The Hillary Hate just makes Senator Clinton stronger, and if she’s the nominee these clowns will undoubtedly go over the line - again - and turn public sympathy in favor of Sen. Clinton.
Clinton’s corps of high profile enemies on the airwaves include populist conservative radio hosts like Glenn Beck, who has branded her “Satan.”
Another popular conservative radio host Sean Hannity, has dubbed his show the “Stop Hillary Express.”
Clinton, a veteran of the fiercely partisan war raging through US politics, has in the past lambasted the “vast right-wing conspiracy” targeting her and her husband.
But the fierce attacks against her may amount to a back-handed compliment — testimony to a hardnosed, highly competent campaign, and a formidable politician.
In the battle of the wingnut misogynists who comprise the GOP base, bet on Clinton.
In the battle of the wingnut misogynists
Oh please. You start claiming “misogyny” and you do nothing but give validity to the notion that because Senator Clinton is a woman, that she deserves to be treated differently on the campaign trail.
With the amount of vitriol people such as yourself have thrown at people like Karen Hughes and Condi Rice over the last 7 years, you’re hardly in a position to be complaining about people being mean to poor Hillary.
I must have missed the part where forests have been cut down for books that libel Condi Rice and Karen Hughes.
The problem wingnuts have with Hillary is only because she is a woman. Her policy record is virtually undistinguishable from liberal Republicans such as Rudy. Fact is, Hillary should be the dream candidate for a conservative on the Democratic side but all they do is hurl bile. The American people are tired of it. As we found in New York, all the hate Hillary stuff does is make her stronger.
I must have missed the part where forests have been cut down for books that libel Condi Rice and Karen Hughes.
If Hillary Clinton were truly the victim of libel, she would have sued. And in the age of the Internet, books don’t need to be written. The amount of Internet bandwidth used to attack Condi Rice is about the same as what gets used on spam emails on a daily basis. But you don’t see anybody bleating about misogyny.
The problem wingnuts have with Hillary is only because she is a woman.
That’s a bunch of crap.
Her policy record is virtually undistinguishable from liberal Republicans such as Rudy.
In what way? Gay rights and abortion is about where their similarities begin and end.
The American people are tired of it. As we found in New York, all the hate Hillary stuff does is make her stronger.
Oh please. She picked New York because it was a safe haven for her to run. The best the GOP could come up with was Rick Lazio who was a virtual unknown. That didn’t stop Hillary apologists from claiming she was a ‘victim’ because Lazio had the absolute gall to approach her during a debate.
Hillary revels in victimhood. But it won’t work this time around. She’s “in the big game now” and falling back on, “These men are just big meanies!” routine may work while running one state, but it won’t do the trick when attempting to claim the job of President.
“The best the GOP could come up with was Rick Lazio who was a virtual unknown. ”
Because Guiliani chickened out of running against her because it would mean a certain loss.
Well that … and cancer.
Except the cancer wasn’t severe enough to step down from being mayor of the country’s largest city and afterward pursuing a career as a highly paid corporate speechmaker.
EL, unless you have some verifiable evidence that Rudy pulled out of a Senate race with Hillary because of a “certain loss” then please post it. Otherwise, you’re talking out of your ass and deflecting from the main issue which is that claims of misogyny or that the problem people have with her is that she’s a woman are complete and utter nonsense.
Eat a dick Jay. You deflect and obfuscate on every thread you’re on, including this one. I have no interest in debating vermin like you.
Oh come now…everyone knows the reason why Rudy got rebuffed was that the voters didn’t like the dress he was wearing that day!
Should’ve went with the off the shoulder evening gown and maybe he would’ve had a chance (albeit slim)
http://sacdcweb05.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/27/rudy_hillary/
at a dick Jay. You deflect and obfuscate on every thread you’re on, including this one.
Bullshit. As I called bullshit on the whole misogyny accusation garbage. Why don’t you address that instead of sticking to this idiotic narrative that Rudy dropped out of the Senate race in 2000 because he saw a loss on the horizon?
I have no interest in debating vermin like you.
Translation: I’m an intellectual coward and prefer pissing on peoples legs.
On to the next.
“I’m an intellectual coward and prefer pissing on peoples legs.”
Glad you finally admitted it Jay. The lack of self-awareness on your part really was starting to concern me.
Go to Free Republic. Search for Hillary Clinton. Now seriously talk to my face and say that isn’t misogyny. The Hillary Haters do not simply disagree with Sen. Clinton on policy or ideology. They hate her because she is a woman with success under her belt who hasn’t played the boys game (she is regularly referred to as a “bitch”, “lesbian”, “Madam Defarge” or comments are made that she has a “big ass”).
We on the left don’t like people like Rice, but her gender has nothing to do with it. She’s just as idiotic as the other men in the Bush team. Cons mostly detest Sen. Clinton because she is a woman. You may not, and honestly I think you have honest differences with her on policy and not gender, but that’s a deviation from the majority of the right.
Oliver, here is where Caruso changes the argument to “free republic doesn’t represent all conservatives”. Haven’t we all seen this movie before?
Jay hates Hillary because he truly believes all the nutjob conspiracy theories that were factlessly pushed through the nineties by these same screaming crazies. Her gender has little to do with it.
Of course, this whole “they hate Hillary because she’s a woman” lets you dismiss a whole boatload of valid criticism against her. Criticisms such as:
1) One of her most important fundraisers was a wanted fugitive while he was posing for photo ops with her.
2) One of her biggest foreign policy advisors is a convicted felon who pleaded guilty to stealing and destroying 9/11 materials from the National Archives, and was stripped of his security clearance.
3) She has never accomplished a single thing in her life that can not be attributed to her husband’s accomplishments.
4) Her “Health Care Task Force” was stopped before she could nationalize a full one-seventh of the nation’s economy.
5) She pulled a “Bobby Kennedy” and went shopping for her Senate seat, instead of running from somewhere she has significant roots — Arkansas or Illinois, for example.
6) In one recent debate, she came down on both sides of the drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens within a few minutes — and didn’t take a firm stand on the issue until after it was moot.
7) In her one dabbling in the futures market, she managed to convert $1,000 into $100,000 by having an insider manage her trades — “manage” meaning “give her all the profits and absorb all the losses.”
“Misplaced” her billing records from the Rose Law Firm when they were subpoenaed, only to “find ” them in her White House residence a couple of years later.
9) Played a prominent role in establishing Media Matters For America (see her address at the most recent Yearly Kos gathering).
I don’t think a single one of those reasons depends on Senator Clinton’s plumbing, but feel free to disagree with me.
But gosh, it makes a convenient excuse to not answer real questions, doesn’t it?
J.
Jay said: “The amount of Internet bandwidth used to attack Condi Rice is about the same as what gets used on spam emails on a daily basis.”
Hm, not sure how to measure the amount of spam on a daily basis, but I’ll take that as hyperbole on your part.
But a (very unscientific) quick use of Google to see who has had more hat written about them gets:
- hate “Karen Hughes” ==> 9,200 hits
- hate “Condi Rice” ==> 93,000 hits (see note)
- hate “Hillary Clinton” ==> 125,000 hits
Clinton wins.
Note: This is a grand total using “condoleezza”, “condi” and popular misspellings of her name. Using variations of “Hilary” would add another 15k hits to Clinton.
No, Jaytea’s assertions aren’t misogynist, just conservative bull that has been debunked time and again.
Gee, it looks like JT is one of those Hillary truthers.
Jay said: “3) She has never accomplished a single thing in her life that can not be attributed to her husband’s accomplishments.”
Attributing a wife’s success to her husband’s efforts could be construed as misogynistic.
“Never a single thing” Does she get no personal credit at all of anything she has achieved?
I’m reminded of a joke from Bill Clinton’s first term. The Clintons are driving thru Arkansas and stop at a gas station. Hillary recognizes the attendant as an old high school boyfriend. Bill says, “Just think, if you’d married him instead of me you’d now be the wife of a gas station attendant instead of First Lady.” To which Hillary replied, “No, I’d be First Lady.”
Perhaps Bill’s accomplishments are largely due to her. Would you ever consider that?
Go to Free Republic. Search for Hillary Clinton. Now seriously talk to my face and say that isn’t misogyny. … (she is regularly referred to as a “bitch”, “lesbian”, “Madam Defarge” or comments are made that she has a “big ass”).
Go to Kos or DU. Search for Condi, Coulter or Malkin (actually, search Malagang. It’s 72.8% more racist that way!) You’ll find just as many “bitch”, “lesbian”, “c___” references.
Now seriously talk to my face and say that isn’t misogyny…
Geez, Oliver, even by your standards that’s lazy. A link to every single article ever published by Media Matters that mentions Hillary Clinton, who proudly brags of helping found the organization.
588 articles? Wow. One would think that Media Matters has a vested interest in defending her or something…
Hey, I think you just helped prove one of my points for me. Thanks, Oliver!
J.
Oh here we go. I love how when Oliver tries to defend his blanket assertions he starts pointing to a more extreme element and saying, “You see!! There!! Right there!!”
Do the same to him with regard to an outfit like that cesspool, Democratic Underground and he’s starts stuttering, “B..bb..bbbut….that’s not representative of most Democrats.”
Now we follow up with, “Yeah Jay. DU is not representative of the majority of Democrats but FreeRepublic is representative of the majority of Republicans.”
And blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah….
It’s the same old shit. Different day. Hillary’s got ideas issues she has ethical issues, but her suck-ups can dismiss that because they can simply lay whatever problems she has at the feet of the GOP and their modern day He-Man Woman Haters Club.
Do the same to him with regard to an outfit like that cesspool, Democratic Underground and he’s starts stuttering, “B..bb..bbbut….that’s not representative of most Democrats.”
Are you the same Jay Caruso who often complains that others won’t debate an issue “on the merits?”
“Tu quoque, monsieur” ain’t just a cheese sammich.
Quaker, he can’t have it both ways.
And I’m sorry, but the misogyny accusations are being used as a way to temper valid criticisms against her.
She’s running for President of the United States. Not Home Economics President.
She’s running for President of the United States. Not Home Economics President.
So tell the people on your side to stop calling her a bitch, murderer, Madam Defarge, fat ass, etc. We’ll stop calling it misogyny when they stop the misogyny.
Jaytea: Media watchdog coverage follows media coverage. Sen. Clinton is the frontrunner and arguably the most famous active pol in the country. Media Matters would be remiss if we didn’t combat the conservative misinformation about her just to satisfy some right-wing nutjobs just like what was written about John Kerry and the election in 2004 when Media Matters was brand new. I’m not going to do a point by point rebuttal of your accusations versus Sen. Clinton because they’ve been debunked, you know that, but you don’t care. You probably think she killed Vince Foster too. I can’t help that brand of stupid.
Hey, Oliver, you really need to work on your reading comprehension.
1) “Debunk” means “proven wrong.” Just saying over and over that something is crap doesn’t prove a thing.
2) I listed eight valid criticisms of Hillary Clinton, then tossed in #9 to see if you’d rise to the bait when I made a dig at your employer. Your response? Bring up something I never mentioned (Vince Foster) and use THAT to discredit the first nine. It’d almost be clever — if it wasn’t so juvenile and transparent.
I suppose a fair rebuttal would be to go to one of your pieces on Rudy Giuliani and say “oh, come on. The man’s on his third wife, so he’s obviously a raging heterosexual. And the only times he’s been seen dressed as a woman has been for public gags — what’s next, you gonna say half the Monty Python guys were transvestites?” and utterly ignore whatever the substance of your hit on Giuliani is.
But I don’t play those games, Oliver. In fact, I’ve stuck up for Hillary Clinton on a couple of occasions. But your pathetic attempts to deflect legitimate criticism of her makes me seriously wonder if her claim to have helped found Media Matters (made publicly at the last Yearly Kos) wasn’t simple braggadocio — and wonder if Media Matters isn’t wholly in the tank to protect her and help get her elected.
Stranger things have happened…
J.
Rebuttal to points 1-9
Conspiracy theories, nit picking, and cries of political speak. OOOOOOOOO. Those 8 points were the best you have? Now tell us the 8 most negative points for all the other candidates on both side.
Uh, what criticisms?
Non-point #1, a fundraiser (Ho) is elevated to “one of the most important” status, and then no point at all is made about how his legal issues affect Hillary in any way. It’s not like Hillary knew about his problems and still covered for him and then recommended him for a major position, like, say Director of Homeland Security.
Non-point #2, Sandy Berger did not steal and then destroy documents concerning 9-11. He made unauthorized copies and destroyed those. No originals were taken and no data was lost. Mrs. Clinton has already stated that he has no official position on her campaign. Is he working in an unofficial capacity and should she cut all ties to him, formal or otherwise? That would be the question you didn’t bother posing.
Non-point #3, Hillary is a pale shadow of Bill. Misogyny defined. A senator for 7 years and it’s all her husband’s doing. Nice.
Non-point #4, Hillary’s original health care plan never called for the nationalization of anything. That’s just “dirty commie” right wing buzz talk to discredit the idea that the “free” market is ruining our health care. Was her plan expensive? Yes. So is the military, which consumes more than 60% of our annual budget before factoring in supplementals (among other things). Want to debate military welfare? I didn’t think so. Bitch about the cost or pick at the plan itself, but give me a break with the transparent “commie” winger crap.
Non-point #5, She looked for the low hanging fruit when she wanted to get elected to the Senate…errr, so what? She was still lawfully elected (forget, too, that it was Bill who was from the South, not her). What is the point here?
Non-point #6, She hasn’t come down with a clear answer on the driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants debate. Of course, the problem here is that the question originally arose in relation to illegals in New York, which brought about her first answer which was to support Govenor Spitzer. The question was later framed as a question of national policy and she came out somewhat against the plan. So as it currently stands, she appears to oppose driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. You can complain that she hasn’t been firm enough, or that she appears to be flip flopping (which might indicate an effort to come to an effective answer rather than dig in your heels and stubbornly refuse to consider new evidence that may put your original position in a bad light…but enough about Bush), but you can’t say that she hasn’t come out with a position. Considering the amount of flack she has taken over this issue, I wouldn’t say it has become moot at all. So what is your point? Flip flopper? Too easy on illegal immigrants? Too harsh?
Non-point #7, The now ancient history story of her fantastical profits from “insider” trading. Simply put, never proven, like the VAST majority of Clinton winger fiction.
Non-point #8, More Whitewater nonsense. How many times does this crap need to be knocked down? A minimal amount of time billed by a law firm and filed away and forgotten. So they eventually showed up, so what? They don’t prove any more now then they did then. If she was the evil mastermind the right claim she is, why keep any copies at all?
Non-point #9, Guilt by association, kill the messenger, whatever you call it, it’s just misdirection.
You may want to soak your ass in ice until the swelling goes down.
Again, all of those things have been debunked, the numerous scandals all made up conservative propaganda. The cons accusations versus Media Matters are just more of the same. Why did I note the Vince Foster thing? Because its an article of faith for conservatives, often moreso than the other “scandals” you listed. If someone says “little green men stuck an anal probe up my ass”, why would I treat that with any credibility? You’re asking me to do the same with you laughable list of “scandal”.
There are legit criticisms of Sen. Clinton to be made, criticisms even I have made, but then I’m supposed to be one of her stormtroopers so maybe that’s reverse psychology mind control on our part. We are Borg.
Perhaps if the people on your side got past calling her a “bitch” we could talk.
Jay: “I listed eight valid criticisms of Hillary Clinton”
Valid?
3) She has never accomplished a single thing in her life that can not be attributed to her husband’s accomplishments.
Already discussed this one. In short: She is an accomplished woman. (First student to speak at commencement exercises for Wellesley College, law degree from Yale, Congressional legal counsel, first female partner at her firm, listed as one of the most influential lawyers in America in 1988 and 1991, etc …) And yet you consider saying she hasn’t accompished “a single thing in her life” on her own to be a “valid” criticism.
4) Her “Health Care Task Force” was stopped before she could nationalize a full one-seventh of the nation’s economy.
It was a complex plan which is impossible to summarize in a few words, let alone one. Yet you consider dismissing it as a plan to “nationalize” to be a “valid” criticism. Was there nothing in the 1,000+ pages of the plan worth considering?
Do you have some proof that this was an intentional hiding of records? Or are you suggesting that unproven accusations are a sufficient basis for a “valid” criticism?
More to the point, the records were found so what did they show? Did they reveal some inpropriety in her billings? That would be a stronger basis for a “valid” criticism, yet instead you can complain only about, what?, her filing system?
9) Played a prominent role in establishing Media Matters For America (see her address at the most recent Yearly Kos gathering).
In the words of my grandfather, “Yeah? So?”. She played a role in establishing something. So what? Wouldn’t a more “valid” criticism be what it’s used for? So-and-so set up a PAC. Yeah, so? So it’s been indicted for money laundering for drug cartels. Ah, now you have a point.
So, Jay, want to rationally debate what makes a “valid” criticism and which ones may legitimately be made of Clinton (and which not)? Or would you rather just point out that I didn’t respond to all of your 9, and thereby avoid supporting your view?
I see Bill l got in a more complete reply to Jay’s “9 criticisms” before I did. His (Bill’s) posting reminds me a something that bothered me about Jay’s original post.
Why not mention anyone by name?
“One of her most important fundraisers”
“One of her biggest foreign policy advisors”
It’s criticisms that lack detail always come off as suspect to me. Of the “She once had a third cousin who’s high school roommate moved to New York to become (gasp!) a thespian!” vague accusation type of attack.
If you can point to a particular person then why not do so? Why not provide the substance instead of the vagueness?
The topic of this post is “Hillary Hate: They Can’t Contain Themselves” and all I see is idiotic dissertations from Jay Tea and Jay ironically legitimizing the title.
Guys, you hate Hillary. Fine. Now, get a life.
Are Jay and Jay Tea actually supposed to be two different people?
“Are Jay and Jay Tea actually supposed to be two different people?”
Jay Tea is marginally better at debating, but not by enough to actually win an argument.