suffer for it. Ultimately, her plan set back efforts to reform our health care financing system by more than a decade. She remains, among the candidates from all parties, the one that has taken the most money from the health insurance industry, and her current proposal reflects that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shredded social safety net
Posted by: Dianka on Dec 12, 2007 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary Clinton played a lead role in wiping out the "New Deal" policies that had so successfully enabled people to move out of poverty. Our economic disparities dramatically increased. She actually began working toward "dismantling the social safety net" prior to becoming First Lady. Public dollars were simply tranferred from aid to our needy over to covering the costs of continued "tax relief" for our richest. Above all, and precisely because it was a Dem administration that enacted these policies, fulfilling the greatest dream of the ultra-conservatives, the discussion of American poverty was simply removed from the public forum, as the previous comments here show. Today, we as a nation believe it is wrong to help the poor here ("don't feed the pigeons"), yet see nothing wrong about pouring billions of tax dollars into "tax relief" for corporations---which they use to move our jobs to foreign nations. There is no outrage about the sharply increased rates of hunger and homelessness, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HATING HILLARY?
Posted by: chalet on Dec 12, 2007 8:54 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't even hate Bush. He's been enormously successful. I admire him. However I disagree with his every utterance and I find myself in the same position regarding Hillary and Bill who have both in their own way presided over the collapse of the Democratic Party that enabled the right wing takeover of our country (they were not alone: the DLC and other deceptive "democrats" helped). All you have to do is look at the results from the Democratic Party since Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan (they laid down for him and never got up); and you have to wonder what would be the motive to vote for Democrats absent at least an apology or some acknowledgment of 30 years of steady losses, as opposed to waiting until the right-wingers bring about the collapse of our system so that a modicum of justice might be demanded from a currently distracted majority. It wouldn't be pretty but it isn't pretty now, either.

This is not a time for hate or love but for hard critical thinking and productive action.

dci

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: HATING HILLARY? Posted by: 2dogarage
I don't hate her, just her voting record
Posted by: Donald Shank on Dec 12, 2007 9:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I wanted to elect someone with Sen. Clinton's voting record, I'd join the GOP. Just about every evil scheme Bush has gotten through Congress has her signature affixed to it. She inspires s