Why do certain people absolutely abhor Hillary Clinton?

she seems like a lot of politicians to me--a little stiff and awkward, a little distant maybe. but that doesn't really make her stand out in the context of the senate.

i don't speak the english so good these days

And fair enough too. Bonking Bill may have become President without becoming a Republican first (always a big no-no) but at least he wasn't a recalcitrant First Lady.

I am failing to understand. Fundementalists do get twitchy at the thought of individual choice - if, by fundamentalists, you are referring to Christian fundementalists.
Christians being the only group that didn't make your -ist list.
Love her or hate her - Hilary is history.

i thought this had to do with a certain sexual position...

you finally figured out what those bidets are for, then?

you sure that he wasn't talking about Jeb Bush? i.e., why are right-wingers so quick to accuse democrats of plotting to do PRECISELY WHAT THE RIGHT-WINGERS ARE DOING?!?*

(* -- that's a rhetorical question)

Yes and i agree. he's a great guy - but he's conservative for all the wrong reasons. Actually, i should amend that - he's a small business owner who is fiscally conservative but is very liberal on social issues.Abortion, gay marriage - the hot button issues.
he's....deluded. Dynastic impulses are only for the Clintons - he does admit that the Bush family is just a tiny bit dynastic, but then throws the Kennedy's into the mix. We agree to disagree. because - who fucking cares? he is not benefitting from this administration, nor am I. i, at least, have the wisdom to see the source of the rot and choose to cut it out. He naively believes that the rotten core will somehow benefit him.
I'm already poor, so i have nothing to lose. he stands to lose everything.

I'm fucking serious about this too. The US needs a kick in the pants, and who better than Hilary and Oprah to deliver it. Hilary's hard edge for most people would be blunted by the fact that everyone loves Oprah(except most snobs). I bet an endorsement from Oprah would even get people to look at Hilary in a new light.

hm

I am referring to fundamentalists of all kinds including those 'isms' I listed. It matters not a sod what they are fundamentalist about.

They are all full of the same 'with us or against us' sanctimonious self-righteous arrogant bulldust. They all see themselves as their own particular -ism's gatekeepers and upholders and definers of ideological purity, as of course exemplified by themselves.

Unfortunately in any social or intellectual or political movement or group, they are an inevitable reality of group dynamics.

Long have I admired her, from afar.

My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life.

i am beyond it, but you don't see me bragging about it.

oops...

How can you predict that?

― Treeship, Monday, April 13, 2015 8:08 PM (5 minutes ago)

HRC will have a much easier time uniting her party and getting out the vote than any GOP candidate will. she has basically no plausible challengers this time and is overwhelmingly popular with the democratic base.

15 out of 16 over 60 years is what I'd call an undeniably significant statistical pattern

not sure about this tho. 16 is a very small sample size.

the stolen election of 2000 kinda messes that up. xxxp

is overwhelmingly popular with the democratic base.

dunno about this

If the Super Bowl had followed such an obvious pattern over 16 years (rather than 60) everybody would talk about it like it was a thing.

all going to come down to who can most effectively slander their opponent.

really the truth would be enough in a sane world.

let's try to keep it to why HRC and Hillaryites are so loathsome in this thread.

like if the every second superbowl over 16 years alternated between an NFC and AFC team? i can't imagine anyone would make anything of that?

are you joking?

Anyway, via pattern, good old Al Gore is off the hook for letting that election get close enough to steal. Romney & Kerry & Mondale & Dole can be understood as the sacrificial offerings they ran their campaigns like. And so on.

joking about what? whether 16 is too small a sample size to declare any trend statistically significant? (it is.) or whether alternating superbowls would garner attention? (maybe, idk. what kind of attention? what conclusions could you possibly draw from that kind of thing?)

omg can we not do the sports analogy thing

Her abysmal foreign policy positions alone should disqualify her. So should her fealty to the Trans Pacific Partnership (which I can see the right transforming into a left bugaboo just like they did with "Keystone"). What I imagine to be her devotion to corporate dough/policies is probably her husband's fault more than Mrs. Walmart's.

Eh. I disrupted a date three weeks ago when the conversation turned to the Clintons and after only one drink I called Bubba "Reagan, Jr." The dude supported 'welfare reform' so I guess he deserved it.

It is nothing more than a sport; don't you watch TV? (The BBC World Service treats it this way too, at least last night.) xp

Kerry came awfully close to winning for a sacrificial lamb.

what do you call Bubba after three drinks, I wonder

xp

But the entire number of presidential elections we've ever had is probably "too small a sample size" too, right? So best to ignore rather obvious patterns?

No snark intended: I simply disagree on the Super Bowl bit, given that sports people obsess over every statistical pattern they can find. Something that obvious would attract notice I believe. (I'm more familiar with baseball, you know, hits .328 against left-handers in road games kind of talk).

can we run Poppy Bush instead of HRC?

do you know they called GHWB 'Poppy' at Yale in the '40s? wtf does Poppy mean?

heroin connection

The Bushes are The Poppy Family. Where Evil Grows.

http://ak8.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/3952640/preview/stock-footage-field-of-red-poppy-flowers-in-early-summer-w-fisheye.jpg

poppers

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/140118161729-george-h-w-bush-ns-duke-basketball-story-top.jpg

My babysitter from when I was 5 just invoked Vincent Foster on Facebook.

I CALL YE FROM THE VASTY DEEP, VINCE FOSTER

Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House.

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

At 5:00 p.m. (yesterday), the Clinton campaign was holding a Washington, D.C. fundraiser with the McGuireWoods law firm’s PAC. According to lobby registration documents, the firm’s McGuireWoods Consulting subsidiary is lobbying on behalf of Smithfield Foods to help pass both the TPP and TPA.

Despite mounting pressure to take a position, Clinton has only provided non-commital answers regarding her stance on both TPP and TPA. On Sunday, at a rally in Iowa, Clinton said there should be better protections for American workers and called for the president to work with Democrats in Congress — hardly a clarifying statement. Earlier that day, her chief pollster dismissed a call from ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos to provide a clear stance on TPA, casting the issue as simply “Washington inside baseball.”

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/18/congress-scrambles-reschedule-trade-promotion-vote-clintons-campaign-hosts-fundraiser-tpp-lobbying-firm/

The Hillary Clinton emails released last week include some telling exchanges about the June 2009 military coup that toppled democratically elected Honduran president Manuel Zelaya, a leftist who was seen as a threat by the Honduran establishment and U.S. business interests.

At a time when the State Department strategized over how best to keep Zelaya out of power while not explicitly endorsing the coup, Clinton suggested using longtime Clinton confidant Lanny Davis as a back-channel to Roberto Micheletti, the interim president installed after the coup.

During that period, Davis was working as a consultant to a group of Honduran businessmen who had supported the coup.

In an email chain discussing a meeting between Davis and State Department officials, Clinton asked, “Can he help me talk w Micheletti?”

Davis rose to prominence as an adviser to the Clintons during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and has since served as a high-powered “crisis communications” adviser to a variety of people and organizations facing negative attention in the media, from scandal-plagued for-profit college companies to African dictators. His client list has elicited frequent accusations of hypocrisy.

Davis was not the only foreign agent with access to Clinton. As The Guardian and Politico have reported, other emails point to lobbyists with direct access to Clinton’s personal email.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/06/clinton-honduras-coup/

sadly, this doesn't surprise me in the least.

even more sadly, i doubt all that many people would care, since it won't factor into the partisan horse race.

i don't know if it was just the milieu i grew up in (during the reagan years, largely), but i seem to remember people caring about latin america--and US involvement in it--more once upon a time.

yeah but see the right doesn't give a shit about toppled regimes. It wants BENGAHZI questions.

right, that's my point.

maybe i misunderstand but sounds to me like State didn't have access to the interim president which suggests they were not intimately involved w/ the coup itself

As they say about omelets, you can't manage a global empire without breaking a few third world countries.

the scandal here is that she used a lobbyist w/ an unsavory reputation to try and make contact w/ the interim president of Honduras following a coup, not that she broke a third world country

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/hillary-clinton-honduraslatinamericaforeignpolicy.html

mordy, it's obvious that she gave tacit support to an illegal coup and the subsequent dubious "election" that occurred against the wishes of the regional and international community

there's a big difference between 'tactic' support for a coup and actually fomenting one yrself, and Hillary asking to be put in touch w/ Micheletti is mostly indicative of how out of touch w/ the coup State was.

tacit support for an illegal coup is still bad

Mordy, why did you put the word 'tactic' in scare quotes when i actually typed the word 'tacit'

and did you not read the part about how the State Dep't celebrated the dubious election as a "victory for democracy" despite that the fact that most regional and international observers thought it was a travesty?

sometimes i can't tell whether you're just trolling or if you even know yourself. but in any case you should read the linked article carefully before you start to argue about it.

it was a typo i meant to quote u directly

i read the linked article. the State Dep't celebrated the fact that there was a record turnout as well and framed their happiness w/ the results in terms of the ppl of Honduras democratically repudiating Zelaya. it's telling that not insinuating secret conspiracies is "trolling."

again, who were you arguing w/?

nobody is saying that tacitly supporting a coup is the same as actively fomenting one

so i guess we can say that in this case hillary clinton re. honduras was better than, i dunno, JFK re. cuba (or name your interventionist moment here)

but how does that let her off the hook? why does that make her eagerness to embrace a government installed by a coup any less odious?

you obviously are trolling or you are terrifically dense

the eagerness by the state dept to 'celebrate' the election goes against the evidence that it was an improper election

it's pretty obvious that clinton was concerned about the results of the election rather than its credibility as a democratic election (the turnout figures were produced by the coup regime and were questioned by most authorities)

i mean in a sense this is just the sort of cynical realpolitik you'd expect from the state dept and i doubt many of her predecessors would have done anything different

that doesn't mean it's not news, though

what are you arguing again?

"As they say about omelets, you can't manage a global empire without breaking a few third world countries." << this is what I was replying to which implies a much greater hand in the coup than what this scoop says.

well in a sense that's right, b/c if the USA had signalled their displeasure w/ the coup and not reached out to those who orchestrated it, it might have shifted the balance. certainly the coup leaders would have lost more credibility.

by her own standards, off to prison with her.

It turns out that at least two of the emails which traversed Hillary Clinton’s personal email account and server were “top secret,” according to the inspector general for the Intelligence Community as reported by McClatchy. To describe that as reckless is an understatement given that, as AP notes, “There is no evidence she used encryption to shield the emails or her personal server from foreign intelligence services or other potentially prying eyes.” The FBI has now taken possession of that server....

It goes without saying that the U.S. government wildly overclassifies almost everything it touches, even the most benign information. As former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden said in 2010, “Everything’s secret. I mean, I got an email saying ‘Merry Christmas.’ It carried a top secret NSA classification marking.”

For that reason, almost all of these prosecutions for mishandling classified information have been wildly overzealous, way out of proportion to any harm they caused or could have caused, certainly out of proportion to the actual wrongdoing.

But that’s an argument that Hillary Clinton never uttered in order to object as people’s lives and careers were destroyed and they were hauled off to prison. To the contrary, she more often than not defended it, using rationale that, as it turns out, condemned herself and her own behavior at least as much as those whose persecution she was defending.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/12/hillary-clinton-sanctity-protecting-classified-information/

by a lesbian feminist in a lgbt newspaper

http://gaycitynews.nyc/hillary-vaginal-vote-best-identity-politics-ever/

HILLARY went to see BETTE in HELLO, DOLLY! last night. Where's [redacted] when you need 'em?

[Al Smith]?

Al... for sure