A pound of chocolate for the best “Why I Hate Her” essay.
There are rules. You can’t win if you don’t follow the rules.
Rule One – you have to deal with facts. A link to a conspiracy website is not a fact, so that means “Mena Airport” and “Vince Foster” aren’t valid points to make.
Rule Two – you have to deal with the present or the past – “She can’t win” is a bad guess, about the future, not a fact, so don’t even go there.
Rule Three – no nutty-ass name-calling. “She’s to the right of Bush” is super-stupid (and not a fact) but it proves your dislike of her has clouded your judgment.
Rule Four – no mind reading. “She thinks she’s so smart” and “She expects the world to be delivered to her feet” are not valid reasons to hate her.
Rule Five – no quoting Molly, Arianna or Kos. You should have your own reasons for disliking her. Don’t borrow regurgitated predjudice from another Hillary-disliker.
I might think of more rules as we go, but if you play fair we don’t need more rules.
You Hillary-dislikers, show me what you’ve got.
List the facts – or am I asking too much?
Is pointing out the possibility of 28 straight years of presidents named “Clinton” or “Bush” also against the rules?
Comment by happymisanthropy — December 20, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
But… but I don’t hate Hillary!
I don’t care either way (see my other posts if’n you don’t believe me)
What I want is the best ticket possible for ’08 to chase the neo-con-fascists back under their rocks.
What I want is N.E. Conservatism to make a comeback so together with Liberals and Progressives, we all can get together and work out the real problems facing America and the World today.
On the other hand I does like my chocolate.
So maybe a list of why “they” hate her in no particular order:
1) Hillary is a woman.
90% of all male anti-H bloggers have a penis approximately this size:
–> – 2) She actually “has it all” (Covering the fem-bloggers)
She was valedictorian of her graduating class at Wellesley and has a J.D. degree from Yale . She is a successful businesswoman; the first woman to be made a full partner of Rose Law Firm; staff attorney for the Children’s Defense Fund and appointed by J. Carter to the board of the Legal Services Corporation. She married a hot hot hunk (ref Molly). She got elected Senator of New York (ref Arianna). She’s got a kid who is not an embarrassment. What a conniving bitch Hillery is! So let’s make fun of her hair, her clothes, her looking run down. That bitch is making it hard for everyone else. And if she becomes president? Well America is the “most wonderful powerful country in the world”. That will make her the “most wonderful powerful bitch in the world”. Can’t have that.
3) She’s sexually dominant (special O’Riley edition)
If: Women are to be masturbated to over the phone. And: if she cared, she could have you on your knees in 5 seconds, sobbing like an infant with your loofa up your ass. Therefore: she’s unelectable.
4) She never says what “they” want her to say when “they” want her to say it.
Junior Senators (and women) are expected to be subservient. That she knows how to play the political game as good, if not better, than the vast majority of elected hacks in Washington is bad, bad, bad. People who don’t know their place need to be knocked down a peg or two. Who does she think she is?
5) She’s part of the DLC cabal
Uhhh… actually I don’t like that either. Moving on…
6) She could be someone the country could rally around
What if she wins? What if she does a great job? What if she does a FDR/Reagan size great job? That means scores of old, overweight, overpaid, pimply-assed white guys gets shown up to be the ineffective policy wonks we all know them to be. Think GWB is the emperor without clothes? Imagine that multiplied by 100, or 10,000. My God! America might change, it might grow. That cannot be because…
7) Change is BAD
We don’t do that around here because we don’t do that. Rules were never made to be broken. The status quo must be preserved at all costs. Intelligence is bad; gimmie that ol’time religion.
8) What else you gonna do? (MSM edition)
Reporters have to report on something otherwise TPTB might realize they don’t deserve their phony-baloney jobs. They can’t or won’t report on what is actually happening; the corporate overlords will have none of that. Wandering around looking for the next war or natural disaster is too dangerous. So comment on that pink dress (Oh Mary, how could she?), find someone else easy to stereotype (Obama), create some artificial conflicts between them, and run that puppy into the ground eight ways from Tuesday. White guys don’t get hurt – everybody wins; everybody that counts, that is.
In ’08 vote for America, vote Democratic!
Comment by jje — December 21, 2006 @ 5:24 pm
Point #1 expanded (bart we need an editing feature ’cause I don’t know how to type)
1) Hillary is a woman.
90% of all male anti-H bloggers have a penis approximately this size:
–> –
Maybe Mommy was overbearing or Daddy was a limp-wristed-closet-case. Maybe they were humiliated by “some girl” when they ran for class president. Maybe (and here’s where I get serious) they cannot face the fact that she is a well-educated, political savvy woman more qualified than they will ever be to hold a position of authority. Strong willed male leaders are aggressive. Strong willed female leaders are c!@#s. You can look it up.
Comment by jje — December 21, 2006 @ 5:27 pm
Is pointing out the possibility of 28 straight years of presidents named “Clinton” or “Bush” also against the rules?
- I find that to be an odd question. If they’re stealing power, that’s one thing, but why tell America they can’t have their choice for president? Who wins when you do that?
And, as always, I must point out that Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton beats
Bush/Bush/Bush/Bush all to hell.
Comment by Bart — December 21, 2006 @ 7:55 pm
Well, it is good to see that BC picked the most important issue ( that he is obsessed with) for the hot topic of his blog.
Here is my essay:
Hillary Clinton is not the best candidate we could select (if we, not the DLC, had a choice, ha, ha) for this most important job. She is calculating in a thoroughly dishonest way; war mongering is part of her strategery.
She wants the power, but doesn’t remotely deserve it. A poor choice, and as a woman candidate, reminds me more of Margaret Thatcher (who I despise) than Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (who is a true, fearless and uncompromised woman leader) who was overwhelmingly democratically elected.
So Bart, are you going to delete my entry, as you have so consitently NOT posted any of my emails that made a strong point? And by the way, many of my letters have been printed in NE newspapers.
Or, are you going to send my pound of chocolate? You have my address.
Comment by neilinvt — December 21, 2006 @ 9:56 pm
I’ll preface this by saying that I’m only writing this for the chocolate. I do plan on voting for the democratic front-runner in ’08. I also believe that in a few short years, SHE will no longer be known as Hillary, but as Clinton 44.
Why I hate her
by Cangrejero
1) On the day the Iraq Study Report was released, instead of denouncing it as the handjob report it was, Hillary held a press conference with Kissyface of all people to announce a series of ads about video game ratings. We hear so much about her political brilliance, yet on a day where she could have ripped Bush and that handjob report to shreds, she wants to talk about digital dicks and pixelated blood. I understand that we don’t have Congress yet, but this was a golden opportunity to set the stage for next year and she ignored it.
2) Her and Bill are the Democrats that Democrats love to hate. I know it’s true that we are a party of self-destructive fools who can’t find the real enemy half the time, but the backstabbing from her supposed allies will be worse than what her husband went through. You know how she drives some people crazy, well the dems won’t work with her on anything and the GOP will pounce just like they did in the 90′s.
3) I would counter claims of her political acumen in her 2 senate campaigns by pointing out that her opponents in her two senate campaigns have been lightweights. While she won election handily and re-election even more handily, she did it against nobodies in one of the bluest states in the union.
In summary, while I think she could win a national election, there’s enough venom within the democratic party to sink her in a primary. Those schmucks in Iowa still seem hung up on Edwards and Obama. Also, Kos, Arianna, and Molly will spend the next two years lifting the heavy water for the GOP campaign against her.
Cangrejero
Comment by Cangrejero — December 22, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
neilinvt, you might have a better chance at that chocolate if you were to post something other than your opinion. If I were running this thing, your post wouldn’t even qualify as an entry.
Funny how the most articulate arguements have thus far been presented by people who don’t hate Her.
Me, I don’t have an entry. While it’s true that the Dems will backstab Hillary like they did Bill, they’re going to do that no matter who the candidate is. And, unlike some Dems, I don’t think ambition is a bad thing. It’s a great fuel, and with a little booster in the tank called Revenge, it’s a great motive to win – and kick some butt along the way.
Comment by Peregrin — December 24, 2006 @ 1:03 am
OK, here goes.
I should preface this by saying that like others who have posted, I don’t hate Hillary. But I do love chocolate, especially good chocolate, and I’d like to try some of this South’s Finest stuff to see if it’s really that good. We had some Godiva and Lindt in the office yesterday, a holiday gift from our partners, and it was a very good day. Plus it doesn’t seem like there’s all that much competition, and who doesn’t like good odds?
I also would like to say that if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I will almost certainly vote for her. In this political environment, I can’t imagine voting for a non-Democratic candidate for national office in a race that matters. (More on that later.)
I know I’m not allowed to say “she can’t win.” So let me cheat a little. I’m not going to say she can’t win, because maybe, just maybe, she can. But I have the same feeling about Hillary that I had about John Kerry in 2003. I looked at him and I listened to him and I thought, “That man will never be president.” I think Hillary has a better shot than Kerry. But I still don’t think that shot is very good. So instead of “she can’t win,” I’ll say this: Other candidates are much more likely to win.
I can’t support Hillary as a candidate for the Democratic nomination because much of America hates her. They hate her because she’s a woman, mostly, and because she’s a career woman at that. There are other reasons — unlike her husband, she has trouble connecting with people, for example — but that’s the primary one. But sadly, it doesn’t matter why they hate her. All that matters is that poll after poll has shown that people have an extremely unfavorable gut reaction to her.
I’ve often said that you can fire every political consultant in America, because in a presidential race, the only thing that matters is which candidate is more likable. You know, the beer factor. Which candidate would you rather drink with? I’m not talking about who I would rather have over for dinner, just who the American public at large would. Let’s go back in time and see which candidates were considered better guys, shall we?
2004: Bush was perceived as friendlier, more down-to-earth and less intimidating than Kerry. Bush won.
2000: Bush was perceived as friendlier, more down-to-earth and less intimidating than Gore. Bush won.
1996: Clinton was perceived as friendlier and less out-of-touch than Dole. Clinton won.
1992: Clinton was perceived as friendlier and less out-of-touch than Bush. Clinton won.
1988: Bush was perceived as warmer and more genial than Dukakis. Bush won.
1984: Reagan was perceived as warmer and more genial than Mondale. Reagan won.
1980: Reagan was perceived as more charming than Carter. Reagan won.
1976: Carter was perceived as more charming than Ford. Carter won.
You have to go back to 1972 — 34 years and nine elections ago — to find a presidential election where the more likable candidate, George McGovern, lost to the guy people thought was a bigger asshole, Richard Nixon. Thirty-four years! And McGovern lost that race because people thought he was spacey and a little nuts, and don’t change horses in mid-stream and all that.
People seem to like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney. They know little of their politics, but politics, as I hope I’ve demonstrated, don’t matter. “Do I want to talk football with this guy?” matters. Is Hillary really going to be the one to break that cycle?
Yes, she’s got Bill Clinton. But she’s not Bill Clinton. She’s kind of icy and a mediocre-to-poor public speaker.
I honestly believe who-would-you-vote-for polls two years before the fact are quite inconsequential. People are total idiots and respond in the affirmative to anyone whose name they recognize. I remember around 1998, Dubya was winning all those polls in a landslide because even though nobody had ever heard of him, they thought he was his father. And nobody even liked his father!
So who else is there, you ask? Well, that’s what primaries are for. Who else was there in 1990? Certainly not an unknown governor of a small, backwards Southern state that was near last in every statistic that mattered and had laid a gigantic egg two years earlier in his first and only attempt to grab just a little piece of the national spotlight. You would have been laughed out of DC for thinking Bill Clinton had any chance of being President of the United States. But then people saw him, and they liked what they saw. I can’t say who that dark horse might be this time around — because it’s only 2006!
To add some “why I hate her” cred, I’ll leave you with this. I live in New York yet have never voted for Hillary. I voted for Rick Lazio in 2000 because I thought it was absurd that Hillary could just name a state to represent in Congress even though she’d never been associated with it in any way. In addition, I didn’t believe that being forced out of a policy role in the White House years earlier and being specifically kept out ever since was adequate experience to jump directly into the U.S. Senate. I would not have voted for, say, Tom Coburn against her, but most New York Republicans aren’t really Republicans in the traditional national sense. I also didn’t realize the importance of keeping Democratic control of Congress because the word “Republican” didn’t leave me with the same sense of dread and disgust that it does after six years of a Bush White House. This year, I didn’t vote for her because the race wasn’t competitive and I hoped against hope that she’d stay out of the presidential race if she won by a disappointingly low margin. (I couldn’t bring myself to vote for a Republican, though, so I voted for the Natural Law Party candidate. They believe in solving the world’s problems through transcendental meditation. Crazy! I pulled the same trick in 1998 when I was living in Illinois so I didn’t have to vote for oily Republican Peter Fitzgerald or practically indicted Carol Moseley-Braun.)
So can Hillary win? Maybe. But I’d rather see someone with a better chance try. I’ve been liking Barack Obama lately. He doesn’t have anywhere near enough national experience to be president. Good thing the American people aren’t going to care. They love him. And that’s all that matters.
Comment by masterofzen — December 28, 2006 @ 12:56 pm
Why Bart is Right
Or, why to not hate HER.
ALL democrats, when actually in office as President, will AGREE on our most fundamental tenants: 1) a woman’s righ to chose; 2) fairness between the races and sexes; 3) fairness towards the poor; 4) fiscal resposibility (ironic, isn’t it, that we can count on democrats to balance the budget, not republicans) and 5) international pluralism. We can count on HER, Obama, Clark, Edwards, and/or any of the contenders to appoint favorable Supreme Court Justices and sign favorable legislation and veto all the “partial birth” abortion bills the wing-nuts can throw at ‘em.
Do you really give a crap that SHE might make corporate tax rates 34% and the top 1% pay 35% because she is “pro big business” while Candidate X would make corporations and the rich pay 40% when both SHE and Candidate X will balance the budget and reduce the tax burden on middle-America? Do you really give a crap that SHE voted “yes” on the War when it is guaranteed that SHE and Candidate X will get us out of Iraq in short order if elected? (Nobody can say that SHE will keep us there.) Are “principles” that important?
The one thing SHE has proven, time and time again, that NO other democrat (aside from her husband), is that she is media savy and will fight back. No matter what Faux-news throws at her, she responds within 24 hours and comes out swinging. Meanwhile, Kerry, Gore, et al. are so busy shi&^ing their pants that they do nothing until it’s too late, the media echo-chamber has done its job, and the whole country believes that Kerry was a coward in Vietnam or Gore invented the internet.
It is a given that the media will constantly throw mud at the democratic candidate (while the republican candidate will be “impressive,” “moral,” a “family man,” and “someone you want to have a beer with”). ONLY a candidate that will fight back, and fight back hard, has a chance to get elected. SHE is the only one with a proven track record in this area to date.
Comment by SRT — December 29, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
With all the power Bush has given himself… and all the power that Clinton gave the office when he was there… I wouldn’t trust many people with all that power – especially someone who is just as much a part of the Bush Krime Family as her husband.
Bart – you are absolutely right that she will fight and win. I myself predict that (barring a revolution of sorts) that Hillary will be the next PUSA…
BUT – I can’t suppport someone just so I can say my team won. That’s what the Republicans do… and that’s why America is so fucked up.
At this stage in the game – with a fake war on terror… unlimited presidential power… and a brainwashed public… we need to elect ANYONE who will go balls to the wall setting things straight.
Hillary will NOT do anything close to setting things straight. She’ll even pardon Bush.
History tells me this much… Bush 41 wrote NAFTA and couldn’t get it passed… Clinton comes in and backs it – suddenly it’s GREAT.
But all that’s beside the point. Hillary will win and you can celebrate.
But between now and then, think about what the BFEE needs to accomplish and how Hillary can help them.
Comment by Elvis Oswald — January 3, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
Here’s a “more mainstream” response.
With all due respect… not backing Hillary at this stage is not “hating” her – unless this is a GOP website where dissenters are labeled as “unAmerican.”
The fact is that the race for 08 is a primary race at this time… and we should all support the best candidate. For my money Hillary is not the best candidate.
But…. if a good person ran and started winning, they’d “dean” them… or they’d shoot them.
I think we should realize that we will have the nominee (same with the GOP) that “they” want us to have… and “they” will win either way.
The only alternative is to *seriously* get behind an outsider and nominate them.
Of course they say an outsider can’t win… and I’m sure that’s why people support Hillary – it’s a “winning is all that matters” mentality. That’s the same reason why Republicans can vote for a transvestite like Rudy. And that’s the way it will be as long as both major parties have that attitude.
I say it’s time we stop settling for the lesser of two evils. And I’m not advocating a third party… that’s a sure way to have another idiot like Bush win. But we can damn sure make sure that one of the two majors have a real candidate nominated. And IMHO… Hillary is not the one.
One thing I’d like to here from Bart is why he didn’t back Dean. Dean was saying in 2004 what the Dems in congress (including Hillary) still won’t say.
Comment by Elvis Oswald — January 8, 2007 @ 6:15 pm