Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forum*HILLARY CLINTON GROUP* Why do so many people (particularly men) hate Hillary?
I don't think it's just because she is a woman, though that certainly plays into what I see as the primary reason for why so many men (and a disturbing number of women, too) loathe Hillary Clinton.
It's because she's a feminist. And not just that, but a feminist icon in a field (American politics) that has never been friendly to women in general - let alone, women who focus on women's issues, and who are seen as "threatening" the Good Ole Boy's Club (TM) at the highest levels of power. Nope.
I think that this explains a lot of what we see in the virulently hostile reaction to Hillary - on all sides of the political spectrum.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hueymahl
(2,906 posts)I risk posting this here, because it is, essentially, a negative response about HRC in the HRC group, but you did ask.
My wife, mother, mother-in-law and several of my daughter's friends have a negative opinion about HRC. They all would label themselves as feminist, as do I.
I won't say why they feel this way, because each of them have their own reasons (though there is a common thread), as that would not be appropriate for this forum.
Personally, I respect her for everything she has overcome, her perseverance and intelligence. I just don't agree with where she is on most positions important to me.
Cha
(320,525 posts)just anyone can come in here and unload.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)for feminists to not like Hillary or to disagree on policy issues. But that is not the question.
All of Hillary's progressive detractors should ask themselves: have I really investigated this woman? Do I truly just differ on policy? Or have I basically bought into the public caricature of her that has been built up over 25 years of right wing hatred?
That caricature is deeply rooted in the right wing's rejection of Hillary as a feminist. When she first appeared on the national scene, they were upset because she did not play the traditional wife role, did not bake cookies, was clearly seeing herself as her husband's equal, and even tried to keep her own name. From that day on she was declared Public Enemy #1 by them.
Has she made mistakes over the years? Of course. She is human.
But a lot of what we see about Hillary, including here on DU, echoes the twisting of her record that is rooted in right wing smears. And even progressives, and yes, even feminists, sometimes unwittingly buy into that. That is why you will read on DU that some don't simply say they reject her reasons for the Iraq War, but that she is bloodthirsty and enjoys killing people. (I read that on DU just the other day.) There are many examples of the same thing. And it comes not just from the right wing these days. Indeed, a heck of a lot of it now comes from the Bernie camp. But if we dare to challenge it, then we're accused of playing the gender card. It's a Catch 22.
Cha
(320,525 posts)
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)
hueymahl
(2,906 posts)Way too many right wing smears are being used by DUers. It IS the silly season, but it is not acceptable.
Thanks for a really well put together post.
northoftheborder
(7,639 posts)I remember when Bill Clinton first came on the political scene, and the "Parade" Sunday paper magazine ran a short article about her, her career, where she came from, etc... a light, simple, uncritical essay similar to articles written about all Presidential candidate's wives in that magazine. A few weeks later, I was astonished to read in the Parade a note from an equally astonished and disturbed editor, of the venomous letters the magazine had received about the very idea of writing anything slightly flattering to Hillary Clinton. That was the beginning of the "campaign" about her. I think, as Hillary expressed when asked recently, about the general dislike of her, that bits of all that ugly smear over the decades have remained on her reputation, and the young people now voting do not know of this history. It is really sad. But it only makes me admire Hillary's strength and courage to go forward and try to serve this country in spite of it all.
BlueMTexpat
(15,700 posts)GOP-memed caricature is what too many DUers are posting. 
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)you love or hate Hillary but no one can accuse her of not being a strong woman who has had every form of hate thrown at her for 25 years...
DURHAM D
(33,090 posts)That means she can actually change the status quo which is unknown territory for everyone and thus generates fear.
livetohike
(24,413 posts)People male and female are jealous of her accomplishments. She was an activist First Lady not sitting in the White House hosting tea parties. That bothered many men that she had the nerve to speak up and give her opinions. It bothered some women as well.
aaaaaa5a
(4,686 posts)How much Albright's comments hurt her campaign. They have been devistating.
Could you imagine the Jesse Jackson campaign of '84 and '88 built around the theme of "if you don't vote for me you are a racist?" That's what Albright's comments turned her campaign into.
Hillary even had to address these concerns at the debate again last night. Madaline Albright and the people who linked her with this campaign have made our efforts so much more difficult.
When Obama ran in 2008, never once did he say vote for me so I can become the first black president. To many voters this is what the Clinton campaign boldly states with ridiculous campaign moves like the women Senators campaign day and the aforementioned Albright.
No group likes to feel they are being excluded. This includes men. Hillary is going to need millions of men to support her campaign like I do or she will fail.
She needs to stop running to be the first women president and instead work on running to be a great president. Period.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)I did not find Albright's words helpful at all.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Madeline Albright was saying that tongue-in-cheek! Do people think she was being serious? 
Same with Gloria Steinem on Bill Maher's show!
But you know what isn't funny? 44 men and counting!
Now -NOW - is the time!
We men are just going to have to suck it up for being excluded. 
aaaaaa5a
(4,686 posts)But if you want to win you have to be smart. You have to have tactics.
Turning her campaign into a gender war will not get her elected.
Albright's comments hurt the campaign badly. It not only drives away men, it drives away women too!
If you want to see Hillary become president as I do, her supporters and the campaign have to think. She is not going to win if her campaign is based on a gender war, emotion, anger and revenge.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)As HRC noted, saying it for about 25 years. Would he be endowed with superior courage and foresight?
This man says Albright is absolutely correct, even tongue in cheek.
aaaaaa5a
(4,686 posts)Why is this so hard to understand?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I have no idea what you are talking about - but if you think Hillary has to pretend to be gender neutral - and it is no big deal if a woman is elected president - if you believe there are no profound gender and sexist issues in every facet of American society - then you and I disagree completely.
And Hillary is not declaring war on men.
We already have a war on women!
aaaaaa5a
(4,686 posts)And I think electing the first woman president is a very, very, very big deal. And I will add I certainly understand there are gender issues that I would love to see eradicated from society.
I'm just saying that running a campaign based on what Albright said... being associated with ridiculous statements like this... and expected women to vote for you just because you are a woman is foolhardy strategy. And the NH exit polls proves this to be correct.
No, I am not saying this is what the Hillary Campaign is all about. I understand its a whole lot more. Its why I support her candidacy so strongly. But in politics, when you are trying to get elected, how you are perceived is important. Millions of people were hearing Albright's statement for the first time. And they tied it to the Clinton campaign. And it hurt her Presidential effort. Both with men and women.
The thread wanted replies related to why men are having a difficult time voting for Hillary. This terrible move on behalf of the Clinton i campaign isn't the only reason but it is a part of the reason.
If Hillary Clinton doesn't improve her position among men (and women btw) she is not going to be President. I hope the campaign will adjust to these difficulties and make the fixes necessary so we can move on to victory, instead of acting like some posters here in getting angry, making accusations, and pretending that everything is ok when it is not.
There are some people here that have to understand how politics work.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I believe we should apply Pascal's wager to it!
If there is a 'special place in hell' for women who don't support other women, then women should make it a rule to support other women!
If there is no hell much less a special place, what harm is there in women supporting other women - just in case there really is a special place in a very real hell.
Or, it's just an amusing comment.
aaaaaa5a
(4,686 posts)Excerpt:
In a New York Times op-ed titled "My Undiplomatic Moment," Albright stood by the sentiment of her signature catchphrase, but acknowledged that her timing was not ideal.
"I have spent much of my career as a diplomat. It is an occupation in which words and context matter a great deal," she wrote. "So one might assume I know better than to tell a large number of women to go to hell."
"I absolutely believe what I said, that women should help one another, but this was the wrong context and the wrong time to use that line," Albright continued. "I did not mean to argue that women should support a particular candidate based solely on gender. But I understand that I came across as condemning those who disagree with my political preferences. If heaven were open only to those who agreed on politics, I imagine it would be largely unoccupied."
End of excerpt.
Full apology with proper context here:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/13/opinion/madeleine-albright-my-undiplomatic-moment.html?_r=2
As I was saying, Albright's comments in this political context were ridiculous. Hillary Clinton's "women Senators" campaign wasn't any better. It cost her votes from men AND women. Lets hope the Clinton campaign can learn and grow from this so that we all can see a woman as President in January 2017.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)this is the same overblown hyperbolic rhetoric used by those opposed to Hillary that she has been subjected to for three decades?
I will never give credence to these kind of ridiculous attacks, particularly over absolutely nothing.
Anyone who justifies not voting for Hillary because of this - is full of shit!
Ellen Forradalom
(16,187 posts)outrages people like nothing else. But Albright and Steinem do have a point, even if their comments were ill-timed.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)The problem is the way it's been spinned. The fact that she (as well as Gloria Steinem) said stuff that was easily spinned in a way that suggested that older feminists are dissing younger feminists (or just younger women in general, feminist or not), harmed Hillary's campaign.
I agree that 44 men is enough for now!
Basic LA
(2,047 posts)Bill & Hillary were equals. This sparked anger at the time, & it has grown. There was a hint of this equality early on with Jimmy & Rosalin Carter, but with the Clintons, this anger at the disruption of male power has really taken off in all directions.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)Sorry, I've used up my quota of rational insight for just a moment.
I've watched Hillary's career with interest ever since Bill ran for President the first time, and the smears from the VRWC have never stopped -- and now have migrated into both political parties and public discourse as though they were true. Youngsters who weren't even born then only know what they see and hear now, minus that context.
Madeline Albright should have saved that line for a private luncheon where the cellphones were collected at the door. It's a great line -- or was back in the day. But at the moment it fell like a brick and I groaned aloud, knowing how it would be taken out of context and twisted until its own mother wouldn't recognize it. 
Bad news.
Starry Messenger
(32,382 posts)And your supposed allies often come after you too.
Just wait until after Super Tuesday.
Ellen Forradalom
(16,187 posts)Women can't have nice things.
They can't have good jobs or nice cars they buy themselves. They can't aspire to real power. And they certainly can't have the White House if a man wants it.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)and that's very threatening to some people.
jmowreader
(53,392 posts)The Republicans believe the White House is their personal property. The Clintons got in the way of that, so the Republicans are going to destroy them any way they can.