BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com
Friday, December 29, 2006
The Real Reason Republicans Hate Hillary Clinton
By MARC McDONALD
Trying to fathom the various hatreds of the Republicans these days is always a tricky exercise.
After all, these are people who despise saintly figures like Jimmy Carter. How, exactly, does one go about hating someone like Carter? It's like hating Mother Teresa.
The wingnuts also despise decorated war heroes like John Kerry, John Murtha and Max Cleland. I've never understood how soldiers who fought and bled for their country could be the target of such venom from anyone, either on the Right or the Left.
But it's always been a complete mystery to me why the Republicans would hate someone like Hillary Clinton.
Surely it's clear to anyone outside of the Rush-listening, knuckle-dragging base of the GOP that Hillary is hardly an extreme liberal. In fact, she's quite moderate.
Despite what the likes of Fox News would have us believe, Hillary is a business-friendly politician who is hardly the champion of worker's rights. In short, she's not much of a progressive.
In fact, Hillary's 2002 vote in favor of using military force against Iraq and her pandering on the flag-burning issue have been enough to distance her from a number of progressives.
Liberal columnist Molly Ivins, for example, famously declared last January that she would not support Hillary for president.
The mainstream media hasn't helped things over the years when reporting on exactly what it is that Hillary stands for.
Indeed, the MSM continues to insist on calling Hillary a "divisive" figure.
Presumably, in giving her this label, the MSM is referring to the rabid GOP nutcases who are consumed with hatred for Hillary. What's interesting about all this is that the MSM hasn't stuck a similar label on George W. Bush---even though no president has ever done more to divide the country (and alienate the world from America).
Frankly, the mainstream media has done a lousy job of reporting on Hillary Clinton over the years. And nowhere is this more evident that the lies and misinformation that it spread about the 1993 Clinton health care plan.
The MSM went out of its way to try to scare the American public about Clinton's health care proposal. As a result of the media's misinformation, most Americans were under the impression that the plan called for some kind of scary, Communist-style government takeover of the entire U.S. health case system. This is a misconception that exists to this day.
In fact, the Task Force on National Health Care Reform (which Hillary headed) called for no such thing. It didn't even call for a Canadian-style single-payer plan. In fact, it left the nation's health care system firmly in the hands of the private sector.
The MSM's inability to convey even this basic, fundamental fact about Clinton's health care plan, of course, played right into the GOP's hands as they fought fiercely against the plan. I suspect we'll see a great deal more of this MSM misinformation about Hillary should she pursue the presidency.
Which brings me back to my original question: why, exactly does Hillary inspire such foaming-at-the-mouth hatred from the GOP these days? It sure as hell isn't because Hillary is some sort of FDR-style progressive.
It's clear that the real reason the Republicans hate Hillary is that they simply can't stand strong-willed women.
Let's face it: such "uppity" women frighten the Republicans. It's not that the GOP necessarily despise women in general---it's just that the right-wingers want women to stay in their place in society.
Republicans, of course, would strongly deny that this is the case. They'd protest that they're not hostile to women and, as "proof" would offer up examples like Bush's appointment of Condoleezza Rice, as well as the various female GOP politicians and leaders in America.
However, Republicans know damn well that a significant part of their base supports "traditional family values"---which is simply code for keeping women in their place as docile, cookie-baking homemakers.
It's important to remember that for all of the boasting that our nation does about being some sort of "beacon" of human rights, the fact is, today's America still harbors tens of millions of bigots, whose views on race and gender haven't changed much in the past 100 years.
And what party do you think these bigots vote for? It sure as hell ain't the Democrats.
Trying to fathom the various hatreds of the Republicans these days is always a tricky exercise.
After all, these are people who despise saintly figures like Jimmy Carter. How, exactly, does one go about hating someone like Carter? It's like hating Mother Teresa.
The wingnuts also despise decorated war heroes like John Kerry, John Murtha and Max Cleland. I've never understood how soldiers who fought and bled for their country could be the target of such venom from anyone, either on the Right or the Left.
But it's always been a complete mystery to me why the Republicans would hate someone like Hillary Clinton.
Surely it's clear to anyone outside of the Rush-listening, knuckle-dragging base of the GOP that Hillary is hardly an extreme liberal. In fact, she's quite moderate.
Despite what the likes of Fox News would have us believe, Hillary is a business-friendly politician who is hardly the champion of worker's rights. In short, she's not much of a progressive.
In fact, Hillary's 2002 vote in favor of using military force against Iraq and her pandering on the flag-burning issue have been enough to distance her from a number of progressives.
Liberal columnist Molly Ivins, for example, famously declared last January that she would not support Hillary for president.
The mainstream media hasn't helped things over the years when reporting on exactly what it is that Hillary stands for.
Indeed, the MSM continues to insist on calling Hillary a "divisive" figure.
Presumably, in giving her this label, the MSM is referring to the rabid GOP nutcases who are consumed with hatred for Hillary. What's interesting about all this is that the MSM hasn't stuck a similar label on George W. Bush---even though no president has ever done more to divide the country (and alienate the world from America).
Frankly, the mainstream media has done a lousy job of reporting on Hillary Clinton over the years. And nowhere is this more evident that the lies and misinformation that it spread about the 1993 Clinton health care plan.
The MSM went out of its way to try to scare the American public about Clinton's health care proposal. As a result of the media's misinformation, most Americans were under the impression that the plan called for some kind of scary, Communist-style government takeover of the entire U.S. health case system. This is a misconception that exists to this day.
In fact, the Task Force on National Health Care Reform (which Hillary headed) called for no such thing. It didn't even call for a Canadian-style single-payer plan. In fact, it left the nation's health care system firmly in the hands of the private sector.
The MSM's inability to convey even this basic, fundamental fact about Clinton's health care plan, of course, played right into the GOP's hands as they fought fiercely against the plan. I suspect we'll see a great deal more of this MSM misinformation about Hillary should she pursue the presidency.
Which brings me back to my original question: why, exactly does Hillary inspire such foaming-at-the-mouth hatred from the GOP these days? It sure as hell isn't because Hillary is some sort of FDR-style progressive.
It's clear that the real reason the Republicans hate Hillary is that they simply can't stand strong-willed women.
Let's face it: such "uppity" women frighten the Republicans. It's not that the GOP necessarily despise women in general---it's just that the right-wingers want women to stay in their place in society.
Republicans, of course, would strongly deny that this is the case. They'd protest that they're not hostile to women and, as "proof" would offer up examples like Bush's appointment of Condoleezza Rice, as well as the various female GOP politicians and leaders in America.
However, Republicans know damn well that a significant part of their base supports "traditional family values"---which is simply code for keeping women in their place as docile, cookie-baking homemakers.
It's important to remember that for all of the boasting that our nation does about being some sort of "beacon" of human rights, the fact is, today's America still harbors tens of millions of bigots, whose views on race and gender haven't changed much in the past 100 years.
And what party do you think these bigots vote for? It sure as hell ain't the Democrats.
Labels: 2008 election, Hillary Clinton, Republicans
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
My God, where does one begin with this dross?
Look, this post is made up of so much intellectual garbage I can't begin to dig through it, but suffice it to say, the backbone of the Republican Party is made up of strong women, for God's sake. If you knew what the hell you were talking about, you would know that.
Republicans oppose Hillary Clinton because we understand that she is a political liberal, far more liberal than her husband. None of us were fooled by her movement to the center during her senate career. She remained the Hillary of Natioanal Health Care, a failed attempt to turn the health care system into a Democratic Party patronage appendage.
It has nothing to do with being afraid of "strong women". The presence in our party of Condi Rice, Liddy Dole, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Olympia Snowe, among others, puts the lie to your assertion. Further, as a political operative here in Florida, I can think of several young women in the pipeline in the west coast congressional districts alone now that Katherine Harris has been eliminated.
What you don't want to acknowledge is that there are valid, ideological reasons for opposing Clinton's grasp for power that have little to do with her gender. Stop insulting your readers' intelligence and deal with those, instead.
Look, this post is made up of so much intellectual garbage I can't begin to dig through it, but suffice it to say, the backbone of the Republican Party is made up of strong women, for God's sake. If you knew what the hell you were talking about, you would know that.
Republicans oppose Hillary Clinton because we understand that she is a political liberal, far more liberal than her husband. None of us were fooled by her movement to the center during her senate career. She remained the Hillary of Natioanal Health Care, a failed attempt to turn the health care system into a Democratic Party patronage appendage.
It has nothing to do with being afraid of "strong women". The presence in our party of Condi Rice, Liddy Dole, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Olympia Snowe, among others, puts the lie to your assertion. Further, as a political operative here in Florida, I can think of several young women in the pipeline in the west coast congressional districts alone now that Katherine Harris has been eliminated.
What you don't want to acknowledge is that there are valid, ideological reasons for opposing Clinton's grasp for power that have little to do with her gender. Stop insulting your readers' intelligence and deal with those, instead.
In response to the previous post, I'd like to ask: what makes you think Hillary is "liberal" at all? Hillary is very much a centrist (which these days, pretty much means "Republican Lite"). She's friendly to corporations, "free" trade, globalism, etc. If you think she's some sort of flaming liberal, you really need to turn off Fox News and get your info from somewhere else for a change.
Perhaps the author is wrong is saying Republicans are afraid of strong women. But I think he's just trying to come up with an answer to the mystery of why Hillary inspires such contempt from the GOP (it sure as hell isn't because she's an extreme liberal---she's not, and neither was her husband).
Perhaps the author is wrong is saying Republicans are afraid of strong women. But I think he's just trying to come up with an answer to the mystery of why Hillary inspires such contempt from the GOP (it sure as hell isn't because she's an extreme liberal---she's not, and neither was her husband).
# posted by 
: 8:46 PM
: 8:46 PM
I think much of the Republican resentment/hatred of Hillary Clinton stems from the same thing that got them so riled up the instant her husband declared for the presidency, lo these many years ago. They're afraid she might win.
If Hillary should happen to win the nomination, expect to see an even more vicious campaign against her than was waged against her husband for over eight years, and expect to see even LESS substance to it.
As a die-hard Democrat, I truly do not believe that Hillary can win the presidency at this point, and maybe never, but I've sure been wrong before.
Still, I think it would be a serious mistake for the Democrats to select Hillary as their nominee for 2008, and this is based on one thing, and one thing only. George W. Bush, patron saint of people like "Section9," has made such a colossal mess of this country that it is imperative we take control of the White House away from the Republicans in 2008, and we need the very best candidate we can find.
Looking at the chaos, corruption and skullduggery that is rampant in the Republican party, with 12 years of a Republican Congress unwilling to exercise any oversight on six years of an out-of-control liar and his lackeys who head up the current administration could bring this country to its knees for all time if we don't get a handle on it.
If the best the Pubs have for 2008 is John McCain (Bush Lite), they'd better start digging up a few more lying swift-boaters and get ready to see their candidate and party annihilated. Democrats have learned a lot in recent years about just how ugly and destructive the Republican party has become, and how little they care about the future of their country. We need to be done with the whole bunch of them. We have candidates available who can do it, but I don't think Hillary is one of them.
If Hillary should happen to win the nomination, expect to see an even more vicious campaign against her than was waged against her husband for over eight years, and expect to see even LESS substance to it.
As a die-hard Democrat, I truly do not believe that Hillary can win the presidency at this point, and maybe never, but I've sure been wrong before.
Still, I think it would be a serious mistake for the Democrats to select Hillary as their nominee for 2008, and this is based on one thing, and one thing only. George W. Bush, patron saint of people like "Section9," has made such a colossal mess of this country that it is imperative we take control of the White House away from the Republicans in 2008, and we need the very best candidate we can find.
Looking at the chaos, corruption and skullduggery that is rampant in the Republican party, with 12 years of a Republican Congress unwilling to exercise any oversight on six years of an out-of-control liar and his lackeys who head up the current administration could bring this country to its knees for all time if we don't get a handle on it.
If the best the Pubs have for 2008 is John McCain (Bush Lite), they'd better start digging up a few more lying swift-boaters and get ready to see their candidate and party annihilated. Democrats have learned a lot in recent years about just how ugly and destructive the Republican party has become, and how little they care about the future of their country. We need to be done with the whole bunch of them. We have candidates available who can do it, but I don't think Hillary is one of them.
Captain Conservative admits to getting wood when contemplating Hillary running for the Presidency. The only more attractive candadite would be Martha Stewart. Martha has demonstrated that she abhors paying taxes and that she would like to see less restriction in the equities markets. (That was a joke Marc. Captain Conservative is making a joke. Captain Conservative is enjoying a little laugh, but it is tedious having to always explain the joke.)
Thank me.
Captain Conservative
Thank me.
Captain Conservative
Iraq will be the deciding factor among the Democratic candidates in 2008, and Hillary and Edwards were both flat wrong on the subject. More and more it looks like it will be Al Gore's election to lose, please see www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
The Rosie example comes to mind as the illustration of how strong willed men simply refuse to kowtow to strong willed women.
Chances are that Hillary is not likely to do it in a manner as challenging as Rosie has done, but it offers the public an opportunity to gauge the kinds of resistance that Hillary is likely to encounter, and why, if she ran for President.
It's difficult, at best, to see or make a distinction between gender in such abrasive attitudes, and equally difficult to take sides by either men or women.
In that respect, the Trump vs Rosie conflict arrives as a blessing in how far the genders must go to respect each others differences, as well as to respect each others opinions.
That Hillary enjoys the benefits of being the wife of an ex-President makes it more difficult for this type of criticism that Rosie is now accruing. But that may also be a reason that Hillary may be a female candidate for President that has the potential for success where others may not.
Chances are that Hillary is not likely to do it in a manner as challenging as Rosie has done, but it offers the public an opportunity to gauge the kinds of resistance that Hillary is likely to encounter, and why, if she ran for President.
It's difficult, at best, to see or make a distinction between gender in such abrasive attitudes, and equally difficult to take sides by either men or women.
In that respect, the Trump vs Rosie conflict arrives as a blessing in how far the genders must go to respect each others differences, as well as to respect each others opinions.
That Hillary enjoys the benefits of being the wife of an ex-President makes it more difficult for this type of criticism that Rosie is now accruing. But that may also be a reason that Hillary may be a female candidate for President that has the potential for success where others may not.
# posted by : 11:55 AM
: 11:55 AM
What a lot of nonsense this is. The Republicans have been too forgiving of Hillary, considering how sexist she is.
Would most Americans support a presidential aspirant with a deep hatred of blacks? Of course not. But we give radical feminists like Hillary a pass even though her hatred of men is palpable, and she clearly enjoys seeing us dominated and controlled by women.
Men (Republicans and Democrats) should be making it clear to women that it is insulting for so many of them to support a man-hating feminist. Instead, we are bending over to vote for Hillary to show we aren't the sexist ones. That's as absurd as whites voting for Louis Farrakhan to show they aren't racists!
Would most Americans support a presidential aspirant with a deep hatred of blacks? Of course not. But we give radical feminists like Hillary a pass even though her hatred of men is palpable, and she clearly enjoys seeing us dominated and controlled by women.
Men (Republicans and Democrats) should be making it clear to women that it is insulting for so many of them to support a man-hating feminist. Instead, we are bending over to vote for Hillary to show we aren't the sexist ones. That's as absurd as whites voting for Louis Farrakhan to show they aren't racists!
# posted by : 10:28 AM
: 10:28 AM
"Trying to fathom the various hatreds of the Republicans these days is always a tricky exercise."
Allow me to attempt an explanation then.
"After all, these are people who despise saintly figures like Jimmy Carter. How, exactly, does one go about hating someone like Carter? It's like hating Mother Teresa."
Do you truly believe a comparison of Jimmy Carter (whose poll numbers were even lower that Bush's back in the day) and Mother Teresa is even remotely possible? You call Carter "saintly?" That's just utterly ridiculous.
"The wingnuts also despise decorated war heroes like John Kerry, John Murtha and Max Cleland. I've never understood how soldiers who fought and bled for their country could be the target of such venom from anyone, either on the Right or the Left."
You use the term, "wingnuts." That's nice. You wonder why those on the right despise you all on the left? Well, try not calling us names then. Why must you all resort to name calling like you're a bunch of fifth graders on the playground? Is it because "we" called you a name first? I rest my case fifth grader.
Could it be that we don't like decorated war heroes calling our troops Nazis and terrorists? Could it be that it matters not a whit that John Kerry and John Murtha are decorated war heroes? Being a decorated war hero does not a great man make.
"Surely it's clear to anyone outside of the Rush-listening, knuckle-dragging base of the GOP that Hillary is hardly an extreme liberal. In fact, she's quite moderate."
There we go. "Rush-listening" and "knuckle-dragging." I understand you feel you're being clever but, in reality, you're being nothing short of insulting. Those words are hateful. Do you still not understand where the hatred from the right towards the left comes from? Why should the likes of you throw insults around and make fun of those who disagree with your political outlook but when someone who disagrees with you does something similar, it becomes "hatred?"
"And what party do you think these bigots vote for? It sure as hell ain't the Democrats."
Are you able to offer any proof that bigots are only in the Republican Party? Are you saying that Louis Farrakhan is not a bigot? Are you saying that terms like "white devil" and "white interloper" are not bigoted terms?
You are typical of the left in that you are elitist and pompous. You are a hypocrite and an arrogant boor.
Allow me to attempt an explanation then.
"After all, these are people who despise saintly figures like Jimmy Carter. How, exactly, does one go about hating someone like Carter? It's like hating Mother Teresa."
Do you truly believe a comparison of Jimmy Carter (whose poll numbers were even lower that Bush's back in the day) and Mother Teresa is even remotely possible? You call Carter "saintly?" That's just utterly ridiculous.
"The wingnuts also despise decorated war heroes like John Kerry, John Murtha and Max Cleland. I've never understood how soldiers who fought and bled for their country could be the target of such venom from anyone, either on the Right or the Left."
You use the term, "wingnuts." That's nice. You wonder why those on the right despise you all on the left? Well, try not calling us names then. Why must you all resort to name calling like you're a bunch of fifth graders on the playground? Is it because "we" called you a name first? I rest my case fifth grader.
Could it be that we don't like decorated war heroes calling our troops Nazis and terrorists? Could it be that it matters not a whit that John Kerry and John Murtha are decorated war heroes? Being a decorated war hero does not a great man make.
"Surely it's clear to anyone outside of the Rush-listening, knuckle-dragging base of the GOP that Hillary is hardly an extreme liberal. In fact, she's quite moderate."
There we go. "Rush-listening" and "knuckle-dragging." I understand you feel you're being clever but, in reality, you're being nothing short of insulting. Those words are hateful. Do you still not understand where the hatred from the right towards the left comes from? Why should the likes of you throw insults around and make fun of those who disagree with your political outlook but when someone who disagrees with you does something similar, it becomes "hatred?"
"And what party do you think these bigots vote for? It sure as hell ain't the Democrats."
Are you able to offer any proof that bigots are only in the Republican Party? Are you saying that Louis Farrakhan is not a bigot? Are you saying that terms like "white devil" and "white interloper" are not bigoted terms?
You are typical of the left in that you are elitist and pompous. You are a hypocrite and an arrogant boor.
# posted by : 8:05 AM
: 8:05 AM
why do people quibble over being a democrat or republican? It's like cheering for the White Sox or Yankess, it is all about competion and being "right". Don't be democrat or republican and try being a free thinker. Look at each canidate on both sides, examine their platform and choose. The problem is, as with baseball, the team with the most money wins. Instead of choosing our canidate through Fox or CNN investigate the canidate on your own. Don't let the television decide your vote.
I personally think that George W. Bush is the worst president we could have voted in. Anyone, including Gore, would have done a better job. The devaluation of the dollar is just devastating. To think this makes it possibe for China and any other country to just purchase anything they want in the United States makes me ill. To think China could purchase Goldman Sacks and manipulate our economy is the biggest blunder of the Bush regime.
I personally think that George W. Bush is the worst president we could have voted in. Anyone, including Gore, would have done a better job. The devaluation of the dollar is just devastating. To think this makes it possibe for China and any other country to just purchase anything they want in the United States makes me ill. To think China could purchase Goldman Sacks and manipulate our economy is the biggest blunder of the Bush regime.
# posted by : 3:24 AM
: 3:24 AM
The commentary and posts for and against it are dominated by name calling. Even the post speaking out against name calling was replete with the same.
Clinton is a viable, forceful candidate who may well become president. Republicans are against her because she is a Democrat, just as Democrats are against McCain (Hillary heavy?) because he is a Republican.
The name calling does not help. Very quickly it reduces the comments to pointlessness. Few look beyond party labels.
Though I am a liberal Democrat by my voting patterns, I can see beyond party. This election is about war -- the Iraq war, the Afgan war, the war on terror. There are only 2 candidates who address these issues directly: Clinton and McCain (3 if you count Joe Bidden).
Vote for McCain if you think we should stay and fight. Vote for Clinton if you think we should withdraw. Both courses are replete with great danger, and no matter which is taken we will have work together to meet the challenges that each will entail.
There is no advantage to cursing each other in the mean time.
Clinton is a viable, forceful candidate who may well become president. Republicans are against her because she is a Democrat, just as Democrats are against McCain (Hillary heavy?) because he is a Republican.
The name calling does not help. Very quickly it reduces the comments to pointlessness. Few look beyond party labels.
Though I am a liberal Democrat by my voting patterns, I can see beyond party. This election is about war -- the Iraq war, the Afgan war, the war on terror. There are only 2 candidates who address these issues directly: Clinton and McCain (3 if you count Joe Bidden).
Vote for McCain if you think we should stay and fight. Vote for Clinton if you think we should withdraw. Both courses are replete with great danger, and no matter which is taken we will have work together to meet the challenges that each will entail.
There is no advantage to cursing each other in the mean time.
# posted by : 5:23 PM
: 5:23 PM
I am a 26 year old republican woman and I am voting for Obama. I hate Hillary because she is a crook and a liar. I do not trust her, I feel that she is disingenuous and she would be a horrible leader for this country.
# posted by : 3:13 PM
: 3:13 PM
Oh, good grief. I came on the internet trying to figure out why Republicans hate Hillary, and all I get are the same old flames, getting worse and worse as the posts go on. The only one that even attempted to answer that question is the post right before mine, and all she says is she just hates Hillary because she thinks she's a liar and crook, but not why. Why is the question, so why can't I get a reasoned, intelligent, mature response? If you give me a good reason or two, then I may not like her either, so convince me with facts, please. Meanwhile I'll have to continue to believe that it's just prejudice based on rumors, innuendo, and slander.
Victoria, Here are the reasons why I prefer not to see Senator Clinton as the Democratic nominee: (1) Her rigidity. She has a reputation as someone who does not broke disagreement well. We're coming off of 8 years of "my way or the highway," and even though I don't think Senator Clinton would be that bad, she does seem not to respond well to input that differs from her own opinions. I would have problems with that kind of rigidity regardless of the candidate's sex. (2) The family baggage. Like it or not, she's married to the one man the Republicans love to hate more than any other. That will effectively limit how many votes she can get in the general election as well as her capacity to build coalitions as president. (3) Like the former President Clinton, she's an old-school oppositional politician. That's evident in the language she uses on the campaign trail, the "I'll fight for you." If there were no alternative to that kind of politics, then I'd not be concerned; but given the presence of Senator Obama in the campaign, and his push for a more inclusive political and governance style, I count that as a reason not to support Senator Clinton. And, even if Senator Clinton were of a more inclusive spirit, if she were president she'd have to work a minor miracle to get the Republicans in Congress to do anything other than try to sabotage her at every turn.
I have great admiration for Senator Clinton and what she's accomplished. I also do not want to see another conservative Republican as president after 8 awful years of Bush (and McCain is a conservative, despite his maverick reputation). Even with the problem of our country's underlying racism, I still think Senator Obama has a better chance of capturing the White House.
Post a Comment
I have great admiration for Senator Clinton and what she's accomplished. I also do not want to see another conservative Republican as president after 8 awful years of Bush (and McCain is a conservative, despite his maverick reputation). Even with the problem of our country's underlying racism, I still think Senator Obama has a better chance of capturing the White House.
Links to this post:
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
