Can you explain? (political)

[rgraham666]

Why Bill and Hilary Clinton are hated so?

I've never understood how the mention of their names reduces people who are normally intelligent and somewhat balanced to foaming rage.

Thank you.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I'm probably the last person you want to hear from, but many of those you describe would ask the same about the Bush haters. When the Bush haters start citing chapter and verse, the Clinton haters will do the same, and off they both go.

I don't belong to either camp, so can't really help. I suspect it's a matter of pushing certain cultural buttons, though.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I don't feel foaming rage toward either of them. However, I am baffled by the public reception that Hillary Clinton receives, and by the silence on what has always seemed to me the most serious issue related to her.

When Vincent Foster shot himself to death, Hillary Clinton's response to the news was to enter his offices and begin shredding documents. I've never understood why she was not charged with obstructing justice; I've never comprehended how people could elect such a person to public office. Whatever I might think of her political platform in general, she has done a thing that no honest or innocent person would ever have done. She has taken actions that have no possible good explanation.

I don't hate her. I don't hate anyone, really, although there are people who exasperate me, and a few who sicken me. But I would never vote to elect her to public office. No more than I would vote for Bush after his toothless and craven shifting about on the topic of torture.

 

[3113]

I'm probably the last person you want to hear from, but many of those you describe would ask the same about the Bush haters. When the Bush haters start citing chapter and verse, the Clinton haters will do the same, and off they both go.

I think what Ron can't quite understand is why a president like Clinton, who--whatever else he did--left not only a balanced budget but a surplus in the bank, the economy good, the world respecting us, the constitution intact would get the same vitriol as Bush who has destroyed the budget, left us in debt, hurt our economy, ruined the world's respect for us and ripped apart the constitution.

I'm not calling Clinton a saint, he's not. Nor is Hillary. I'm not saying they didn't do funny stuff either. But if we're talking crimes, their evils aren't only lesser than those of Bush, they're miniscule by compare. Clinton did not involve us in a quagmire of a a war for five years and counting--one which we're now stuck in possibly for a long time. So...while the Clinton haters can shout "he lied" or "she shredded documents" or whatever...they can't shout: "He got us mired in a war that has killed thousands of people, destroyed a country, became a rallying cry for terrorists....."

Even if we ignore all that, getting down to brass tacks, why would you hate a president (Clinton) who left the country with money it could spend on itself--schools, health care, roads, tax breaks for businesses, public works, emergencies--more than a president who's removed all that money and sunk it into an unwinable, unprovoked foreign war leaving us with a lot of bills?

It may be easy for you to say, "oh, the Clinton haters are just like the Bush haters, la-de-dah!" but frankly...it's nonsense. Because any crime Clinton committed can't hold a candle to just that ONE fact of how Bush has wasted OUR money. That, alone, makes the comparison ridiculous.

 

[rgraham666]

I don't feel foaming rage toward either of them. However, I am baffled by the public reception that Hillary Clinton receives, and by the silence on what has always seemed to me the most serious issue related to her.

When Vincent Foster shot himself to death, Hillary Clinton's response to the news was to enter his offices and begin shredding documents. I've never understood why she was not charged with obstructing justice; I've never comprehended how people could elect such a person to public office. Whatever I might think of her political platform in general, she has done a thing that no honest or innocent person would ever have done. She has taken actions that have no possible good explanation.

I don't hate her. I don't hate anyone, really, although there are people who exasperate me, and a few who sicken me. But I would never vote to elect her to public office. No more than I would vote for Bush after his toothless and craven shifting about on the topic of torture.

Didn't know that about Hilary, Shang. Thanks.

 

[Recidiva]

Why Bill and Hilary Clinton are hated so?

I've never understood how the mention of their names reduces people who are normally intelligent and somewhat balanced to foaming rage.

Thank you.

I'd say the basic underpinnings here are the basis behind his nickname "Slick Willie"

Just too clever for his own good, too glib, unfaithful and lied about sex. Really "That depends on what your definition of "IS" is" is right up there with George Bush's "The French don't have a word for Entrepreneur."

Hillary Clinton is someone I can't vote for, because in the midst of a war, she decided she had spare time to go on a "crusade" against video games.

I don't get the foaming rage on either side, but they surely have had some extremely messed up career moves.

 

[rgraham666]

Thanks all. Food to think about.

For the record, I don't hate Bush. Hatred is an addicting emotion. Being addicted causes your mind to do strange things. Addiction is deadly to yourself and others.

I've already had my addiction problems. Never again.

 

[cloudy]

Thanks all. Food to think about.

For the record, I don't hate Bush. Hatred is an addicting emotion. Being addicted causes your mind to do strange things. Addiction is deadly to yourself and others.

I've already had my addiction problems. Never again.

I don't hate Bush. I hate his actions, and I hate what his actions have caused. There's a rather large difference between hating the person and hating what he's done.

I rather suspect that if I knew him, I'd find him likable. Doesn't change the fact that what he's done is abhorrent.

 

[elsol]

I think it's this...

Liars hate better liars.

My only problem with Bill is Monica... come on, you're the President of the United States, at least a Vickie's model.

 

[rgraham666]

I don't hate Bush. I hate his actions, and I hate what his actions have caused. There's a rather large difference between hating the person and hating what he's done.

I rather suspect that if I knew him, I'd find him likable. Doesn't change the fact that what he's done is abhorrent.

Hmmm. I'm not sure I could separate a person from their actions. Actions speak too much about the person.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think what Ron can't quite understand is why a president like Clinton, who--whatever else he did--left not only a balanced budget but a surplus in the bank, the economy good, the world respecting us, the constitution intact would get the same vitriol as Bush who has destroyed the budget, left us in debt, hurt our economy, ruined the world's respect for us and ripped apart the constitution.

I'm not calling Clinton a saint, he's not. Nor is Hillary. I'm not saying they didn't do funny stuff either. But if we're talking crimes, their evils aren't only lesser than those of Bush, they're miniscule by compare. Clinton did not involve us in a quagmire of a a war for five years and counting--one which we're now stuck in possibly for a long time. So...while the Clinton haters can shout "he lied" or "she shredded documents" or whatever...they can't shout: "He got us mired in a war that has killed thousands of people, destroyed a country, became a rallying cry for terrorists....."

Even if we ignore all that, getting down to brass tacks, why would you hate a president (Clinton) who left the country with money it could spend on itself--schools, health care, roads, tax breaks for businesses, public works, emergencies--more than a president who's removed all that money and sunk it into an unwinable, unprovoked foreign war leaving us with a lot of bills?

It may be easy for you to say, "oh, the Clinton haters are just like the Bush haters, la-de-dah!" but frankly...it's nonsense. Because any crime Clinton committed can't hold a candle to just that ONE fact of how Bush has wasted OUR money. That, alone, makes the comparison ridiculous.

What you fail to appreciate is that a large segment of our population believes that cultural issues are more important than even ones of peace and prosperity, because the latter class are transient while the former reverberate through the ages and into futue generations.

I'm in an odd position because I also appreciate the vital importance of cultural issues ("values"), but the personal and social virtues and vices I recognize as being critical don't happen to be those that move the segment of the population from which the Clinton haters arose. For example, they think blow jobs are per se vice (at least when parties other than married man and woman). The "sin" that cranked me up in that instance was the objectification and exploitation inherent in such an assymetrical power relationship, and of course the inherent dishonesty of hidden adultery. But I'm still not a hater.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hmmm. I'm not sure I could separate a person from their actions. Actions speak too much about the person.

"by their deeds shall you know them," I agree.

I might hate the actions more than the man-- but all I know of the man are his actions, and they are reprehensible.

 

[jomar]

I think part of the bad image was they sort of lived like rock stars, entitlement issues and all (they cleared out the white house when they left - legal, but tasteless). Then the Whitewater scandal, Foster (even a whiff of culpability on that one if I recall correctly). The stuff Clinton said with a straight face boggled the mind - "I never inhaled" Also the power marriage that has weird dynamics was off-putting.

The Lewinsky thing was surreal. Kennedy may have gotten laid a lot more, but that was a different day and time so no worldwide disgrace. And that's where a lot of people probably react from - the morality issue gets them going and overrides all the positive thinks he did.

So lets see. The Reagan's were royalty, the Clinton's rock stars... I guess Bush is...bungling court jester?

 

[writelove]

The Office of the Presidency has some obligations.

I am not angry with Bill about any number of dalliences with women. My problem was the abuse of power, the way his desires overcame him, and he covered them up by destroying women -- Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, etc. It was Kathleen that was the worst perhaps. See http://www.alamo-girl.com/0262.htm

The list of abuse of power goes on and on -- the use of FBI information, the postal workers scandal, etc etc.

Add to that the arrogance of the haircut on the airport runway, lies under oath, the list is extensive.

Bush is equally onerous. His Patriot Act was the final nail in the coffin, forever burying our civil liberties. He is one of four presidents that I know of that eliminated habeas corpus -- Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Roosevelt, and of course Bush. All these presidents violated their oath of office which was to protect the constitution.

But why the perplexity. Shouldn't we know that the government is not our friend. The entire goal of the constitution was to limit government, the federal government most of all. Our precious elected officials have systematically destroyed all of this.

The only thing truly valuable in this country is our people, the man and woman on the street who toil every day, glancing with pride at the flag hanging in the corner of an office, dusting it off on Memorial Day, hands over heart at a ball game to say the pledge of allegiance, fighting with others in foreign countries to protect unknown liberties that have become somewhat meaningless.

I do not mean to be so effusive. This is indeed an area that angers me. It is all about nine men who failed their calling, who gave up the country to the men in congress.

 

[More_Than_Magic]

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." At this point, I have trouble believing there is anyone out there who would run for president that I would want in the position on the basis of who they are. Therefore I simply look at the job they do/did. Clinton therefore did a decent job and Bush, not so much.

 

[rgraham666]

I was talking to my mom on the phone last night. She'd been to see the movie Sicko and related this interesting tidbit.

Michael Moore was speaking with an expatriate American in France and this woman said the following thing.

"In France, the government is afraid of the people. In America it's the other way around."

As I said, interesting.

 

[cumallday]

I wouldn't vote for her, but I would fuck her. Hillary whets my "mature" appetite. I'd also do Chelsea, but only to make Hillary jealous.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Some of the things the Clintons did while in office did also ring a bit personally for me. My uncle died while in Navy, on a training flight that went wrong. My grandparents were told that he could not be buried in Arlington National Cemetary, as the space was limited and was reserved for persons who had died in combat. That was understandable. What was sickening was to learn that President Clinton had attempted to trade plots in that cemetary for political favors and fundraising. It was difficult not to take a bit personally.

 

[Stella_Omega]

So lets see. The Reagan's were royalty, the Clinton's rock stars... I guess Bush is...bungling court jester?

Pinnoccio. On strings.

 

[Penelope Street]

Pinnoccio. On strings.

And the ego grows instead of the nose.