To hate someone not for something she's done but for what she seems to represent to the hater, that's heinous.

Whereas Bush hatred is totally justified because of what a shitty mess he has made of this country...

While I have no problem with Obama as a candidate, Clinton's loss makes me sad from this perspective. Presuming she doesn't win the nomination, I don't know where this leaves women in running for president. My gut level feeling is that it's hard to see how a woman could win without a significant shift in the way Americans view female leaders. If she runs as the establishment candidate she is boring, yet not safe, which is I think what's killing Clinton. But I can't see a woman taking the Obama route either. America doesn't find dynamic, iconoclastic women inspiring in the way it seems to find Obama; rather, it finds them threatening. Makes me sad.

Hillary may be perfectly decent.

BUT SHE'S NOT A LIBERAL!!!!!

Not only heinous, Jeff from WI, but pathetic, sad, immature, and stupid. There are too many people like her in politics. When I worked for Legal Aid, Hillary Clinton was seen as almost a hero, given her work in the '70s on behalf of children (she worked for handicapped children to have access to public education, for example). You don't have to love the woman, but my god, to just "hate" her because she's a threat and not what you think a woman should be, that's just ridiculous.

I have never understood the Republican hatred of the Clintons. They are conservative-moderate Democrats who agree with most Republicans more than they do with some Democrats. What is the Republicans' problems?

Kevin, I agree with you 100%. I have been reflexively defending Hillary against all comers for so long that it almost didn't matter to me whether I actually prefered Obama or Edwards. I did not want to see Hillary get beat - I especially wanted to see her overcome the negative press. But maybe that is not a good enough reason to support a candidate.

I feel sure Lisa and Co. will find a target for that 'newly freed strand' of hate energy. They were perfectly able to redirect it to Gore and Kerry when they had to.

freelunch, I'll assume that's a rhetorical question. ;)

NK: if Hillary doesn't make it this time, we'll just have to keep electing female senators and governors until it's no big deal. We're far behind Europe in terms of the number of women in lesser offices.

In any case, being elected as the wife of a former president is an old route to power that has worked even in Muslim countries (e.g. Benazir Bhutto). It basically amounts to electing the family, and it isn't particularly feminist.

Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher, and Segolene Royal (who didn't win) made it on their own, without a spouse leading the way.

"I have never understood the Republican hatred of the Clintons. They are conservative-moderate Democrats who agree with most Republicans more than they do with some Democrats. What is the Republicans' problems?"

What's their problem?

Republican's were supposed to have the White House forever. And the Clintons, while not liberals, are NOT Republicans.

That's all.

What is the Republicans' problems?

Class, race, and gender insecurity, plus the lingering fear of nookie....

My question is somewhat rhetorical, but it would be nice to find out if there is actually a reason for this. Otherwise, I might have to conclude that they are all insane.

Of course, you might also notice that there are a lot of Republicans who hate Huckabee with the same blinding hatred that they have turned on the Clintons. Is it something about Arkansas? Rockefeller? The idiocy of lying to yourself about taxes?

For some reason, I don't mind their self-destructive hatred of Huckabee nearly as much as their foolish (and at times destructive to our country) hatred and abuse of the Clintons.

Actually Schiffren's hatred of Hillary is completely rational. Hillary is cynical. she says whatever she thinks you want to hear. She is manipulative. She is hypocritical because she support women's rights but is married to Bill Clinton, a adulterous philander. And not only that, but she has a horrible cackle of a laugh, and she couldn't even cover up her breasts when dressed in the Senate. There's really nothing to like about her.

As long as we're laying our cards on the table, this is one of the things that keeps me on Hillary's side regardless of anything to do with issues or tactics or rhetoric or anything else...

Me too. I especially don't comprehend the loathing among Democrats. And, to be blunt, am I the only one who thinks Hillary's travails with respect to Bill over the years -- especially while they were in the White House -- actually add to her appeal? I'm talking about the way she dealt with everything. The quiet dignity. The strength. The lack of self pity. The resolve to just get on with it. All that and apparently she did a terrific job raising her kid. She's not warm and fuzzy. She's cold and regal. Her strength and stoicism are exactly the attributes I find most admirable about her.

Thanks, Al, for letting me know that it is completely loony.

What does it say about a person whose "central political impulse" is to hate? Who is married to that hate for 15 years, and who bemoans having to "work hard" to keep that hate alive?

There's a pathology there.

It's that last statement that gets to me. I'm no fan of Bush, but I wouldn't gleefully and seriously classify it as "hate". And even if it were "hate", I don't have to "work so hard" to nurture that feeling.

On the few times where Bush has done something right, I'm quite happy -- relieved, in a way -- to give credit where it is due. Whereas Ms. Schiffren would, in Hillary's case, probably become annnoyed because now she would have to work harder at keeping that Hillary hate alive.

Lunacy.

NK, I share that perspective as well. A lot of the Hillary-hate on the right was due to her stepping out of the traditional first lady role in the first place. Once she was established as hated and "polarizing" it was easy for sexists on the left (oh yes, they are out there) to pile on.

Obama may be able to use youthful enthusiasm and sheer charisma to overcome the racist elements, but as you say, the same dynamics don't work for woemn in this country, at least not yet.

I honestly cannot see another viable Dem woman on the horizon, and that makes me sad too.

Ms. Schiffren's comments are silly, but Sen. Clinton has earned that hatred.

Something about politics inspires hatred in some people. Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, the Clintons, GWB. Look at how many people tried to assassinate Charles DeGaulle. The reptilian part of our brain taking over, I guess.

Joe Buck:

Oh, I agree with you (though I think that Clinton is not so much riding her spouse's popularity as riding her spouse's funding, which is an old tactic that has benefited both men and women - Bill's popularity doesn't really seem to have done much for her). My point is not that a woman will never be elected president in the US, but that it's hard to see how it happens in today's environment. I agree, the way to change that environment is in part to build up female leadership at the lower levels as you suggest. But that's a long-term strategy, and it would have been nice to think we were a bit further along than that. After all, while I recognize that issues of representativeness are complicated by the differing percentages of women and blacks in the population at large, certainly people are no more "used" to seeing blacks in high-level positions than they are to seeing women. (Note that this is not a knock on black candidates - I like what Obama's viability says about American's changing views, I'd just like to see the same for women.)

But who knows, maybe Clinton will pull it out and I'll no longer be glum.

I think that Hillary is both unfairly hated on the right and the worst of the three main Democratic candidates. Both can be true at once. She has limitations of mind and personality that remind me of a male politician, Richard Nixon. That has nothing to do with her sex, it has to do with her as a person. There is such a thing as a political temperament. Obama seems to have it. Bill has it, but Hillary does not.

As for feminism, Joe Buck is right: being elected as a former first lady and current celebrity senator would be a false victory for feminism. Thatcher, Merkel, Royal, Golda Meir, et al. provide far better models.

Hate is such a useless emotion.

"Sick-minded smears and hatred" Without these, was does the Republicun Party have? Nothing. Not a thing.

I don't hate Hillary, I've said before I think she's a good Senator and should take over for Ted Kennedy as the voice of the moderate left in that institution...But ignoring her own personality flaws because she's an abused woman is like ignoring Ted's crimes because he's a Kennedy. What male politician would have survived letting Hugh Rodham lay around on the WH couch for six weeks auctioning pardons to federal prisoners, who could have stonewalled so many issues, i.e. her magically materializing billing records two days after the statute of limitations expired. She's brought most of the dislike on herself, quit apologising for her.

freelunch wrote: "I have never understood the Republican hatred of the Clintons."

The Republican hatred of Hillary Clinton was deliberately and carefully manufactured.

Following Bill Clinton's 1992 election, a Republican political operative (whose name I unfortunately don't recall) was quoted saying "Within one year we will make Hillary Clinton the most hated woman in America."

And the well-funded right-wing extremist Republican propaganda machine set out to do exactly that, creating the Cult of Clinton Hatred of which Lisa Schiffren is a card-carrying member.

I think that Lisa Schiffren speaks for many Republicans who fervently wish for Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee, and perhaps even secretly harbor a wish for a Hillary Clinton presidency, so that they can again experience on a daily basis the joy of the "central political impulse" of Clinton Hatred.

So-called "conservatism" in the USA has had no real content other than hatred of "liberals" for a long, long time.

"But by God, I don't want her to lose because millions of Schiffren's fellow travelers have carried on a 15-year vendetta of sick-minded smears and hatred. Enough's enough."

Hey Kevin:

At the moment, the only group of people who are in a position of making a loser out of Hillary are your fellow Democrats who don't vote for her. I'm sure you are not labelling all those loyal Democrats who don't support her as being part of "Schiffren's fellow travelers [who] have carried on a 15-year vendetta of sick-minded smears and hatred" against her.

I hope not. Because we, who have carried on the 15 year vendetta against Hillary are quite content to wait until after she gets the nomination before letting the venom fly.

I just hate the idea that the fever swamp has been able to turn a perfectly decent liberal woman into such an object of malign loathing.

I think that on the left side, the sympathy she gets for surviving the fever swamp clouds a lot of people's judgments about her record, her inability to admit even trivial mistakes, etc.

Yes, all of it makes sense when you consider what she's been through. She doesn't dare vote against Bush's wars, surges, threats of war, etc., because she'd be dragged through the fever swamp over it. She doesn't dare admit even a trivial mistake about whether someone in Pakistan is or is not a candidate, because she'd be dragged through the fever swamp over it.

But if she would go to the same extremes as president to avoid the fever swamp, and if in particular she would continue to err on the side of war to avoid appearing weak, then she's not fit to be the Democratic candidate, no matter how unfair it is that the fever swamp is what pushed her to adopt these reactions.

As for feminism, Joe Buck is right: being elected as a former first lady and current celebrity senator would be a false victory for feminism.

I have to say I think this line of thought is wrong. If, in fact, HRC was indeed Bill Clinton's most important or most trusted adviser, then discounting her years in the White House simply because she wasn't an "official" member of the cabinet is sexist. If you don't buy the part about her being a critical member of his team, then I guess that's they way you see it. But I think it's pretty obvious her role was substantive, and vital. She just didn't face a Senate confirmation.

Chicounsel -

The Republicans would feel devastated if the Democrats didn't nominate Sen. Clinton now. They have all of their emotion tied up in her. If she just stays in the Senate, doing a good job, they will feel crushed.

Democrats should never do anything that takes into account the feelings of Republicans.

She is a shopaholic, she campaigns on her desire to go shopping in the government warehouses.

That is a non-starter to voters of either party.

In any case, being elected as the wife of a former president is an old route to power that has worked even in Muslim countries (e.g. Benazir Bhutto). It basically amounts to electing the family, and it isn't particularly feminist.

Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher, and Segolene Royal (who didn't win) made it on their own, without a spouse leading the way.

That has much more to do with where we are in history than with Hillary Clinton herself. The women who have come to power without family connections are still the minority. In another...how many?...years, that won't be true.

I wonder if one of the things people have seen as HRC's strength--that she has taken every bit of outrageous crap possible for 15 years and there's nothing new they can throw at her--has also been a weakness in this campaign. There is a certain old-news air about her even outside of the insane Clinton hating. Right now voters are looking for big change, a sense of starting over, and rightly or wrongly, Obama appeals to that impulse. In a few years people may be looking for tested familiarity, and Clinton might have done--or still might do--better in that environment.

I heartily agree, though, that it's sad that we don't have more major women candidates in the pipeline. So much of getting elected is being the right person walking into the right moment, and when only one woman at a time is a viable candidate, she's not going to be ready or the right choice for all the possible twists in the political landscape. When we have a variety of solid women candidates with different platforms, styles and personalities, the chances of landing the presidency--over and over--will be much greater.

Seriously, I read Steve Gilliard's blog for years and there was a guy with a LOT of anger issues. Same goes for a lot of blogs, right and left. If you invest that much of your time and energy in being mad at people, it's going to affect your physical and mental health. Doesn't matter what your politics are.

Because we, who have carried on the 15 year vendetta against Hillary are quite content to wait until after she gets the nomination before letting the venom fly. Chicounsel

I hear people talk of BDS, seems you have admitted to HDS.

I just hate the idea that the fever swamp has been able to turn a perfectly decent liberal woman into such an object of malign loathing.

—Kevin Drum

Amen. And this is exactly what makes all this "reaching across the aisles" nonsense so dangerous. The fever swamp is still there, and Obama or whoever our nominee turns out to be, better understand it before and after the election.

If we do win, with larger majorities in both chambers, let's kick ass while we have the chance.

Screw compromise.

I hate the fact that Hillary is considered that "liberal."

And, anybody more liberal than Kevin would know that.

The repugnacans have always hated the Clintons. You would think that neither Bill or Hillary have done anything for the country. That they are 2 of the most despicable folks on the planet.

Yet the repugnacans seem to idolize the Bushes.

Hate for Hillary is like the venom sports fans lavish on their rivals. While politics is more than a game, most Limbagnoids (aka most republicans!) seem to think it's game to trash the "left."

We are in for a long year.

While I too would like to have a woman president (and soon!) and while I too wonder about where our next opportunity will come from, is there really anyone here that can claim, even for a moment, that five years ago you thought it even a remote possibility that a black man would be one of the most viable candidates in the race? One with the name Barak HUSSEIN OBAMA?

Yes, mostly politics is a game of this feeding into that, and this result coming from this. But sometimes it's also that moment of the sheer unexpected.

Because more important than a woman president is having a really great one that will be remembered for more than being the first woman.

Kevin wrote: "I just hate the idea that the fever swamp has been able to turn a perfectly decent liberal woman into such an object of malign loathing."

What's worse is that the fever swamp has been able to turn a conservative Southern Democrat into a "liberal".

Why do Republicans hate them? Because Bill would not go for PNAC.That sent Bill the Bloody and his minions in to a fit.And because Hilliary called it what it was A Rightwing Conspiracy against her Husband.It really is that simple.

Just because Hillary was slandered by a right wing hate machine for 15 years doesn't mean that she should automatically get the Democratic nomination for President.

Nor is it a particular good reason to think that she'd be a better President than either Obama or Edwards.

That's the choice primary voters are making. Not some judgement on the right wing hate campaign.

Kevin are you going to do a Thread on the goofy pocket veto From earlier in the week?

OT a little, The R's need to be worried Those numbers from lastnight where awesome 239,000 voting Dems that has to worry R's running for reelection this could be the end of the Republican Party.

….Sen. Clinton has earned that hatred. Brian at 2:35 PM ….She has limitations of mind and personality that remind me of a male politician, Richard Nixon.….Hal at 2:38 PM …. Hugh Rodham lay around on the WH couch for six weeks auctioning pardons to federal prisoners…mr insensitive at 2:40 P.... She is a shopaholic…Matt at 2:48 PM

The above are typical of the unfounded irrational hated one sees. None have any factual basis, but they read their own prejudices into the Clintons. Nixonesque? Rehashing the phony "pardongate" and even more phony "billing records?" Shopoholic like who, Condi?

….before letting the venom fly. … Chicounsel at 2:42 PM

….If you invest that much of your time and energy in being mad at people…Posted by: Speed on January 4, 2008 at 2:50 PM

There's really nothing to like about her.
Posted by: Al

Sure there is, scum. She drives a rapist/murderer-defending slimeball like you absolutely nuts.

I agree completely with you Kevin. I've supported Obama from the beginning, but the sheer hatred of the Clintons that you see on the right wing blogs and in the press (I'm looking at you Chris Matthews) has made me use up valuable time defending Hillary on right wing blogs.

One thing that strikes me in today's postings is this idea that one should find Hillary distasteful because of her positions, but that her lack of passion about any particular topic isn't mentioned much. Then, with regard to Edwards his determined passion to fight corpocracy is called 'anger' and his actual record of fighting it in the courtroom isn't mentioned and his policy positions are dismissed. Meanwhile, Obama has less experience than Clinton or Edwards and claims 'experience' is over-rated and policy and 'hope' are everything. It seems very self-serving.

I rate experience highly. I think both Clinton and Edwards are superior to Obama on that count.

I rate vision highly and on that Edwards seems superior to the others.

I rate policy positions highly and Clinton and Edwards are good on that score. Obama's policies, as I know them, are flawed or weaker.

Most of all, I rate character highly. In Clinton I see a triangulator who suggests agreement with you, but who hedges and fudges to avoid committment. In Obama I see someone who lies to his potential supporters and who steals lines from other candidates and who is too easily led (or pushed) around by the nose. I see Edwards as more visionary, gritty and determined and that this follows naturally from his background.

Aside from campaign money I don't see Clinton or Obama really being able to match Edwards.

Anybody cares to dispute these characterizations?

Kevin, Kevin, Kevin...

That is not a fight worth having Kevin…. I understand what you mean, but for god sakes don’t encourage others to fight this fight.

The republican base is ripping itself apart at the roots. The Theo-cons, Neo-cons, Palio-cons, Kstreet-kons are at each other’s throats. No amount of fear mongering, LIBERALS are SHIT and FAGS are taking over our Kindergartens for homo-sexcapades in teacher Unions who sympathize with TERRORISTS to rape our Anti Abortion protesters… Rhetoric is going to work this time.

Its not going to work. Get it?

Nothing is going to this cracked GOP out to vote against the Reagen-esque Obama platform that is reaching out across the isle for an American majority as we speak. Who will unite American in common purpose to deal with the many many many issues we need to deal with.

Repubus have a busted party. Thanks to George Bush’s overreaching with his permanent Repub majority.

This election cycle, there is only ONE thing that could reunite this rag tag bunch of crazies together into one untied party. One thing, Hillary R. Clinton.

There is only one wedge issue that would unite Rebubs for this election. There is only one thing that could get despondent Repubs out of bars, Out of Churches and off their fat FOX news watching asses to vote with HATE in their hearts. And that issue is Hillary Rodman Clinton.

No republican candidate is going to INSPIRE butts in seats for republicans this year. Not one of them. The only thing in all of American politics that could do would be the desire to CRUSH HRC. She would get MILLIONS of Repubs off their fat asses into voting booths. Do you really want to have that fight?

Do you?

PS: For the life of me I don’t know why, Hillary is so polarizing to republicans. There is a lot I don’t understand about republicans. But I can say this with 100% confidence, the only person as polarizing in American politics as George W Bush, is Hillary R Clinton. Like it or not. Understand it or not. Agree with it or not. She is an ANTI-CHRIST for the right wing, as much as GWB is an ANTI-CHRIST for the left.

Are you fighting for what’s right for America? AMERICA? Or for what’s right for the Clintons? Think about it. Is America worth that fight?

And that’s today’s WORD.

Mike: "If you can watch what the Republicans have been doing and not feel anger, you have far worse problems."

I've been watching the GOP run the country into the ground for decades, and if I had stayed angry about it all that time, I'd be dead by now. The world is full of things you can get angry about, but what does that actually accomplish? You may furiously type away on your keyboard thinking that you're really fighting the good fight, but you're not getting anywhere. I've been there, done that.

Sorry, Kevin, but it seems you have missed Bob Somerby's point, once again. It's not Schiffren and her right-wing fellow travelers that have done the most damage to Hillary; it's the mainstream media's endless trashing of her, abetted by the silence of liberal writers like yourself. Until now, let's hope.

A lot of my opposition to Hilbot I preface with "This isn't her fault but..." By that I mean, the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton thing, and the irrational hatred she stirs in the Repugs.
But the fact remains - nominate her, and the Limbaugh wing of the GOP becomes "more powerful than we can possibly imagine." The genelec becomes scarily tighter. And the agenda becomes much narrower.

But that's today. Consider this - what does she gain from a loss? What does she gain from an Obama presidency? How about even more experience? How about, more distance from Clinton 1.0? How about, sitting back and waiting while the Bush/Rove/Limbaugh coalition finishes crumbling?
And can't you see the MSM themline? "Humbled, Wiser, A More Mature Hillary Makes A Second Run."

Republican's were supposed to have the White House forever.

That's my opinion too. I don't have any tapes or anything, but my memory of election night when Clinton beat Bush was that the Republican who commented on the record were just flat out pissed. They never got over it. And they knew they had to destroy Hillary on the health care issue or they'd be looking at 16 years of Clintons in the White House.

I think old Lisa should just start watching daytime dramas. There, she can find a love-to-hate-her character and a means to expend that energy for decades to come! And, the country won't be wrecked in the process.

"She is hypocritical because she support women's rights but is married to Bill Clinton, a adulterous philander."

Why cant a woman be in favor of women's rights and choose to be with a adulterous philander?

I thought the whole point of being for women's lib is to be able to choose what you want!

Freelunch is right on the money. The Republican hatred of both Clintons was created by a deliberate campaign to smear them once Republicans realized what formidable opponents the Clintons are. It is pathetic how many Democrats also bought this venom. Many, including Obama, seem to think that the Clintons somehow brought this on themselves and overlook the fact that the same smear machine also trashed Gore and Kerry and will do the same to whomever the next Democratic candidate is. And reaching out won't stop them. No one seems to remember that Bill tried this tactic, appointing Republicans to his cabinet. One of them, the "honorable" Louie Freeh, used his post as FBI director to help the right wing push scandal after scandal.
What it harder to understand is the fact that so many in our mainstream media play along with this kind of garbage. It is up to us to make sure it stops. Whenever any Democrat is treated this way by Republicans or the media we need to raise a stink.

Tomeck states an overlooked point about the right wing animosity to the Clintons; Repubs felt the tides moving their way after Reagan and genuinely felt robbed [think Bush v Gore in reverse] by Ross Perot giving the WH to Clinton with 42% of the vote.

Is it really that hard to understand why some Democrats hate her, too? She acted as an enabler for the war on Iraq, which even if W had been the best president in all other respects, would still be the biggest sin our country has committed on the world stage since Vietnam.

And on the opposite bank along the same fever swamp.

It seems strange to say that Edwards is doomed when Hillary had so much money and fame but Edwards still beat her in Iowa. Or that Huckabee is an empty suit that had this landslide of a victory that was bigger in margins than what Obama won. Maybe establisment Dems are just as silly as establisment Repugs. I guess it's okay to hate Bush and hate Hillary and just move on now and not have to listen to the swamp people at all.

I'm a good Democrat, and will of course vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination. She's certainly qualified, and her views are in general congenial to me. But she has no public charm--none at all. And listening to her spout bromides is close painful. You either have it or you don't. When Obama sprouts bromides-- that's music.

I'm with ya, Kevin.

I love that old line that Clinton won with only 43% and these same people can't take 100 and divide by 3 (That is 33.3) That means Clinton won with a Majority. 3 divided by 100. That is how it works in a 3 way race Got it ,OK. Oh and Gore never said he invented the internet,If you believe that please show me the quote.

Actually Schiffren's hatred of Hillary is completely rational. Hillary is cynical. she says whatever she thinks you want to hear. She is manipulative. She is hypocritical because she support women's rights but is married to Bill Clinton, a adulterous philander. And not only that, but she has a horrible cackle of a laugh, and she couldn't even cover up her breasts when dressed in the Senate. There's really nothing to like about her.

Well I guess you've outed yrself as a reactionary Kevin.
This is as lame - especially for someone (mis)labeled as a political animal - as Leninist's defending their various 'deformed workers states'.
Lame, offensive to feminists and political imbecility as usual. Your tech may be upgraded but yr still not improving are you?

At least Lisa Schiffren attaches her real name to her diatribes against Hillary. You know what her agenda is.

The depressing part of this primary campaign for the last two months has been reading vicious name-calling and attacks on Hillary on so-called liberal blogs, attacks that had nothing to do with policy and, often, everything to do with attacking attributes that I share: older liberal woman with wrinkles. I have no idea who these people really were, but they made me dislike Obama intensely.

Ironically, they may have actually been Karl Rove wannabes trying to disrupt the Democratic primary. If so, they probably succeeded in making this life-long Democrat want to skip the general election for the first time in over 40 years.

I, for one, think that Obama's charm will not win him the Presidency if he is nominated. It may turn out in the end that Democrats are probably making a mistake by not nominating Mrs. Clinton, though recently she has been talking more and more like John Kerry, and so it may not ultimately matter at all.

So much is about timing. Yesterday's liberal may be viewed as today's ... what. Truly, one of the sadder parts of this year's primary process is watching newer, younger liberals or progressives almost slash at Hillary. You know, there is a fairly simple--and, objective/factual--way to deal with the degree of Senator Clinton's "liberalness." Look at her voting record, her year by year voting record and place it side by side with Obama's and Edwards'. I say this because you will find that the numerous votes she has cast in her life (the actions she has taken--not just the words) will place her in the 90s on a top scale of 100 liberal scoring. I believe, also, that you will find the overall vote at the same level as Obama and liberally superior to Edwards. Yes, we can all "feel" something about a person. Remember, of course, how so many were enticed to vote on the feeling of wanting to have a beer with George Bush. But, since so many of us purport to be supportive of strong, smart, and capable women ... why do Democrats (of all people) echo Republican smears about laughter being cackles, denigration about dress, imagination about personal motives, etc.? Instead of a Rohrschach test, perhaps we should call it the Hillary test? What are we really so concerned about? Chris

Two words: Mark Penn.

No real liberal would ever vote for a candidate who let that guy run their campaign.

Lisa is a pathetic asshole. After she linked approvingly to a blog post that wished that Hillary had married O.J. and I called her on it, she sent me an e-mail apologizing and the NRO edited the offending post rather than leave it up there to reveal to the world what a fucking tool Lisa really is.

re: john john

Not to be too technical, but majority means 50% plus 1. Thus at 43%, Bill Clinton won a plurality of the popular vote and a majority of the electoral college votes and thus the presidency. The last legitimate president (I guess you could count 2004's election)?

We need more slogan's in this post methinks.

Replugs Un-Unite?

Also, more on topic.

Fair or no, Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton is a strong argument to me for some other Democrat being the Prez nominee. I think she might make a great VP though, the left's Cheney?

Just some thoughts.

... Ross Perot giving the WH to Clinton with 42% of the vote.

I love the assumption built into that statement that every Perot vote was a lost Bush vote. IIRC, the polls at the time showed an even split.

I think a lot of the commenters here hit the nail on the head: Hilary Clinton is not a liberal, although she, like John Kerry, probably was 35 years ago. She panders- and does so obviously. And she does it badly, whether she is putting on a really bad local dialect in a black church on MLK Day in Alabama, or holding herself out as a great friend to Israel and stalwart Zionist when addressing her New York Jewish constituents. My hunch is that if there is still a real person left inside that calculating shell, she is probably a decent human being with good instincts. And if she ever let herself be the person she used to be, she'd have a much better shot of winning votes.

You can't make every voter like who you are by pretending to be someone you're not; so you may as well be the best person you can be and take what comes. Voters sense that about people like Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Dennis Kucinich, and to a lesser extent, Barack Obama. Plastic people like Mitt Romney and Hilary Clinton are repellant to those who want a genuine leader who believes the words coming out of his or her mouth.

"She couldn't even cover up her breasts when dressed in the Senate."

Dude, I realize you're a jobless lunatic with short term memory issues and all, but two words:

Katherine Harris.

I agree with Kevin that much of the malignment/loathing of Hillary and others (e.g. President Bush) is unfair and, in extreme cases, borders on sickness. One problem with Hillary, decent liberal woman or not in terms of her politics, is that she really comes across as a "congenital liar," and unlike her husband as recognized by Bob Kerrey, she is not good at it - you know she is lying. To some extent, it goes back to the fact that her introduction to America was her lying about the obvious bribes she received through trading on the futures market. Almost all politicians are phonies, but she is beyond that in terms of calculation and deception.

In any event, unless she destroys Obama somehow, she now will not get the nomination and if she gets the nomination by destroying Obama, she will not be elected president. And absent some scandal/dirt in Obama's past, it is hard to see how any democrat derails him. He is by far the most likeable candidate and best speechmaker, and since there is no real difference between him and others on issues, he seems invulnerable absent a significant scandal or other dirt. Hard to believe how quickly this has happened.

James Finklestein:
It will be interesting to find out who the real Obama turns out to be. Last night on Charlie Rose, a black commentator said that Obama talks one way to white audiences to reassure them and talks to black audiences "like Stokely Carmichael in 1968." He wondered how Obama was going to bring those two versions together.

Lisa is a pathetic asshole. After she linked approvingly to a blog post that wished that Hillary had married O.J. and I called her on it, she sent me an e-mail apologizing and the NRO edited the offending post rather than leave it up there to reveal to the world what a fucking tool Lisa really is.

I don't suppose she could have asked that the post be edited because she recognized how offensive it was and didn't want to offend?

I suspect you'd have complained as well if the post had been left unchanged.

I have a slightly soft spot for Schiffren, having had a couple of email exchanges with her about her comments on Hillary. In both cases she actually *listened* to what I had to say, acknowledged my points, and indicated that they were leading her to rethink her opinions. In my experience, that's highly uncommon with right-wingers. And I can't be the only liberal to have had this kind of discussion with her.

It seems to me she's been going through some kind of positive process that's taking her to a more rational place, and she ought to get some credit for it.

Chicounsel is right.

It did not occur to me when reading Kevin's post, but Hillary's present problems are not caused by republicans, they are caused by democrats unwilling to support her. To the extent any loathing of her is denying her the nomination, it is the loathing of democrat voters.

It is surprising that Republicants loathe Hillary so, when she has always been GOP-lite and even Richard Scaithe, who spent millions trying to bring down her husband, admitted last year that the Clinton presidency wasn't so bad after all.

Singular legislative legacy was welfare reform, insuring single mothers had neither educational opportunities nor job training to fall back on.

Their ineptitude on everything from gays in the military to health care set back both those issues by 20 years.

They managed to make Ed Meese look like Bobby Kennedy with their (Hillary's) pick of Janet Reno, who created the template for the witchburning daycare prosecutions from Little Rascals in Carolina to McMartin in Southern California.

Furthering her devout interest in children, she gassed and incinerated the women and children in Waco as a coup de grace.

Then she returned a small boy to Cuba, at the point of a gun, after his mother had drowned getting him here.

With vindictiveness, secret health care meetings setting the precedent for Cheney's energy cabals, a preference for lies and parsing over veracity, it's always been curious more Republicans didn't embrace the triangulating Clintons.

The bigger mystery is why so many so-called progressives continue to. Astonishing, really. But, then again, Clintonistas are progressive in the manner members of the DLC are.

HDS (or fever swamp) for 99% of the population is a programmed emotional response. The other 1% are actively involved in the programming. If you view the next several years as a crucial battle for America's soul, like I do, then winning big in the next election cycle is a big deal. The dark side has been using no holds bars rules of engagement since 94. We could be defeated if we run a fatally wounded (if deserving) candidate. Those who want a woman president will just have to wait. We've got a country to save.

This has all been explained before.

Dan Quayle had some fine specimens of humanity on his staff. Just this woman and the warmonger who revels in deaths of Iraqis and does not mind the deaths of Americans to achieve his ends are enough to suggest that Bush 41's VP was a great judge of character.

Reno wasn't AG in the mid 80's when the McMartin insanity erupted. Come to think of it, didn't the Little Rascals witchhunt start in the 80's as well? That societal hysteria, I seem to recall, was an 80's phenomenon. The hysteria of the 90's was black helicopters - but I understand Reno piloted one of those. Hillary, too.

Don't know how to break this to you Kevin: H. R. Clinton is not now and never has been a liberal. She has been in the fairly remote past, at most, a centrist. She comes from a conservative Republican family and has been steadily drifting back to her roots for at least 25 years now.

"Chicounsel is right."

Nonsense. Chicounsel is, as usual, a blithering idiot.

"but Hillary's present problems are not caused by republicans,"

Which "problems" would those be? There are two: a failure to get elected and enduring incessant vile attacks. Guess who's responsible for each.

"they are caused by democrats unwilling to support her."

Selecting another candidate more to your liking is not usually seen as a sign of "hatred" of the other candidates. It's only in Chicounsel's fevered imagination that these are one and the same.

"To the extent any loathing of her is denying her the nomination, it is the loathing of democrat voters."

Complete nonsense, which is why neither you nor Chicounsel can support this bit of silliness.

Sen.Clinton is still my first choice. I would imagine that some of that support is based on the treatment she has received. I also do not like the idea of NOT voting for someone because the Republicans dislike that person the most! Can anyone say: "Don't throw me into that briar patch!"? Whose nominee is it supposed to be, anyway? I don't think she is too liberal (whatever that may mean) so as to frighten independents away and those votes are what will determine the 2008 election. I don't think we need worry about any "conservatives".
She has followed the Democratic leadership on foreign policy votes, which is what junior senators do. That she has not spoken out more against this mal-administration's foreign antics is, rightfully, I think, held against her. Yet the question also needs to be asked: what sort of support (in the Democratic party) would she be able to call on had she spent the last five years calling them poltroons and cowards? Do we know what policies she has pushed for in private only to have them rebuffed? Everything I have read about the Senate confirms my view that had she entered that body acting like anything other than a new, junior Senator, she would have been unable to accomplish anything.
And it is fair to argue what she has accomplished; it is also fair to ask the same of Sen. Obama and former Sen. Edwards. It is also fair to remark on the public performances (there really isn't any other word) of the candidates. What I have read about her campaigning for the Senate in New York, she appears to connect (a word I don't like) with voters when she is campaigning. Apparently in Iowa, Sen. Obama "connected" better than she. I don't think there is anyone who has really seen Sen. Clinton campaign nationally in support of programs she wishes to implement. Hopefully, some of that will come out in New Hampshire.
My only hesitation with Sen. Edwards is that, once campaigning began, he would be unable to overcome the MSM/punditocracy/RW noise machine. I don't think Sen. Clinton would have this problem to the same degree.
And my fear of Sen. Obama is that, in his zeal to unite, he will forget that first he has to win and THEN offer a hand for cooperation.
And what many seem to forget, there are 435 seats in the House and 22 or 23 in the Senate up for election in 2008. I really cannot see any of the present top three Democratic candidates blocking progressive legislation originated by either House. How much arm-twisting and log-rolling any of the candidates would employ to pass progressive legislation is a matter of conjecture.
No matter what, in the next several weeks I, and others, will make our decisions in a voting booth and again a few months later in the general election. Hopefully we will be able to support whichever Democratic candidate gets the nomination, because, whoever it is, they're going to need it.

PaulB,

I don't understand. How are Hillary's problems in Iowa, and the problems she now faces in future primaries, caused by republicans? Aren't they caused by democrats unwilling to support her?

Hillary actually brags about her past battles with republicans, which must mean she thinks they help her with democratic voters.

filmex: "[The Clintons] managed to make Ed Meese look like Bobby Kennedy with their (Hillary's) pick of Janet Reno, who created the template for the witchburning daycare prosecutions from Little Rascals in Carolina to McMartin in Southern California."

Mahalo nui loa for single-handedly proving Kevin's point about the irrational hatred of the Clintons in but one single sentence.

The initial investigation of the McMartin Pre-School case began in 1984 in Manhattan Beach, CA and ended with the defendants' acquittals in 1990 after a 2-1/2-yea trial. This, of course, was three years before President Clinton ever took office.

Likewise, the Little Rascals Pre-School case began in April 1989 in Edonton, North Carolina. Janet Reno was District Attorney of Dade County, Florida at that particular time, and did not become U.S. Attorney General until mid-1993.

Further, in both instances, prosecution was instigated and handled by local law enforcement officials, and not by their federal counterparts.

You sound like a complete asshole.

brian: "I don't understand. How are Hillary's problems in Iowa, and the problems she now faces in future primaries, caused by republicans?"

Jesus H. Christ, brian. How do you manage to remain so perpetually obtuse that facts and truth just slough off you like water off a duck's ass?

Suffice for me to say that your innocent little ignoramus act is has worn really fucking thin around here. So, take it somewhere else, clown.

Donald apparently thinks name calling is the adult response to a reasonable question, or maybe he just has no answer.

Anyone else able to offer an explanation as to how republicans are causing Hillary a problem in the democratic nomination process, especially when she goes around bragging about how he can handle republican attacks.

"I don't understand."

ROFL.... Which makes you either a liar, a troll, or an idiot, or some combination of all of the above.

"How are Hillary's problems in Iowa, and the problems she now faces in future primaries, caused by republicans?"

Dear heart, where in Kevin's original post did he talk about "Hillary's problems in Iowa?" And how on earth did you miss this statement of mine in the post you responded to:

Which "problems" would those be? There are two: a failure to get elected and enduring incessant vile attacks. Guess who's responsible for each. [emphasis added]

It took Chicounsel's blithering idiocy to take Kevin's post and turn it into an indictment of Democrats. And it took your even more idiotic post to pretend that Hillary's loss in Iowa was caused by Democratic "loathing". In short, both you and Chicounsel are idiots.

[Trolling from fake IP deleted]

Donald from Hawaii, why equivocate? Filmex IS a complete asshole.

"Because more important than a woman president is having a really great one that will be remembered for more than being the first woman."

Good god. You mean we aren't allowed to have at least one or two mediocre, or even merely good, woman presidents before we come up with a "really great" one? Well I guess we'll never try one then.

I agree with Somerby and some of the posters that Gore hatred was mainly a media driven phenomenon, but Clinton hatred was Republican born and bred. Good reference on the subject: Jeffrey Toobin's "A Vast Conspiracy", and I'm sure there are more. Combine that with the backlash against feminism - the only insult Rush uses with more venom than "liberal" is "feminist" - and you get the roots of the Hillary-hatred on the right, which they have taken great pleasure in nursing and stoking for 15 years, as Shiffren's quote suggests.

At the very least the media's role is to report on it as if being hated is a personality trait of her own ("Hillary is so polarizing"), and at the worst they pile on themselves - you know who you are, Chris Matthews.

I am at a loss to explain the venom from the left, other than, as I said before, once someone is a public object of derision, it is easy to pile on. Plenty of male politicians have all of Hillary's policy faults and political caution that posters here have pointed out, and I don't see them treated with such contempt just because they dare to run for president. Is the cackle really that off-putting?

Dems in Iowa don't live in a soundproof booth. Of course they are influenced by the attitudes of Republicans and the media, and the idea that Hillary might not electable because of her high negatives might have played a role in her defeat. Nothing wrong with that, but to deny it plays a factor is wrong, especially when her opponents made it an issue themselves.

Brian, let me help:

1. The Republican Noise Machine has ceaselessly, remorselessly, unconscionably demonized HRC since 1992. That's a looooooong campaign.
2. This campaign worked just the way any other successful saturation marketing campaign works. It sold the sizzle, not the steak. In other words, it propelled forth a narrative completely independent of fact.
3. Regardless of how sophisticated the consumer, marketing wonks know that it takes an average of only 7 exposures to embed a message in any consumer's brain. Consider the impact of 15 years of total saturation marketing. Republicans, Democrats, independents, liberals, conservatives, moderates, the utterly indifferent, the comatose...we all got the message.

this is one of the things that keeps me on Hillary's side regardless of anything to do with issues or tactics or rhetoric or anything else.

Are you in seventh grade? You support a politician regardless of anything to do with issues or tactics or rhetoric or anything else because other people hate her? I'm sorry to say it Kevin, but you are no better and just as juvenile as the Bushites out there who use your "reasoning" word for word. They just can't bear that poor Bush -- a fine, upstanding, god-fearing conservative -- is so reviled and hated on the Left, so they blindly support him for that reason alone.

Sorry, this is pathetic.

Dawn, you are a wonderful woman.

Orson, that's just plain dopey.

Apples and oranges.

The wingnuts hate Hillary because one, Goldwater liked her more than them and two, she would make a fantastic Republican President if that were her thing. How can they face up to all that?

Bob M...LOL...excellent!

Sharon,

Your theory is that republican attacks on Hillary since 1992 are causing democrats in significant numbers not to vote for her. I can see that as a possibility, but I don't know how one could ever determine if that is true or not. In the partisan political climate since 1992, it seems less likely that attacks by republicans would cause democrats not to vote for her. Hillary was bragging in Iowa about her ability to beat the "republican attack machine," so she and her advisors seem to think the issue of republican attacks on her helps her with democrats. The attacks on Bill did not seem to hurt him with democrats.

Can you think of other examples where attacks by the other party harmed someone within his/her party? Dan Quayle is the only one I can think of as a possibility.

What strikes me as interesting...since I'm old enough to draw the comparison...is way the media treated HRC's handling of a personal crisis and humiliation versus the way they treated Jackie Kennedy Onassis' handling of personal crises and humiliations. Jackie O never cracked. She maintained her dignity and privacy. For that she was praised. For the same behaviour, HRC was branded cold, calculating, manipulative. Go figure.

Let me repeat the first comment by Jeff of WI:

"To hate someone not for something she's done but for what she seems to represent to the hater, that's heinous."

"Whereas Bush hatred is totally justified because of what a shitty mess he has made of this country..."

Sharon,

I don't see the comparison between the conduct and circumstances of Jackie and Hillary. I'm not even sure what is the comparison that you see. The infidelities of Kennedy were not known, while Clinton's were universally known. And Hillary used her situation and relationship with Clinton to advance her political career, while Jackie did nothing like that.

If Lisa is taking a path toward decency, she is surely taking the longest route possible. I hadn't known she was a speechwriter for Mr. Potatoe Head, but the vast majority of her posts on The Corner make me want to puke. I find them sadly lacking in intelligence and full of partisan BS. So I guess her connection to Quayle is not surprising.

Brian,

It may surprise you to know that most Democrats are not liberal, are not really that tuned in to politics, are pretty lazy and don't really want to work all that hard or read all that much in order to figure out if what they're hearing in the media is valid or not. In other words, Democrats are ordinary Americans. They're impacted just as much by the media as independents, moderates, the indifferent...anyone else in America who watches TV or listens to radio.

I myself was mystified by all the vitriol leveled at HRC. I saw it in '92. At the time, I was just like most of America...poorly informed and completely dependent on the mainstream media for guidance when it came to politics. I thought Maureen Dowd was the bees knees, for heaven's sake.

I was utterly indifferent to the Clintons. In fact, I'm embarrassed to admit I voted for Ross Perot. But the viciousness toward Hillary started immediately, really before she had actually done or said anything at all of note. In my gut, I felt there was something sinister in it that went beyond ordinary politics.

Then my brother-in-law insisted I watch a video that claimed Clinton was a drug runner and serial killer. It had high production values, and I was just as confused and anyone else would have been who had grown accustomed to trusting slick production and professional narration. It could have been a 60 Minutes expose.

That was the start of my political awakening. It took a long time and a lot of independent reading to finally figure out what was going on.

I'm mentioning this because I think you underestimate how gullible and ordinary most Democrats are. They're not the politicaholics you imagine. Most Democrats are just Democrats because their parent were. Democrats as easily distracted and bamboozled as anyone else. They've been told for so many years that HRC is cold, manipulative, ruthless, blah, blah, that they can't believe their own lying eyes when they see a woman who has kept her dignity under withering humiliation and attack, who has survived and refused to be destroyed by events, who has reared a wonderful daughter, who has held her marriage together against the odds, who has insisted on defining herself instead of being defined by others, who has triumped and prevailed.

I'm iffy on HRC's politics. I hate the triangulation. I hate the corporatism. I hate the vote on Iraq. But Hillary Rodham Clinton has character, commitment, intelligence, depth. She is a ferocious, focused fighter. We could....and most certainly have....done far worse.

brian stop being a fucking moron. Your "thesis" that voters choosing someone other than HRC is a sign of hatred by them is stupid even by the incredibly low standards you normally set for yourself on this board.

Nearly one in three Democrats in Iowa chose her. This number far outstrips several candidates and puts her in a near statistical tie with one other one - leaving only one candidate clearly chosen by more voters. This set of facts alone demolishes your idiotic point. Stop posting until you can tell the difference between hating someone and voting for someone else.

Brian,

The mainstream media in the Kennedy era was a completely different beast from the Clinton era. Had the Republican Noise Machine dominated the MSM as it does today, you can be sure Kennedy's infidelities would have been lavishly exploited and Jackie's stoicism would have been broadcast as cold calculated indifference.

Sharon, be a dear and tell brian where he can retrieve his genitals. I have long since grown weary of his banality and concern-trolling and rarely engage him at all, and certainly not with the civility you have displayed.

Are you running for anything? I'll volunteer to leaflet neighborhoods, man phone banks, whatever is needed!

I hope like hell you decide to stick around and comment regularly, because your comments are the best of the thread!

Heavy,

You are sooo cool. All that needs to be said, you have said, "Stop posting until you can tell the difference between hating someone and voting for someone else."

Blue Girl,

I'm floored! What a wonderful thing to say. I'm just an ordinary 61 year old woman sitting here in New Orleans by myself drinking wine and having a high old time. I rarely get into an active thread so by the time I comment, the discussion is dead and I get no feedback. This is great!

I agree with Blue Girl. Please stick around, Sharon. Your cheerful and intelligent observations are fun to read.

Sweetie, I know from ordinary people, and ordinary you ain't! :)

I raise my brandy snifter to toast you!

Shucks! I'm blushing. LOL. Thanks again.

I totally emphathise with Kevin. I support Hillary and (supported her husband) simply because I could not bear to watch the unfair and vicious attacks on them! I see the same thing happening now not just by the media and the rightwingers but also by Obama supporters! My suspicion (based on the foul and childish language often used by them) is that a lot of them on these blogs are younger and, therefore, see the world in binary terms! I started out being equally interested in Obama and Clinton. Then, I decided to look closely at Obama's record and found out that he is just an empty suit, too left wing to win the general election.

The vetting has already started. See the following ABC News video.

http://thepage.time.com/abc-world-news-report-on-the-clinton-campaign/

He is on tape as wanting to overturn Federal mandatory minimum sentencing and is on record as being for single-payer health insurance and now says he is against it. This goes against the core of his arguement that he is a conviction politician. The Republicans will exploit this (and I am sure there are a plenty of other such things) against him in the GE and paint him as another liberal