Is Hillary Hatred simply misogyny?

[lord of the mark]

I intend to vote for Hillary.

I think the hatred is in part misogyny, in part about her relationship with Bill Clinton, but its also about aspects of policy that intersect with the above - she integrates "new democrat" policies popular in the DLC, social justice rhetoric (And some policies) popular with the left, with a liberal-religious, communitarian outlook, that appeals to me, but drives lots of folks up the wall - esp A. libertarians, for whom it contradicts all they beleive B. Theocon rightists - for whom its a leftie distortion of their religious and "paleo-traditionalist" outlooks C. Hard lefties, for whom its a religious, traditionalist distortion of their communalist principles. Plus its a "mommyish" position, which drags up all the misogyny. Plus, her relationship with Bill would seem to some to preclude her being "mommyish"

As for the Clinton-Bush thingie, who cares? So some Euros will laugh. Its gonna end here anyway - no political future for chelsea, and I think Jeb Bush is dead in the water as far as presidential prospects are concerned. We had 4 terms for FDR. If she is what we need, lets vote for her.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Not really. How long has she been a Senator now?

Bush was a sitting President, so I'd say it's not the same.

However, much of the virulent Hillary hatred, I think, goes back to when she was First Lady... the First Lady who tried to ram through her healthcare plan that so many people hated. First Ladies, I think, are generally expected to lay pretty low - or if they do stuff, to do pretty ideological neutral stuff (charity work). That is probably more than a bit mysogynistic in and of itself. Hillary didn't act like that. She came off as arrogant, IIRC, and people really took exception to her (an unelected person) acting like part of the executive branch.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Bush was a sitting President, so I'd say it's not the same.

However, much of the virulent Hillary hatred, I think, goes back to when she was First Lady... the First Lady who tried to ram through her healthcare plan that so many people hated. First Ladies, I think, are generally expected to lay pretty low - or if they do stuff, to do pretty ideological neutral stuff (charity work). That is probably more than a bit mysogynistic in and of itself. Hillary didn't act like that. She came off as arrogant, IIRC, and people really took exception to her (an unelected person) acting like part of the executive branch.

-Arrian

quibble - Theres only one elected person (or maybe two, see thread on Dick Cheney) in the executive branch, and hundreds of thousands of unelected people in it. Leaving aside the civil servants, the cabinet,etc theres still the white house staff. Essentially Hilary was like an unofficial CoS, not unlike Cheney in some ways, and probably less influential than Cheney.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=LOTM]she integrates "new democrat" policies popular in the DLC, social justice rhetoric (And some policies) popular with the left, with a liberal-religious, communitarian outlook[/q]

That's probably the best description of Hillary Clinton I've ever seen. I don't think most people really see the "new Democrat" stuff or the liberal-religious stuff (there are sooo many on the right who see her as 'godless').

Theres only one elected person (or maybe two, see thread on Dick Cheney) in the executive branch, and hundreds of thousands of unelected people in it.

I'm an unelected person in the exec branch .

But I can see where Arrian is going. The perception was that she was intruding. Though as LOTM points out, the CoS is not even confirmed by the Senate. If anything Hillary was like a second CoS.

[Arrian]

Right, but she wasn't even appointed to a particular job, was she? No, she was "just the First Lady." If Bill had campaigned as "Bill and Hillary - team America" and won, maybe it would've been different. As it was, it seemed like, shortly after the election, Hillary kinda came out of nowhere and started acting like a major player.

Anyway, that was just my recollection of what went down in Bill's first term. At which point I was in highschool, and thus not necessarily paying full attention...

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
If Bill had campaigned as "Bill and Hillary - team America" and won, maybe it would've been different. As it was, it seemed like, shortly after the election, Hillary kinda came out of nowhere and started acting like a major player.

Anyway, that was just my recollection of what went down in Bill's first term. At which point I was in highschool, and thus not necessarily paying full attention...

-Arrian

I guess you dont remember "two for the price of one" during the '92 campaign, do you?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Arrian
Right, but she wasn't even appointed to a particular job, was she? No, she was "just the First Lady." If Bill had campaigned as "Bill and Hillary - team America" and won, maybe it would've been different. As it was, it seemed like, shortly after the election, Hillary kinda came out of nowhere and started acting like a major player.

Anyway, that was just my recollection of what went down in Bill's first term. At which point I was in highschool, and thus not necessarily paying full attention...

-Arrian

I realize that is the perception. I'm not arguing with you there. I'm just saying its an unfair one. Considering that the Chief of Staff isn't a position that is ratified by the Senate. Who says Bill can't have have two CoS's? Would there have been an uproar if Bush II sent Andrew Card to Congress to push for something?

Then again, early on in Bush II's admin, the deputy CoS, Karl Rove, had far more power. In the Clinton administration, the CoS weren't considered that powerful... mostly because Clinton liked to deal directly with cabinet officials, and because Hillary acted somewhat like a CoS.

[DinoDoc]

She's just too leftist for my tastes. That's the reason I won't vote for her. I could care less about her being a woman. Bill obviously doesn't either.

[Japher]

I'm with DD. I never really had an opinion about her until she came to San Francisco and started talking about a wealth tax. Sometimes, like most politicians, I wonder if she really knows what she is talking about. I hate her views, not her. I bet she is a really nice person, but her ideas for the country I do not share.

[Arrian]

Then again, early on in Bush II's admin, the deputy CoS, Karl Rove, had far more power.

And is duly hated with just as much virulence as Hillary is (or would be if he was actually going to run for Pres). Dude, people HATE Rove. I know I do...

At least Rove was formally appointed to a role. Hillary wasn't, was she? Technicality? Definitely. But it contributed to the "out of nowhere" feel to her role in the administration.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


And is duly hated with just as much virulence as Hillary is (or would be if he was actually going to run for Pres). Dude, people HATE Rove. I know I do...

At least Rove was formally appointed to a role. Hillary wasn't, was she? Technicality? Definitely. But it contributed to the "out of nowhere" feel to her role in the administration.

-Arrian

Dude - I was 32 in 1992. Everybody knew she would play a big role in the admin. Clinton introduced her at campaign stops saying "You'll get two for the price of one" There were SOME women who said theyd rather just vote for Hillary. ISTR speculation on her getting a cabinet seat. The Hillary-hatred of the right was already quite strong at that point.


When she was given leadership on the healthcare plan (was that an official position, I dont recall) that was NOT a huge surprise. What WAS a surprise was that, in trying to thread the needle between single-payer on the one hand, and a policy that wouldnt have guaranteed universal coverage, like the Cooper plan, on the other, shed have A. come up with something so complex B. done it in secret and C. been blindsided by the industry PR campaign D. Mishandled coalition building deals

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Arrian
Right, but she wasn't even appointed to a particular job, was she? No, she was "just the First Lady." If Bill had campaigned as "Bill and Hillary - team America" and won, maybe it would've been different. As it was, it seemed like, shortly after the election, Hillary kinda came out of nowhere and started acting like a major player.

Hillary never "came out of nowhere"; just the opposite. Throughout 1992, whenever Clinton campaigned with Hillary at his side he used the slogan "Buy One, Get One Free." He couldn't have been more blatant about the fact that Hillary was going to be taking an advisory/policy role in in the White House (and not without precedent; see Rosalynn Carter and Eleanor Roosevelt). And if Hillary had been Bill's well-educated, well-credentialed brother, a la Bobby Kennedy, instead of his well-educated, well-credentialed wife, there wouldn't have been nearly as much of a stink. Which brings it back to gender.

edit - xpost with LOTM, with whom I very much agree.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Hillary never "came out of nowhere"; just the opposite. Throughout 1992, whenever Clinton campaigned with Hillary at his side he used the slogan "Buy One, Get One Free." He couldn't have been more blatant about the fact that Hillary was going to be taking an advisory/policy role in in the White House (and not without precedent; see Rosalynn Carter and Eleanor Roosevelt). And if Hillary had been Bill's well-educated, well-credentialed brother, a la Bobby Kennedy, instead of his well-educated, well-credentialed wife, there wouldn't have been nearly as much of a stink. Which brings it back to gender.

Of course Eleanor was hated too. And Hillary identified with Eleanor. But as both righties and some feminists pointed out, in Eleanors time there wasnt much of an alternative path to power for women, and in Hillarys time there was.

Eleanor also had a marriage that was dead on the intimate level. But in those days (prewatergate, preGaryHart) the press hid pols personal pecadillos. And FDR at least kept to just one mistress, IIUC.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Arrian


And is duly hated with just as much virulence as Hillary is (or would be if he was actually going to run for Pres). Dude, people HATE Rove. I know I do...

At least Rove was formally appointed to a role. Hillary wasn't, was she? Technicality? Definitely. But it contributed to the "out of nowhere" feel to her role in the administration.

-Arrian

More to the point, Rove has done plenty to earn that hate -- his actions in the Bush White House have been contemptible, divisive, damaging to America, and possibly illegal. By contrast, Hillary has -- what? Presided over a failed health care initiative? Secured pork for New York? Joined dozens of other Senators in being inconsistent about Iraq? How are these two figures even remotely comparable?

[Arrian]

Ah, ok, on this I will defer to you guys, since I was a tad young at the time. In November, 1992, I was a junior in hs.

I don't remember the campaign being Bill & Hillary, team America, but apparently it was.

The other bit has to do with Hillary's political stances way back. There's a bunch of stuff online about her siding with Black Panthers and such. I can't speak to the truth of it. I only bring it up as another possible basis for the hate (true or not).

I certainly don't rule out her gender as a major issue. I just think there is more to it...

-Arrian