DawonHawkins
Sixty Spring (Downtown Columbus)
Login to Send PM
For some reason, right-wingers seem to go red in the face at the meer mention of Hillary Clinton's name...and for what reason?
Not that I'm suggesting anything about her as a candidate, I'm just curious about other's thoughts on the subject. Is she that radical? Is it because she's a woman of power? What threat does she pose?
It seems she's definitely struck quite a few political cords, enough for people to feel more strongly about her than any of the other candidates.
Mercurius
First Avenue
Login to Send PM
I don't know. Most of the Republicans I know love her because she will cause republicans to turnout at the polls in droves. I think it has to do with those social conservatives not liking her placidness in her husband’s affair and assuming it was a power marriage.
drew
Login to Send PM
I've heard plenty of Dems express displeasure with her as well. Partly because of what Mercurius mentioned (she'll increase righty turnout), partly out of a visceral reaction to the 'shrillness' of her personality, and partly out of a sense that she might not be as committed a liberal as some of the others.
ChrisSunami
King-Lincoln District
Login to Send PM
I'm a hardcore liberal and I dislike Hillary because she seems to live and die around political expediency. Unfortunately those words also seem to describe pretty much everyone else who's running this year --or at least if you disregard no-prayer-of-victory candidates like Kucinich.
Although, on rereading your question, I see that you're really asking why conservatives respond so strongly to her. Yet that answer seems pretty clear: She's a woman and she's a Clinton.
In order for conservatives to embrace a female candidate, she'd have to be the ultra-conservative, feminine-presenting widow of a beloved male conservative.
DawonHawkins
Sixty Spring (Downtown Columbus)
Login to Send PM
...so its not a question of political standing, but its her circumstances?
hazy stars
The Brauhaus
Login to Send PM
I was recently asked a similar question this weekend. Apparently, Hillary does not score high on the single women Democrats list.
Behavior analysis is "my thing" (and a large part of my job).
Hillary is my current preference, but I can understand why people do not like her. I grew up in NY and was pissed as hell when she ran for Senate. It angered me that someone from Arkansas could pick any state to run for office -- just by playing the "first lady" card. After time, she proved herself and actually won me over.
The problem with Hillary is that she is not a great reflection of the typical woman. She has been playing with the big boys in a man's world for too long and is missing a feminine softness. She has a hardness to her, of which I respect. Yet, she never seems to struggle with any of the tribulations facing the every day woman. This makes it hard for many woman to relate to Hillary. She is in a way robot-like; unplagued by menopause, weight issues etc...
Of course people want their leader to be strong and powerful. But, we also want the human aspect. We want our leader to be charismatic and likeable. Stereotype or not, women are connectors and relate more to others on an emotional level. (Disclaimer: I have a Psychology degree, however it does not make me an expert and anyone is free to argue me on this point or any that I have made thus far).
I think Hillary is missing the emotional appeal. Which is not her strong suit and might not be the best tactic for her. Her strength and almost "asexual" appeal is one reason why many men find her to be a credible candidate. (Afterall, Bill is the charismatic one right?)
This is just one thought and viewpoint. Hope it helps.
Tigertree
771 N. High St.
Login to Send PM
I think it has to do with Americans' tired of electing the establishment. She's got someone pulling ever appendage one direction or another. We need a candidate that can be true to the office. I mean, there isn't one, I am not saying there is. I would say that she has more people pulling the strings than anyone else in the race though. As for the republican side of things? I think it has to do with Bill Clinton being such a popular president. They are probably a little intimidated of getting that sort of power back in office again.
HeySquare
German Village
Login to Send PM
Just for clarity's sake, I'm a moderate liberal in my political belief system.
She fundamentally annoys me... the rhetoric of the day, the carpetbagging... she reads to me as a political opportunist, with no real agenda, simply a reaction to a mistake anyone else makes, an empty promise to "clean up" some problem... one that she's likely voted for in the past. It all seems so shamelessly self-aggrandizing.
columbus native
Columbus the indie art capital of the world
Login to Send PM
I don't know I think she stands a valid chance!
Electric Pigeon
The Power Running Capital of the World
Login to Send PM
Ms. Clinton's moderate views will never gain her a shred of credibility with the hardcore right, because she has been the easiest drum to beat since 1992. from Mr. Clinton's election, she has been vilified as hyper-liberal. Her secretive health care plans (lambasted as pure Socialism) coincided with her husband's most liberal years (esp. re: gun control). Her smarmy mien did her no favors. To this day, then, every moderate plank she espouses can only be pure window dressing, so she can take over the government and turn the town red.
*The above message was brought to you by a childhood awash in The Limbaugh Letter. Ach, Gott!*
Brewmaster
Portland, OR
Login to Send PM
I wouldn't say I hate her. "Dislike" is probably a better term.
I'd say that the trait that I dislike most is her cold nature. Our country needs a uniting, inspirational leader who can motivate us...she's clearly not that. She's on the record as saying things like, "I've fought those people [referring to republicans] for years!". We don't need that rhetoric. That's why I'm in the Obama camp right now. I'd be happy to see Romney at a candidate as well.
We need JFK, not Truman. Both decent presidents, just different styles.
VictorianGate
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
One of the biggest qualms I have with liberals in general is the unfair re-distrubution of wealth. Hillary wants the entire country to have health care? Canada can't make it work with only 20 million people. How would anyone in the right mind think that it would run smoothly with 300 million? Any idea how much that is going to cost or who is going to pay for it? I guess I know who is going to pay for it.. all of us... with an huge tax increase. For every tax dollar that is taken from me already I curse. Anymore and I might intentially get canned from work, collect government handouts, and take an under the table dishwashing position.
spacernglr
Login to Send PM
HeySquare wrote Just for clarity's sake, I'm a moderate liberal in my political belief system.She fundamentally annoys me... the rhetoric of the day, the carpetbagging... she reads to me as a political opportunist, with no real agenda, simply a reaction to a mistake anyone else makes, an empty promise to "clean up" some problem... one that she's likely voted for in the past. It all seems so shamelessly self-aggrandizing.
I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal but I don't like her for the same reasons Square mentioned. Her rationalizations of her support for the Iraq war almost sicken me. First she stood by her choice to support the war, then she regretted it, then she voted again to support war funding, then she voted to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Is this back and forth what we should expect from a president?
I like Obama and McCain for the same reason, they both have been consistent about Iraq even though they differ completely on how to proceed. We need a strong leader who can unite; not a flip-flopping opportunist with no vision, credibility and Martha Stuart vibe I find downright creepy.
HeySquare
German Village
Login to Send PM
spacernglr wrote I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal but I don't like her for the same reasons Square mentioned. Her rationalizations of her support for the Iraq war almost sicken me. First she stood by her choice to support the war, then she regretted it, then she voted again to support war funding, then she voted to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Is this back and forth what we should expect from a president?I like Obama and McCain for the same reason, they both have been consistent about Iraq even though they differ completely on how to proceed. We need a strong leader who can unite; not a flip-flopping opportunist with no vision, credibility and Martha Stewart vibe I find downright creepy.
Right on. Nice to feel like I'm not alone.
At least Martha provides a consistent product. I open her magazine, I know what I'm going to get. I can't say the same about Hillary.
BUTerrier
Grandview
Login to Send PM
Say what you want about George Bush, but he is a man of principles. He could have easily pulled out of Iraq when his favorable ratings declined, but instead he stood for what he believed in no matter how we will remember his presidency. You can't say the same for Hillary.
Brewmaster
Portland, OR
Login to Send PM
BUTerrier wrote Say what you want about George Bush, but he is a man of principles. He could have easily pulled out of Iraq when his favorable ratings declined, but instead he stood for what he believed in no matter how we will remember his presidency. You can't say the same for Hillary.
This reminds me of an interview I saw on TV with two presidential historians (I know, I'm a total nerd). Here's the basic summary:
- People want their president to be steadfast, but they also want him/her to be right (see: lincoln, FDR, washington). It's far worse to be steadfast and be wrong (LBJ), than to admit you were wrong and fix it (JFK - Bay of Pigs).
- Presidents make thousands of decisions each day, so you'd expect that there would be some that are botched. A good president will surround himself with enough diverse viewpoints so that he/she realizes when the wrong decision needs to be corrected.
Bush appears (today) to have failed b/c he's too steadfast and surrounded himself with the same types of thinkers. I think Clinton may err too much on the other side (i.e. doing whatever is politically convenient at the time). I see Edwards as having the same attitude as Bush (insular and stubborn), but on the other side of the philosophical spectrum. I actually think Obama and Romney would bring a good balance to the table.
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus. Click here to visit TheMetropreneur.com.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
