Why does everyone hate Hillary?

Pre-College Issues High School Life
81

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>^^ I didn't distort this.</p>

<p>By the way, it would have been better if you had replied to what I said about education vs. intellectualism rather than just talking in generalities about writing styles.</p>

82

<p>
[quote]
**I know folks<a href="you'd%20probably%20call%20them%20underachievers">/b</a> 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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Signifies that what is to follow is an observation based on personal experience.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is a generalization across a very large group. A distortion. Note that I said nothing about "every" or "all," but clearly specified that I was referring to certain individuals I had personally encountered. This is pretty basic stuff here.</p>

<p>As for education vs. intelligence, you missed my point again. I never said education and intelligence were unrelated. That would be stupid. I said they weren't necessarily interchangeable. A different animal entirely.</p>

83

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Two things really trouble me about this response. One is that you essentially are saying that Obama does actually show a substance which you have researched, and that you think he's in fact more electable, but that you are going to the mat for Hillary (who has a lesser chance of being elected) because of the people who are on Obama's bandwagon. First of all, as Obama himself said, the supposition is that all people supporting Obama aren't doing so for substantive reasons. But even more bizarre to me is that you are using his ability to inspire -- and get elected -- as a reason to vote against him. It makes no sense. And Obama is no Kerry. That's another bit of total bizarreness, to suggest that he is the same as Mr. "I voted against it before I voted for it." (Or was it the other way around). Secondly, HRC has already lost. There's virtually zero chance she'll win at this point. She's down in the popular vote, not even counting the caucus states. She's way down in the electoral vote. So all she's doing now is punching Obama and bloodying him up before the fight against McCain.</p>

<p>Thus, it's clear to me that you really care about nominating a woman than you do about electing a Democratic president because you've pretty much said yourself there is substance there to be found with Obama. Hillary certainly cares more about her own career than she does about electing a Democratic president. I would be completely happy with a tough-as-nails smart savvy woman as president. It's just not going to be Clinton. She's got too much baggage and she's not likeable enough. If she had campaigned differently, I might have felt different. But she's played dirty and brought her husband into it. She's done, and it's time to unite behind the Democratic nominee Barack Obama.</p>

84

<p>I'm getting pretty sick of my arguments being misinterpreted and distorted like this.</p>

<p>One: I don't even know where you got any of this, because it certainly wasn't my post. I say outright:</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>None of this "I'm voting against him because lots of people like him" that you completely fabricated. Do my classmates irk me? Yes. Does his media darlingship irk me? Yes. Is that the basis for my decision? Of course not.</p>

<p>Also, drawing a comparison to another election year where the Democrats made "electability" a key issue is not the same as saying that "Obama is Kerry." Of course that makes no sense - that's why I didn't say it. Yeesh.</p>

<p>Second, to quote Yogi Berra, "It ain't over til it's over." Which is to say, there isn't a Democratic nominee until the Convention decides on one.</p>

<p>Third:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Thus, it's clear to me that you really care about nominating a woman than you do about electing a Democratic president because you've pretty much said yourself there is substance there to be found with Obama.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Anything in there about her being a woman? I didn't think so.</p>

<p>It's all laid out so clearly. I wish you'd just read and comprehend it so I wouldn't have to waste time repeating myself.</p>

85

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I see what you wrote, that you consider on the basis of her experience and knowledge her to be more qualified for the job. But in dismissing Obama you did say what you said above, and in that, you are also clearly implying that one important reason you are against Obama is his followers.</p>

<p>With respect to the question of her experience, I guess you are referring to her experience in being a corporate lawyer, and a first lady, as well as a senator. 'Cause in terms of political experience, she hasn't been an elected that long. She will be toast in a general election if she makes the claim that a central role in the Irish peace process becomes her "I invented the internet" moment.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Second, to quote Yogi Berra, "It ain't over til it's over." Which is to say, there isn't a Democratic nominee until the Convention decides on one.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The only chance for Clinton to win at this point barring an Obama "Spitzer-like" revelation is to have all the superdelegates ignore the popular vote and Obama's regular delegate lead. What she should be doing now is toning down the fighting words and hitting McCain not building him up as she has done. Then she'd guarantee herself more relevance for the party whether or not she is nominated. Now, she's going down in flames -- and her presence won't be welcomed again on this platform -- i.e. as a presumptive party nominee.</p>

86

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]

you're taking this thread a little bit too seriously. also, when did i insult your intelligence? i hope you don't consider someone disagreeing with you insulting your intelligence...</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]

i'm going to ignore this :).</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]

i have to agree with what you said, "I'm getting pretty sick of my arguments being misinterpreted and distorted like this." when did i say the average American is incapable of performing simple tasks? if you're going to say i said it, at least quote it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]

why are you even arguing about this? and please explain how that is arrogance? and where did i say that educated people are supposed to be "deep, elevated intellectuals?" "I'm getting pretty sick of my arguments being misinterpreted and distorted like this."</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]

this isn't a new idea; i've heard this argument since middle school, and i have to admit it's a pretty bad one. i agree with you that there are some wise uneducated people, since knowledge and wisdom are not the same thing. however, most of the people you and i consider wise are also knowledgeable (educated). if you interpret being educated as being well read then i'm pretty sure that a college graduate is more likely to be well read than an average high school graduate/dropout.</p>

<p>lol, how many blue collar workers do you think spend time "pondering life's little intricacies?" if so many people like to spend time "pondering life's little intracacies," why are distractions like sports, video games, television, so popular?</p>

<p>
[quote]
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."

[/quote]

why do you keep referencing your school? you're not one of those kids who thinks there smarter than everyone else including the kids who have better GPAs, ranks, test scores, etc.? i'm pretty sure that the kids you're dismissing are rather bright and are probably considered to be among the best "thinkers" in your school.
also, who are you to decide who is and isn't a "thinker?"</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]

please explain how your arguments are being distorted? it's not as if people aren't accurately quoting what you're posting...</p>

<p>
[quote]
Signifies that what is to follow is an observation based on personal experience.

[/quote]

yea... anecdotal evidence usually isn't the best...</p>

<p>
[quote]
As for education vs. intelligence, you missed my point again. I never said education and intelligence were unrelated. That would be stupid. I said they weren't necessarily interchangeable. A different animal entirely.

[/quote]

intelligence is irrelevant to this discussion. when you said, "I know folks (you'd probably call them underachievers) who are some of the most profound people [...]," seemed to suggest that you were actually talking about wisdom, which is more applicable in this discussion.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, drawing a comparison to another election year where the Democrats made "electability" a key issue is not the same as saying that "Obama is Kerry."

[/quote]

isn't electability always an important issue?</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]

Hillary doesn't have more experience and knowledge than Obama does. in comparison to McCain, both Obama's and Hillary's experience is insignificant. if Hillary did win the nomination, what in the world would her platform be? the only thing Hillary could do is to go incredibly negative and make America hate both her and McCain equally. maybe, just maybe, she would have a chance.</p>

<p>Obama, however, can run on the platform of change and having the "right tools" (judgement, thinking, leadship ability, etc.) to change how ineffective our government is. McCain can also run on the having the "right tools" but he can't say that he's bringing change, since he's been in Washington forever. i think that the "change" thing would be a huge advantage for Obama.</p>

<p>Hillary cannot run on either of these platforms. she doesn't embody change like Obama does-she's totally old school dirty politics and believes that fighting is the only way to get things done and clearly does not value or believe in the power of cooperation. she also can't run on the having the "right tools" platform since she has not demonstrated good judgement, has not proven her leadership skills to the extent that Obama and McCain have, has not proven her character (lots of dirt on the Clintons...) etc.</p>

<p>barring a miracle, Hillary would be reamed by McCain in a general election.</p>

87

<p>First of all, both candidates would clearly win over McCain barring a major scandal, so the general election is not a problem. The argument is, who would make a better president?</p>

<p>Second of all, the contest isn't even close to over. Clinton can still make the nomination.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Hillary doesn't have more experience and knowledge than Obama does. in comparison to McCain, both Obama's and Hillary's experience is insignificant.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Clinton has been a U.S. senator longer than Obama has and has also been a first lady. McCain does have more experience in elected office, but Clinton has more experience as an executive.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
if Hillary did win the nomination, what in the world would her platform be? the only thing Hillary could do is to go incredibly negative and make America hate both her and McCain equally. maybe, just maybe, she would have a chance.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>She has already stated her platform multiple times, unlike Obama. The second part doesn't make any sense in the context of Clinton's past actions.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Obama, however, can run on the platform of change and having the "right tools" (judgement, thinking, leadship ability, etc.) to change how ineffective our government is.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>The problem? He doesn't have the "right" tools, and Americans are starting to realize this. There's a limit to the level to which he can play off of dissatisfaction with the government.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
McCain can also run on the having the "right tools" but he can't say that he's bringing change, since he's been in Washington forever.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>So McCain has proper judgment and leadership ability when he supports the War in Iraq and remains primarily socially conservative?</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
she doesn't embody change like Obama does-she's totally old school dirty politics and believes that fighting is the only way to get things done and clearly does not value or believe in the power of cooperation.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>What about how Obama's economic advisor said his position on NAFTA was just "political maneuvering"? Wasn't that old-school, dirty politics? I'm sure that if he was campaigning in Canada, he would not be talking about renegotiating NAFTA. Obama's spin machine has basically taken control of the American media (except FOX, but that's worthless anyway). And I'd like to see you back up your statement that she doesn't believe in the power of cooperation.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
she also can't run on the having the "right tools" platform since she has not demonstrated good judgement, has not proven her leadership skills to the extent that Obama and McCain have, has not proven her character (lots of dirt on the Clintons...)

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Examples? I think she has shown excellent judgment, and I would suggest not judging her based on a decision she made 5 or 6 years ago. In addition, most stories about the Clintons and their alleged moral shortcomings are greatly exaggerated. If you're talking about her tax returns, they're being published next month, and it's ridiculous to expect politicians to publish their tax returns, anyway.</p>

88

<p>too much quoting!!!!!
gahhhh!</p>

89

<p>
[quote]
First of all, both candidates would clearly win over McCain barring a major scandal, so the general election is not a problem.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wow, I'm sorry to say that I absolutely disagree with this statement. More like, barring a major Mccain scandal, the next American president will most likely be a Republican. Regardless, the Democrats are not helping themselves out by delaying and fighting over the nomination.</p>

90

<p>I agree that McCain is the forerunner for presidency. McCain is a Republican candidate that many Democrats that I know don't really mind that much. He's a closet-Democrat. Anyone hear his slip of tongue when he referred to himself as a conservative liberal? That being said, he can sway a lot of borderline or moderately Democratic votes.</p>

<p>However, that doesn't mean the Democrats don't have a reasonable chance in the election. A lot can change before election.</p>

91

<p>I hereby refuse to communicate with Newjack88 until he develops something resembling rudimentary reading comprehension skills.</p>

<p>Proletariat2, thank you. I was getting tired.</p>

92

<p>I think it's time for a group hug</p>

93

<p>
[quote]
Clinton has been a U.S. senator longer than Obama has and has also been a first lady. McCain does have more experience in elected office, but Clinton has more experience as an executive.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Obama has more elected legislative experience than Hillary. As you can see, she was elected to the senate in 2000, shortly after her husband left office. Obama had to work to earn his office positions; Hillary relied on her husband's name recognition.</p>

<p>From Project Vote Smart:</p>

<p>Hillary Clinton's Political Experience:
Senator, United States Senate, 2000-present
First Lady, President Bill Clinton, 1992-2000
First Lady, State of Arkansas, 1978-1980, 1982-1992.</p>

<p>Barack Obama's Political Experience:
Political Experience:
Senator, United States Senate, 2005-present
Keynote Speaker, 2004 Democratic National Convention
Senator, Illinois State Senate, 1996-2004.</p>

<p>
[quote]
She has already stated her platform multiple times, unlike Obama. The second part doesn't make any sense in the context of Clinton's past actions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Haha, I love this argument. Partly because the irony of this argument is that it has no substance. One little click and you can find out his plans. Barack</a> Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Issues</p>

<p>
[quote]
The problem? He doesn't have the "right" tools, and Americans are starting to realize this. There's a limit to the level to which he can play off of dissatisfaction with the government.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hillary can't even run her campaign "right" and "Americans are starting to realize this". (Daily</a> Kos: How Many States Has the Clinton Campaign Dissed?)
What makes you think she can run the government if she can't even lead her own campaign?</p>

<p>
[quote]
What about how Obama's economic advisor said his position on NAFTA was just "political maneuvering"? Wasn't that old-school, dirty politics? I'm sure that if he was campaigning in Canada, he would not be talking about renegotiating NAFTA. Obama's spin machine has basically taken control of the American media (except FOX, but that's worthless anyway). And I'd like to see you back up your statement that she doesn't believe in the power of cooperation.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It was Clinton's NAFTA gate, not Obama's. Clinton's</a> NAFTA-gate? - First Read - msnbc.com</p>

<p>Obama spin machine? Hmm, how about Hillary's "momentum"/"comeback" after March 4th, when she actually lost Texas by Obama getting more delegates than her? (Also, her delegate "gains" were already negated by Obama's wins in Wyoming and Mississippi) How about the fact that Hillary makes so many excuses for losing states? It's a caucus state. It's a red-state. Etc. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Examples? I think she has shown excellent judgment, and I would suggest not judging her based on a decision she made 5 or 6 years ago. In addition, most stories about the Clintons and their alleged moral shortcomings are greatly exaggerated. If you're talking about her tax returns, they're being published next month, and it's ridiculous to expect politicians to publish their tax returns, anyway.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, she showed great judgment by voting for the war without reading the National Intelligence Estimate report. (Report:</a> Clinton didn't read National Intelligence Estimate before Iraq vote - On Deadline - USATODAY.com)</p>

<p>Greatly exaggerated, huh? Do you really want to turn the clock back to "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"? </p>

<p>Published next month? Care to share a link to that story? I've shown my links. You show yours.</p>

94

<p>
[quote]
I hereby refuse to communicate with Newjack88 until he develops something resembling rudimentary reading comprehension skills.

[/quote]

funny you should say that since your attitude indicates that you probably didn't retain any of the information from the Terms of Service about proper how to act properly on CC. in case you've forgotten how to communicate maturely with people who disagree with you, i think this might be helpful :): Terms</a> of Service - IMPORTANT.</p>

<p>
[quote]
First of all, both candidates would clearly win over McCain barring a major scandal, so the general election is not a problem. The argument is, who would make a better president?

[/quote]

ehhh... not true. don't be fooled by polls. make sure you pay attention to whether or not the poll is of "registered voters" and don't forget about the electoral college. in recent polls, HRC is only a few points of McCain in the popular vote, factor in the fact that when she starts campaigning her numbers generally decrease, and you will find that her "advantage" over McCain is miniscule.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Clinton has been a U.S. senator longer than Obama has and has also been a first lady. McCain does have more experience in elected office, but Clinton has more experience as an executive.

[/quote]

ummm... sorry but being first lady is not going to count. and there is no debate about the fact that McCain trumps Obama and Clinton in terms of experience. there is no way that Hillary could argue that she is more experienced or even as experienced as McCain.</p>

<p>Obama has refrained from really criticizing Hillary; the Republicans won't be as nice. they are going to press for her to release her documents and it's going to be shown how little (in relation to how much she has claimed to have done as first lady) she did while in the White House.</p>

<p>
[quote]
She has already stated her platform multiple times, unlike Obama.

[/quote]

uhhh... Obama has not stated his platform?</p>

<p>
[quote]
The second part doesn't make any sense in the context of Clinton's past actions.

[/quote]

i'm pretty sure i heard a story on NPR raising the question of what strategy Clinton would use against McCain. all of the experts said that she has no natural advantage over McCain and that the only way she could win was to bring him down to her level.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The problem? He doesn't have the "right" tools, and Americans are starting to realize this. There's a limit to the level to which he can play off of dissatisfaction with the government.

[/quote]

this is a pointless statement to make since all McCain, Obama, and Clinton are trying to use dissatisfaction with the government to their advantage.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So McCain has proper judgment and leadership ability when he supports the War in Iraq and remains primarily socially conservative?

[/quote]

Hillary is no better. she voted for the war in the first place. also, what about her voting for a bill "she hoped wouldn't pass?" that statement of hers demonstrates complete incompetence. do you really want a president who doesn't understand how the voting process works lol!?</p>

<p>anyways, McCain isn't even a social conservative. brush up on your politics. also, what does being a social conservative have to due with whether or not someone has good judgement or is a good leader? a person who disagrees with your world view can still exercise good judgement and be a good leader. i hope you don't think that anyone who disagrees with you has poor judgement or is a poor leader... that would be incredibly childish.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What about how Obama's economic advisor said his position on NAFTA was just "political maneuvering"? Wasn't that old-school, dirty politics? I'm sure that if he was campaigning in Canada, he would not be talking about renegotiating NAFTA. Obama's spin machine has basically taken control of the American media (except FOX, but that's worthless anyway). And I'd like to see you back up your statement that she doesn't believe in the power of cooperation.

[/quote]

no, when people talk about "old school politics" they are referring to the scorch the earth to win mentality. that simply means find all the dirt you can find on your opponent and fling it on him. </p>

<p>anyways, that's nothing compared to the tactics that Clinton is trying to use to win. what about Geraldine's borderline racist and idiotic remark. it's somewhat racist and idiotic because she asserted that the same equal opportunity laws that got her and Hillary where they are today only benefited African Americans, which just isn't true. she was essentially saying that Obama did not get where he did on merit simply because those equal opportunity laws benefitted him. well if that's the case, why doesn't she say the same thing about Hillary and herself?</p>

<p>see, that's the kind of stuff that's going to cost Clinton the election. her campaign either lacks organization or all her advisors are incompetent.</p>

<p>a part of me thinks the whole Ferraro thing is just a ploy so that Hillary can win more of the "blue collar" vote in Pennsylvania. this whole thing may have been an indirect way of emphasizing the point that Obama is an African American.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Examples? I think she has shown excellent judgment, and I would suggest not judging her based on a decision she made 5 or 6 years ago. In addition, most stories about the Clintons and their alleged moral shortcomings are greatly exaggerated. If you're talking about her tax returns, they're being published next month, and it's ridiculous to expect politicians to publish their tax returns, anyway.

[/quote]

use Google; there are way too many good examples that just scream Hillary will not make a good president. the moral shortcomings are not exaggerated. even though i like Bill Clinton as a president i have to admite that he is literally a sexual deviant... i mean he did stick a cigar in a woman's vagina... pretty weird. the fact that she married him suggests all sorts of things about her. there are MANY other juicy allegations/stories about her and Bill out there. Republicans will have a field day if she is elected.</p>

<p>"If you're talking about her tax returns, they're being published next month, and it's ridiculous to expect politicians to publish their tax returns, anyway."
wow... don't know about that. what good and honest reason could they have for waiting until right before the PA primary? </p>

<p>politicians publishing tax returns is not new. it's a pretty common practice of politicians to publish their tax returns; it's how you hold them accountable. also, i think that Clintons' reluctance to release all of their White House documents is the bigger issue... just wondering, do you even find this behavior at all shady? what innocent person acts like this?</p>

<p>EDIT:
yay for Silentscholaris!</p>