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
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Those who claim that all opposition to Hillary Clinton is sexist are as false as she is. I would have no qualms at supporting a worthy woman. But I cannot and will not support one who is in favor of the most important things I oppose. Hillary supports continued hostilities in the Middle East. If we are to have peace there, we must follow Howard Dean's prescription and be fair in dealing with all parties. That we have never done. Instead we have even made wars without justification and blindly supported the constant aggression of Israel against her neighbors. Clinton is the AIPAC candidate. She is the CAFTA candidate, the NAFTA candidate, the Murdock candidate, -- in short, the Neocon candidate. I will seek another.
Party label is not in itself enough to guaarantee right politics; Hillary's good friend, Joe Lieberman, was so much a Democraticv wheel that he even got the VP nod if you recall.
His politics and Hillaries are not so different even now that he is no longer a great Democrat. She voted for Kyl-Lieberman, like any Bush loving Republican.
Mr. Hutchinson:
I am not posting to answer the question you have asked, because so many have done a superior job to anything I might say. My comment concerns the "when did you start beating your wife" style of asking it.
If you already know (and who doesn't) that a third of the electorate will not vote for Hillary because they are Kool-aid sipping Republicans to the core, and you know that another third of the electorate despises her DLC positions, you can only be preaching to the choir of committed centrists. Democratic centrists, disaffected Republicans and Independents are precisely those who most despise this type of divisive, calculating writing style.
So, what, if any, positive point are you trying to make for your candidate? Whom is it that you are trying to rally to your cause with such Rovian rhetoric? By using some of Hillary's advisors less than savory political tactics to make your point, you may, unwittingly, have answered your own question.
I DON'T HATE HILLARY, BUT I FIND HER TOTALLY DISTRUSTFUL. HER PANDERING ISN'T EVEN SUBTLE.HER SPONSORSHIP MAKING FLAG BURNING A FEDERAL CRIME WAS IT SELF CRIMINAL..
Hillary Clinton is like most of our politicians. She comes on in favor of everything and opposed to it, depending on the audience and which way she thinks the wind is blowing. But it is not so hard to figure out what positions a politician will take when it counts. Those big supporters are neither fools nor spendthrifts nor humanitarians. When they back a candidate, it is simply because they have good reason to expect quid pro quo. Now where does HRC stand? It is hard to tell from her words, but Murdock knows or he wouldn't be raising finds for her! Moreover there is a track record here to consider. And there is a consistency in that record. That is a good predictor of future action. And that record consistently shows her backing the same things I oppose from Bush. So if you like Bush, by all means vote for Hillary Clinton. She has supported his policy of war for no honestly stated reason. Her record of pleasing AIPAC is great but her record of supporting justice in the Middle East is nowhere to be seen. So why do I not trust HRC? She lies. She claimed to have been misled on her prowar votes, but since even people like myself knew the score, she must be lying -- if she is not outrageously stupid and I haven't heard that accusation against her. One thing she seemed to try to do was to get a national health care system -- but she failed, which is not a plus, and the way she failed is telling. What she put together was so flawed that I wouldn't have been able to vote for it as much as I believe we need a health care system. It was a hopelessly contrived set of sell outs to the special interests now profitting enormously from our nation's unconcern for its citizens and overconcern for unjustified corporate takes. So her record is one clear reason for disliking her as a candidate for the presidency. Her supporters are another. She has Murdock & AIPAC; she doesn't need me,
I am not voting for Hillary Clinton. Does that make me a "Hater" or a "Basher"? Is there any other pejorative term you would like to apply to me? Purely based on your tone, I can infer you don't actually want an answer.
In case you're interested:
1) Her support/lack of recant for the Iraq resolution. Pointing to Edwards is a cheap argument when you ignore his public apologies for it. Beyond that, we've lost almost 4,000 lives needlessly (not to mention more than 100,000 Iraqis). Is she that remorseless? Are you? I like how you presume what the votes of Obama or Richardson would have been. How prescient you must be.
2) Legacy politics: I am not in favor of it. It strikes me as fairly unAmerican concept. Royal families do not sit well with me. It also never works well. Adams? Bush? Roosevelts maybe an exception but, not immediate family.
3) Kyl/Lieberman: Did she really learn nothing from the Iraq resolution? How dare she give George Bush any breathing room. That man is not to be trusted.
4) Debates: She never answers questions. If you want my vote. You better be willing to answer questions. Why would you accept anything less?
5) Inevitability: The concept that I might as well fall into line because her nomination was presumed was frankly infuriating. I will not roll over because I am told. That's how we get gems like the Patriot Act.
6) Term limits: To hear Bill Clinton describe it, they had a co-presidency. Remember '2 for the price of 1'? She's already had her terms by that logic.
7)Economic policies: NAFTA, CAFTA. I don't support.
But, you know what do I hate? I hate people trying to label or dismiss me out of hand because I do not agree with them. I hate when people don't get the concept of this country (like you) where we can disagree. I hate being accused of hate, when my positions are based in reason and logic.
I don't hate Hillary. I don't bash Hillary.
I DON'T SUPPORT Hillary.
NAME ME ONE VALID REASON TO SUPPORT HILLARY???
The answer, or lack there of, to that question is the main reason to be vehemently against Hillary. Hatred, as many have pointed out, is a strong word; and those who irrationally hate her are usually right wing freaks. Independents and Democrats “can't stand” Hillary because we fundamentally reject all the phony positive praise that has been heaped on her because we know it is without merit and that we’re being conned.
She has accomplished nothing, she stands for nothing, and she doesn't say anything. Yet, we are supposed to accept the ridiculous notion put forth by herself, her supporters, and a brainwashed media that she is some sort of brilliant politician, who has 35 years of experience (laughable), who has won most of the Democratic debates (even more laughable), and that she is entitled to the Democratic nomination.
She has had a remarkably anonymous tenure as a senator in terms of issues she has led on, and the only reason she is not totally anonymous is because her last name is Clinton.
Now that you've given the Hillary-bashers their proverbial verbal spanking, I'm sure the crying and whining will become only that much louder. But to answer your question..
Go Hillary!
or howabout she's another neozioncon bush.
http://www
Hillary Clinton calls Iran a threat to U.S., Israel
NEW YORK: Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.
"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."
Clinton spoke at a Manhattan dinner held by the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in the U.S., the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Some 1,700 supporters applauded as she cited her efforts on behalf of the Jewish state and spoke scathingly of Iran's decision to hold a conference last month that questioned whether the Holocaust took place.
"To deny the Holocaust places Iran's leadership in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists," Clinton said, criticizing what she called the Iranian administration's "pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric."
Iran insists its nuclear program is designed to produce energy, not weapons. Ahmadinejad said Thursday his government is determined to continue with its nuclear program, despite U.N. Security Council sanctions imposed over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fuel to generate electricity or for the fissile core of an atomic bomb.
Clinton, the front-runner for her party's presidential nomination, called for dialogue with foes of the United States, saying Iran "uses its influence and its revenues in the region to support terrorist elements."
"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she said.
In her own book she wrote in detail about how shocked she was when Bill told her, the night before he told the world, that he had indeed had a relation with Monica. Really?!?! Shocked were you? At that point the world already knew Bill had cheated with Monica. We had the DNA soaked dress to prove it. I feel bad for how that whole thing went down. It never should have been public knowledge, but to say you were shocked is just a lie. He was your husband and he had behaved poorly in the past. There is no possible scenario that leaves her "shocked." If she was upset, it was probably because she looked stupid for trying to tell the whole world that the Monica thing was a vast right wing conspiracy. She doesn't know how to be honest. Every move she makes, every vote she makes, is all run through a calculator to see if it helps her become president.
The simple truth why Hillary bashers hate her is that she is a woman. In their minds, which they refuse to admit to themselves, the president should be a man. When she was First Lady, my doctors would bash her for being a female lawyer. They just find it offensive that a woman would appear to be ambitious, crafty and tough; so they find all sorts of rationalizations to explain their behavior and latch onto it vehemently to cover up their underlying misogyny. Psychologists call this cognitive dissociation.
I love homemade cookies, and if all women were like Hillary I would never get one. Even her own husband dislikes her. She won't make donute either.
I am not voting for Hillary Clinton. I'm also not voting for John Edwards or Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson or several other candidates. And it has nothing to do with some blind hatred or a visceral reaction or some vast media conspiracy of disinformation. I think you'll find that the majority of participants and readers at HuffPost are not ignorant of the general goings-on in America and that assuming we "hate" Hillary out of ignorance is both rude and stupid.
On the other hand, I can understand your frustration when a candidate you support draws negative attention. I've been in the Richardson camp for a while now and it seems like out of the pittance of media coverage he receives, half of it labels him as a stuttering idiot or as the poor schmuck who has no chance of winning. It really is unfortunate how the mainstream media outlets dissect and eviscerate our candidates, to the point where the only people willing to run are often the heartless sharks we end up holding our collective noses to vote for.
Which brings me back to Hillary Clinton. Thus far, I haven't been impressed with her campaign or her record. As an organizer, she is beyond comparison, but as a candidate, she strikes me as puffed up and overly enamoured with herself. I don't think we'd be worse off under Hillary than we are now, but I don't think we'd be any better, either. So my question for you, Mr. Hutchinson (and any other Clinton supporters), is this. Why are you in the Clinton Camp? What is it about Hillary that speaks to you as a voter?
Although I would not say that I hate Hillary, I certainly see very little reason that she should be president. I think there are certainly a number of criticisms that can be made without discussing hating her.
For one thing, according to her, she is never ever wrong. She takes no firm position on anything. She supports the Left, but she's leaning to the Right. We see that in her voting on Iraq and her New York driver's licenses and probably many other issues as well.
She talks about her experience and says she's been 'fighting for change' for the last 30 years. Well, either she's failed miserably or she's succeeded and this is where she wants the country to be. This is not exactly confidence insipiring. It does convince me that she thinks people are stupid and will not question her, about her staements though.
We could talk about her campaign and way she views any criticism of her as almost blasphemous, while her people can make whatever negative suggestion or innuendo about the others that they'd care to. She wants that both ways too and she's offended if anyone questions her on it. Instead of answering any questions she doesn't like, she wants to invalidate the questions and even the right of people to ask them. In fact I think that to a certain extent that's what you're trying to do here.
I don't think you have to look too hard to see that there's just as much to dislike about Hillary and her campaign as there is about any other candidate you'd care to name. No, it's not about hatred and I think you're being disingenuous to cast it in that light.
Mr. Hutchinson, since you pretend to ask an honest question, whilst essentially doing nothing less than attempting to portray anyone who disapproves of the "inevitable candidate" as mouth-breathing irrational haters, with no cogent explanation for their disapproval, let me pretend that you really want an answer and respond as follows:
I very strongly disapprove of Hillary Clinton in any elected office because I strongly espouse traditional Democratic values and my analysis leads me to believe that she most assuredly does not.
Additionally, I am considerably chagrined (and much antagonized) by the general attitude of her supporters (which seem to mirror their candidate's attitude), inasmuch as any criticism is met with virulent ad hominem attacks including, ironically, accusations of carrying water for the party under whose banner we feel she should be running, were she truthful.
Further, it is incomprehensible to many of us that she could so routinely be referred to as a "centrist", when we clearly perceive her as well to the right of center on many important issues. The argument that this is mere electoral rhetoric, out of necessity, is neither reassuring, nor convincing in light of her voting record, list of financial backers, and her personal associations.
Moreover, in light of your previous columns here, which clearly indicate that you are a sentient being holding at least some progressive values, one has to wonder what you were thinking in posting such a clear call for a laundry list of your chosen candidate's shortcomings, as well as wonder what you were thinking when you decided that she was your candidate of choice?
I would ask you the same question I ask of many of her supporters (without ever getting a cogently reasoned answer, I might add): What - other than gender - are the essential differences between Senator Lieberman and Senator Clinton, on the issues that matter most in the coming election?
how does one explain a "visceral" reaction against Hillary Clinton? It is a simple gut feeling, cringing at her sense of entitlement, her holier-than-thou attitude, her attack of Senator Obama because he is in her way, and that hideous voice.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
