She manipulated the democratic political primary, with the aid of her friends, in order to ensure she got the nomination. This included colluding with the DNC to create conditions unfavorable for her primary opponent, as well as prevent candidates from even being listed as candidates (Larry Lessig, who was kept out of the Democratic debates because the DNC kept changing the rules.)
She’s got a severe ethics problem, stemming from the unseemly fundraising that she has done over the past few years - while it is true that all candidates must fundraise to some extent, she has displayed that when it comes down to the people or the funders, she will choose the funders every time. (See Sen. Warren talking about the difference between First Lady Clinton and Sen. Clinton when it comes to student loans.)
Her first instinct in any situation is to obfuscate and lie, as we saw in “Lunghazi” - where it was allergies, then heat exhaustion, then finally, pneumonia. She does this even when there’s no benifit to her or her team, and in fact is a major reason that she is so ineffective in politics.
She is the #1 reason why Donald Trump actually has a chance at winning the white house.
No, I don’t like her. No, I can’t vote for her – not even against Trump – because they’re both equally unfit for the office (albeit for different reasons.) Ultimately, if she had one single shred of decency she’d drop out and let someone else (Sen. Warren?) replace her on the ticket so that this would be a Democratic landslide.
It’s not that people don’t like women. It’s that people don’t like lying, manipulative, deceitful, cheating assholes.
I’ve been an active Democrat for over 40 years, and have worked for a variety of candidates at every level, starting with sign-waving for LBJ. I was also a Sanders supporter, and I agree 100% with the ones who were upset by the revelations of DNC malfeasance. You think people like me are assholes and not true Democrats? Get real.
As I said above, I’ll be enthusiastically voting for HRC, but some of her supporters continue to ooze smug privilege. It is no wonder so many Sanders supporters are willing to throw away their votes on the likes of Stein and even Johnson.
Wow! The amount of rationalizing that people do in order to excuse their disproportionate distrust and hatred of Hillary Clinton is astonishing.I have noticed that no one on this message board, or in the entire country (the entire world even) is ever guilty of the slightest bit of bias against her because of her gender, however unconscious, or against any woman for that matter. After all, they do like Elizabeth Warren (who isn’t running), and/or they are voting for Jill Stein (who can’t win), or else they at least know the name of another female politician that they can toss out there to prove how completely unaffected by gender bias they are. I’m really proud to live in a country where everyone is so self-realized and egalitarian.
No, the way we view women and such nonsense as double standards have nothing to do with it.Never in the slightest. It’s because Hillary Clinton is both a boring, borderline-incompetent run-of-the-mill more-of-the-same politician and a criminal-mastermind devil-incarnate infant-devouring monster. (also her smile is scary and her voice is too shrill and her pantsuits are ugly) How anyone can reconcile these two vastly different characterizations of her is the tricky part. I guess it’s no surprise the number of conspiracy theories circulating that she’s not even human, because how else could such a complete paradox exist?
And, as anyone who’s ever read a message board can attest, most people who are not voting for Hillary will have a laundry list of atrocities that she has committed ready to rattle off faster than you can say misogyny. Even if she were spotted grocery shopping, you can bet that she’d be accused of having some nefarious back-room deal with the grocer at the same time. It’s always best to assume that she’s covering up something and then work backwards from there.
Provide evidence to dispute any of these claims (or point to the lack thereof) and you won’t have to wait long for them to find a source to contradict you, however non-credible and fact-challenged it may be. After all, credible sources are just part of the mainstream media, full of bought-and-paid-for Hillary shills, and facts are just the tools of the neoliberal corporate agenda.
So hand the election to an unqualified, racist narcissist just because they couldn’t deal with smugness from supporters of their candidate’s opponent? Sorry, but I very much wonder at this. The political equivalent to storming off in a huff and pouting is really not going to do a lot to achieve Bernie’s vision.
I agree with your last sentence, but consider things from the POV of a Sanders supporter whose most tangible experience of the Clinton campaign is the DNC leadership caught stacking the odds in Clinton’s favor, followed immediately not by any contrition but rather by Clinton supporters attacking them as crybabies for protesting. All this does is reinforce the idea that she won’t care about them or their positions any more than Trump does.
The easy and patronizing way in which HRC supporters have dismissed Sanders supporters might seem a little thing to you in comparison to the threats of a Trump presidency, but if you’d been around this forum for 10 months instead of 2 hours you might have seen how this offensive behavior has antagonized many thoughtful people. We’re all ready to use the views and behaviors of Trump’s supporters when evaluating his candidacy, well, some people are doing that with Clinton as well, and I can’t blame them.
First-name-as-sexist-diminutive is definitely a thing, though; Julia Gillard copped it constantly while she was Prime Minister. Clinton’s embrace of the “Hillary” brand may have been an attempt to preemptively defuse it.
As a kid, my birthday parties always had a piñata. And every year, there’d always be at least one of us, blindfolded, facing 180° away from the piñata, furiously swinging at nothing.
The people here who have a problem with Clinton have articulated their reasons for not warming up to her. Many BBers cite her voting record in the Senate as enough reason to be skeptical.
Skeptical. ‘Doubt’ is not the same as ‘dislike’.
As @d_r said, if you’d been around these threads for three months rather than three hours you’d already be aware that many of those same skeptics also feel that Clinton has been the target of (often unwitting) gender bias for years. One of your laments—that people dislike Clinton because of her voice—was explicitly mentioned just six weeks ago in a BB share of a New Yorker opinion on gender bias towards women’s voices. Read its comment thread and you’ll find that most of those Clinton skeptics concurred with the article’s conclusion.
BB and its Discourse community aren’t just aware of the endemic gender bias against Clinton—they’re among its most vocal critics. Yet your comment seems to suggest an all-or-nothing scenario where someone is either a Clinton supporter who has acknowledged and reconciled their gender bias or a self-rationalizing Clinton hater-be-hating, unaware of their bias.
The reality is more nuanced than this and you’re not swinging anywhere near it.
Her likeability problems remind me of Al Gore’s. Granted, they’re a completely different set of problems, but the way they affect her campaign is about the same.
I don’t know why it matters if a candidate’s likeable or not. If I see pictures of a candidate drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon in northwest Indiana, why would that make me want to vote for that candidate? It doesn’t matter to me, but apparently it matters to a lot of people.
This right here is the reason I haven’t just gotten behind Hillary already. She has to earn my vote, and the only reason I have to vote for her is that she’s running against Trump. Plus, the way her supporters attack and belittle anyone who supported Sanders makes me want to stay away. We preferred another candidate, so what? That doesn’t automatically make us enemies of Hillary Clinton.
As a Grown Ass Adult ™ I follow politics because it’s my responsibility. However, I don’t like politics at all and find the entire process objectionable.
I thought I did, but apparently one must be a Democrat, a Real Democrat ™, and a loyalist to the establishment of the Democratic Party* to run as a Democrat. Caucusing with the Democrats for over 40 years doesn’t count, and being the most liberal senator doesn’t count either. Meanwhile, Buddy Roemer changes parties like some people change clothes, and nobody bats an eye.
*I knew Bernie would get slapped down eventually for this reason, but I don’t think that’s a good thing
Welcome to reality, where multiple competing interests and cultures collide. Is there a better system of governance than “politics” that you have to offer?
Sanders isn’t running for President anymore and has fully endorsed Hillary, so this is the weakest of excuses.
There’s a Canadian comedian who wrote a song (in around 2005) about an alternate history where George W. Bush became a moderately-successful medical practitioner, who wants to treat the inflamed appendix “terrorizing” his patent by giving said patient an enema.
