Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • 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.

Why We Love to Hate Hillary

By Jack Hitt, Mother Jones. Posted January 24, 2007.


Hillary Clinton is like our national Rorschach: She stokes our every emotion, from our deepest fears to our darkest hatreds.
01242007story

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

More stories by Jack Hitt

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Daniel Edwards is that sculptor whose work includes a shiny dollop said to be the bronzed poop of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' baby, the severed head of baseball legend Ted Williams, and a nude Britney Spears in a primal birth position. A few months ago, the Museum of Sex in Manhattan unveiled his latest work: a bust of Hillary Clinton. Cast in the heroic style of the 19th-century statesman found in any City Hall park, it showed the New York senator with a long, elegant neck and solemn expression above two perfectly round, youthful, barely covered breasts. I'd guess a 36B.

"It was a quote by Sharon Stone that triggered it," Edwards explained to me. Stone, an actress famous for exposing a different part of her anatomy, had recently expressed doubt that Hillary could become president because "a woman should be past her sexuality when she runs. Hillary still has sexual power, and I don't think people will accept that. It's too threatening."

Edwards says he wanted to imagine Hillary Clinton as president of the United States and created, therefore, a monumental image. "But that wasn't enough," he explains. "I had to make sure she was depicted as a woman, unmistakably a woman. The way I did that was to be more revealing with her breasts than is normally seen."

Edwards' version of Hillary's breasts is where it all gets interesting. He chose not to depict Hillary with bared breasts, in the classical style of Greek sculpture; his Hillary's bust is upheld by a bustier worthy of Victoria's Secret. "I didn't want the sculpture to be titillating or a piece of graphic realism," he explains. "It's more symbolic of womanhood and to reveal her as a woman."

Hillary's "womanhood" is in need of public revelation? What does that say about her? But, more curiously, what does it say about us that Hillary inspires this casual intimacy? Her life, her looks, her politics, her marriage -- and now her breasts -- are all daily grist at the nation's coffee shops, still, 15 years after she was introduced to America. According to one accounting, there are 17,000 websites devoted to Hillary Clinton. And there is really no aspect of our collective fears or furies that cannot be grafted onto her character. Did she refuse to meet with mothers of dead soldiers? Did she kill Vince Foster? Did she get two Black Panthers off on murder charges? Did she cause the Enron scandal?

Despite their proven falseness, such accusations are routinely made because it's easy to mold the facts and fictions of Hillary's life into any kind of argument you like. Even her body has become a public landscape that most Americans feel quite comfortable trekking across in search of cultural clues about ourselves and our politics. Edwards' sculpture merely makes literal this national impulse.

It all began when the nation had regular debates about her hair, but now we're comfortable in our kitchens and on our talk shows presuming any damned thing we want to about her. Is she gay or straight, closet conservative or secret liberal, snarling she-wolf or one smart cookie baker? It isn't only her career as a public figure that's clay in our hands. No part of her life, however sacred, is off-limits. John McCain once got a lot of laughs cracking this joke: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." Chelsea was still in high school at the time. In 2003 Americans happily participated in a cnn/USA Today/Gallup poll to determine whether Hillary should get a divorce.

In the spring of 2006, the New York Times ran a front-page story that employed investigative journalism tactics to extrapolate the potential number of conjugal visits the Clintons' marital bed hosted each month. Using "interviews with some 50 people and a review of their respective activities," the author concluded: "Since the start of 2005, the Clintons have been together about 14 days a month on average, according to aides who reviewed the couple's schedules. Sometimes it is a full day of relaxing at home in Chappaqua; sometimes it is meeting up late at night. ... Out of the last 73 weekends, they spent 51 together. The aides declined to provide the Clintons' private schedule."

Damn aides.

When Edwards fashioned Hillary into the image that he thought most telling, he was on to something. Hillary is way beyond something so banal as a politician. The details of her life are familiar enough; perhaps that's why all the profiles of her over the last 10 years have always seemed tedious and repetitive. It's how we shape those facts that's interesting. Hillary herself once said she had become some kind of Rorschach blot in which Americans see many things.

Almost every American has an opinion about Hillary. Consider her poll numbers. Hillary Clinton has favorables in the high 40s right now and unfavorables running about even. Her "no opinion" numbers are in the low single digits, approaching zero. Most politicians start with a huge swath of "no opinion" voters whom they can then try to convert. If Hillary runs, she will need to invent a whole new form of campaign strategy: She will need to flip voters who pretty much hate her.

Hillary-hating is such a national pastime, for both Democrats and Republicans, that it should be its own verb: "Hillarating." Typically, even her supporters make the case for her only after plowing through a lot of caveats, lessons learned, and after muttered contempt for some aspect of her person. Hillarating is not like normal political hating -- opposing someone's ideology, for example. Loathing Hillary happens on multiple levels, ranging from her marital choices and fashion sense to her ambivalence on torture or support for a flag-burning amendment. And liberal feminists are as comfortable Hillarating as anyone else, perhaps more so.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: hillary, hillary clinton

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:
sexism redux
Posted by: edith on Jan 24, 2007 1:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
poseurs who "analyze" HRC by focus on her boobs. and its art. it's pop art maybe, and that was always about sales. Andy Warhol as the Sears salesman on drugs. so now it's Hilary in the multi-copy lithograph spread out in a Web centerfold like Marilyn two generations ago in Playboy.

Judge the woman on her actions. (Ugh.). Otherwise it's
sexism redux.

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

Give me a break -- no more Hillary!
Posted by: johnecolby on Jan 24, 2007 1:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't give a f**k about all the cultural crap surrounding Hillary. What a waste of space. I don't like Hillary the politician. Besides that I could care less about her.

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

Hillary hot & cold
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Jan 24, 2007 2:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Random impressions of Hillary...

It's great theatre-of-the-absurd entertainment watching right-wingers (and their corporate media flunkies) take their cheapest shots at Hillary and her family life, only to have their own marriages crash upon rocks of meth with homosexual prostitutes, secret abortions, gold-digging, nasty divorces, boozed-up children, etc., etc.

Meanwhile, Hillary, Bill & Chelsea seem to be practicing "family values" better than the whole lot them. In spite of all that, we're still being reminded of Monica! Yes, that Monica -- like celebrity "superstars," she's been raised to one-name-only recognition.)

What else about Hillary? She's not likely to ever, ever defy the Israel lobby.

Anything else? Well, the Democrats are now sucking up so hard to immigrants (what with their bi-lingual groveling and all) that she's probably going to be as disastrous as the neocons when it comes to adopting a sustainable immigration policy (meaning the number of people immigrating equals the number emigrating, etc.).

If all their alleged concern about global warming is more than hot air, population stabilization will absolutely have to be part of it. And in the US, that's means serious border control. Is Hillary (or anyone) up to it? Like a wide variety of Americans, I won't vote for them if they aren't.

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

Overanalyzing Hillary
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 24, 2007 3:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fun article. It makes you think. But it also seems to mistake clumsy opportunism for complexity.

She's the Britney or the Madonna of politics. Not exactly pretty. Not exactly ugly...She'll never go away, because it's interesting to see what she'll do next to screw up and make a mess of herself...especially when you're waiting in a long grocery line with nothing better to read.

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

It's not about gender
Posted by: socialpsych on Jan 24, 2007 3:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not about Clinton's gender. All of that nonesense is gossipy fluff. Appropriately, what matters is her character, which is revealed in her conduct, such as bashing Muslims after the Sept. 11 attacks to score points with her New York constituency, and like the most recent phony drivel on her web site ("I want to have a conversation:--barf!!). Sudsan Sarandon nailed it: "What America is looking for is authentic people who want to go into public service because they believe strongly in something, not people who are trying to get elected."

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

» RE: It's not about gender Posted by: Wildroots
» If not Hillary, then who?? Posted by: psychochurch
» RE: If not Hillary, then who?? Posted by: aonghus36
skip the pop-psych
Posted by: profmarcus on Jan 24, 2007 4:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i stand with previous commenter, johnecolby... i don't trust hillary as a politician or as a potential leader as far as i can throw her, and it's got NOTHING to do with her breasts or any of the other bogus gender-related nonsense you go to such great lengths to elucidate... she's a political chameleon, an opportunist, and a megalomaniac, a perfect democratic version of john mccain, her great vodka-drinking buddy...

i would LOVE to see a woman in the white house, or a person of color, or, better yet, both, but hillary ain't the one any more than condi is... she needs to go away and leave the field open for what i hope will eventually be a new breed of political leaders - those who actually have the common good of the citizens of the u.s. and of the world at heart...

And, yes, I DO take it personally

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

» RE: skip the pop-psych Posted by: CatDad
Another lying bitch.
Posted by: colinmeister on Jan 24, 2007 4:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I have always been a fan of the Yankees."

Sorry Hillary, but as a girl from the Chicago subburbs, you were doubtless a Cubs or White Sox fan before you articulated that piece of drivel to gain favour with sports fans when you were running for the senate. If you can't even tell the truth about a subject as trivial as baseball, how can anybody believe you when it comes to more serious matters?

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

» Ain't necessarily so... Posted by: Age of Reason
Down the toilet
Posted by: xi_people on Jan 24, 2007 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That a figure this polarizing, woman or not, is being so actively promoted by the "powers that be" shows me that things are continuing to spiral down the drain. Just like with Bush, the writers of this article are attempting to build a "cult of personality" around Hillary, so that more attention will be paid to her, as opposed to the policies she espouses.

The descent into madness is continuing unabated. I don't believe that Hillary, despite all the money behind her will ever be voted in as president -- though with the control of the Diebold machines, one never knows. In any case, her real purpose is to "gum up the works" so that a serious anti-war candidate will never see the light of day.

In short, this entire "Hillary episode" is a great big FU from TPTB to the commoners. They must really think that enough people are stupid enough to vote for this woman to go through with promoting her like this. Watch out for the "sympathy" votes for people who get mad at the "media" for Hillary-bashing and support her for that reason only. Like Bush, she is the perfect foil to divert attention from the real issues at hand.

Elect "Saint" Hillary, and your children will be on their way to a much bigger debacle than Iraq -- in Iran. Look for unequivocal "support" for Israel's murderous agenda, and endless warmongering. Things are absolutely spiraling out of control when someone this unfit for office is being so relentlessly pushed. It makes one wonder what's really going on behind the scenes in the halls of powers. My belief is that they're scared sh*tless about the Pandora's box they've opened, and have no concrete ideas how to hold this rapidly splintering country together.

We live in interesting times....

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

» Well said, nm Posted by: jdylarid
It's her vote for the Iraq war, stupid!
Posted by: jeanbee on Jan 24, 2007 4:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I assumed, wrongly, that a Mother Jones writer would cut through the crap and look at Hillary on the basis of her record. This type of thing is a sorry waste of space. I won't support Hillary because she voted for the Iraq war - and as late as last night I heard her once again excuse her vote using the "if we only knew then" meme: Newsflash -- WE DID KNOW - she and others just voted for an unnecessary war because it was the politically "smart" thing to do. Hillary is also a corporatist DLC Dem to the hilt, and as a result will never, ever do anything that is either honest OR seriously progressive.

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

Hillary is Just Not a Good Choice for President
Posted by: theskywolf on Jan 24, 2007 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary Clinton is a right-leaning centrist. We've had enough of that type of politician. I couldn't care less how sexual she is, or even whether or not she is a domineering bitch. That has nothing to do with the qualities needed to run this badly damaged country.

We need someone who can take us to a new, progressive level. Get Hillary, get more of Bill Clinton. We don't need that.

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

I could live with President HRC
Posted by: marxalot on Jan 24, 2007 4:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But she has to get elected:

"If Hillary runs, she will need to invent a whole new form of campaign strategy: She will need to flip voters who pretty much hate her."

It is a stretch to imagine her actually winning. Isn't it? Please Dems, don't nominate her! You will be putting a Republican in the white house! Again. Aargh.

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

» RE: I could live with President HRC Posted by: oregoncharles
What America is lookin for...
Posted by: Steve Adair on Jan 24, 2007 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"What America is looking for is authentic people who want to go into public service because they believe strongly in something..."

President Bush certainly seems to believe 'strongly in something'; does that make him a good public servant?

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

» Bush believes in evil Posted by: edsmith
There's Something about Hillary
Posted by: Democritus on Jan 24, 2007 5:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye for a long time--long enough to be criticized and caricatured to the full extent (and now to be sculpted as an Amazon warrior-stateswoman). She transformed herself from a mousy-looking brilliant nerd with thick glasses into a supremely confident woman who can hold her own with any man. The problem, as I see it, is that along the way she also became a politician, in the worst sense of that word. I long for the Hillary who boldly tried to create a universal health system. I now cringe when she still refuses to say that her vote to let Bush attack Iraq was a mistake. I still admire Hillary, but I don't want to see her win the nomination for president. It's not because of how she looks or talks, or about her family life. It's because I don't know what her views are anymore.

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

» RE: There's Something about Hillary Posted by: oregoncharles
PLEASE SPARE US THE VILLAGE VOID POETRY! by Andrew Stergiou
Posted by: Andrew Zito on Jan 24, 2007 5:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Poetry of the Village Void perhaps, prose that conveys a clear statement with blunt force it is not, in a weak thin gruel we are offered while the rich benefit from either the left or the right in power, sharing power corrupt.

While the "left" opposition wonders why the right again wins when the true upholders of the "people's state" (democracy) fails, though they worship at the shines of the true faith/s of bitter fruits for which often they have been abandoned. 50% of the electorate not voting, though voting is such a cheap substitute for real action, that in other countries constituents dying and killing for what one believes.

Give use a meal and we will eat.

~A~
P.O.Box 1615
Altoona, Pa, USA 16603

An "internet pioneer" my passport is ready but who will call
universal copyright (c) 2004-2007 Andrew Stergiou

http://templeofreason.org http://zito.biz http://mplf.org http://ularts.net http://pushedpawn.org http://garagemusicstudios.com http://blog.360.yahoo.com/andrew_zito http://andrewstergiou.podomatic.com

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

I will never vote for a Clinton or Bush again
Posted by: edsmith on Jan 24, 2007 6:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am so sick and tired of the Bush-Clinton names and what they stand for, which is whatever will get them elected. Enough is enough.

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

Raison d etre
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Jan 24, 2007 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't trust Hillary, or any candidate endorsed by the DLC, because they are more concerned about the Democratic Party than they are about Democrats. The have sold out to the corporate establishment for campaign contributions. This guarantees the existence of the party but destroys the reason for it to exist.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative

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

Ms Rodham-Clinton
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 24, 2007 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why don't you take your Carpet bagging sourpuss face back to Illinois and run for the Senate there? You can even pretend to be a Republican again- like the first time.

Or maybe you could go back to Arkansas, where you pretended to be the wife of a young, progressive Governor while working for Don Tyson, Wal-Mart and others. You know- part time positions, low wages, no benefits, union unfriendly, and gender discrimination from companies based in the same state. Oh that's right, you also served on Wal-Mart's corporate board.

You could go back to being the 'Who asked you' Hillary that stood for no election and then held hearings on healthcare with no authority or mandate from anybody.

That's part of the conversation I would like to start with Hillary. I would vote for Satan himself before I'd give her my vote.

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

Hillary is a far better than Bush but "fake tool" comes to mind
Posted by: american on Jan 24, 2007 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She may not be completely bought and paid for, but she'll have to pay the Money People. People want somebody with passion; somebody with balance; somebody with caring; somebody with courage. I look at that LIVE - WEBCAST advertisement one the left of my screen. I can see a specifically designed, placed, and colored background, 600 watts of foreground lights and the engaging- and interested-looking eyes. Hillary may care, but does she have the daring to kick her donors off the platform made for all American people? Will she focus the presidency on what is on the hearts and minds of Americans? (Why will she not just come out and say it, if so, like Jim Webb in his response to the SOTU?) I can not see in her wavering positions [she was against Howard Dean’s “rant,” but donated to Ned Lamont], measured language, and chimerical persona the authenticity, faith, steadiness, courage, and charisma the American people do not just want, but require.

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

No vote for a pig in a poke
Posted by: hoscot on Jan 24, 2007 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For just what does this carpetbagger stand? I doubt if she stands for anything but blind ambition at any cost, and I must ask: can we afford the luxury of a president of whatever sex who, in these critical times after the Bush revolution, stands only for whatever is useful for his/her career? The President in 2008 MUST be a person of principle, a firm, unambiguous defender of a return to constitutional law, else God help the USA.

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

Hillary is a fine choice
Posted by: earena on Jan 24, 2007 7:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a politician is a politician and as far as that goes Hillary Clinton is a fine choice...how exciting it is that United States finally has the potential to have a female president and join the 21st century. and as far as having someone who stands for something...people don't care about that any more; Al Gore stands firm in his environmental work and look what happened to him. right now this country needs a centrists like Hillary because our division is now our demise.

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

» RE: Hillary is a fine choice Posted by: grrrampop
She can't WIN....
Posted by: WitchyNy on Jan 24, 2007 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and no black man can win either. To beat the Republicans -we need someone who can WIN!

My father-A truck driver...and all his friends..will not vote for a woman or a Black person for President..no matter what they say to a poll...GET REAL HERE!
Or -we will end up with another Bush.

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

» RE: She can't WIN.... Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: She can't WIN.... Posted by: MitPot
» RE: She can't WIN.... Posted by: xbj
The biggest problem
Posted by: Robba29 on Jan 24, 2007 7:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With Hillary is that she is viewed as a politician in every sense of the word. She seems to go with what is popular (Iraq war), works to her own benefit with little regard to consensus (Iraq, again, NCLB), will "flip-flop" when convenient, etc. Do I think she is capable--yes. But, how she is perceived and how open she is to attack from Repugs makes her a VERY poor choice of candidate. The public will turn on her. The Democrats WILL lose if she is the nominee--you can count on that.

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

» RE: The biggest problem Posted by: FastEddy
» RE: The biggest problem Posted by: Persephone8
9/11& GWB Changed everything
Posted by: blondesprite on Jan 24, 2007 7:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an American artist, gender and race (Hillary and Obama), at this point, have nothing to do with my voting or creative decisions.
GWB said 9/11 changed everthing. Then he, Republicans and some Democrats proceeded to change everything... from Habeas Corpus, The U. S. Constituion, privacy laws, propaganda laws, posse comitatus laws, banckuptcy laws and the list goes on and on and on. This article, in my opinion, was a waste of space and my time.
KBR is building internment camps, with tax payer dollars, and on US soil, to house American citizens. American citizens, of the co-called "fifth column" (dissenters and pre-determined sympathizers) will be suspect prisoners in these camps... scarey stuff folks!
Other Americans too, as polls indicate, have moved way beyond worring about race or gender issues. Unfortunately, the "media" has not.

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

Politics...so emotional.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 24, 2007 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Why we love to hate Hilary?"

Why does viewing someone as uniquely unqualified need be based on hatred? If I prefer a cinnamon pop-tart, it isn't necessarily because of my hatred for the "evil" frosted strawberry ones.

Meh. The 50%+1 political atmosphere drags human win/loss emotions into places where rationality, cool heads, and collaborative strategies would be better: the subtext of this article is that if you don't jump on the Clinton bandwagon, it's because you hate her.

That's a ridiculous premise, and does pretty good job at illustrating how Bush's "you're either with us or agin' us" mantra of life and love and war has filtered down (further infected) the political discourse.

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

» RE: Politics...so emotional. Posted by: gillianr
She will probably win
Posted by: philobat on Jan 24, 2007 8:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hilary will most likely win because it is time to see what a woman will do in the White House. Although I know what the result will be, this country and the world wants to know if there is a difference between a woman or a man running the show. This is the quesessential curiosity that will kill the cat moment. Who we need in the house is a Maya Angelou, but what we will get, is another pencil pusher with tits.

It is not her sexuality that is threatening, it is her stupidity level. She is a great saleswoman, who truly understands theatrics. She will win because she has stuck by Bill. Its the devoted wife syndrom that will get her elected, and it will have nothing to do with her ability to get the job done.

She doesn't need a spin team, because she knows how to do that all by herself.

We definately need a womans touch in the White House, but Hilary is far from what America needs. She is an automaton with tits.

She may end up being the first and last woman President, which is sad.

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

Hillary Clinton and the Israel Lobby
Posted by: rwa on Jan 24, 2007 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.ynetnews.com/art icles/0,7340,L-3355786,00.html

"Israeli billionaire and media mogul Haim Saban is at the top of the list of donors to political campaigns in the US."
"According to the report, Saban, a close friend of the Clintons, is one of the major donors to the Democratic Party"
********
Clinton's silence toward Israel's brutality implies the senator will continue to support AIPAC's mission to occupy the whole of the occupied territories, as well as a war on Iran. AIPAC is correct ­ even President Bush appears to be a little sheepish when up against the warmongering of Hillary Clinton.

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

This Is not the time for Ms. Clinton
Posted by: R.I.P. on Jan 24, 2007 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The object of the next presidential election is to elect a democritic president. I do not think this is a good time for adding yet another controversy based on gender. Unfortunately this will be the case as I see it.... for all I know Ms. Clinton might be a good president..... but she would have to be ELECTED! This is not the time to experiment with 'firsts" which cause doubt and divisions: and consentrate on a canditate with the mandate of the people as a fist priorty.....stopping this insane war. I can not see how social reforms can be implimented in a country that is going broke... among other things. If it is possible for the Democratic leadership to straighten out the mess we are in.... and win the confidence of the American people.... it would be then that Ms. Clinton could be a reasonable candidate. Again, we have to consider the gender bias of ths American electorate and this is NOT the time for diversionary issues.
As I remember Georgr Bush was popular with many as "the candidate I'd rather have a beer with". Really folks....
it is time to get real.
cheers, Rip Tragle

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

Another Democratic woman against H Clinton
Posted by: CJC on Jan 24, 2007 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stop the sexism already! Male politicians do not get dissected this way.

The reason to oppose Clinton is what others have said.
Before she voted 'yes' for the war she eloquently went through reasons invading Iraq was a bad idea. Then she voted 'yea.'
There's the disconnect between principle and political expediency. She's cold and calculating - see Cindy Sheehan's description of meeting with her in 2005.

She's so bright and clearly competent. Too bad she has sold her soul to her ambition.

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

How About: We Don't Like The Politics!
Posted by: shinseiji on Jan 24, 2007 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't need another moderate conservative politician to follow the radical rightist, as Billy-Boy did Pappy, though Pappy, unlike Baby, was also a moderate conservative.

And speaking of which, we need to be rid of the corruption of dynastic politics. We're looking at a quarter century of BushClintons from 1988 on.

But mark this for all of those who think that the Clinton Democratic clique is "much better" than the Bushes: the GWOT will continue as a major block on any real progressive reform; if and when President Cheney gets his war on with Iran and then Hillary ascends to the throne in 2008, her Administration will loyally prosecute Cheneys' policy just as Billy maintained the bombing/sanctions seige of Iraq throughout the 1990's - exterminating in the process some half million Iraqis by UN estimates, but remember, 'it was worth it'.

The bottom life for all those who offer nothing but endless apologies for the Clinton Democrats: until Americas' mad militarist march and the trillions flushed down the tubes with it are stopped and permantly reversed, there will be no money nor the political climate for substantive reform in the US or abroad.

War Kills Reform.

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

Clinton '08
Posted by: Donna_Darko on Jan 24, 2007 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why We Love to Hate Hillary

Hillary Clinton is like our national Rorschach: She stokes our every emotion, from our deepest fears to our darkest hatreds.


Good piece but the title should simply be "The US is very sexist." She's succeeded at every stage of her life and her presidency would be an unqualified success, the polar opposite of Bush's presidency, an absolute failure. She's a Senator for citizens who endured 9-11 and in the state with the biggest Jewish American population so she's been annoyingly centrist but I think she'd be great for this country.

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

» RE: Clinton '08 Posted by: JCR
» RE: Clinton '08 Posted by: Donna_Darko
» RE: Clinton '08 Posted by: aonghus36
» I'm on crack? Posted by: Donna_Darko
» Stop smokin the crack Posted by: Donna_Darko
» You Posted by: Donna_Darko
Bad Judgement
Posted by: oregoncharles on Jan 24, 2007 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an extraordinary piece: a painfully long article about one of our most prominent politicians which never once touches on her POLITICAL actions, let alone any issues she has dealt with. I first read it in Mother Jones, which I've subscribed to for a long time. It is the first article I have ever seen there that made me question the judgement of the editors. Now it appears in Alternet, too, and the judgement is just as bad. It is actually an example of the same phenomenon it deplores: a purely personal treatment of a powerful public figure, which completely ignores her policy and issue positions.

It demeans Hillary Clinton, wastes space, and insults the readers. It couldn't hit a worse trifecta.

Let's deal with actual politics for a moment. My own grudge goes back to her botch of the health-care issue, right at the beginning of her husband's regime. It was so bad, and so obvious, that I think it was deliberate: a way of pretending to keep Bill's campaign promise while sabotaging any hope of universal health-care for the foreseeable future. A perfect example of corporate-driven politics.

Then, of course, there's the war. Need I say more on that issue?

In general, her record is an extension of Bill's: purely corporate, based entirely on calculated half-measures, and amoral. Apparently they were, and are, a genuine political team. And that's as far as I'll deal with her personal life. Otherwise, I couldn't care less.

Then, of course, there are those poll negatives. No politician can survive, or overcome, initial negative ratings that high, especially when they are supported by her record. Remember, BOTH sides despise her. She can't count on progressives rallying around, as Democrats must.

Finally, her record in the Senate is, well, minor when it isn't offensive (remember the war?). Her only real qualification for the Presidency is her last name. Haven't we learned anything the last 6 years?

On a purely partisan basis, I hope the Dems do nominate her: combined with what W has done to the Republicans, it would give the Greens the best shot they've ever had. Along with every other alternative party. We all could use a wide-open race, for once. A 20% President might get us some electoral reform.

Returning to the article: Why on earth would Alternet repeat Mother Jones's blunder? You LIKE insulting your readers?

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

» RE: Bad Judgement Posted by: blondesprite
» RE: Bad Judgement Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Bad Judgement Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Bad Judgement Posted by: MartianBachelor
This was a...
Posted by: jack alexander on Jan 24, 2007 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
nauseating piece. Wrtitten much like a lot of the Hollywood trash in print these days. A total waste of time and effort.

I can't help but ask, all of this drivel (above) aside, is she as bad as the sub-moronic neo-nazi that is in office today?

Concern about her breasts? What about the Chimp's missing you know what that he substitutes with weapons of war with lies of deceit and stupidity included (to make up for the other missing 'parts')?

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

» Just what is Bush missing? Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: Just what is Bush missing? Posted by: jack alexander
» It wasn't a waste of time Posted by: Donna_Darko
» RE: This was a... Posted by: blondesprite
Hillary has bad political opinions
Posted by: snarlah on Jan 24, 2007 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't care about her personal life or that she is married to Bill Clinton at all. And I want a woman President as soon as possible.

However, the salient point is that Hillary Clinton, like her husband and many other so-called Democrats, is Democratic Leadership Committee. She is as pro-business as a Republican, and big money taints everything that she says and does. She is also hawkish on the invasion and occupation of Iraq and probably will be hawkish in general. I don't consider that a womanly virtue.

When a group of Iraqi women were travelling the country giving talks about the horrors of what we've done to Iraq, Hillary ignored every request to meet with them. And that means there was no answer at all. What gives her the right to ignore important women? And why didn't she care? Probably because what she does care about is the same thing the men do--getting and maintaining power; meeting with Iraqi women might have gotten in the way of her grasping for money and power.

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

Clinton-Richardson ticket works nicely
Posted by: Toast on Jan 24, 2007 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Untainted by all the intrigue contained in this article as well as in the person of HRC, my girls ages 9 and 12 like her and want her to be president. Maybe they naively think it would be nice to have a female in that job, instead of the routine white male. Sorry, white-males, for this is sexist in itself but it is a step along the path to equality.

No doubt, HRC has the resume to function decently in the job. With much respect to Wendy W., flip-flopping is also called diplomacy and is necessary in world relations. The resoluteness of GWB has been tiresome and lethal. Regarding her views on immigration, she would enhance her electability most if she ran with Bill Richardson who is the candidate with the truly impressive resume.

The Clinton-Richardson ticket works for me. Clinton can capture many of the votes of Bill Clinton-devotees, blacks, women, liberals, Gore-supporters, and Hollywood. Richardson can capture many Latins and immigration one-noters. I think they can get elected and serve well.

Oh, gosh - there I go again projecting my own desires onto Hillary!

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

Where Is The 'Law'
Posted by: mite on Jan 24, 2007 10:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You want to know the REAL Hillary? Ask her too show the Law that says the IRS can Tax our Labor?
Hillary and Congress knows the 'Fraud' against the U.S. people by the Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Service these past 93 years. The IRS's own code says that taxes are voluntary when it comes to tax on our labor.

U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section: 8

www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

www.givemeliberty.org www.originalintent.org

www.freedomtofascism.com

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

More blame-the-public elitism
Posted by: SteveB on Jan 24, 2007 11:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See if you can spot the logical flaw in this argument: If the media and a few right-wing nut-jobs are obsessed with Hillary Clinton, ALL AMERICANS must be obsessed with Hillary Clinton.

What evidence does the author give that Americans in general, not just silly reporters from the New York Times or people who've had books published by Regnery, are obsessed with Hillary? Consider this ridiculous claim:

"Americans happily participated in a cnn/USA Today/Gallup poll to determine whether Hillary should get a divorce."

Oh, so if a thousand people with nothing better to do don't hang up the phone when asked this question, it means "Americans" are "happily participating" in the Hillary obsession?

Or how about this:
"Almost every American has an opinion about Hillary."

Wow, what a startling observation. A woman who spent eight years as first lady, and nearly six years as a senator, and most of us "have an opinion" about her.

I wish the author was alone in falling for the fallacy that if our media is aimed at morons, WE must all be morons. The New York Times isn't inspecting the Clinton's sheets because we demanded it, they're doing it because the people who do political reporting for the New York Times are IDIOTS. Check out www.dailyhowler.com for a daily exposition on this theme.

Until we learn that most Americans are much smarter than we give them credit for (and by "we" I mean the sort of well-educated liberals who might read Mother Jones) the media elites will continue to turn our political discourse into a bad joke.

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

A Democratic Nixon
Posted by: Red Clover on Jan 24, 2007 11:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As much as I admire her talent and accomplishments, Hillary has too much ambition, too many demons, and too little idealism to help the middle class recover from the predations of Reaganism during the past 26 years. And that's what we need to see and hear from the 2008 Democratic Party nominee.
If elected, Hillary would be the Democrats' Richard Nixon- a foreign policy hawk, slightly liberal on domestic matters, clueless in connecting to the people, and surrounded by enemies, real and imagined. We need something better from the nation's first female President if we are too see more of them anytime soon.

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

How About A GOOD Female Candidate Instead?
Posted by: Blueprelude on Jan 24, 2007 11:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about the Democrats running a female congresswoman who is genuinely responsive to the people, such as Maxine Waters? She is authoritative, female and African American! She has a better track record on issues people care about than Hillary, and now supports a viable plan to get us out of Iraq, also unlike Hillary.

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

I Don´t Hate Hillary...
Posted by: ZPaul on Jan 24, 2007 12:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I Don´t Hate Hillary, I just do not want her to be President of the U.S.A.
I want a candidate that is willing to take a firm, and not a wishy-washy stand against Bush and his obscene war. I think that candidate just may be Edwards. Yes, he changed his mind, I know(I can hear the cries of "flip-flop" already). He also did something Bush -- nor, to my knowledge, Hillary, has ever done. Admit he was dead wrong. I want a President that is not a coward. I want a courageous President. And I´m not thinking Hillary. I´m thinking Edwards.

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