A Challenge to Hillary Bashers: Tell Me Exactly Why You Hate Hillary?

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, ultra-right 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 ultra radicals. 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 cheer led 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 13 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?

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) hutchinsonreport@aol

Comments

[mam]

I don't hate Hillary and, if she's the Democratic nominee, I'll support her, albeit without enthusiasm. Frankly, she lost me with her pandering co-sponsorship of a bill to make flag-burning illegal - something no one with any real commitment to civil liberties would vote for, much less introduce as legislation. Her positions on Iraq, vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, and weasely justifications for taking huge amounts of lobbyists just cement my sense that she's another DLC sellout who will do next-to-nothing to turn back what the Repuglicans have done over the past 30 years in mutating this country into a corrupt banana republic ruled by and for an oligarchical 1%.

[Eoin45]

I'm getting real tired of people like you, Earl and posters like ConcernAmerican and SensibleAmerican who presume that any criticism of their candidate constitutes hatred of them. In my case it certainly doesn't. Hillary is my last choice but I'll vote for her, nose held, if she's the nominee. Here's what I don't like about her: She voted for the Iraq war, she voted for the Iran repubican guard resolution, she's taken Rupert Murdoch's money and she's got anti-union people working for her. The one that really tipped the scale for me was her co-sponsorship of a piece of anti-flag burning legislation, which to my mind, was a bit of unabashed pandering to shore up her credentials with conservatives.

[cloudy]

One caveat about my above remark -- I do NOT mean to even leave the possible impression that I would equate John Lennon -- who is one of my heroes)-- to Bill Clinton (who, though I voted for him, by default, as I would vote for HRC if she gets nominated) -- who isn't.

sorry about that lousy sentence

[SandyDoc]

I just support a different candidate. I never considered supporting Clinton. Is that a crime, now?

I support John Edwards. I made that commitment in 2002. Nothing has happened to change my mind. I like his detailed policies. I agree with his vision for the future of America.

This article and the comments engendered by it DO highlight what it would be like if Clinton won the nomination, though.

[SeanGardner]

Mr. Hutchinson...now you're asking people wot answer your questions, but when folks post comments on threads related to your posts, you never answer their questions. I wonder why you never comment on the threads to your posts.

At any rate, I don't hate Hillary at all. Hillary is intelligent, and up until three weeks ago, her campaign was very savvy and disciplined in how it was operating.

So, I don't hate her, I "strongly dislike" some of what she has done: (1) said at a debate in early November and all year long that she wasn't going to attack her opponents, just the issues, but yet she sophomorically attacked Barack Obama for two essays he wrote before he was 9 years old; (2) pretended to disagree with Obama's position on talking with Iran and taking out bin Laden if he was found in Pakistan, and then later wormed her way around to his positions; (3) said she has more experience than anyone in the field, but can't can't point to any trade deals she negotiated on her trips to 82 countries, and can't provide one scintilla of proof that she attepted to diffuse hotspots like Rwanda, Kosovo, or even th situation with the I.R.A.; (4) pointed to her lead in popularity-driven NATIONAL POLLS, when she knew very well that the polls in IOWA and NEW HAMPSHIRE are the only ones that count at this time.

I could go on and on and on, but I don't have the space.

I would vote for Hillary IF...IF...IF she were the nominee, but since that doesn't look probable (at least at this time), I don't have to entertain that notion. I believe she would infinitely better that anyone the Republicans can put up. I do believe that.

But I am supporting Obama. He has the agenda, policy initiatives, political experience (more than Hillary), energy, and money to go the distance.

Oh, do you "hate" Barack Obama, because to date, I don't believe you have ever wrote a positive post on this man.

[hopeless277]

1. Iraq war vote.
2. Iran war vote.
3. Corporate contibutions.
4. Keeps combat troops in Iraq.
5. Lack of leadership on torture(Mukasey).
6. Experience as First Lady??? WTF???
7. Inevitabiliby BS.
8. Bill's penis.

Is that enough? I have many more if needed.

[MoNut]

TRUST.

I don't TRUST Hillary.

From BCCI.... to her taking campaign donations from it's crooks....

From her and her husband's silence and inaction after 9/11 when the country was being shocked, awed, and bushismed into Iraq...

To her votes that continue to enable the most criminal and distrusted Administration in history...

And, now, to her lashing out at the base she's turned her back on when she's been asked to do nothing but explain her inaction and votes.

So..

It's not that I want to dislike Hillary...

But does Hillary want us to hate her?

Why do her and her husband taked us as stupid, gullible, and only worth nodding to when it comes time to beg for votes?

Why do we owe her anything?

When it's she and her husband that are the ones in debt to us?

[CaptainObvious]

Like many others who have posted here, I am probably not qualified to answer, because I have never "hated" or engaged in "bashing" Hillary. Likewise, I have never "hated" bush or engaged in "bush-bashing". However, I do not feel that either person was or is a particularly good candidate for president.

I think most people on "both sides of the aisle" can agree that our country has changed significantly over the past 7 years. I think most democrats and left-leaning people can agree that it has changed for the worse.

With that in mind, place to the side for a moment all of the ideological or policy disagreements we have had with the republicans over the last 7 years. What else has changed during this time? The answer, in my view, is the rise of what I call "karl rove politics". I use this term to describe the particularly partisan and toxic politics we see in Washington today.

Has this type of politics in any way contributed to the assault on the Constitution and Bill of Rights? The answer, in my view, is that not only has it contributed, it has in fact enabled this assault. Therefore, more than any type of ideological or policy change that could be made by the next president, it is imperative that we remove the cancer of "karl rove politics".

Do I believe that any of the current candidates for president can remove this cancer? Sadly, no. Do I think that any of them could make it worse? Yes, I do. Let's face it - republicans have about as much love for Hillary as we have for bush. Imagine the fun we will have trying to pass legislation (or overturn existing legislation) when republicans are the ones opposing the president's policies.

The fact that I disagree with many of her stated policy positions is really just the icing on the cake. I am no longer satisfied with 'eating cake' - I want a chance at a slice of the pie!

[lgillooly]

I have asked people this question also and get a incoherent answer. She is a hard working,intelligent,compassionate and yes,Political woman.We would be lucky to have her a President.
Her husband is also hated viscerally and I would be thrilled to have him back in the White House.
Until the Media does its job right we will bw stuck with this insanity. 91 percent of talk radio is Right wing smear and hate speech.It is tough to get the truth out with such a huge echo chamber od spin.

[ranchobob]

Thank you for saying this.
I don't LOVE Senator Clinton or any other senator.
However, I cannot fathom the animosity she must endure. It shows the effectiveness of the right propaganda machine, and the sheep-like quality of its adherents.
I think she is AS qualified or MORE qualified than the other candidates. I am leaning toward MORE. It doesn't mean I want to have tea with her. I just want her to get in there and kick some butt. Simple.
I say this every chance I get -
You don't become the leader of a corrupt and violent oligarchy by being a saint.

[NCSteve]

I resent the framing of your question and I am sick of the consistency with which Hillary’s supporters use this cheap trick. “Bashing” is not “hating.” “Bashing” happens in real primaries, particularly if you choose to frame every critique as “bashing” regardless of validity. Your use of this cheap rhetorical device neatly encapsulates the sense of aggrieved entitlement and victimization that I have come to dislike in her supporters.

Hate? No. Dislike? Yep. Maybe she’s the warmest, person on Earth in private. Doesn’t matter. She’s about as likable as a cobra from a distance and that is a valid reason for opposing her candidacy both from a personal and a strategic standpoint. Some Democrats just don’t seem to get this: in a democracy, leaders have to be likeable to win and govern effectively.

So, yes, I dislike her. Not because she’s a woman, nor even because she’s a “strong woman,” whatever that means. No, its the “humorless b**tch” factor. I can take “b**tch” and I take “humorless” but I cannot take both at once, especially when its sprinkled with saccharin and smiley faces. Contrary to the feminist CW, getting labeled as a b**tch does not mean you’re just doing things that men do and are rewarded for. Men who do that stuff get called “a**holes” rather than “b**tches” but it’s the same conduct and it is equally obnoxious.

Beyond that, however, her entire career since 1999 looks like one long slide into Willy Stark land. Whatever ideals she once had seem to have been subsumed into her own ambition. Whether making nice with Drudge, Sciafe and Murdoch, voting to tamper with the First Amendment or voting for the AUMFAI, she has consistently favored what she thought was best for her politically over what was right. Minimize and equivocate on AUMFAI as you will, tens of thousands are dead and she enabled it. Since then, has stubbornly refused to admit it was mistake because she’s afraid of appearing weak. The irony being that acting from fear of appearing weak is the worst form of weakness.

[SolarPowerGuy]

Don't stereotype everyone who dislikes the idea of President Hillary Clinton as a "basher" who will take any candidate but her. Several people have already pointed this out in their comments, but I will add my two cents.

I joined the Green Party in 1992. It was the first time I committed to being a member of any political party. I could have become a Democrat, but Democratic votes in favor of Bush Sr.'s Gulf War were the last straw.

Despite my disappointment with the Democrats, I still voted for Bill Clinton and Al Gore. I knew better than to expect the Clinton administration would go as far as Greens wanted, but I hoped that America would finally renounce its belligerence, and focus instead on environmental sustainability and social justice.

Those hopes were quickly dashed. With Democrats controlling the Congress AND the Presidency, what did we get? Here's my list of progressive accomplishments, feel free to add: reversal of the abortion "gag order" on family-planning agencies receiving Federal funds; approval of RU486; a minor increase in upper-bracket income tax rates.

After the Republicans took back Congress in 1994, we got a watered-down Family and Medical Leave Act.

That's all, folks!

How were we progressives betrayed? I have a 350 word limit! Briefly: "Don't ask, don't tell," the WTI incinerator, abandonment of the BTU tax and PNGV; NAFTA; GATT; Headwaters Forest and Charles Hurwitz; the "end of welfare as we know it."

But the biggest disappointment was health care. Paul Wellstone's congressional coalition stumped for single-payer, the right solution. Hillary Clinton, who I initially sized up as more progressive than her husband, delivered a package that would enshrine big insurance companies as public utilities. I've been watching Hillary very closely ever since.

She has continued to disappoint as a Senator. Supporting Bush Jr.'s tax cuts; Patriot Act; authorizing Gulf War II and refusing to apologize; flag-burning amendment; Lieberman-Kyl.

Do Obama and Edwards and other Democrats also disappoint me? YES. They will not get my vote either.

[Justis]

I've always been more surprised by the visceral hatred the Clintons inspire in the right than the left.

Bill achieved NAFTA, welfare "reform", DADT, and an accelerated erosion of civil liberties, all while posing as some kind of bleeding-heart liberal. His wife lent full support to the Iraq war and is committed to the same pro-corporate politics as her husband. They are the most ingenious Trojan Horse for the destruction of progressive politics ever devised.

I don't "hate" them, but I recognize that they are a cancer on the Democratic Party. The only logical supporters of the Clintons are savvy corporatists who would rather continue the tedious Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton cycle than suffer any real change in Washington.

[future]

She enabled our current, devastating war and lied about not being privy to what Bush was capable of doing. A terrible excuse for a Democrat.

[fourex]

Hillary Bashers have been around for some time. I believe the impetus came from the Scaife group. David Brock attacked both Hillary and Anita Hill from this right wing platform. Soon after a large number of misogynists jumped on board including media pundits who disguised their hatred by quoting others.
One may suspect women haters, but the numbers are larger than many suspected, as is the illiteracy rate here in the U.S. Hillary and her camp need to distinguish between this group and those that oppose her positions.