That’s probably more than a small exaggeration: she probably cares and panders to donors.
Is it really a fact that Hillary Clinton is one of the most qualified human being to ever run for president of the United States? Or is that just party spin. By what metric is this being measured?
I’m not voting for Drumpf that’s for sure but I’m not convinced that Clinton is the most qualified candidate to have run for the office.
Qualified… well she is over 35 and a citizen. But as Mr Sanders pointed out, her vote for the Iraq war and her taking super PAC money demonstrates her lack of qualification in many peoples view.
If the question is does she have more experience than any candidate, well that’s easy. Martin Van Buren was a senator, a secretary of state, a governor, an ambassador and a vice president. Even George H. W. Bush was a veteran who was a member of the House, U.N. ambassador, director of the CIA and vice president. Hmmm perhaps experience doesn’t make you a good leader.
Then again, Obama who said she was the most qualified was one of the least experienced candidates to actually be elected. So is experience all it’s cracked up to be? Reagan was very experienced and qualified as the 2 term governor of the nations most populous state and one of the 10 largest economies in the world but many think he did a terrible job while others give him god like status.
There is your problem. The people probably the best at running the government, aren’t necessarily likable. Charisma goes a long way to get you elected, and while this might help in direct diplomacy, it does nothing to help you actually govern or chart the best course for the government.
Successful CEOs don’t always have to be likable, as long as they produce the desired results. I bet someone analytical with low social skills probably has a better shot at making what is overall the best policy decisions, but they would never get elected.
If people are viewed with complexity, does it really matter if they are likeable?
Whether you realize it or not, you’ve spent your entire life being trained to empathize with white men.
Doesn’t that depend entirely upon what culture you have been raised in? I agree that it is certainly true for many people, but it is far from universal. It suggests a Eurocentric bias.
Voting is more like hiring an employee than looking for a friend, they need meet my criteria for competence rather than likeability.
[quote]Donald Trump is the only candidate who is more disliked than Clinton. And he’s not only overtly racist, sexist, and Islamophobic, but also unfit and unprepared for office.[/quote]But what if we just have to learn to view Trump complexly?
I am a feminist. I fully accept that women are human beings, with all that entails.
I find Hillary more professional and more likeable than Trump, Johnson or Stein. None of the four are people I’d really want to hang out with but we’re electing a president here, not a buddy.
What I don’t like about her is POLICY, which overrides other concerns.
Barring catastrophe, she’s going to win… and almost nothing that is wrong now is going to get better. (This still puts her way ahead of Trump.)
I haven’t switched; I’m still voting for Stein, despite a new collection of nervous tics from her pandering to the kook caucus.
To find Hillary Clinton likable
Right now, she’s the best person for the job in a position to take it. I don’t have to like her or want to drink a beer with her, or any other politician. I think this peculiar aspect of out politics needs to die, and I’m doing my part to kill it by not trying to like anyone. Anyone who’s the president or in a position of power isn’t my friend, I don’t want to like them. I want to make heavy the crown that rests on their head. I can like her if I meet her, but otherwise I think that whether or not a candidate is “likable” is an unfortunate part of the political calculus that we shouldn’t encourage.
Though I do agree that we need to view women more complexly and that a lot of Hillary’s critics dislike her because we do not. That sexism is there, and is a reality to be contended with. I just think the politics of “likability” are unfortunate to begin with.
If you put Sarah Palin’s personality with Hillary’s politics, you have an electable president.
I think that’s fair enough, but so far in this discussion I’ve seen little discussion of what Clinton is actually proposing to do.
Here is a link to Hillary’s policies page. Which of those policies do you disagree with?
You can’t possibly be serious.
I’ll be voting for Hillary, but I don’t like her. But I don’t like Bill either. I can dislike equally.
Perhaps the problem is Barack Obama — I actually like him. Every other politician is going to suffer by comparison.
She might be more likeable if her platform included any kind of vision for the future. She comes off as competent but wooden - she understands the issues at hand and the complexity of the political scene, but that is not very inspiring to most people. Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry all had the same problem. I do agree that sexism is at the root of the most negative portrayals of Clinton, but it would be a smaller problem for her if she was perceived as standing for something that her supporters could get behind.
That’s a peculiar trait of us-american politics. Over here it’s perceived as a specific US characteristic. There is a heavily criticized trend to adopt certain strategies called “amerikanisierung der politischen Kommunikation” (= americanization of politics/political communication): focus on the individual (including his private and family life), person before policy, negative campaigning …
They start to see her not as a Lady Macbeth, but as a Leslie Knope, a Hermione Granger, or a Paris Geller.
Personally I see her as more of a Dolores Umbridge.
And I like Elizabeth Warren a lot. And I like Jill Stein a lot. Must be because they didn’t “face a lifetime of sexism”, huh??
My Hillary Clinton archetype is a self-serving, power-hungry gangster.
Would anyone take this article seriously if the subject was Margaret Thatcher? Is that why people on the left didn’t like her, because she was a woman? Or is it because she held a world-view that many found regressive?
You should reconsider that: https://storify.com/cshirky/third-parties-exist-to-flatter-people-we-should-st
The Greens are like a Kickstarter that is always raising money and thanking donors, but never ships a product. “Thanks” is their product. You and three friends could accomplish everything the Green Party has, armed only with Squarespace and Venmo. That’s coming in 2020; 3rd Parties as the new lulz. Imagine Deez Nutz, but with a travel budget. (Imagine /b/, but with press conferences.)
If the human race is still to be around in a few hundred years, this is exactly the attitude that we need to expose as the root cause of many of our troubles. Because people will follow charismatic, motivational leader types over the side of a cliff, and those are the types that often set off towards the cliff in the first place.
I like my politicians dull, grey and obsessed with making society work.
i just tried to find her favorability ratings, but there isn’t that much out there. What there is hardly suggests that she’s generally considered likeable, though.
In conclusion, while we have only data from one election in MA, the data is eye-opening and indicates that even a woman considered by the liberal base of the Democratic party to be popular, principled, charismatic, likable and honest could – within a space of a year – be painted dishonest and not as likable as her GOP opponent in a deep blue state, let alone the national stage. This, in my mind, suggests we need to be very aware of the challenges faced by women seeking higher office – and how susceptible they are to being portrayed negatively in public.
On the other hand, maybe “likeability” does matter, per these photos