The Real Hillary Shady

[Libertarian666]

All we have to go on is perceived character, and specifically, how these people make us feel. It's a total myth that we care about policy--even educated people like most of us. We really don't care at all. We support the person who gives us a personal warm fuzzy feeling or a fire in our bellies. Once you feel that, it's hard to let go of it or satisfactorily articulate just why you like that person. The same is true in reverse. I just don't like Hillary Clinton and I can't really tell you why. And if you don't feel anything for anyone, then you'll ignore them all, irrespective of whose policies might potentially help you if they could be faithfully rendered into law (and usually they can't anyway).

Sorry, but whatever proportion of the population that is true of, it is not true of me. I would support anyone whose policies I thought would make me freer, which is why I gave money to Rand Paul.

Unfortunately, there is no one left in this race that matches that description, so I have to go with the least bad option.

That's why I crossed over and voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary.

Does he give me the warm fuzzies? No. But he is much less horrifying than Hitlary.

But in partial support of your thesis, it is true that I despise Hitlary, and not only because I despise her policies (although I do). It is because she is a vile, wretched person who has done absolutely nothing good and many things evil.

[Mountaineer]

All,

That was really helpful.  Great posts.  Thanks.  I never cease to be amazed at the insights and perspectives offered on this forum.  I must say after reading the recent material, and of course my gut feeling, I'm sort of leaning toward Cruz at the moment ... one of the points that made sense to me was if the rest of the establishment hates him, he must have something right going for him from my view (but if you are not the lead dog, the view never changes and everyone looks like an a-hole). 

Secondly, re. Cruz and the desire for a punch fest:

http://science.slashdot.org/story/16/03 ... to-science

An anonymous reader writes:
Ted Cruz pitches himself as an overcomer, an underdog, an outsider who beats the odds. While the Republic candidate has won four states in this nomination race so far, a neurologist says he still faces a big obstacle with voters: his own face. In an interview with Quartz, George Washington University's Richard E. Cytowic said the unusual movements of Cruz's face may make him seem less sincere to the human brain than other candidates. "The normal way a face moves is what's called the Duchenne smile, named after the 19th century French neurologist. So the mouth goes up, the eyes narrow and the eyes crinkle at the outside, forming crows feet," said Cytowic, a professor of neurology. "Cruz doesn't give a Duchenne smile. His mouth goes in a tight line across or else it curves down in an anti-Duchenne smile. So he doesn't come across as sincere at all."
Visceral reactions probably drive a lot more of politics than anyone likes to admit; seeming trustworthy isn't the same as being trustworthy, but it sure helps win people over.

... M

[MediumTex]

I know everyone on this forum cares about policy, but how representative is this group of our society?

Part of the reason we post here is likely because we don't know too many people we can have these conversations with (if you do know that many people, then you are a lucky person).

It's obvious that policy means little to nothing in facilitating a politician's quick rise, as we are seeing now with Trump, and which we also saw with Clinton in 1992.  We certainly saw it with Bush in 2000.

Are we saying that we acknowledge the need to know the real policy a candidate favors at the same time we are recognizing that a politician who is not a skilled liar will never be President?  I think PS made a similar point in a recent post that it's a real dilemma, unless we are comfortable backing candidates like Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan (who I like), Bernie Sanders and Harry Browne...people who will never win.

[jafs]

All we have to go on is perceived character, and specifically, how these people make us feel. It's a total myth that we care about policy--even educated people like most of us. We really don't care at all. We support the person who gives us a personal warm fuzzy feeling or a fire in our bellies. Once you feel that, it's hard to let go of it or satisfactorily articulate just why you like that person. The same is true in reverse. I just don't like Hillary Clinton and I can't really tell you why. And if you don't feel anything for anyone, then you'll ignore them all, irrespective of whose policies might potentially help you if they could be faithfully rendered into law (and usually they can't anyway).

It's really not true of all of us.

I don't like any politicians that much, and I don't vote on how they make me feel, or on what I think they'll "do for me".

[MediumTex]

All we have to go on is perceived character, and specifically, how these people make us feel. It's a total myth that we care about policy--even educated people like most of us. We really don't care at all. We support the person who gives us a personal warm fuzzy feeling or a fire in our bellies. Once you feel that, it's hard to let go of it or satisfactorily articulate just why you like that person. The same is true in reverse. I just don't like Hillary Clinton and I can't really tell you why. And if you don't feel anything for anyone, then you'll ignore them all, irrespective of whose policies might potentially help you if they could be faithfully rendered into law (and usually they can't anyway).

It's really not true of all of us.

I don't like any politicians that much, and I don't vote on how they make me feel, or on what I think they'll "do for me".

When was the last election in which you voted for someone you didn't like who you knew would do nothing for you once elected?  How would you pick out such a candidate?

[jafs]

I vote based on what I perceive to be the relatively better candidate, based on a broad view of policy differences.

As I said, I don't like politicians generally - I didn't like Bill Clinton, or Hillary, or George Bush, or...So, I'm always voting for people I don't like much, regardless of which one I vote for.  And, actually, I think it's rather a large mistake for people to focus so much on personality, and how a candidate makes you feel.

I did like Obama a bit when he was campaigning, although he just looked like a politician who gave good speeches to me, not some sort of savior.  But, as president, I like him less - he's gotten more political, careful, etc.

What I want are policies that are good for the majority of the country, not for me personally - I'm not looking for a candidate who will lower my taxes, or give me cheap student loans, etc.  And, that's part of the process I find so distasteful - politicians are always promising to do things for people in order to get them to vote for them.

I live in KS, and we have a very right wing governor and legislature right now - they've lowered taxes, and we see that on our tax returns.  We used to owe a little more to the state when we did those, and now we get a little bit back.  It's sort of nice to have that, of course, although it's very small, but I'd prefer to have the old tax structure back and not be losing services/quality of services in our state.

So I voted for the other candidate, because his policies made more sense to me.

i started to think about how i pick a candidate, and character and policy are a part of the math for sure, but there are aspects of character that either don't come into play often or don't matter much to the job, and policy is fine but leadership (No plan survives contact with the enemy) is more important, i definitely lean toward philosophers and thinkers when i choose someone i like, i don't care what you say you are going to do.. its never going to go down exactly that way, i care about how you think and how you problem solve toward a set of well reasoned principals.. i suppose this is why i lean toward the Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Gary Johnson Harry Brown (unelectable) types,

of the current crop Hillary, Cruz, Rubio, all come off as politicians first, second, and last, their goal seems to be power, not principle, and their willingness to do, or say anything to get it, cuts them from my list.
trump poses an interesting case, he has no apparent underlying philosophy, but business world success and media savvy show he has some, on your feet problem solving, thinking skills that the others seem devoid of..

[Libertarian666]

All we have to go on is perceived character, and specifically, how these people make us feel. It's a total myth that we care about policy--even educated people like most of us. We really don't care at all. We support the person who gives us a personal warm fuzzy feeling or a fire in our bellies. Once you feel that, it's hard to let go of it or satisfactorily articulate just why you like that person. The same is true in reverse. I just don't like Hillary Clinton and I can't really tell you why. And if you don't feel anything for anyone, then you'll ignore them all, irrespective of whose policies might potentially help you if they could be faithfully rendered into law (and usually they can't anyway).

Sorry, but whatever proportion of the population that is true of, it is not true of me. I would support anyone whose policies I thought would make me freer, which is why I gave money to Rand Paul.

Unfortunately, there is no one left in this race that matches that description, so I have to go with the least bad option.

That's why I crossed over and voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary.

Does he give me the warm fuzzies? No. But he is much less horrifying than Hitlary.

But in partial support of your thesis, it is true that I despise Hitlary, and not only because I despise her policies (although I do). It is because she is a vile, wretched person who has done absolutely nothing good and many things evil.

Tech, any love for Cruz at all? 

And please vent a bit more, in detail, on Clinton.  I'm looking for more reasons to dislike her (seriously).

If I could believe Cruz he might be less than horrible. He does claim to be a Constitutionalist, which although not ideal is still a lot better than the alternatives on offer.

Other than this, of course, which is horrible no matter how he may try to spin it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bie ... 29984.html.

As for Hitlary, where do I begin? It takes a lot of work just to list the scandals she has been embroiled in, much less to provide details on each one. You can start here: http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-ar ... dals-ever/

[Reub]

The most important quality to get elected would have to be likeability. Who has it this year?

what kind of likability? is the presidency is a charisma contest? a beauty contest? heaven save us if that is all there is to it, if so then the political system is doomed, we have achieved leadership by the lowest common denominator, "the pop culture moron"

[Reub]

The most important quality to get elected would have to be likeability. Who has it this year?

  what kind of likability?  is the presidency is a charisma contest? a beauty contest? heaven save us if that is all there is to it, if so then the political system is doomed, we have achieved leadership by the lowest common denominator, "the pop culture moron"

Bingo!

[Pointedstick]

So I was watching the Democratic debate just now and Hillary had a coughing fit. CNN immediately and awkwardly transitioned to a preview of some new show they just came out with. Right in the middle of the debate! It really seems like CNN is trying to conceal a major coughing fit  that would make her look really bad. So weird, they just like interrupted the debate right in the middle, no closing statements or anything. Poor Hillary is falling apart.

Did anybody else see this? Am I going crazy?

[Reub]

She had another coughing fit right at the end of her closing statement and they cut away after about the 2nd cough.  It was not a good way to end a debate but CNN tried to conceal it as best they could.

[Pointedstick]

This article pretty much nails the problem with Hillary Clinton. I'm trying to avoid quoting the entire thing.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ary-213722

Or consider her “evolution” on gay marriage. Back in June 2014, Clinton got very testy with “Fresh Air” host Terry Gross, who kept pushing Clinton to explain why this shift was not a matter of political calculation. She repeatedly asked the former secretary of state whether her opinion on gay marriage had changed, or whether the political dynamics had shifted enough that she could express her opinion.

“I’m just trying to clarify so I can understand …” Gross began.

“No, I don’t think you are trying to clarify,” Clinton snapped back. “I think you’re trying to say I used to be opposed and now I’m in favor and I did it for political reasons, and that’s just flat wrong. So let me just state what I feel like you are implying and repudiate it. I have a strong record, I have a great commitment to this issue.”

Well, here’s what Clinton said on the Senate floor, speaking in opposition to a constitutional amendment that would have forbidden gay marriage, while making very clear where she stood on the issue.

“I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. ... So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman, going back into the mists of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization.”

Again, plenty of Democrats were on record as opposing gay marriage in 2004—the year that voters in 11 states voted to ban the practice by significant margins. What’s striking about Clinton’s speech is the intensity of the language, the assertion that it is a “bedrock principle.” You might think that a conviction so strongly held would not be subject to “evolution,” much less shifting political winds. Not so, apparently—any more than a trade deal can be the “gold standard” one year and an unacceptable threat to American workers the next; or that a generation of potential “super predators” requires draconian crime laws one decade, while the next demands an end to such laws.

Is this kind of analysis subjecting Clinton to a double-standard? Don’t politicians of all stripes change, “evolve,” calculate? Almost all of them do.
[...]
The difference with Clinton, I think, goes back to her acknowledgement that she is “not a natural politician.” If her husband brings to mind Harold Hill, the genial salesman from The Music Man who could make you see those 76 trombones, Hillary Clinton sometimes seems a Matrix of consultants, advisers and speech coaches. It’s almost as if her brain and tongue were on a seven-second delay in which every word is subject to a pre-utterance examination for potential damage. And, just as in other areas of life, from the tennis court to the bedroom, performance anxiety can lead to unhappy results—in Clinton’s case, the sense that she can be too clever by half. (Is it remotely plausible that the Wall Street speaking fees are somehow connected to helping New York in the wake of 9/11?) That is one reason why she seems to pay a much higher price for her policy shifts than other politicians do.

Another aspect of Clinton’s weakness is less an issue of personal liabilities than of a misapprehension on her part of what political space she occupies. One of the most revealing statements of the entire campaign was her response to Sanders’ charge that “Secretary Clinton does represent the establishment. I represent, I hope, ordinary Americans.” “Well, look,” Clinton responded. “I've got to just jump in here because, honestly, Sen. Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the establishment. And I've got to tell you that it is really quite amusing to me.”

I don’t believe there’s any dissembling here; I think she really believes that a woman cannot possibly “exemplify the establishment.”
[...]
The answer, of course, is that 25 years in the most rarefied circles of political life, countless speeches—where an hour’s work earns you five years’ worth of a middle-class income—a multimillion dollar wedding for your only child, and friendships with every manner of celebrity does tend to make that “establishment” label fit.

The basic problem is that Hillary Clinton has no principles at all; she'll say whatever she thinks you want to hear, and she'll change it 5 minutes later if she talks to someone else who she thinks wants to hear something else. She only says or support what she thinks might be completely safe to say or support. She is a Democratic-flavored mirror. She has no political courage at all; a quintessential follower, not a leader. Compounding the problem is that she's old and she's been around forever, in the public eye since before a lot of people now alive were even born. The voters in 2016 want a titanic change of some sort, preferably one that is more than a little bit populist-flavored.

Hillary Clinton is one of the worst possibly positioned candidates to succeed in such an environment, and if she does, it will not be because people are at all excited by her, but because they are more frightened of Donald Trump. A Hillary victory of this type will have no mandate, no political capital behind it, and will be a recipe for yet more Republican takeovers of even more of the government, and it will in no way dampen the emotions that are currently driving support for Trump.

[flyingpylon]

But it's a woman's prerogative to change her mind so... you're against her because she's a woman. 

[I Shrugged]

Frankly, I suspect what a lot of the people who simply hate Hillary hate about her is that she's a woman.

Please....
Really?  You think that?
Cripes.

[Libertarian666]

Frankly, I suspect what a lot of the people who simply hate Hillary hate about her is that she's a woman.

Please....
Really?  You think that?
Cripes.

That's certainly not why I hate her. Her sex is irrelevant to me.

[MediumTex]

Frankly, I suspect what a lot of the people who simply hate Hillary hate about her is that she's a woman.

Please....
Really?  You think that?
Cripes.

That's certainly not why I hate her. Her sex is irrelevant to me.

My sense is that most of the people who dislike Hillary Clinton also dislike Bill Clinton.

I also don't think Hillary's sex is the primary factor in disliking her.

I think that Bill succeeded where Hillary has so far failed because Bill is simply a far more charismatic person, but it's not because he's a man and she's a woman; it's just because he is a more gifted politician than Hillary.

If Hillary had it to do over, she might have chosen to focus on being more of a James Baker-like "kingmaker" type behind the scenes person.  She probably would have had more impact than by being a public face that is so widely disliked.

[jafs]

A number of people think she was the brains behind Bill's presidency in a lot of ways.

I don't particularly like her personally, but have a hard time understanding how/why people hate her so much.  Many of the things that people criticize her for are also true of many other politicians, ones that the same people don't seem to hate.

It's curious to me.

[Pointedstick]

It's all emotional. Someone who hates Hillary Clinton doesn't hate her because she supported the State Children's Health Insurance program. It's because of her (perceived) personality, habits, attitudes, priorities, and outlooks. It's what makes a person think, "She's looking out for someone like me!" or "She seems like she hates people like me."

[I Shrugged]

She's not as good at lying as a lot of other politicians.  And she does a lot of it, so it's always there to see.

She has an attitude that's off-putting.  Sort of a "how dare you", "I'm smarter than you", exasperation thing.

She's more transparently trying too hard to be likable or one of us.  ie It's easier to spot her phoniness.

[MediumTex]

I think it comes back to a lack of charisma.  When you are charismatic, you can cover up a lot of lying, elitism and condescension.

Hillary just isn't that "out front" person that you want leading your cause.  She is clearly an intelligent and ambitious person, but she just isn't a natural politician.  IMHO, she would have made a far better judge, bureaucrat or Rove-like kingmaker. 

It also doesn't help that when she has been in charge, things just don't seem to go well.  I'm thinking about the mess she made with her first run at health care reform in the early 90s, and more recently the Benghazi debacle and email scandal.

Oddly, Hillary reminds me a lot of Nixon with her mix of arrogance, paranoia and keen intelligence.

[jafs]

Still doesn't explain the raw hatred.

And, I would take exception to your blaming her for the health care stuff and Benghazi.  Why is it her fault that R oppose her so much?  The Benghazi thing has been investigated something like 8 times by R led committees, and they found no wrongdoing.

The e-mail thing may be a bit different - I'm still waiting for the FBI investigation to conclude, but it looks like there's more there than with the other stuff.

And, again, politicians routinely engage in questionable conduct - it's not like she's the only one.

[I Shrugged]

If it makes you feel any better, I hate them all.

its not like she is the only only by a long stretch... but it only takes a bit of disgust with the political class (especially unrealistic right wing biased disgust, but many lefties see it too) to pick up on Hilliary's falseness, proclivity for lies and unabashed pandering for power.. enough for her to become an almost archetypal representative of the type.. from a rational perspective i don't hate Hillary any more than i hate Obama, than i hate Mitch Mcconnell or john McCain, but add in the additional public exposure plus the in your face nature of her politicking, she just gets a bigger visceral reaction from me...

[jafs]

It makes more sense to "hate them all".

But, I think it's even better to dislike the actions, rather than personalizing it the way many people do - I don't like lying, cheating, etc. regardless of who does it.

That way, the focus would be on what we could do to improve the general atmosphere of politics, rather than "let's get rid of this one or that one", as if changing the players will change the game.

[MediumTex]

Still doesn't explain the raw hatred.

And, I would take exception to your blaming her for the health care stuff and Benghazi.  Why is it her fault that R oppose her so much?  The Benghazi thing has been investigated something like 8 times by R led committees, and they found no wrongdoing.

The e-mail thing may be a bit different - I'm still waiting for the FBI investigation to conclude, but it looks like there's more there than with the other stuff.

And, again, politicians routinely engage in questionable conduct - it's not like she's the only one.

Right.  She does the same stuff they all do, but she takes more flak for it.  Why?  Because she is not a natural politician and she has no charisma, and thus she doesn't have the tools to cover up her lies and deceptions.

I think that people also see her marriage to Bill as very opportunistic.  If he didn't offer the political benefits that he does, I think they would have divorced long ago.  Remember how she went by her maiden name for a while.  I think she was weighing the political cost of divorcee and decided to stick with Bill because of the benefits for her.  Letting a man treat her that way and being so opportunistic in her reasoning for staying with him just seems to rub a lot of people the wrong way. 

I think that a lot of people have trouble imagining what it would be like to spend a fun evening with Hillary Clinton.  What would that look like?  What would she laugh honestly about? 

[Pointedstick]

TennPaGa hit the nail on the head: she gives off poor vibes. It's hard to articulate just what this means but it's definitely a thing. I don't hate Hillary Clinton by any stretch of the imagination, but I absolutely feel "bad vibes" when I see her speaking in video form. Everything about her just rubs me wrong. She seems tense, nervous, worried, but papered over with a thin veneer of joviality that seems totally out of place. Always calculating in a too-obvious way. Trying too hard to act out a persona that doesn't fit her. Trying awkwardly to be everything to everybody but clearly meaning none of it. Visibly ill, damaged, falling apart, but trying (badly) to conceal it.

I dunno, she just feels almost like a fake person to me. Like a space alien in a human suit trying to convince people that it's one of them. It's like she's permanently stuck in the uncanny valley or something.

Honestly I probably agree with 40% or more of her platform but every neuron in my brain tells me not to vote for the insecure space alien in a malfunctioning human suit.

It is just a suspicion but i think people with certain character traits including those you describe with Hillary (the alien in a human suit is perfect) tend to take on and become a bigger than they are. They become representative of a type (i called it archetypal in my previous post) with Hillary its the Always calculating in a too-obvious way. political creature vibe, that gives the visceral reaction to libertarians and conservatives, for her husband it was the charismatic but lecherous sexual predator vibe that gave the same visceral reaction to the religious right, GW had the dumb oaf puppet of evil men thing going on, freaking out the left in the same way. The reality, if you make a serious calculation of the individuals, probably is they are no better, and not much worse than each other or most in politics, but because of there media and political presence they have become representative of all those who share their traits and get a stronger reaction from us due to it...