Why does everyone hate Hillary?

Pre-College Issues High School Life
61

<p>Newjack88's statement is arrogant, in this context, because of the relationship it implies between "education" and depth of thought. Just because someone went to school longer doesn't mean he or she necessarily knows any more about the world. In terms of things that the country is doing wrong for its people, I'd trust a blue-collar worker to tell me over a law school grad any day of the week. The latter is somewhat removed from such problems, whereas the former is directly affected by them.</p>

<p>But back to the original statement regarding Obama's "message." A simple comparison of the two candidates' rhetoric will suffice. Obama is the idealistic populist who speaks in abstracts, whereas Hillary is the, albeit less dashing, pragmatist with a meticulous plan for everything she advocates. The former sounds better, surely, and gives you a warm feeling inside, but is ultimately the intellectually lazy choice, and I think that's what the original post was saying.</p>

62

<p>On a semi-related note, every time I hear one of my classmates chirp "Obamarama!" as justification for their vote, a little piece of me dies.</p>

63

<p>I don't dislike Hillary because she's a woman. I dislike her because she's an opportunist who would stop at no lengths for personal gain. She doesn't care about the Democrats, she cares about becoming President (see comments about McCain).</p>

<p>Honestly, I don't think any of the candidates will bring about significant change. If I had to choose the lesser evil though, it'd be Obama.</p>

64

<p>Newsflash: No one ever succeeded in politics without being an opportunist. You wait for your moment and when it comes, you pounce. To speak idiomatically, don't hate the player. Hate the game.</p>

65

<p>Personally, I don't like any of the big three candidates. I like Ron Paul... ):</p>

<p>There's nothing wrong with hating the Democrats, or with a republican candidate hating the Republicans. They're both pretty despicable. How about a no-party candidate who cares about civil liberties and freedoms, like this nation was built around? Seriously, 200 years ago, 25,000 people got killed in a war over taxes. Now we let our government seize, detain and torture people indefinitely without a total widespread outrage. It's kind of a far cry from the ideals we were built on. I know that the early American government wasn't always a champion of civil liberties in actuality, but still, their ideas of a limited government elected by and afraid of the people are something we should strive for.</p>

66

<p>Is this a new Politically Correct thing? We can't say people with graduate degrees are more educated than farmers? Here we go again...</p>

67

<p>
[quote]
But back to the original statement regarding Obama's "message." A simple comparison of the two candidates' rhetoric will suffice. Obama is the idealistic populist who speaks in abstracts, whereas Hillary is the, albeit less dashing, pragmatist with a meticulous plan for everything she advocates. The former sounds better, surely, and gives you a warm feeling inside, but is ultimately the intellectually lazy choice, and I think that's what the original post was saying.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Two things: 1) Obama has detailed policy positions on his website. 2) One of the reasons I turned from supporting HRC is precisely that she misses the inspirational side of politics as being important -- or more likely is simply incapable of being inspiring. Yes, I wish this were less of a personality or feel-good contest, but if you want to talk to Newjack88 about being less of a snob then you must also understand that the average American is in fact intellectually lazy. The other, and more important, thing is that HRC is utterly leaden on her feet; she can recite issues chapter and verse but Obama has become much more deft a la Bugs Bunny to HRC's Daffy Duck (see below). (Of course, she's as graceful as can be vs. GWB, but that's setting the bar so very low).</p>

<p>Why</a> voters pick Bugs Bunny over Daffy Duck. - By Jeff Greenfield - Slate Magazine</p>

<p>There's no way ultimately the American people will warm to Hillary enough to elect her over McCain. HRC's nomination -- a fantasy at this point -- means McCain wins.</p>

68

<p>
[quote]
Newsflash: No one ever succeeded in politics without being an opportunist. You wait for your moment and when it comes, you pounce. To speak idiomatically, don't hate the player. Hate the game.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, I understand that. However, pandering to fear, putting your name on ballots that were agreed upon to be off limits and promoting the OTHER PARTY over your primary candidate are too much. I mean, she extended Obama an invitation for VP when he's leading. What?</p>

<p>There's also her record on the Wal-Mart Board, voting for the Iraq war and feigning ignorance, and her contradictory stances over NAFTA.</p>

<p>It doesn't really matter though. In order for her to win at this point she has to win a landslide in basically every state. Thank God.</p>

69

<p>
[quote]
Sure, I understand that. However, pandering to fear, putting your name on ballots that were agreed upon to be off limits and promoting the OTHER PARTY over your primary candidate are too much. I mean, she extended Obama an invitation for VP when he's leading. What?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There are many, many people who agree entirely with this statement.</p>

70

<p>MelancholyDane:
you are being incredibly rude, and you owe me an apology.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Newjack88's statement is arrogant, in this context, because of the relationship it implies between "education" and depth of thought. Just because someone went to school longer doesn't mean he or she necessarily knows any more about the world. In terms of things that the country is doing wrong for its people, I'd trust a blue-collar worker to tell me over a law school grad any day of the week. The latter is somewhat removed from such problems, whereas the former is directly affected by them.

[/quote]

ummm... is that the context i used it in nope, don't think so. so if this is why you were upset then you, unjustifiably, proceeded to try to insult me.</p>

<p>
[quote]
because of the relationship it implies between "education" and depth of thought. Just because someone went to school longer doesn't mean he or she necessarily knows any more about the world.

[/quote]

the last time i heard that argument was in like 6th grade... anyways, do you think you can you back up that claim?</p>

<p>
[quote]
In terms of things that the country is doing wrong for its people, I'd trust a blue-collar worker to tell me over a law school grad any day of the week. The latter is somewhat removed from such problems, whereas the former is directly affected by them.

[/quote]

that's a pretty big overstatement... the average American can't even locate Iraq on a map, so do you think it would be wise to ask them for advice in handling the war? nope. the average American can is financially illiterate, would you trust them to know how much to raise or lower interest rates? nope. etc... also, in case you didn't know people go to school for a reason...</p>

<p>
[quote]
But back to the original statement regarding Obama's "message." A simple comparison of the two candidates' rhetoric will suffice. Obama is the idealistic populist who speaks in abstracts, whereas Hillary is the, albeit less dashing, pragmatist with a meticulous plan for everything she advocates.

[/quote]

Obama a populist? that's not right. Obama is a liberal. i think you may have him confused with John Edwards, also a liberal, who used populist rhetoric.</p>

<p>you are totally buying into Hillary's spin of Obama not speaking in "specifics." spend time and actually research the two candidates and you will see that the two are essentially the same on policy. only difference, however, is that Obama has a better personality and more respectable reputation.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The former sounds better, surely, and gives you a warm feeling inside, but is ultimately the intellectually lazy choice, and I think that's what the original post was saying.

[/quote]

funny that you say. have you seen Hillary's "red phone" commercial? what exactly is thought provoking about that commercial? do you consider that to be an intellectual argument as to why she should be president?</p>

<p>also, though i disagree with this, you said that Obama only speaks in the abstract; however, isn't it pretty hard and mentally taxing to understand an abstract idea, so wouldn't Obama supporters be doing more thinking that Hillary supporters? hmmm... i think you may be contradicting yourself. basically it's stupid to say that choosing one person over another is "intellectually lazy."</p>

<p>
[quote]
Newsflash: No one ever succeeded in politics without being an opportunist. You wait for your moment and when it comes, you pounce. To speak idiomatically, don't hate the player. Hate the game.

[/quote]

hmmm... you don't really want to call your candidate an "opportunist." that basically means that he or she is not genuine... i would agree with you that Clinton is an opportunist. she promised to create hundreds of thousands of jobs in upstate New York by the end of her Senate term when lots of manufacturing jobs were being lost; however, as her term is approaching its end, upstate New York has actually experienced a net loss of 50,000 jobs. lol, guess what part of her economic platform is for the presidential race: to create 5 million jobs! she is definitely taking advantage (or more like raping) of people's fear about losing their jobs.</p>

<p>
[quote]
There's no way ultimately the American people will warm to Hillary enough to elect her over McCain. HRC's nomination -- a fantasy at this point -- means McCain wins.

[/quote]

agreed. if Hillary were nominated, the Republicans would go to town on her. i mean she did marry a guy who put a cigar up a woman's snatch... i seriously don't see how it would be possible to live that one down.</p>

<p>
[quote]
On a semi-related note, every time I hear one of my classmates chirp "Obamarama!" as justification for their vote, a little piece of me dies.

[/quote]

haha and you're calling me arrogant!</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sure, I understand that. However, pandering to fear, putting your name on ballots that were agreed upon to be off limits and promoting the OTHER PARTY over your primary candidate are too much. I mean, she extended Obama an invitation for VP when he's leading. What?

[/quote]

I KNOW! HOW DOES THIS EVEN MAKE SENSE? SHE IS INVITING HIM TO BE HER VP WHEN SHE CLAIMS HE ISN'T "EXPERIENCED" ENOUGH TO BE PRESIDENT... YET PART OF BEING VP IS BEING READY TO ASSUME THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION AT ALL TIMES.</p>

71

<p>
[quote]
Newsflash: No one ever succeeded in politics without being an opportunist. You wait for your moment and when it comes, you pounce. To speak idiomatically, don't hate the player. Hate the game.

[/quote]

a lot of people are voting for Obama and, to some extent, McCain because they feel as though those two do not believe or practice those sorts of ineffective politics like Hillary Clinton does.</p>

<p>also, check out the Ferraro story. i don't understand why Hillary doesn't fire that lady... she didn't exactly "reject and denounce" that lady for her comments... hypocritical? i think so.</p>

72

<p>
[quote]
Is this a new Politically Correct thing? We can't say people with graduate degrees are more educated than farmers? Here we go again...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Reading comprehension time. Did I say in any part of my post that people with graduate degrees aren't more educated than farmers? No. No strawman arguments, please.</p>

73

<p>i'm a closet-hillary-supporter.</p>

<p>it's taboo in these parts to like hillary over obama, but whatever.</p>

<p>in all honesty i'm apathetic, i just think hillary talks better :D</p>

<p>(and i like being a rebel for no reason)</p>

74

<p>
[quote]
Two things: 1) Obama has detailed policy positions on his website. 2) One of the reasons I turned from supporting HRC is precisely that she misses the inspirational side of politics as being important -- or more likely is simply incapable of being inspiring. Yes, I wish this were less of a personality or feel-good contest, but if you want to talk to Newjack88 about being less of a snob then you must also understand that the average American is in fact intellectually lazy. The other, and more important, thing is that HRC is utterly leaden on her feet; she can recite issues chapter and verse but Obama has become much more deft a la Bugs Bunny to HRC's Daffy Duck (see below). (Of course, she's as graceful as can be vs. GWB, but that's setting the bar so very low).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with a lot of this post, actually. I've been on Obama's website and read his positions. The trouble is, I'm not convinced that the folks throwing themselves down and kissing his feet have (although this opinion is based on the ones I encounter on a daily basis). It seems to me like the majority of his base supports him solely on the basis of his charisma, and that bothers me on a fundamental level.</p>

<p>Obama is definitely more "electable" than Hillary, there is no argument about that. However, I remember back to 2004, when we picked the "electable" candidate. I'm sticking to my principles and voting for the candidate who, on the basis of her experience and knowledge, I feel to be more qualified for the job. Chances are she'll lose, but at least I'll have fought the good fight.</p>

75

<p>As far as Hillary's WalMart record, was it not Obama's wife who sat on the board of a major distributor to WalMart for several years? I didn't see him fighting for higher union involvement and better insurance when Rezko was parking across the street, did I?
The point is, all politicians, no matter how convincing, have to play a little dirty to stay in the game. Clinton may have her hands dirtier than most, but the fact that Obama graduated grad school in 1990 assures me that he has yet to reach his full potential as an opportunist.
The Clintons have been in politics for a long time, but anyone who simply dismisses them as the "politics of the past" misses the point. There is no new or old politics, just the twisting of the current system. It may sound cynical and possibly Machiavellian, but I don't believe that any leader has ever told his/her citizens the truth without mixing in the slightest hint of deceit.</p>

76

<p>Newjack88: Who's being rude? You all but call the average American a dumb hick in your post. For all their foibles, I've got a little bit more respect for my fellow countrymen than you do.</p>

<p>If your statement was not made in the context I said it was, please take steps to clarify, because nothing you've said has cast it in any other light.</p>

<p>As for the rest of your rant, it's too long and badly punctuated for me to want to pick apart right this second.</p>

77

<p>
[quote]
Newjack88: Who's being rude? You all but call the average American a dumb hick in your post. For all their foibles, I've got a little bit more respect for my fellow countrymen than you do.

[/quote]

lol... i know you support Clinton but you don't have to embrace her tactics. judging from your combative attitude throughout this thread, it's no surprise that you support her. anyways, what the hell are you talking about... "dumb hick"... "fellow countrymen?" where did that come from?</p>

<p>
[quote]
If your statement was not made in the context I said it was, please take steps to clarify, because nothing you've said has cast it in any other light.

[/quote]

this is sort of dumb to say. i clarified what i meant in my "rant" so it's your own fault that you haven't read it.</p>

<p>anyways, i already told you that you misread it... what else do you want? is it that you don't know what irony is? if that's the case, the irony of the situation is that someone said that Obama is the choice of the people who don't like to think, yet a lot of Obama's support comes from educated people. who are more likely to "think," educated or un-educated people? educated people. that's the irony. sorry, i assumed that you knew what irony meant... my bad.</p>

<p>
[quote]
As for the rest of your rant, it's too long and badly punctuated for me to want to pick apart right this second.

[/quote]

lol, you're so arrogant. do you realize that this is an internet forum? i'm not going to write you an essay just to explain how you are wrong.</p>

<p>EDIT:
also, adjust your attitude MelancholyDane. it's immature to get all "As for the rest of your rant, it's too long and badly punctuated for me to want to pick apart right this second" in the middle of a discussion. this sort "jerkitude" doesn't add anything meaningful to the discussion.</p>

78

<p>
[quote]
lol... i know you support Clinton but you don't have to embrace her tactics. judging from your combative attitude throughout this thread, it's no surprise that you support her. anyways, what the hell are you talking about... "dumb hick"... "fellow countrymen?" where did that come from?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ad</a> hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>

<p>To answer your question, it was the bit where you talked about the average American being incapable of simple tasks. You wrote it - you ought to remember.</p>

<p>
[quote]
this is sort of dumb to say. i clarified what i meant in my "rant" so it's your own fault that you haven't read it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See, that's the thing. Your "rant" (I LOVE quotation marks) just reinforced what I'd already asserted, so I didn't really know what to make of it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
who are more likely to "think," educated or un-educated people? educated people. that's the irony. sorry, i assumed that you knew what irony meant... my bad.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There! There! That's the arrogance! Do you see it? You assume that just because someone has a scrap of paper that they're some deep, elevated intellectual. I have news for you. I know folks (you'd probably call them underachievers) who are some of the most profound people you'll ever meet and who've simply realized that maybe there's more to life than wealth or status, and that maybe it's enough just to work hard at something they find personally meaningful and earn a living while pondering life's little intricacies. Likewise, I deal with straight-A students all the time who are some of the most philosophically bankrupt people you'll ever have the misfortune of meeting. I have no doubt that they'll do very well for themselves, but getting the grade or acing the test does not secure one's place as a "thinker."</p>

<p>
[quote]
lol, you're so arrogant. do you realize that this is an internet forum? i'm not going to write you an essay just to explain how you are wrong.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No one's talking about writing essays. Presentation is everything - judging by the arguments you employed earlier against Clinton's candidacy you should be well aware of that. It really doesn't take very much extra effort to write using proper sentence structure and capitalization, and makes the argument come off as much more, dare I even say it, educated.</p>

<p>
[quote]
EDIT:
also, adjust your attitude MelancholyDane. it's immature to get all "As for the rest of your rant, it's too long and badly punctuated for me to want to pick apart right this second" in the middle of a discussion. this sort "jerkitude" doesn't add anything meaningful to the discussion.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ask your doctor if chill pills may be right for you. You're the one who started insulting my intelligence. If you can't take the heat, don't light fires in the kitchen.</p>

79

<p>I love how you disagree with the fact that educated people are more likely to think deeply. Because it obviously doesn't make sense to say that intelligence and education are related. I also enjoyed learning from you that people who pursue secondary educations do it for wealth and status and that those who don't pursue them simply have different values. You're so wise, MelancholyDane. </p>

<p>I imagine there are thousands of factory workers, cattle ranchers, and janitors out there this very minute "pondering life's little intricacies" and thinking about financial recession, international relations, and minority group rights. In fact, it almost brings tears to my eyes just thinking about all those profound blue-collar philosophers that arrogant academia refuses to recognize. For shame!</p>

80

<p>And I, too, relish what you have taught me, which is that cherry-picking an opponent's arguments, distorting them into blanket statements and sweeping generalizations, and exaggerating them to the point of absurdity are effective tactics when debating on the Internet. This, combined with a bitingly sarcastic tone that only a true craftsman could hope to master, will certainly win many a day for me. What providence that we clashed here so that we might learn from one another!</p>