she will be less of a racist facist than Donald, but be far more rapid and efficient at killing lots of people around the world.
Has she threatened to use nuclear weapons just to prove a point? Because one of the two viable candidate has.
If you want to vote for a political party that has no record of electing candidates to state-level office and has no experience to govern effectively at level or above - you are indeed sending a message.
Would you hire such a developer, just to send a message?
Yes, but it’s OK if you don’t want to derail the thread any further.
Of course we need more female first-person heroes in our cultural mythology, our stories, our narratives, but that is not what explains America’s dislike of Hillary Clinton.
An industry was set up to take her down by right wing the moment she came on the scene in 1992. A smear campaign that many men have literally devoted their lives to surrounds every discussion of her. We are absolutely saturated in a “Hillary is corrupt, power-hungry, greedy, lying, wicked witch” etc etc culture. My entire adult life has been this. That’s the narrative everyone is so steeped in, they just go along with it without knowing anything about her actual record, her life’s work of helping people.
The millennials don’t like her because that’s what they learned on the Bernie bandwagon. The Left piled onto the hate-fest that Right founded and mined that age-old industry of smear campaigning for fodder to use against her in the primary. Millennials are too young to remember the politics of the 90s. They don’t even know that they join ranks with the likes of everything they should be against in their overblown vilifying of a woman who has fought hard for progressive causes over the course of triple their lifetimes. Young women accuse her of being “not a feminist”, totally ignorant of history… the way ant-feminists demonized her for keeping her maiden name, for having her own career, for being a powerful woman doing work outside of “baking cookies” and decorating the White House.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is literally the greatest feminist hero of our time. But when most people read that they’ll think “BARF”, despite the fact that it’s true! Gut reaction informed by the culture that informs them, second nature. Ask so many people why she’s evil and most will say “I can just feel it” with no decent evidence to back it up.
Things people hate her for, her sternness, the hand she’s had in some world affairs that didn’t turn out too great in the end… in all of these things the blame is shared among SO MANY other people in government and the military. Private email servers used by Bush/Cheney and Powell, 2 million emails deleted by Bush. Embassies bombed throughout history. None of her greatest ‘sins’ are hers alone. But she’s the evil one. It’s all her fault. Obama’s ok, but we all know Hillary is just inherently wicked. It’s the only thing we’ve ever been told.
And when a woman transgresses SHE MUST BE PUNISHED!
I remember when Bush and Cheney were wreaking havoc upon the world and everyone was busy hating Paris Hilton. She was the 2005-era symbol of everything that was wrong with everything. WOMEN MUST BE PUNISHED!
There is nothing particularly unlikeable about Hillary Clinton other than she’s just kind of a nerd. She’s a hard-working no-nonsense woman who you might think needs to “lighten up”. She’s the straight-A student who did all the extra credit and then some and was President of all the clubs. She is an overachiever of the highest order. She has worked as hard as a human being can work, all in a climate of hatred so outrageously over-amplified it’s downright bizarre. And yet she stands tall and kicks ass through it all. She’s an absolute WARRIOR.
I’ve always liked Hillary, and I believe in her basic goodness as a human being. Newt Gingrich, Ken Starr and Rush Limbaugh couldn’t convince me she’s unlikable back then and Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein and Michael Moore can’t convince me she’s a bad person now. And I happen to think she’s cute and funny and all those likable things to boot!
(sorry, i kinda went a little long there)
She’s not likeable because she is a pathological lying elitist that thinks the rules don’t apply to her and she is above the law. All that has come to surface now and the majority off people aren’t mindless kool-aid drinking sheep.
While I generally agree with your post, I think
is maybe a touch hyperbolic.
Hey, did someone just link this thread over at Bretbart or Stormfront or Trump For President or another of those kind of places? We’re starting to get their clientele.
Name me more. Of all the feminist heroes I can think of, she’s tops.
Where positive discussion of Hillary exists, the soldiers will be released to SHUT IT DOWN. Even at the Democratic Convention there was an army to shit on her moment, shout over her, shut her down.
And articles like this, everyone beating the old drum of how unlikable she is only adds weight to the same old Hillary is unlikable narrative. After the convention we started seeing memes of her for once in a positive light. And her favorability went up. The zeitgeist changes as soon as people start using photoshop to make her up to be cool and badass. Or we can just never stop insisting she’s the most hatable person in the world for some vague reason we can’t even put our finger on and hand this thing over to Steaks the Clown.
They must have; I’ve been keeping tabs on the increasing influx of sock trolls lately…
Silly rabbits, obvious tricks are for amateurs.
Barbara Jordan. Isabel Allende. John Lennon.
[quote]Even at the Democratic Convention there was an army to shit on her moment
[/quote]
I’m sorry, but the Sanders supporters had every reason to be angry and upset, not so much with Clinton as with the Party, and the Party’s quadrennial party was a legitimate place to express that anger.
Was it as big as the army that shut Bernie down during the primaries?
George W. Bush was often referred to as “Bush” and sometimes “George Bush”, though.
Maybe it’s my imagination, but it seems like we as a society have this nasty habit of always using women’s first names, even women in power. Maybe it’s just me, but it feels patronizing.
The moniker ‘Dubya’ was pretty popular among those who didn’t care for him. Cartoonist Ted Rall regularly depicted the cocaine-hollowed Texan as ‘Generalissimo El Busho’. Bush Jr. went by a lot of nicknames, many of them deserved.
If we can temporarily consider surnames to be ‘brands’ in the political world, you might say that the Bush brand has been tarnished beyond repair, at least for the next several years (as evidenced by the Jeb! Bush primary campaign). The Clinton brand has a lesser amount of tarnish but I don’t think that’s why Hillary Clinton is running on her first name. I feel that it’s to suggest that this is a new offshoot of the Clinton brand and that it’s exciting and unprecedented (a woman presidential candidate!).
I’m not saying it’s exciting or a new dawn or any of that, but I suspect that’s the tone they’re going for.
This headline alone is offensive! Is this a joke? All humans are complex and of course we find some more likable than others. We are all flawed and all have some redeeming attributes. In the “Hillary For President” context though, I believe likability is completely overrated so long as she’s competent, qualified and her ideas are sound.
We would never be having this debate if “boring” John Kerry were to run again. He was simply deemed dry and uncharasmatic, but it was never tied inextricably with his ability to run the country and his gender.
Hillary faces something altogether more unsettling. She not only has to prove herself competent (she is), but she has to win a popularity contest against a sociopathic imbecile with zero credentials and who even harasses her with threats of violence and death, some may argue.
To paraphrase Trump: “She’s against guns? Her security detail should disarm themselves at her rallies then; see what happens,” he says. How’s Trump for “Likable?!” Maybe we just don’t appreciate his “complexity.” Sheesh!
You Don’t Have to Love Hillary!!! Just recognize that she is by FAR the better candidate; she has a team of excellent, experienced staff behind her; and you don’t have to be her best friend! Just trust that she knows what she’s doing!
She’s rich? Trump’s rich. Which candidate do you think values their own personal wealth more? What would they each do if they lost it all tomorrow? Where do their moral compasses truly lay?
Hillary also has the ability to bring SO many women’s issues to light (if anyone cares!) Although I’m sure Trump lays awake at night mulling the plight of historical women’s inequality too. Eye-roll.
Hillary’s opponent is terrifying. Maybe in school you “hated” a certain teacher, but you couldn’t really justify why, and maybe you actually learned the material and got good grades. You didn’t have to have lunch with this teacher every day, but in hindsight, they did their job, hopefully to the best of their ability, and taught you what you needed to know. Likable or not.
Did it matter whether they were a man or woman? Can we please, please drop the likability issue, especially combined with the gender issue? It is SUCH a setback for us all!!
[quote=“Jennn, post:349, topic:85424”]
She’s rich? Trump’s rich.[/quote]
All 4 of the major candidates are millionaires…except possibly Trump, who for all we know is a pauper in borrowed clothes.
There are plenty of likable women in leadership positions. She isn’t one of them. She never will be.
So, basically, everything she’s ever done in her entire life has been resume-padding to try to finally, now, get the top job.
Does that make her a second-wave feminist hero?
Absolutely it does.
Does it make me want to vote for her?
Not at all.
Sanders was an independent who only joined the Democratic party at the last minute to try to gain the built-in publicity and funds for his campaign. The California delegation, with their baseless conspiracy theories about having the state ‘stolen’ from Bernie were a shame and an embarrassment to Sanders. They refuse to believe Hillary could have won legitimately. They have no proof other than their own wishful thinking. Talking about being “SILENCED” when they are literally on the convention floor SCREAMING THROUGH THE WHOLE THING, being covered and interviewed by every news station and with every delegate counted. They would have languished in the obscurity of any other independent or green party had they not signed on to pretend to be Democrats at the last minute, the same Democratic party they call a conservative lesser ‘evil’. They aren’t even democrats, then show up at the Dem convention for no reason other than to try to disrupt and ruin what should have been a rally of solidarity for the progressive party. They acted like utter assholes.
I’m convinced no one would have dared disrespect a male candidate in such a crude way, yet it’s so easy and acceptable to scream and boo and shout over a woman, to PUNISH her. And during such an historic moment as the first woman presidential candidate’s acceptance speech! Disgraceful. They not only tried to ruin Hillary’s moment, but the enjoyment of every Democrat who supports Hillary, every woman who wanted to enjoy that historic moment for women. Would anyone have dared do this to the first black presidential nominee? Shit on that historic beautiful moment? No way would anyone DARE. Bernie himself was ashamed of the way his hateful, childish supporters behaved!
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Tryna turn that love-fest into a hate-fest as depressing as the Repub Con. Ugh. Thankfully the positive vibes ended up drowning out the nasty people before it was all over tho. Who these bozos think they are to have the right to try to boo over the Presidential nominee. Such egotistical gall. The disrespect is staggering!!
(i went a little long again huh)
*looks at Trump’s poll results*
Maybe not exactly a majority.
