In this article: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0301/Hillary-Clinton-What-4-000-pages-of-Clinton-library-docs-say-about-her ... they speak of 'humanizing' Hillary Clinton. Humanize Hillary!? How about a lesser task: let's terra-form Jupiter! View attachment 6913 View attachment 6912
Sounds like you are all askeered of strong women. Not me, I say get in there and be the biggest BITCH you can because you are dealing with some pretty slimy BASTARDS, after all. I steer clear of men who like docile women because usually they make me act out and say things just to raise their ire. Yep they make me sick!
No, I'm askeered of shape-changing self-serving women who will do anything for power and public recognition - not even 'askeered' really, but aghast. And I think it's plain silly that so many women vote for her because she's a woman too. If you follow that logic, I should have voted for W. Bush because he's a man like me and can understand 'men's issues'. What I'm askeered of is a egomaniacal 'person' in the White House who cares nothing for no one but her/his own self.
apparently this kind of behavior is fine if a man engages in it. it's just women who have to act like doormats so men don't get scared. poor little boys. to think they have to vote for men, regardless of how stupid they may be, just to show some gender solidarity.
Do you see just her in this way? Do you oppose her views or possible policies if she were elected president? What specifically has Hillary said and done for you to have this opinion of her?
For starters, quinnsong, have you read the links I've posted above? And I think it was plain in her presidential campaign that she would say anything to anyone to get elected. Similarly her successful bid for the governorship of New York. What was that but her way of remaining in the limelight until she could run for the presidency? I know most male politicians are no better, but this woman I just don't like, not because she is female, but because she is herself. Quite independently of the many thousands of people I have heard about who just instinctively find her repugnant, I hit upon the same feeling long before I was ever aware of them. I am going with my gut here bolstered by the many instances I see of her raw ambition. If she were president, she wouldn't be 'the biggest bitch you can be because you are dealing with some pretty slimy bastards,' as you have said. She would have but one concern: her legacy. Somehow I don't think that will consists of free milk for orphans and support for women in the many ways they could use assistance. God help us, I don't know what it would be, but I'm guessing it won't be pretty.
you find her repugnant becuase she acts like any other politician? wow, are you sexism personified or just another one of those men who feel emasculated as soon as a woman speaks up? raw ambition is a negative trait? or just for women? you and thousands of others find her instinctively repugnant? you mean as thousands and me find the Bush dynasty repugnant and maybe Samuel B. Kent and his ilk?
A scheming politician would have taken great pains to project a personable public image. The fact that Hillary doesn't seem to care to much about it actually humanizes her.
I was actually not aware of the fact that she was not human and therefore needs to be artificially rendered as such . in my mind, this whole thread just another one of those attempts the right-wing nuts use to mark someone who is not part of their extremist agenda. Clinton is a woman who is intelligent, agenda driven, and savvy like a good politician ought to be. that the conservatives call her by her first name is meant to belittle and demean her. it's not as if they refer to their minions by their first names, since this would imply the same kind of disrespect that they only to gladly bestow upon Clinton. then again, we could just call all of them Bubba, that cuts down on having to remember names, as they are all just carbon copies of each other, why bother with names.
I think you have nailed it. Right wingers (i.e. Republicans) are a little - ok actually more than a little - bit inconsistent and hypocritical on the Clintons. When Bill Clinton was POTUS, they actually impeached him and in their view Hillary was a demon straight from the pits of Hell who murdered her friend. A few years later, when Obama first ran for POTUS, Republicans suddenly began idolizing both Bill Clinton and his wife. Just a few years ago, just last year, Republicans were again extolling the virtues of both Bill and Hillary Clinton. After the election and now that she might be a candidate for POTUS, Hillary has suddenly morphed into a demon again. Honesty and consistency are not Republican strong suits.
Ms. Clinton's major problem is that she is female. if she were male, none of her attributes, activities, and/or demeanor would raise an eyebrow. right-wing republicans are traditionalists. they accept women only in subordinate and domestic frameworks. they are just not capable of viewing us as fully vested human beings. we are not supposed to be autonomous--hence their interference with our reproductive choices--in their view, but need to be controlled and patronized. beware of any woman that does not fit this ridiculous stereotype. she is a spawn from hell. and it doesn't matter how they like to pretty it up, they still are scared of women who defy their ideology and prove them wrong.
Republicans have many fears. Fear of women is just one of them. Fear is an integral evangelization tool for the Republican Party. Without fear, it would be hard to get rational folks to act in an irrational manner.
actually Hillary can play a trump card now since she has opposed Russia and look evil Russia is "invading" Ukraine. So getting her rating up now, would be wise. CNN her, maybe have her hang out with wife of Obama, and her democratically home grown ass ets will come to fruition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR1twSwZ0Vk ...
I am a little perplexed. What makes you think opposing Russian aggression is a "trump" card? If everyone holds the same trump card, what value is it? It has no value. And that is the case with Russian aggression. Sending armies into and annexing your neighbor's land is general not a good way to win friends and influence people...just saying. And frankly, most Americans don't give a rats ass about Russia or its former client states. So opposing Russian aggression isn't much a trump card or an advantage to her domestically.
...Maybe you haven't followed Hillary's doings in the East Europe lately. But to put it quite frankly, she been cooking them cakes good for the boys back at home. Hillary has been hopping along teaching the American lifestyle to the West Ukrainians, mostly English schools. She been working them protesters and financing the opposition to the government, especially on Bolotnaya, and look while she has not succeeded the deeds back in Kremlin capital. Ever since the NGO alien agent law was put to fruition, she regressed to Ukraine. And voila, her labor paid off. http://www.ned.org/ has their work outlined nice and neatly, their motto which reads "supporting democracy" obviously had a major flaw in it for bearing any truth and should be changed to "supporting USA interests for resources, geopolitical influences, money in land that isnt theirs"
You have made a lot of allegations, now where is your evidence? Where are your proofs? And if everyone opposes Russian aggression, invading and annexing its neighbors, which is the case, how does that give Secretary Clinton a trump card as you have alleged?
Just to clear things up, I , the OP, am not a republican, far from it; and I am no misogynist. Why do those who support Hillary Clinton always assume those who object to her do so based on the sole and incidental fact that she is a woman? Aren't they admitting then that there is no more to her appeal as a politician than that? Who is the sexist then? Those who blindly support her because she's a woman or those who dislike and distrust her regardless of her gender? For myself, I would readily support a woman's presidential candidacy, but never just because she is a woman, or because I thought it was about time we had a woman in the White House - that would be absurd. If a viable presidential candidate came along and happened to be female, fine. As things stand a constant barrage of (male) candidates apply for the job, and I consistently decline to vote for them. Remember a few years back when one candidate's self-serving platform basically consisted of,"I've been vice president for eight years, and the only real career option I now have is to be president myself. It will look good on my résumé." While his opponent was running on the "my daddy was president before, and man oh man, won't he be impressed if I can get his old job?" ticket. Now we got,"My husband was president eight years, and I loved the limelight, and I just have got to have it back." This is the ilk of the people who run for the American presidency. Anything Hillary may do to appear to be actually working or serving our country is based on what's in it for her personally. This much is plain if one only looks at everything she has ever done, and yes, the same can be said for most male politicians, although again I fail to see what their gender has to do with anything. Whether just your humble OP is threatened by women or democrats (whatever those might be - republicans in disguise???) is of no consequence. Find yourself some real public servants, America!
As for calling her 'Hillary', you may have noticed another person named 'Clinton' was the so-called most powerful man in the world not so many years ago, and like his wife he pays PR people beau-coup to keep his name in the proverbial newspaper now that he is really no more important than the rest of us. She is called Hillary for much the same reason another 'powerful man' was dubbed Dubya. The surnames Clinton and Bush have been in the news so much these last 30 years you need nicknames to keep track of which is which. perhaps Hillary's supporters would be happier if she had got the moniker 'W' (for 'Woman')???
