Pushing Back Against the Hillary Haters

photo by SEIU_International

I was watching MSNBC this morning and wondering how much the media thrall surrounding Barack Obama has been worth to his campaign.

Having seen Obama mania up close and personal the media didn't make it up, but the way they cover this race -- the language they use to talk about him, his charisma, his "youth movement," his momentum and his star qualilty all stand in sharp contrast to the way they pick apart every detail of Clinton.

They obsess over her in irrational and completely contradictory ways and just seem to find it unseemly that a middle aged woman won't quietly remove herself from the national stage and stop making a bunch of men under 35 uncomfortable with her very presence.

Stanley Fish, writing today in the NYT, gives the best description I've read of the Hillary Hating phenomenon:

I have been thinking about writing this column for some time, but I have hesitated because of a fear that it would advance the agenda that is its target. That is the agenda of Hillary Clinton-hating.

Its existence is hardly news -- it is routinely referred to by commentators on the present campaign and it has been documented in essays and books -- but the details of it can still startle when you encounter them up close. In the January issue of GQ, Jason Horowitz described the world of Hillary haters, many of whom he has interviewed. Horowitz finds that the hostile characterizations of Clinton do not add up to a coherent account of her hatefulness. She is vilified for being a feminist and for not being one, for being an extreme leftist and for being a "warmongering hawk," for being godless and for being "frighteningly fundamentalist," for being the victim of her husband's peccadilloes and for enabling them. "She is," Horowitz concludes, "an empty vessel into which [her detractors] can pour everything they detest." (In this she is the counterpart of George W. Bush, who serves much the same function for many liberals.)

This is not to say that there are no rational, well-considered reasons for opposing Clinton's candidacy. You may dislike her policies (which she has not been reluctant to explain in great detail). You may not be able to get past her vote to authorize the Iraq war. You may think her personality unsuited to the tasks of inspiring and uniting the American people. You may believe that if this is truly a change election, she is not the one to bring about real change.

But the people and groups Horowitz surveys have brought criticism of Clinton to what sportswriters call "the next level," in this case to the level of personal vituperation unconnected to, and often unconcerned with, the facts. These people are obsessed with things like her hair styles, the "strangeness" of her eyes -- "Analysis of Clinton's eyes is a favorite motif among her most rabid adversaries" -- and they retail and recycle items from what Horowitz calls "The Crazy Files": she's Osama bin Laden's candidate; she kills cats; she's a witch (this is not meant metaphorically).

But this list, however loony-tunes it may be, does not begin to touch the craziness of the hardcore members of this cult. Back in November, I wrote a column on Clinton's response to a question about giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. My reward was to pick up an e-mail pal who has to date sent me 24 lengthy documents culled from what he calls his "Hillary File." If you take that file on faith, Hillary Clinton is a murderer, a burglar, a destroyer of property, a blackmailer, a psychological rapist, a white-collar criminal, an adulteress, a blasphemer, a liar, the proprietor of a secret police, a predatory lender, a misogynist, a witness tamperer, a street criminal, a criminal intimidator, a harasser and a sociopath. These accusations are "supported" by innuendo, tortured logic, strained conclusions and photographs that are declared to tell their own story, but don't.

I get those emails. The guy is nothing if not thorough. And I agree with Fish's assessment:

Compared to this, the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry was a model of objectivity. When the heading of a section of the "Hillary File" reads "Have the Clintons ever murdered anyone?" -- and it turns out to be a rhetorical question like "Is the Pope Catholic?" -- you know that you've entered cuckooland.

Horowitz warns that as the campaign heats up, this "type of discourse will likely not stay on the fringes for long," and he predicts that some of it will be made use of by Republican operatives. But he is behind the curve, for the spirit informing it has already made its way into mainstream media. Respected political commentators devote precious network time to deep analyses of her laugh. Everyone blames her for what her husband does or for what he doesn't do. (This is what the compound "Billary" is all about.) If she answers questions aggressively, she is shrill. If she moderates her tone, she's just play-acting. If she cries, she's faking. If she doesn't, she's too masculine. If she dresses conservatively, she's dowdy. If she doesn't, she's inappropriately provocative.

None of those who say and write these things is an official Hillary Clinton-hater (some profess to like and admire her), but they are surely doing the group's work.

One almost prefers an up-front hater (although he tells Horowitz that he doesn't like the word) like Dick Morris, who writes in a recent New York Post op-ed of the Clintons' "reprehensible politics of personal destruction" (does he think he's throwing bouquets?), and accuses them of invading the privacy of opponents, of blackmailing and threatening women, and of "whatever slimy tactics they felt they needed." Morris calls Harold Ickes, a Clinton aide, a "hit man" for the president, and he calls the president "Hillary's hit man."

This is exactly the language of the most vicious anti-Hillary Web sites, and here it is baptized by its appearance in a major newspaper.

Horowitz observes that there is an "inexhaustible fertile market of Clinton hostility," but that "the search for a unifying theory of what drives Hillary's most fanatical opponents is a futile one." The reason is that nothing drives it; it is that most sought-after thing, a self-replenishing, perpetual-energy machine.

The closest analogy is to anti-Semitism. But before you hit the comment button, I don't mean that the two are alike either in their significance or in the damage they do. It's just that they both feed on air and flourish independently of anything external to their obsessions. Anti-Semitism doesn't need Jews and anti-Hillaryism doesn't need Hillary, except as a figment of its collective imagination. However this campaign turns out, Hillary-hating, like rock 'n' roll, is here to stay.

I apologize in advance for quoting Fish's post in its entirety but I think it deserves to be read. If Hillary Clinton does pull this thing off, she will have done so against the seemingly insurmountable weight of 16 years of being the target of misogny and hatred that have focused into a narrative that has also been appropriated by many on the so-called "left" to take her down -- and certainly by the media.

I guess she didn't get the memo -- middle aged women are supposed to dry up, go home and be invisible.

Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com

Comments

[zull2]

Pushing back the Hillary haters? Well, good news...there aren't as many Democrats that "hate" Hillary Clinton as you probably think. Most folks don't "hate" Hillary Clinton. There's just a lot of people that think the country can do a lot better than Hillary. When some take the "35 years of experience" line verbatim, others try to figure out exactly how much of that was spent in elected office...and find it underwhelming. How much REAL influence has she had on US Foreign policy in the 90's? 80's? Those are decades that are well within the last 35 years. She was a lawyer? So was Obama? Except that Obama was elected to State office in 1996. That right there gives him more elected experience. The legislation that Obama sponsored in Illinois literally focused on the main issues that Clinton and Edwards focused on. He got things passed even under a Republican governor (though considerably more reasonable than the current POTUS).

But moreso, I've been following the Clinton campaign from the start. When she came out in that first debate, stating her stance on the war then getting booed...I knew right there that she wasn't the best candidate up there. She had no idea what her party and the American people really wanted. She changed her tune, but at that point it was too late...it looked like she was just pandering.

[twanda]

Thanks for clarity on this all important subject. Anyone who watches the mean-stream media knows that it is part of the BO campaign as it maligns HRC at every turn.

For those who cannot make up their minds between the two candidates, here's an ever popular sports analogy: HRC is the Quarterback - involved in and directing the game of Team America. BO is the Cheerleader, making some folks feel good by urging on Team America.

[edayres]

It's painfully obvious most of the people who post responses to this site are far from mainstream Democratic Party values. ( I got that one from Karl Rove) Hillary continues to do well with with party regulars, who to me anyway, seem more typical of voters across the country. All of the criticisms mentioned here were mentioned before Hillary's two Senate campaigns, yet she was elected. Some of the posters talk about working with the opposition and compromise as if it were a treasonous act. Just what do do think Obama is talking about doing? He's been doing it all during his short political career. You're in denial.

[talkstocoyotes]

If there's anything this primary season has taught me so far, it's that sexism is now vastly underestimated; and that both racism and white guilt are oversold and overestimated to an extent that would make Wal-Mart's ad agency proud.

Before anyone starts the ritual shrieking, ask yourself this:

Right before New Hampshire, Clinton was heckled by a man who held up a sign saying "Iron My Shirt." It was hardly a blip on the radar screen. Can you imagine the reaction if someone had attended an Obama rally and held up a sign saying something like "Eat Some Fried Chicken, Boy!" The screams would echo from Bar Harbor to Honolulu and there would be a firestorm of hurrumphing and finger-shaking.

Of course, the old Swift Boat sleazoids are the elephant in the room here. Much has been made of the attacks "Hillary" will have to field if she gets the nomination -- but at least she's accustomed to dealing with them. How is Obama going to cope with it? We're not supposed to even ask that.

[IconoclasticYouth]

You know, my problems with Clinton are completely unrelated to gender. I hate being labeled as a sexiest because I don't want to see Hillary as president. I don't want to see Hillary as president for a number of reasons. 1. Her policy initiatives are hardly creative, and I don't like her lack luster approach to education, unrealistic plan for health care, and I don't agree with her on Iraq. I have been given no reason to think that she wont fall into the same military industrial dogma that her husband and nearly every president since Ike has fallen into. I don't like her involvement with lobbying groups and I don't like the fact that she excites few. I'm sick of voting based on a lesser evil concept.

[Maezeppa]

THANK YOU. I lean Clinton a few degrees and find the anti-Hillary vitriol appalling. Disappointed doesn't begin to describe how Huffpo et al generally make me feel but the far left has always destroyed the left-center. That's how we got Nixon.

[demfromtheD]

WAKE UP.

The reason there has been so much negative coverage of Hillary is because most sensible-minded people realize what an underhanded phony she is and, more importantly, how totally, completely and utterly UNELECTABLE she is. Do you REALLY think that the centrists and Independents are going to let the Right's gold standard for the supposed amoral Socialism of the Left be elected President? That is this election's gay marriage--the galvanizing key to the Right's success.

So defend her all you like, Hillary lovers. And then, enjoy your crushing loss in November and a McCain presidency starting in January. If she wins the nomination, you've REALLY arsed this one up.

[justus949]

Bravo, Jane, thanks!

[fieldsms]

I agree that the criticism of Hillary has been taken to "the next level". I will concede that some of the criticism is justified. However, I am voting for Hillary over Obama because of the outstanding job she has done as my Senator. I have been more than impressed by her tireless efforts on behalf of my fellow New Yorkers. She is a warm, caring, intelligent women who is very qualified to be president. I cannot say that Obama is as qualified and if the last eight years has taught us anything it is that we cannot elect another inexperienced president.

[DietrichMoody]

Now one was complaining about alleged -Hillary hating- when she was 30 points ahead in the polls, with an unsurmountable lead.

[uheardme]

You want racism and mysogyny. Take a look at some of the comments made by Clintonites about Michelle Obama. Absolutely appalling, but not surprising coming from some white dems.

I hope you don't expect a lot of black votes for Hillary if she makes it to the general.

[ChristopherLib]

It's amazing how much the media is pushing Obama. Michelle Obama just recently said she'd have to think about it whether she'd vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. Can you imagain if Bill Clinton said he'd have to think about it whether to vote for Obama if he's the nominee. The media would have crusified him for being a racist or a race baitor, or Hillary's hitman, or whatever. If Hillary becomes the nominee with the full force of the media against her she will have earned it without question.

[lochukung]

Jane,
you have said it all and well. although it's an undeniable fact that a majority of these Hillary-haters are men, there are indeed women who share similar irrational hate-filled sentiments against Hillary. I think this is a phenomenon best described as "a lie told a thousand times becomes a fact". a lot of people like to perpetuate mythical stories like those old folks passing onto generations after them. they will linger but by the end of the day, they will die down slowly as the crowd shrinks and obsession dwindles.

[Hampster]

Dear Jane
You are a wonderful voice of reason in a media
wilderness of insanity.As someone earlier said, you did hit the nail completely through the stud.

[lifeinfullcolor]

Clinton has so much baggage out there, a republican friend of mine sent me excerpts from books, written on her! Sent them months ago, saying, how a person treats those who serve them, tells you something about their character. Republicans can't wait to use all their ammo on her.
Clinton seems to be using the Bush playcard, stick to the stump speach, say it enough times and people will believe you. What happened to her 15 years as a corporate attorney, I wouldn't call that working in the public sector! Granted the majority of the American public don't spend very much time really asking questions, delving into inconsistencies, republicans count on that.
It's not that people hate Hillary, it's just that people don't trust her, she's too calculating. Her home state of New York, she moved to New York just so she could stay in Washington and not have to go back to Arkansas! I don't trust her, it would be nice to be lead by someone you trust, that inspires trust.