Animosity to Hillary Clinton

[WrongTrouser]

I do not know a massive amount about politics in the USA. I would like to understand why there is so much animosity towards Hillary Clinton. I don't mean from the Republican camp, who would presumably have a problem with whoever was standing for the Democrats, but from what I've read there is a lot of ill feeling to HC from people who are usually Democrat supporters.

I have heard the following as factors - the emails, Iraq, Bill Clinton, her campaign. Is it these or other issues?

Can anyone explain this to me?

[lljkk]

Many people have made up their minds that they "know" her as a person.
The person they "know" is self-serving, conniving, arrogant, insincere, too ambitious, meddling.

Everything else they learn about her confirms that she is the unpleasant person they already "know".

She's a war monger (Iraq, meddling)
She shouldn't have forgiven Bill for cheating on her (too ambitious)
She snapped that line about baking cookies because she doesn't respect SAHMs (arrogant)
She's pro-business or trade (self-serving, insincere)
She chose a private server and later deleted emails because she has something to hide (conniving)

etc.

That she is often reported to be a tireless worker with high principles but willing to pragmatically compromise, who exudes genuine warmth on personal level and a cracking sense of humour, doesn't come thru in American public life.

[WrongTrouser]

Thanks for the reply lljkk

The person they "know" is self-serving, conniving, arrogant, insincere, too ambitious, meddling.

A lot of these are probably true of many successful politicians.

Seems a bit harsh if she is judged poorly because of Bill's infidelity. I can't remember all the timing of his various scandals but I seem to remember he was very warmly welcomed by Labour Party members when he visited the UK and I'm sure that was after M Lewinski. Was his reputation in the states more damaged generally? Still seems harsh to judge her as a politician on this.

She's a war monger (Iraq, meddling)

I'd be interested to hear more about the meddling.

She's pro-business or trade (self-serving, insincere)

Is she more pro-business than other democrat presidential candidates have been?

[flippinada]

I think there's a level of misogyny there too - she's judged more harshly and held to higher standards than a man in her position would be.

Can you imagine a women running for POTUS who had been divorced and remarried several times, who boasted about sexual assaulting men and refused to accept the outcome of the election? Me neither. She wouldn't even get within spitting distance of the nomination.

[barkingfly]

All the bigots here have been very unhappy with a black president, and the idea of a woman president upsets them even more. We will see a lot of sexism in the next four years.

[fourmummy]

For many people, racism and sexism aren't driving this. This is what they are honing in on:

"So Hillary Clinton is a candidate who wants to continue the same policy that's given us the worst recovery since 1949; who has clearly violated the Espionage Act and placed the nation's security at risk; who told the Benghazi victim's families that the death of four Americans was inspired by a video, while telling her daughter and foreign officials something entirely different; whose charitable foundation engaged in pay-to-play in Haiti, so that donors got contracts for disaster relief and non-donors went to the back of the line; who wants to gut the Second Amendment; who wants to continue the same foreign policies that have encouraged aggressiveness on the part of ISIS, Russia and the Chinese; and whose media compadres, including scribes with The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNBC, have been outed by WikiLeaks as colluding with her campaign. And she is now odds-on favorite to become the next president of the United States."

www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/27/trump_vs_clinton_a_risk_vs_a_disaster_132170.html

One of the comments following Larry Elder's article sums it up for many, many people:

"I never understood the nuclear war argument. The only country that could fight a nuclear war with the U.S is Russia. Trump wants to improve relations with Russia and Clinton wants to antagonize Russia. If somebody could start a nuclear war with Russia, it is Clinton, not Trump".

[BertrandRussell]

One word. Misogyny.

[BertrandRussell]

Not sure Larry Elder is a particularly impartial commentator.........

[Enb76]

Misogyny - even the people who could accept a black president have a hard time thinking they might get a female one. I can't think of any criticism against her that wouldn't be there if she were male. Taking another pps list

She's a war monger (Iraq, meddling) - in a man, this would be seen as being strong. The US isn't exactly known for it's dove tendencies but from a woman? How unfeminine is a woman who wants to go to war?

She shouldn't have forgiven Bill for cheating on her (too ambitious) - if she were not running for presidency then this would be a good thing, standing by her man and all that but because she's running for president it is seen as a weakness and that the power behind her is actually her husbands. That she's riding off his coattails

She snapped that line about baking cookies because she doesn't respect SAHMs (arrogant) - She's unfeminine, really, she should be at home baking cookies

She's pro-business or trade (self-serving, insincere) - again, she's a woman, she shouldn't be interested in business or trade, she should be baking cookies

She chose a private server and later deleted emails because she has something to hide (conniving) - this is nothing that others haven't done but it's really picked on here because it's probably the only legitimate reason to hate her.

She's also hated because Trump is particularly good at social media and knows that once a story is out there people think "no smoke without fire" even if it's blatantly untrue but mostly it's because I think that a large percentage of US citizens mistrust women.

[BertrandRussell]

To be honest, I think that "she should be home baking cookies" sums up many people's attitude.

A lot of people don't like clever women.

[NameChanger22]

I think it's because she represents the establishment - an establishment that people are really fed up with.

Donald Trump however represents something new and a chance to improve their lives.

The problem is, people don't realise that new doesn't equal better and that things really can get worse. The same is true of Brexit.

[fourmummy]

Not sure Larry Elder is a particularly impartial commentator......... As far as I can tell, no-one is - on these threads - which is exactly what happens off them as well. The point is, we don't know which bit of evidence to accept as 'valid' and which to reject. So, people choose and reject evidence on the basis of what matters to them (bias). I think that most people are turned off by Clinton for the same reasons that they are turned off by Blair - a self-serving trougher who is linked to wars - and war, in most people's eyes, is pretty much the worst thing that can happen. In this case, being anxious about racism or sexism is akin to a lacovore having palpitations over the contents of their veg box. Trump may turn out to be a nightmare as well but he's saying peace, and that one word trumps sexism, racism and misogyny,

[MsAmerica]

If you have the patience for substantial reading, this is a very good article:

Hillary vs. the Hate Machine:
How Clinton Became a Vessel for America's Fury
Decades of right-wing attacks turned a crusader of women's rights into a major target of hate
By Janet Reitman, Rolling Stone

www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-vessel-for-americas-fury-w440914

[EnthusiasmIsDisturbed]

I am not sure the public ever really warmed to her

I think the list has been added to over the many years she had been in the public eye and it got to the point where many just didn't trust her

I do remember when her husband didn't have sexual relations with that woman there seemed to be general unsaid agreement in the media well you can't blame him no one was outraged for her and many were critical she stood by him

[JosefK]

I thought the way she was discussed was dreadful. By osmosis people had incorporated this idea that she was scheming and corrupt, but when you asked them why they'd be at a loss. What was worse was the way people - even people on the left - suggested an equivalence between her and Trump. 'Oh it's a terrible choice' they'd say as though they were both as bad as each other. All people talked of as Hilary's corruption while Trump's litany of dodgy activities got narry a mention.

She would have been a capable and experienced leader. She lost I think because she was a woman.

[Pallisers]

She lost I think because she was a woman.

There was a shocking amount of misogyny directed at her no doubt (the whole election cycle was horribly anti-women) but I think she lost more because she was a Clinton than because she was a woman. She had huge baggage - basically she was running as if she had already served 8 years in the White House as well as her own years in office - way too much baggage. I voted for Obama in the 2004 primaries because I felt she was unelectable because of that baggage - nothing had changed in the 8 years, just more years of service to be gone through for ammunition.

And then we had the whole elite business. Well we certainly got a change with President Bannon, I mean President Trump.

On a personal level, she doesn't connect the way, say, Bill Clinton, or Michelle Obama do. I don't know why because I find her an intelligent and compassionate woman but there you go. She does have a fundamental inability to be open though - even in situations in which it would serve her better to be open. There is a strong argument that the Kenneth Starr investigation leading to impeachment proceedings came about because the Clintons clammed up when they should have just given the information. I think her early years as a child and her relationship with her father gave her a strong desire for privacy which hasn't always served her well.

[JosefK]

Apparently Steve Bannon has just promised war with China.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/steve-bannon-donald-trump-war-south-china-sea-no-doubt

Wasn't evil Hilary supposed to be the warmonger?

For those of you who don't know, Bannon is the ex Breitbart exec chair and altogether very scary man who is pulling Trump's strings. He has variously described himself as a Lenninist who wants to destroy the political establishment; a hard right nationalist; and a Catholic who sees America as a battleground between forces of light and darkness. White suremacist sympathies. Admirer of Leni Reifenstahl. Allegedly battered two ex wives.

And this is better than crooked Hilary apparently. Because America needed a change from the establishment or some such bollocks.

[scaryteacher]

JosefK The Chinese have been steadily trying to encroach into the South China Sea for the last couple of years, antagonising Japan amongst others. They also said they would ignore a ruling by an International tribunal in the Hague last year which confirmed a case brought by the Philippines. The Obama administration would have had to decide what to do if China had ramped this up, so perhaps stating that the U.S. will keep the sea lanes open gives warning that the international community isn't going to roll over on this one.