Is my dislike of Hilary personal or ideological? An explanatory rant..

[Armstead]

I realized that most of my recent posts on DU have been anti-Hilary ones. So I guess I'm a card-carrying member of the Clinton-Bashing wing of DU.

I've asked myself why am I semi-obsessed with her? Why does my blood pressure go up whenever I hear anotehr news report basically anointing her as the defacto nominee?

She's not a bad person. I actually like her. I agree with much of what she says. I've seen her work a crowd in person, and recognize that she has a certain charisma. I've got no problems with how is representing the neighboring state of New York.

BUT THE THOUGHT THAT SHE WILL BE THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE MAKES ME WANT TO VOMIT.

Why is this? Upon reflection, here are my basic reasons.

1)She is aligned with the brand of "Democrat" that has been just as responsible as the GOP for ruining this country over the last 25 years. The brand of DLC Democrat that is allergic to the word "liberal." The brand of Democrat that identifies more with the Corporate and Political Elite than with average Americans or the disadvantaged. The brand of Democrat that became so "pragmatic" that they basically castrated the entire idea of politics as being a contest of ideas and ideology. The brand of Democrat who enabled the GOP Right Wing by their refusal to defend honest-to-goodness liberalism and progressive reform.

2)She epitomizes the phony and meaningless polarization of the country. She's great at throwing zingers to members of the "vast right wing conspiracy' and twisting the undies of right-wingnuts into a knot. But so f'ing what? rather than attempt to put politics back on the course of an honest contest of ideas, she provokes the politics of personal destruction and insult. This is too often a distraction. She hardens the lines of pseudo-partisanship instead of winning over the so-called "center" -- or convincing misinformed grassroots conservatives that liberals are actually on their side in terms of social and economic justice.

3)Her personality and campaign style is the epitomie of Robotic Programmed Politics. Every word has to be sifted through 30 consultants before it is uttered. Questions are never answered directly, except in the most generalized way possible (or when they are safe partisan zingers). "But then again..." and "I don't want to deal in hypotheticals..." etc.

AND THIS IS WHAT REALLY GETS MY GOAT.

After seven years of being driven into the ditch by the GOP and the Corporate Elite, Americans WANT a change. There is a hunger for real change and reform. There is more openess to "liberal" ideas in the mainstream than there has been in decades.

It's perhaps the greatest opportunity to get the US back on track and moving in a positive direction since JFK.

But what are the Democratic poobahs and the media and corporate Elite doing? Force feeding us more of the same old same old. Even the name is the same.

That, in a very simplistic nutshell, is why I really, really,really hope that the Democratic Party comes to its senses and breaks out of this cycle of Fast Food Corporate Democracy that we have been trapped in for decades. We need something otehr than Ronald McDonald Clinton.

[Totally Committed]

1. Mine is definitely ideological. I don't even have to THINK about that.

I dislike intensely what she and all her slimy DLC ilk stand for.

I am just good at hiding it! :sarcasm:

TC

[roguevalley]

33. mine is both. you know the tool is going to nuke Iran. consider that

she has a hand in killing babies and its easy to be both.

[Poll_Blind]

2. Strongly ideological, with indirect personal manifestations.

I should know. I have been pretty much going through the same thing you have. She could have been so much more, but this is the path she took, this is what she became, and because of those choices and who she is I am not burdened by fondness of her.

PB

[YOY]

3. Her husband was a good president more or less.

Bill was open, charismatic and friendly. I think Hillary would do the same.

However, I find that Bill's administration did exactly what conservatives are supposed to do. He was great for the economy and the deficit. He kept social issues on a low importance compared to economic issues. He favored small government. All valid and he stuck by his guns for it. All the while idiots screamed how "left-wing" they were...

Mind you, NAFTA needs to go. He and Hill never did fix the medical system, but no one is perfect...and they are DLC after all.

I wouldn't mind another president like that...but I'd prefer that he or she be a Republican as opposed to left of Neocon.

We can do better.

The only "personal" thing I dislike about her, or at least something that could be taken as "personal" is the legacy thing. We tell our kids anyone can be president. That's why the last 3 have shared 2 surnames. It will be the last 4 with 2 surnames if she is elected. I don't like that. I don't want to feel I'm lying to my kids any more than neccesary.

[Armstead]

10. It's been said that....

Bill Clinton was the best Republican President in years.

[PurityOfEssence]

12. "We can do better." Exactly.

I'm not a fan, to put it bluntly. She's hardly a skunk like a DeLay, but she's marginal at best on the morality meter, far too beholden to entrenched power and I simply don't trust her.

I applaud your willingness and ability to express shades of grey, and I wish this trait was more common among our species, especially in matters of such great moment.

On the overall scale of suckitude, she ranks a bit to the good side of center, and when discussing politicians, that's not so horrible. The problem is this: this is the most important job on earth, and the standards to which the employee should be held are ones that transcend normal bounds.

We can't have a "99 cent store" shopper's mentality and say that she isn't so awful and that she'll do, we owe it to ourselves and others to demand serious character strengths when it comes to morality and workable yet forward-leaning policy.

I don't like her, and this isn't just based on personal whims, I don't like the third way, I don't like her endless positioning, I don't like the religion crap, I don't like the corporate allegiances, I don't like the trade policy, I don't like the bellicose posturing on foreign policy, I don't like the cozying up to Rupert Murdoch, I don't like her constant claiming that she's the most steadfast fighter against the Republicans when it's almost impossible to find an instance where she actually has, I don't like being lectured to and I just don't like the whole calculated tenor of the thing; it simply doesn't ring true. Regardless of front-runner status or anything else, I have more issues with her character than I do with any of the others.

The only candidate close on the character issue is Richardson, and not because I think he's deceptive like her, it's because he seems befuddled and adrift in a sea of confusion. Who or what he is is just a great big question mark to me.

It's not like shopping and comparing products like trash can liners (hmmm...this one's okay) it's like picking a nanny for your children.

[YOY]

15. To hear some of her supporters here I'm either a crazy extreme leftist or some FReep memo spouter

You and I share many concerns of her. Especially the corporation and Rupert Murdoch thing. Questioning that is hardly "FReeperish" nor is it "far left".

I think one of the major turnoffs for her are her supporters here. The constant shoving of her down our throats as the only one who can win is, to put it bluntly, really f***ing obnoxious. There seems to be a strong avoidance of the issues and when something such as her health care plan comes up they don't want to discuss it and it is thrown to us in sort of a placative manner with no time for civilized discussion. Severely not cool.

Hey, I'll vote for her, if she makes it, but don't expect a spring in my step in November or my expectations to be high afterward.

Of course, that's DU in the primaries.

[XemaSab]

21. Like this:

Reagan
Reagan
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Clinton

:shrug:

[YOY]

24. Something wrong there...

It just is...inherently.

[Armstead]

29. Do you have something against Divine Right?

[YOY]

38. It's not divine right

yet.

[PurityOfEssence]

4. You're a misogynistic leftist reactionary who hates victims and little kittens

Obviously, you take your talking points from the right-wing and you're some kind of bolshevik malcontent at the same time. You can't stand competent powerful people who expect pity for being so persecuted even though they're doing just fine. Something wrong in your makeup makes you unable to see that constant maneuvering and positioning will cease instantly and she will suddenly launch forth in a glorious crusade against all of her corporate supporters.

For shame.

[Armstead]

9. Well, I guess I'll go strangle some puppies now.

:evilgrin:

[PurityOfEssence]

13. You know you want to...

Make sure you get all the really cute ones.

[Perry Logan]

5. You've uncritically absorbed 15 years of incontinent slander. That's your problem.

Thanks for sharing your desire to vomit, by the way. This keeps the political discourse here--especially when Hillary is concerned--at its usual lofty level.

[Armstead]

7. If nothing else, I am a critical thinker

I don't uncritically absorb anything. It is in my genes to ask questions, and never take anyone's word on anything at face value.

The admittedly broad points I mentioned above are largely based on a history of initially giving the Clintons strong support but being constantly disappointed by them over the years. Healthcare, NAFTA, Deregulation, "Free Market" Corporatism.....After years of watching them either cave into -- or actively support -- the Corporate Agenda over the real needs of real people, I eventually could no longer give them the benefit of the doubt, rationalize their betrayals or assume that they were anything close to pragmatic liberalism.

[Mother Of Four]

54. Uhm

Isn't this the same canned response to my saying in another thread that "My dislike isn't logical"?

I had another response to that, and I actually went and sat at my dining room table and made a list.

Can you say that you did the same for the other contenders?

[Justitia]

6. Is part of it maybe because the media calls her the "presumptive nominee"?

To clarify: I don't have a horse in this race yet.

I don't think any of us like hearing the media crown our nominee yet.

If they crown your candidate, you worry for your candidate that they are being setup to be taken down.
If they don't crown your candidate, you feel like they are shoving someone you don't want down your throat.
In past primaries, I've suffered under both scenarios.

I haven't even picked anyone yet, and of course I will support whomever is our eventual nominee, but whenever I hear it tossed off by the media so casually that we already have one, my hackles go up. I also have plenty of prior primary experience to know that anything can happen and primaries are PAINFUL.

So, I try to block out this media storm of already picking our nominee for us.

It is not good for Hillary, and it is not good for any other candidate.

[Armstead]

8. She was the presumptive nominee since 2000....

Ever since Bill was forced to leave office by the Constitution, Hilary has been endlessly pushed by the Elite as the "candidate to beat" for the presidential nomination.

That's what really gets my goat. The only reason Kerry was allowed to run in 2004 was that she chose to sit that one out.

[Justitia]

17. Yes, of course, we've been subjected to this for years now, it's true.

But somehow, collectively, we've got to cast a jaded eye on this treatment.

In order for us to be successful in '08, we have to learn how to control our visceral response to this phenomenon and condition our behavioral response to it.

In elections long past I was stuck in the horrible position of having to defend the eventual nominee whom I'd eviscerated in the primary. By then, I'd lost all objectivity because I was worn out from the process. I've learned to save a little energy since then. By the time the actual election rolled around (and the other 95% of the country was just starting to pay attention), I could no longer be an effective advocate for the principles of the Democratic party, and that is the worst result.

So, fight for your candidate INTERNALLY with substantive policy discussions, scrutinize their voting records, advocate for their positions.
Discuss their shortcomings candidly and offer improvements.

Do your best not to destroy the other candidates in the process.
Be honest about those things you don't like about other candidates, but choose your words with discretion.
Train yourself to focus less on their personality and more on their policy positions and / or votes.
Our opponents over in the Dark Side will be watching and waiting. They are critically aware that no one knows the true weaknesses of our candidates better than we do, so they will be looking to us for signals.

And frankly, don't even bother with criticizing those candidates (& by extension their supporters) who you know don't have a chance in hell of getting the nomination - it is NOT worth the ill-will you will generate, and it's totally pointless.

We are the group with the better ideas, all of us, any of us, and that is where our strength lies.
In the end you will need all your Democratic allies to get this over the finish line and they will need you.

[Armstead]

22. Here's my problem with that....

You make good points. However, I feel differently about this, because it's not just about Hilary.

It's about the whole dynamic of seeing the Media/Beltway/Corporate Elite use their power to foist their candidate of choice on us and marginalize the rest of the pack.

"Hilary is the most experienced candidate." Hardly. No one can honestly say that she has more experience than Dodd, Biden or Kucinich in Washington and in the world of politics and issues. But that is how she is portrayed.

She has been portrayed as the frontrunner years before the process even started. That just frosts me on principle.

And if this closed nomination process were actually successful, what have the Democrats lost the White House in the last two elections.

I guess when the time comes, we have to reluctantly rally around the "Democratic" flag if for no other reason than to keep us from the prospect of a President Mitt or President Rudy.

But it would sure be nice if the process would actually give us poor liberal schumcks something to enthusiastically vote FOR.

[Justitia]

31. Remember that everyone, except us, just wants a good "horse race"

Try to keep that front and center of your mind, always.

They want a good horse race, we want an advocate for those principles we believe are critical to a healthy, prosperous country.
Those two objectives operate in different galaxies altogether.

Try to step back from any single candidate (pro or con), and look at your overarching objectives (macro view) through time.

We wanted Soc. Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Civil Rights, etc, etc - our advocates eventually got those things done for us and those are the POLICIES that have lasted, they are our greatest victories.

Political figures come and go.
In this moment, absolutely fight for the candidate you believe will advance your agenda.
I'm sure your agenda (as a Democrat) is about more than one person, one congresscritter, one president.

Just keep your eye on the prize, which is the advancement of Democratic principles.
Our eventual nominee is one of the means to that end, but not the only one.

[Armstead]

32. That's one reason I am so anti-Hilary

Again you make good points, and I agree with much of what you say.

Except, to me hilary represents something different. It is a strain of the Democratic Party that IMO is just as responsible as the GOP is for the mess we're in, and the backward movement of the last 20 years.

In 92, Bill Clinton ran as the candidate of real healthcare reform, for example. That was a centerpiece of his campaign.

But then, after blundering with a convoluted plan led by Hilary early in his administration, the Clintons WALKED AWAY from any further efforts to fulfill that promise. Rather than continuing to lead, fight, negotiate and push for healthcare reform, it was dropped like a hot potato.

As a result, healthcare got much, much worse during the eight years Clinton was in office.

One could have forgiven their initial freshman misteps of Hilarycare -- But NOT the total cave in that followed.

The Clintons and their DLC clique were like that on so many issues. Big talk of progress -- but in the end a depressing backsliding on so many critical issues which made things worse -- not even a little better.

[Justitia]

37. As you say, the problem is much bigger than just the Clintons.

That element of our party was here before them & it will outlast them (hopefully not too much longer - ha).
They simply responded to it, whereas you & I maybe wouldn't.

The only way to fight back against those larger elements that you correctly believe are killing our party is to point out, in concrete terms (like you did with the healthcare proposal), WHY their strategy DID NOT WORK. No one can argue with results or lack of. Your way is better and you can say WHY and HOW.

The conservative wing of our party will just front more DLCs, Blue Dogs, PPIs, etc., etc., so you have to focus on defeating the ideology behind it versus the temporary officeholders who respond to it.

Do you remember who, in the Democratic Party argued against Medicare, Social Security, etc?
Probably not and they are probably long dead now.
What's important is that their resistance to our bedrock platform died with them.

[Armstead]

41. But the Clintons seem to be vampires

They just won't go away. Bill had his eight years. Time for something new....But now....

I can just imagine after Hilary has her 8 years in office it'll be time for ......President CHELSEA!

The Clinton/DLC wing has had a stranglehold for 15 plus years. That's too long, and it has turned back the earlier progress you spoke of.

[Justitia]

44. Imagine all those pissed off Dems, waiting in the wings, while FDR won FOUR TIMES

LOL!

You know it was ugly!

But hey, we got Soc Sec out of it and lots of other good stuff, so history forgives.

[Armstead]

47. Bill Clinton is no FDR

What did we get out of Bill that was comparable?

A Wall St. Bubble that was an extension of Reaganomics....Deregulation and Monopolization to an obscene degree.....Welfare Reform that forced mothers into minimum wage jobs....Further consolidation of the media....A rotting healthcare system.

I wouldn't mind a dynasty so much, if it was a competent and enlightened one.

[Justitia]

48. It was a joke, FDR was our only 4 term prez & I'm sure some Dems hated him for it.

In a more recent example, take the Kennedys.

Nothing gets a conservative frothing like the Kennedy legacy.

I LOVE Ted, and they will have to take him outta the Senate on a stretcher when he's 150.
It's so cute that the MA repubs even bother to run anyone against him every once in awhile.

Thank God for Ted. And he was there before the Clintons and by the sheer strength of will, he will be there for long after. Yea for us.

Now imagine you are a lonely, idealistic repub in Boston who would love to be a senator.
Tough shit for them, as it should be.

[Armstead]

49. Teddy's Da Man!

I'm from Massachusetts, and there is little that makes me prouder of my home state than the fact that Teddy is our longstanding senator.

(I guess I have a double standard when it comes to dynasties. :)

[Justitia]

50. Ahhh - a dynasty we can ALL be proud of! See, you have great fortune indeed.

:)

[oasis]

11. Ask yourself what a Giulliani Supreme Court would look like. (eom)

[Armstead]

14. That's not the issue at this point....

You're jumping five steps ahead, and ignoring the present.

Yes I'd rather have a Hilary than a Rudy.

But at this point, that's not what is most important.

And, to be honest, I'm not sure how much better her nominees to thge court might be, beyond the issues of abortion and God. I can envision her picking some socially liberal corporatist who hands over the keys to the elite, while placating the "left" on some social issues.

[antigop]

20. The Supreme Court is already -- NOW-- open for "business"

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042040.htm

>>
With controversial rulings on abortion and campaign finance, the current U.S. Supreme Court has waded into some of the most explosive issues in American politics. Under the leadership of new Chief Justice John G. Roberts, the high court appears to be on the verge of rewriting vast tracts of settled Constitutional law. But there's another important emerging feature of the Roberts Court that has not drawn nearly as much attention: its sympathy to business.
>>

[Armstead]

26. That's one of the reasons....

I am so annoyed about the status quo Democrats.

Rather than expose and challenge the anti-consumer, anti-worker bias of the judicial nominees of recent years, they allowed it to be focused on a few specific divisive social issues, while the foxes were put in charge of the economic and regulatory henhouse.

[antigop]

27. Exactly -- because the "social" issues have been a diversion to rape the American worker n/t

[antigop]

28. And the Dems have been willing participants. n/t

[bvar22]

53. That is NOT a strong argument to support a DLC candidate.

The DLC helped the Republicans seat Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court.
(See "Gang of 14)

[oasis]

55. It's a strong argument in favor of the strongest candidate. I'll gladly take half a loaf over

"pie in the sky".

[ronnykmarshall]

16. feh!

[antigop]

18. Well put. It also explains why a third party could weigh in heavily in the election. n/t

[Bitwit1234]

19. It's jealousy because YOUR candidate

can't muster up the appeal of the American people to be the front runner. It is a shame that if a person isn't winning they constantly bash the other candidates.

[Armstead]

23. It has nothing to do with "my" candidate.

Who by the way, I don't have at the moment.

I like something about almost all of the candidates, and dislike some things about them all.

My feelings about this -- as I tried to explain in my original post -- have to do with the deeper dynamic that has infected our party and political system.

[ChiciB1]

30. Oh, The Jealousy Thing Again... It IS NOT Jealousy, It's And

opinion! If one disagrees, it DOES NOT equate to jealousy, IMHO!

[PurityOfEssence]

39. Does your mommy know you're out?

Besides, it's nap time.

[bvar22]

51. You forgot the "sarcasm" thingie.

I almost thought you were serious.
Your satire is a little too subtle.

[ChiciB1]

25. You Hit The Nail On The Head... PLUS I Need To Add... Many Connect

her to Bill. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT people whether others want to think so or not. I too think Hillary is a great politician, but I don't want her as a President. I agree with almost EVERYTHING you stated.

And as I just posted elsewhere, since what we've had to endure for almost 7 years, the ERA of Clinton looks PRISTINE! People have forgotten how much upheaval there really was, and how venomous the Repukes were. Not to mention, and I don't give a rats ass about this... Clinton had already been "outed" for his so called wandering eye BEFORE becoming President, so why would such an INTELLIGENT (and he most assuredly is) let himself get CAUGHT again IN THE WH???

We felt "good" with Clinton, things WERE much better, but it's HILLARY now.... NOT Bill, he does have CHARISMA and he can really sweep you along. In truth, I had not problem voting for him, but I always knew he was much more moderate than I. He just has "that thing" and I'm sorry... Hillary doesn't, at least not for me. I think she's even MORE MODERATE than Big Dawg!

[AtomicKitten]

34. It is most definitely ideological for me.

A constellation of information recently made it all pretty clear for me. First of all was this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1890487 in which HRC declines to commit to full troop withdrawal by the end of her first term. Then the revelation that Junior is coaching the candidates, and in particular HRC, on how to keep his war going.

It is pretty clear that a HRC presidency will be a continuation of this administration's egregious policies and at best a very slow turning away from them and, quite frankly, I don't trust her with the expanded powers Junior has racked up during his tenure.

Anyone that supported and rallied for the invasion of Iraq is a no-go for me.

[The Backlash Cometh]

35. I suspect she's close to the Candace Bergen flavor of liberal in

"Sweet Home Alabama." Only, more tailored to New York City policies.

If Hillary wins, it will be good for Wall Street and New York City, and bad for the rest of us. We just get to be thankful to have jobs, while they get to actually have a lifestyle.

[Armstead]

40. The Clinton's can go to Martha's Vineyard while the rest of us...

go to the local city park for our vacations.

[The Backlash Cometh]

42. They really have no fucking clue.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. I agree with everything you've said

We need a bold approach to get this country back on track, a vision of where we need to go.

That's what people want.

Bush's ability to win/cheat in close elections was due to his ability to articulate a vision--a perverted, deceptive vision, but a vision nonetheless--about the future of this country, while both Gore and Kerry came off as walking position papers.

So does Hillary.

[ShortnFiery]

43. Concur with enthusiasm! :-) nt

[libodem]

45. If she would

just start talking like DK and dump the DLC it would go a long way for my ability to support her. Both women I know who want her to win the primary only long to have Bill back in the White House. It's pitiful. They miss him so. OK so do I, but not bad enough to buy the semi-centrist scripted Mcmuffin speak. Sorry, I have to go with my instincts/intuition at this juncture.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

46. Duh-you're just afraid of a strong woman and want Rudy as prez!

or they'll say something to that effect.

but you nailed it and perfectly summed up what's wrong with returning the clintons to power

[bvar22]

52. I admire and respect Hillary.

She handled the 8 year continuous attack from the VRWC with grace, intelligence, and dignity.
She has set an example that should be copied by all of our public representatives.
She has also been a fantastic mother as evidenced by Chelsea.

My strong opposition to Hillary is purely political.
My support for other candidates is also issue oriented.
If someone comes along with a better position on The Issues and a clear historical record of working FOR those issues, I WILL support them.