Hillary Clinton remains the favorite to be the Democratic presidential nominee at their August 2008 convention in Denver. However, while most Dems view her positively, she's unpopular with Independents and Republicans. This is called "the Hillary problem," but it's really "the Bill problem."
The other night my wife and I went out to dinner and had a conversation with a British couple at the next table. When talk turned to politics, the English woman ranted at length about Hillary Clinton: made it clear that she thought Hillary would make a terrible President. We weren't surprised; almost every time we have an extended conversation with Brits, we find that they have negative feelings about the junior Senator from New York.
Unfortunately for Senator Clinton, a lot of Americans don't care for her, either. The latest CBS News/New York Times Poll indicates that 42 percent of respondents have a "not favorable" opinion of Ms. Clinton, versus only 38 percent who have a "favorable" rating. Since Hillary announced her candidacy for President, her "unfavorable" percentage has consistently topped her "favorable" rating. This accounts for the perception that Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure. It's the reason that many Democratic Party insiders are backing other candidates such as Barack Obama and John Edwards.
Despite her divisive reputation, it's widely acknowledged that Senator Clinton is very smart and has been extremely effective in the Senate. So, there's a huge discrepancy between public perception and her actual performance. Judging from our dinner conversation the other night – and similar chats we've had with Hillary bashers – the Senator's unfavorable ratings have little to do with her record of accomplishment over the last six years: it's emotional.
The strong negative feelings about Senator Clinton focus on her role as Bill's wife: they date back to the Clinton relationship during the Monica Lewinsky imbroglio. Those who dislike Hillary don't approve of the way she responded to Bill's priapic escapades. As a result, they don't trust her. Our dinner companion asserted that Hillary should have divorced Bill; her logic was if she couldn't control her husband, she wouldn't be able to control the country.
This faulty reasoning – Hillary was an imperfect wife and therefore would be a bad President – seems a particularly insidious form of sexism. It applies standards to Hilary that haven't been applied to our previous Presidents: we've had a number of White House occupants – John Kennedy, for one – who weren't "perfect" husbands. Nonetheless, there's a certain cultural logic in this thinking.
Because Bill and Hillary Clinton are very public figures, there's been a lot of media speculation about their relationship: rumors that Hillary is a lesbian and that she and Bill have a secret deal to go their separate ways sexually, but to support each other politically. But, of course, there's another, simpler explanation as to why they stay together: Hillary loves Bill and she's committed to the relationship despite his misadventures. Having met Bill and Hillary it's easy to imagine why she sticks with the former President: he's a charmer.
While it's possible to overstate the impact of the Clinton's relationship on Hillary's favorability ratings, there seem to be three separate things going on that affect public perception of the Senator: first, the Clinton's have brought this on by deciding that both of them will be politicians. It's a relatively unique situation: the only comparable, current American political couple is Bob and Elizabeth "Liddy" Dole. Laura Bush's favorability ratings far outshine those of her husband; but she's not a politician, rather a high-profile wife in what appears to be a strange traditional marriage.
However, Bill and Hillary don't have a traditional marriage. While Hillary has gone out of her way to emphasize her role as Chelsea's mother and Bill's wife, she fits the conservative stereotype of the liberated woman and that's a flashpoint for many Americans. As much as those of us on the left coast support the idea of the "modern" marriage – where both spouses work and share family responsibilities – the reality is that most Americans idealize the traditional marriage, where dad "brings home the bacon" and mom is a homemaker.
Nonetheless, the basic problem with Hillary Clinton's popularity is not her modern marriage but her spouse. Bill's favorability ratings consistently top those of his wife. It's easy to understand why: both Clintons are smart and gracious, but he has charisma. The former President has that ineffable quality that makes you believe he wants you to be his special friend. He's a charmer, while Hillary is not. As a result, many folks who adore Bill find Hillary cold by comparison. Behind this lurks the reality that a lot of Americans who are captivated by the former President are deeply troubled by his ethical imperfections. However, they have trouble holding him accountable; so they blame Hillary. Their adoration follows a peculiar sexist logic: they conclude that Bill is much too nice to be fully responsible for his peccadilloes; therefore, Hillary must have driven him to them. That's the formula that affects Ms. Clinton's poll ratings: good Bill, bad Hillary.
Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer and Quaker actvist. He is particularly interested in progressive morality and writes frequently on the ethical aspects of political and social issues.
The author has it all wrong. I and most of the Democrats that I talk to see very little difference between the Republicans and Hillary. She pushed the war in Iraq just as much as Bush did. She even voted against an amendment that would demand diplomacy and further inspections in Iraq. Now, she is pushing, just as Bush is, toward a war with Iran. She is just as much of a war monger as Bush is. That is why, for the first time in my voting history, I will not vote for a Presidential candidate if Hillary is selected by the Democrats. I will, however, vote for progressive candidates who run for Congress.
by
Helen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 11:03:57 AM
has far more to do with Hillary's reaction to Bill's announcement to his inner circle (Sept 29,1992) that he would betray the interest of environmentalist and labor in return for corporate money for his support of the NAFTA treason, than her reaction to Bill's other betrayal. I am no more willing to support Wal-Mart's bitch now, than I was to support either Skull and Bones' candidate last time.
by
Samuel Bryan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 141 comments)
on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 12:46:48 PM
Right on Helen..If there was such as thing as a Democrat Republican, those two would be top of the list.
I couldn't care less what either do in their personal relationship but I do care about the decisions that they make, and have made, that adversly affect the people of this country. Bill C. is a Bilderberg member (since 1991) and Hillary C. was the first sitting First Lady to ever attend a Bilderberg meeting.. The Bilderberg Group is made up of the most powerful global Corporate elite. They both represent Corporate and what we don't need is more of Corporate running our country, writing our legislation, and continuing the decimation of our Constitution, and every known freedom we have had not to mention the destruction of our standing throughout the Global community.
Throughout our history, Corporate guile driven aggressive actions, using the U.S., installing puppet goverments in foreign countries has all been to further their greed. Millions upon millions dead, thought no more of than a means to their ends. How long are we going to keep our heads in the sand and let this continue?
If Hillary were the only one on the ballot I would not vote for her or any of the front runners that are being pushed into our faces of either party. In my estimation we only have one person so far that is totally consistant to the values that the American people hold dear and his record speaks to that. That person is Dennis Kucinich. He is one that is not bought and paid for and won't be. I sincerely feel he is the one that would truly represent the people and would tirelessly work to undo the harm that has been done not only here but globally as well. We don't hear a whole lot about him and I think that it is because Corporate knows they can't use him to do their bidding. I think he shows tremendous courage to be willing to take on the task since those before him that have tried have met untimely deaths (as have many patriotic whistle blowers).
The transparency of corruption and Corporate control that has come about during the years of this Bush administration, not only within the administration but also within the House and Senate, should be a wake up call as to how blatantly sure of themselves and their takeover of our country they are.
We still have a chance to take our country back by electing only those with records that stand up to close inspection. If we don't, we may never have that chance again. It is not a matter of party, it is a matter of values..integrity, honesty, morality, ethics, humanity and deep love of country and what it could and should stand for by those that are willing to fly in the face of Corporation domination.
Think carefully, research fully and let the spin we are deluged by with the no news media and the bought and paid for spin-masters go in one ear and out the other. Do not allow them to do your thinking or make your decisions. They want a one party system? Fine! Lets make it the American People Party... This is Our Country..lets take it back !
by
Rae (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 221 comments)
on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 1:31:31 PM
You need to do a bit more research beyond speaking to English couples at the table next to you in restaurants to understand why Ms. Clinton is so unpopular. I realize that you do not pretend to be a pundit or paid politico, but this is not Peyton Place. If you are going to write about politics, at least pretend to be serious.
Reasons to dislike Ms. Clinton:
1. She is the most decidedly pro-war of the three major candidates (including Edwards and Obama). She is the only one of the three who refuses to rule out nuking Iran (although the other two support more conventional bombing). She supports more military build-ups. She attacked Edwards for at least calling the war on terror what it is, an advertising slogan. Try to remember that more than 80 percent of the country wants withdrawal from Iraq, while she takes about "re-deployments" and other nonsense.
2. She is friends with Rupert Murdoch, and accepts his support openly. Ok, not everyone knows this, but it is reason to despise her.
3. She is an even bigger liar than her husband, which is saying something fairly extreme. This characteristic shows in her every word and deed. She is simply not to be believed. (Before C. Hitchens went right wing, he wrote a funny book on this topic, "Nothing Left to Lie About," which details the couple's inability to speak the truth.)
4. If the job were not already taken, she could be considered the "Senator from Tel Aviv," but Joe Lieberman already has that one cornered. She did explain to Israelis during her first trip there as Senator that she considered the interests of Israel to be her interests. Tough luck if you're Palestinian, or Lebanese, or Syrian, or anyone in the path of the Zionist war machine.
5. She is a poor communicator (notwithstanding #3, above), who over-complicates the simplest of issues. She makes John Kerry seem articulate.
6. She is (sort of) from New York, a city populated with people who most people outside that city despise for their self-absorbed interests.
7. She cannot help but mention 9/11/01 in nearly every speech, as though she somehow personally suffered. (see #6)
8. She refuses to take strong, clear, defensible positions on almost any issue, from the Iraq war to health care reform. She is worse than her husband on the reliance on polling data, if reports are to be believed. She is not as bad as him (so far) on the compromised positions she does take (she has not yet cut off poor women from welfare, though she loves the idea; but Bill already did that), but why would anyone vote for someone so unlikeable who stands for nothing?
9. This alleged feminist is no defender of abortion rights generally, or for poor women in particular. She is nowhere to be seen on the recent, outrageous Firestone case.
10. She panders in the most obnoxious, transparent ways to African-Americans, speaking slang she can barely pronounce and pretending to somehow be of working class origins. Bill pulled this off better. She sounds like she studied "ebonics" at Wellesly.
11. Ok, she was married to that creep who humiliated her in the most public way, yet remained tied to him for her own, very obvious political motivations. All US presidents are bought and sold, but this candidate is the closest thing we have to a craven, ambitious prostitute. What wouldn't she do or say to get elected?
These are only a handful of the many reasons why I dislike Ms. Clinton, but then again I am hardly representative. I vote.
Washington, D.C.
by
PF (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 1:47:11 PM
I guess we all have things we don't like and people we don't like., but really? I like Hillary Rodham Clinton for My President., She may can't speak ebonics or do anything that certain people attain to, but She has been in the White House, and She did help her Husband. I am a Man of many, many mistakes., and I trust her. if it is a mistake, I will live with it, just like I am living with President Bush! Janair Williams Sr.
by
Janair Williams Sr. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 2:55:56 PM
Puleeze...get a grip on reality..She is more dangerous than Bush..He is ignorant, she is slick, bought and paid for corporate kiss up. You want her, take her...far, far, far away.
by
Rae (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 221 comments)
on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 4:56:08 PM
The thing to undestand is that while it centers on Bush, Hillary, the DLC, and most other national level politicians (and certainly the mass media) is part of this.
06/12/07 "ICH" --- -- We are truly in a war. It is not the war we imagine we are in, which is the way our true adversaries want it. It is not a foreign war against a foreign enemy. It is a war on consciousness, a war on our own minds. The global war on terror that is being fought around the world is an embodied reflection in the material world of a deeper, more fundamental war that is going on in the realm of consciousness itself.
We have the most criminal regime in all of our history wreaking unspeakable horror on the entire planet, while simultaneously waging war on the consciousness of its own citizens - US. If we aren’t aware of this, we are unwittingly playing into, supporting and complicit in the evil that is being perpetrated in our name.
A government’s war on the consciousness of its own citizens is by no means unique to the Bush administration. Abusing power over others so as to limit their freedom is an archetypal process that has been endlessly re-enacted by governments throughout history in various forms. With the Bush administration, however, the pathological aspect of this process has become so exaggerated and amped up to such a degree that it is just about impossible not to notice its staggering malignancy. With the Bush administration, the underlying evil that has played out in our government over many years is becoming overwhelmingly obvious for all to see. With the Bush administration, the underlying evil that informs systems of government that are based on “power over” instead of “liberty for” is coming out from hiding in the shadows. Instead of being acted out underground, our government is acting out this evil above ground, in plain sight for all who are courageous enough to look.
[...]
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 5:10:26 PM
Senator Clinton alone among the 18 contenders has shown the ability to handle the pressure of the Oval office.
Senator Clinton alone among the 18 contenders has gone into a major state and overcome established perception to create a separate, progressive and authentic political identity.
Senator Clinton has the strength of character gained from having failed and then making new and significant contributions.
Senator Clinton alone among the 18 has the sense of the personal and political limitation to realize that she will not be all things to all people or be able to create utopia from the Oval Office.
But she knows that she can make a major change in our political culture, while putting out fires, extricating us from Iraq, perhaps developing a few major new policy initiatives, Senator Clinton will break the glass ceiling.
On the day that Hilary Clinton is inaugurated the 44th President of the United States, the MAJORITY in this country will no longer be a footnote- an amendment- to the US constitution.
After President Hilary Clinton's inauguration, every child in every school in America will look at the table of Presidents and see someone different.
That vision will-finally- fulfil America's promise as a land of equal opportunity.
by
Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments)
on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 5:45:05 PM
I will say once again that I am from Park Ride, Illinois where Hillary grew up and my nephew dated her in high school.His comments about their one and only date was that she was not worth the price of the pizza.They went to Reggios ,on Oakton, her favorite place to eat.His estimation of her is that she is self-centered bitch that is capable of doing more harm to this country than Bush and Chaney ever dreamed of.If the Dems can’t come with a better candidate it long past time to become an independent.
by
walley (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 108 comments)
on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 6:24:15 PM
Senator Clinton is fine lady, a good mother and a consummate Progressive Democrat I would love to have her as my President for the next eight years, but I am still leaning toward Edwards.
She can match her voting record and history of support for key political issues with anyone and come out ahead. Those who hate her are unfail, senseless or Republicans in liberal garb.
She is a traditional Democrat in the Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman mold.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 969 comments)
on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 7:11:05 PM
Most people that I have talked to don't dislike BILL, they dislike HILLARY, so the whole 'bad Bill' things seems contrived. If you want to go back that far, even though she has given more than enough reasons to distrust her more recently, you will find that many women don't like her because Hillary had a golden opportunity back then and passed it up. She could have stood on her own two feet, said, "well Bill, you made your choice and it wasn't me, so I am going on with my life without you." She could have had some integrity, responded with dignity and spirit and shown the world what a woman looks like that is in control of her own life. Instead she opted for the old "stand by your man' routine. It was humiliating for most of us women watching her simpering, put-upon act as she stood by her cheating husband. She could have left that image behind, though, had she bothered to take ONE actual stand since then that wasn't exactly the same as what she did then. She stood by Bush when he took us to war on a lie, she stands by his decision even now, she stands by and lets people like Rupert Murdoch define her, and she never ever shows one bit of courage, integrity or strength of her convictions on any issue. I know that in my lifetime a woman will finally make it to the White House, and that woman will be a woman of honor, strength and a real leader, which automatically excludes Hillary. If our party insists on giving us Hillary as our only choice against the criminals that are in control right now, I will be either writing in Al Gore, or I will be voting for Ron Paul, I haven't yet decided who it will be, but like many, many others, there is no way I will ever cast a vote for Hillary Clinton.
by
Roberta Cauvel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 7:54:02 PM
'The defination of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.' ---------------------------------------------------
Just some reminders:
The dems did not pull out of all of the world treaties that have taken 55 years (longer on some) to agree and ratify by bi-party congresses.
The dems did not take the labor and environmental regulations out of the 'free trade' deals.
The dems did not stop regulations of corporate labor, safety and environmental laws.
The dems did not lock (literally) the minority out of their own conferences.
The dems did not allow torture, and fight the passing of law against it.
The dems did not expose covert CIA agents and then lie about it.
The dems did not corrupt the Justice system.
The dems didn't start preemptive perpetual wars based on lies.
The dems did not sit back and watch thousands of Americans drown, starve, and become homeless without even trying to save them, until it was too late.
At the ethics hearings, representatives of repub and dem 'think tanks', stated that they had never in their 20-30 years in public life had they ever seen such corruption.
People from both sides of the aisle are going public with the law breaking of this regime.
It will take all of us, united to fix this. Both sides will have to fight for our fairness in media laws. Both sides will have to fight for paper trail voting.
If we don't do this. Then decent repubs will not be elected either. It will be fixed for the same corrupt neo-cons that are in now.
So, if you want a complete fascist government, just sit back and let the neo-con repubs take back the congress and keep the presidentcy.
As long as the dems had complete control, the EPA was doing it's job and improving many aspects of the environment, FEMA was doing their job and helping victims not corporations, regulations were in place to make corporations accountable for environment, work safety, public safety, and anti-trust, Social Security was in tact, the deficit was less than half of what it is now, the trade deficit was less than half of what it is now and we were on our way to a balanced budget, there were no wars, bleeding life and funds at a steady flow, we were respected by most of the world, and were working on education, medical, and infrastructure not world empire.
That alone, will keep me voting Dem and holding their 'feet to the fire'.
It's time to think of our constitution and our country and do whatever we can to get them back.
by
LYNNE KRINGLER (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments)
on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 10:18:47 PM
Both parties are owned by the fascist elite corporate class
and HC is one of them, she is as much a piece of sold out corporate shit as any Republican and if she's elected President nothing will change. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the only candidate of either mainstream party that i would vote for, if one of these Republocrat CFR subhumans gets the nom, as is guaranteed, i'm voting for an independent or 3rd party.
by
Better World Order (4 articles, 448 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 986 comments)
on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 11:29:29 PM
governments are instituted to protect the People's Rights
paper ballots, clean elections- free of the influence of money, nationalize the federal reserve, end aggressive war and using the military to protect private interests that are exploiting 3rd world nations and making their people hate us, do a real investigation into 9/11- answer the 70% of the families questions the 9/11 Commission ignored, make polluters pay, keep our air, water and land free of poisons, invest in alternative energy R&D, overturn NAFTA, CAFTA and the GATT, get out of the WTO, confiscate the wealth of corporate criminals and ban them from hold positions of power in govt and industry, media reform, use the web and new technologies to inform the People and involve us in the politcal process, any candidate that does not commit to these and other public interest actions the Operation Mockingbird MSM are silent on is not to be trusted, and even those that do cannot be trusted. One thing 9/11 made clear is the people have to participate in our own governance, these elite scum that control our economy and political process for their own benefit, subjugating and exploiting the rest of us who actually work and produce things of value, must be exposed and turned out, or this Republic is over. Support foavc.org - the requirements for calling a constitutional convention have been met.
by
Better World Order (4 articles, 448 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 986 comments)
on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 11:45:26 PM
Bill Clinton is a mass killer, presiding over the seige war of the sanctions which killed 1/2 million people or more -- mostly women and children, and also engaged in the bombings of Iraq in the illegal 'no fly zones'. (Would you stay married to a mass murderer? -- and no, it was known that Iraq had no WMDs then. The UN inspectors were resisted when Saddam saw that they were spying --a fact that Ritter has confirmed).
Bush and the neocons did not appear from a vacuum, but from the policies of the Democrats.
The FCC, under democrats, and with Clinton, allowed the corporate takeover of the mass media, beyond what Reagan did years before.
NAFTA!
Voting in the Democrats is just the alternative plan of the fascists.
While it's true the Democrats are generally 'kinder and gentler' fasicsts, the direction the nation has been heading in will not materially change, but continue to move towards a police state. We see that by what the Democrats voted for, what they did and more importantly what they did not do, and are not doing now. Accepting a less brutal tyranny will not help at all. In fact, a more immediate and severe police state may serve to bring about the changes necessary more quickly.
The bottom line is that, ethically and morally, I can't vote for a fascist even if they have a "D" after their name.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 11:52:24 PM
18 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
