Sullivan is just an embarrassment to himself. Anyone who takes anything he writes seriously should be embarassed. He's a gadfly.

At times, I've disliked the political timidity of the Clintons, or thought that Bill Clinton allowed his personal appetites to overwhelm his public duties to the detriment of the country, or felt that Hillary Clinton approached the presidency too much like a car mechanic and too little like a car commercial (inspiration is important!), but I've never gotten the hatred.

What?

You're right, that probably is a confusing metaphor (it's early!). Changed.

Sully is a bit silly, but I've long considered sHillary to be something of a snake-oil salesman (that's a Southern expression) much like Billary was. But sHillary doesn't pull it off nearly aa well as Billary did.

She's proven her incompetence at least twice. One, in her handling of the politics of the health care financing issue in 1993-94. Second, in her vote on the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq. She might make a fine municipal dog catcher, but that's about it.

I noticed that "lies almost as well as her husband" comment this morning. I agree, the untethered hatred of the Clintons is fascinating; it long ago became unmoored from any rational assessment of him, or her. As I said last time, Sullivan's hatred of her goes to something much deeper than merely who she is or what she's doing. He really, really can't stand her. And it's weird. And I think there are Democrats who will need to wrap their minds around what it means if she's the candidate - this stuff can't be ignored or dismissed casually if she's the nominee and we intend to win. It's serious, it's a bit nutty, and it needs to be confronted. And the fact that she's willing to take some of this on is admirable. As I've said, I don't want her to be the nominee - I'd rather have Kucinich, truth be told. But the possibility that it will be her is very real, And I'm not sure what some Democrats plan to do if it happens. Giving people like Sullivan credence on this craziness, it seems to me, is a mistake.

I'm also in the "I don't get it" group wrt Clinton-hatred. And Sullivan, yikes. He just can't change the subject, even though lots of people have politely and not-so politely asked him to do so.

At the end there, Sullivan sounds drunk.

Sullivan's obsession with Clinton is, in part, just the flip side of your own attraction to Obama...an overestimation of the inspirational and charismatic roles of the Presidency. It probably derives from a Romantic view of history not balanced by enough historical materialism. It is undemocratic.

Dear Andy:

Just fuck her already and get over it. Yes, I know you're gay. But it's your only hope.

I don't understand why more Democrats DON'T hate the Clintons. During Bill's presidency, we lost the House for the first time in 40 years, had the fewest governors in the post-war era, and lost more party ID that at any other time in the history of polling. And yet so many Ds fawn rapt over the glory years.

If you make it out to Denver for the convention in August you can see the sign holder above in person. Although he is obviously a loon I think of him as the physical manifestation of the kind of bizarre irrationality exhibited by someone like Sullivan. The big difference between the nutty sign holder and the odd Hillary haters are that this guy lets it all hang out and doesn't try to cover it up with the "If only you knew what I know"- type statements. But in the end both the crazy Clinton hatin crazies and the otherwise credible Clinton hatin crazies have no real rational basis for their bile. There is plenty of room for honest disagreement without staying up all night painting Hillary Kills People on a sign in your garage.

Well, if you recall that during the 1990's you could tune into daily broadcasts on small local and shortwave radio all across the country telling you that Hillary Clinton was plotting a UN invasion of the U.S. with Russian troops to create a socialist / homosexual OneWorld government, maybe even using black helicopters and bar codes on the backs of stop signs to navigate, and that she and Bill were murdering hundreds of people all over Arkansas to keep their massive drug-running operation secret, it all sort of makes sense.

That is, in that senseless raving right wing loony sort of way, which Andrew Sullivan -- however much his blog friends love to praise him -- is fully capable of mimicking whenever he feels like it.

Andrew needs to talk to his therapist about Hillary. She unhinges him.

I can only guess that Hillary and Bill are hated because of what they represent. The Clintons are seen as the "dirty hippies" and the younger siblings that went off in life to do what they wanted and live as they pleased and succeeded and got away with it. They lived the life that everyone was raised to believe that they would be "punished" for living, but instead of being punished, they succeeded beyond anyone's wildest expectations. It's got to anger you if you're from a small town, did all of the things you were "supposed" to do, married someone nearby, never took drugs, and got a "safe" job and yet are struggling to get by, while the people who protested the war, experimented with pot, and believed "all that hippy stuff" get to become president.

I have to chalk of Sullivan's animosity to left over academic anxieties. It's ok for a lot of people to see the "naturally talented" surpass them academically and professionally. But to Sullivan, Hillary represents that not-particularly-charismatic, not-natural-genius hyper-focused person who out classes Sullivan every single time. As bob mcmanus alludes to, Obama "seems" like a leader and therefore deserves it. Hillary Clinton not only doesn't deserve it, bceause she's not a "heroic leader", but she wins despite having all the qualities that a Romantic-era "hero" isn't supposed to have. Andrew's desperate for a leader he can follow, and Hillary comes across to Andrew not as a leader but as a rival.

It is true that both Clintons routinely face vicious and irrational attacks from prominent bloggers, movement conservatives, and members of the elite Beltway media (e.g. Tim Russert and Chris Matthews to name just two- though Matthews seemed to be overcompensating in the opposite direction last night due, I think, to his abominable behavior the previous week).

However, I often find that the hateful and illegitimate attacks on Sen. Clinton often tend to obscure (what I believe are) legitimate criticisms of her as a candidate.

During the 5 days before NH the media went after Clinton with apparent glee; criticizing her for her "meltdown" during the NH debate, questioning the authenticity of her tears on that Monday, and generally celebrating her imminent political demise.

However, what the traditional media failed to do was point out the repeated instances where the Clintons engaged in dishonest attacks on Obama. From the blatantly false mailer on Obama's pro-choice record in Illinois (that may have contributed to his loss of support among women), to Bill Clinton's repeated distortions of Obama's record on Iraq- the Clintons largely got away with misleading voters on Obama’s record which may have contributed to the large percentage of (undecided) voters who decided at the last minute to support Sen. Clinton.

So while Clinton hatred is real and should be condemned (forcefully) at every opportunity, it should not be allowed to distract from what I believe are legitimate criticisms of Sen. Clinton's campaign and her lack of honesty when discussing the records of her rivals.

Wasn't Andy just commenting recently that he was going to reconsider his knee-jerk vitriol towards Clinton?

Goodbye to all that, indeed.

You can learn much about a person by their writing. Clearly, Sullivan is a joyless and bitter person.

Further, given the fact that he isn't even an American citizen and is unable to vote, our electoral process is simply none of his concern.

IMHO, Hillary-hatred and Clinton-hatred are just forms of Democrat-hatred. Should other Democrats actually get elected to the presidency, we will see the same kind of vicious, foam-at-the-mouth hatred directed at them. After all, the GOP Propaganda Machine has also brainwashed their base with Gore-hatred, Kerry-hatred, Obama-hatred, even Pelosi-hatred.

While much right-wing hatred of both Clintons seems irrational,
I think that actual Democrats have a great many rational and compelling reasons to be unhappy with the idea of Sen Clinton as the Democratic candidate for President.

A couple days ago at Lawyers Guns and Money, "Terminus Est" reminded us that Senator Clinton:

- did nothing to prevent the Senate confirmation of John Ashcroft.
- did nothing to prevent the Senate confirmation of Alberto Gonzales.
- did nothing regarding the failed Senate confirmation of John Bolton.
- voted FOR cloture on the nomination of ... Priscilla Owen, clearing the way for her confirmation to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- voted FOR cloture on the nomination of unqualified ... Janice Rogers Brown, clearing the way for her confirmation to the DC Court of Appeals.
- voted FOR cloture on the nomination of ... William H. Pryor, clearing the way for his confirmation to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
- voted FOR cloture on the nomination of John Roberts, clearing the way for his confirmation as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
- said little or nothing during the Senate confirmation of Samuel Alito.
- did nothing to prevent the Senate confirmation of Michael Mukasey.
- said nothing during this summer’s vote on the Iraq War Supplemental.
- said little or nothing during the vote to extend FISA.
- said little or nothing on the Walter Reid scandal, even though she sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
- has said nothing during the current debate on Telecom Immunity.
- has said nothing on the possible impeachment of Dick Cheney.
- has said nothing on the possible impeachment of George Bush.
- has said nothing on the myriad scandals surrounding the current administration.
- campaigned for Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont
- did nothing to stop Medicare Part D
- did nothing to stop the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill
- voted FOR the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill
- proposed legislation to ban flag burning.
- voted FOR the USAPATRIOT act.
- voted FOR the reauthorization of the USAPATRIOT act.
- voted AGAINST an amendment that would prohibit the use of cluster bombs against civilian targets.
- voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution.

Now to me, the Iraq War resolution, the vote for the PATRIOT act, the vote for the bankruptcy bill, and the campaigning for Lieberman are dispositive. You may have other favorites; but I think all must admit that it's an amazing record of moderate Republican actions.

And that's what I'd expect from a Clinton 44 Presidency: moderate Republicanism.

Funny - I think many of your comments about Sullivan's obsession with Clinton, seeing everything through a certain lense, could apply to the way many progressives view Bush.

I agree, between the right wing haters of Hillary and the brandist: iChange Obamaists, they are blinded by their hatred. Did anyone notice that Obama voted for the Energy Bill and she did not? Are you at all concerned with is ties to Nuclear Power Plant people?

I might also add that McCain-hatred from the Republicans seems just as irrational, if not moreso-- McCain, after all, at least believes in most things that Republicans believe.

Also, in the interests of full disclosure, echoing Ender, part of my dislike for Bush is that his value system-- laziness, disdain for learning, undeserved arrogant petulance/entitlement, etc -- represents the precise opposite of everything I was raised with, so this plays no small role in my aversion to him (not to mention that whole "bogged down in Iraq and ignoring of Katrina" thing)

I hate to do armchair psychoanalysis, but you'd almost think Sullivan was afraid of strong women. It's worth bringing up Chris Matthews in this context as well. While not gay, he is a big-time phallus-worshipper and connoisseur of manly odor. And he, I believe, has compared her to Nurse Ratched.

Being one of those lunatic crazy fringe extremist liberals who during the 1990s had to both oppose the moronic pro-Republican agenda of much of the Clinton administration as well as deal with the absolutely unhinged counter-revolutionary and militia right (i.e., getting insulted by both free market fundamentalist rightists and snotty establishment Democrats for opposing NAFTA), I still can never quite settle on the one or two convincing sources of the gut-level freakout hatred the conservatives had for Hillary.

Sure, I know all the good candidate explanations, and maybe the Clintons somehow embodied a convergence of all the things that make right wingers freak out.

It would have been nice, though, not to have lost the Congress to the nutbag counter-revolutionary Gingrichites and other Reaganite / New Right progeny from 1994 to 2006 so I didn't have to quite see their lunacy in such prominent detail.

I think the over-appreciation for Andrew Sullivan's mediocre writing & insights is astounding, and is probably reverse engineered from the fact that he has been made prominent, therefore his screeds must be considered for some reason.

Aravosis and Sullivan both have issues with Clinton. Camille Paglia, too, but I've always thought her antagonism toward Hillary was pure envy.

I truly think this is some unconscious emotional-psychological issue for some people, rather than anything to do with Hillary herself. It's too angry, too crazed, too irrational, too out of control. She really is a container for lots of unbalanced people's negative projections.

Tyro, I'm willing to go with "Oh, Andrew you jealous bitch" as a reason for his hatred of her... in part, but not completely: I think one has to factor in that there's something about Clinton, as a woman, that bothers him all the more: were a man to be, as you describe, bot charismatic, not genius, but still successful, I suspect Sully would have less trouble with that than he does with Hillary Clinton. Whether that's a "she wants to be a man" sexism or he just doesn't like women... couldn't say. But it's not just jealousy, I don't think.

There's a piece in the January '08 issue of GQ that deals with Clinton hatred and it pretty much perfectly shows that the hatred is indeed irrational. Nobody quoted in the article can really articulate WHY they hate her so much. As someone who will vote for Obama, but would vote for Hillary should she get the nomination, I found it to be an interesting read.

Actually, here's the GQ piece (I wasn't sure it was online):
http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_6249

I liked Bill a lot back in the day, although I have to admit that I wasn't paying that close of attention.

I like Hillary as well and was glad to see her go to the Senate and would gladly vote for her in November.

However, following this campaign closely has been very disturbing to me, and I have lost a great deal of respect for both of them.

As we all know, many times a campaign willl have a surrogate or operative say something just to "get it out there" and then apologize or spin it away later.

I think most of us would agree that it's a sleazy way to campaign.

Can I say for sure that that is what Hillary's campaign is doing in each of so many instances? No. Given everything, am I highly suspicious? Yes. Is that inappropriate, brought on by Clinton hatred? No, of course not. It's an entirely rational analysis of the current situation.

Add to that the ridiculous attempt to rewrite history with Bill's calling Obama's continued opposition to the Iraq War a "fairy tale" and Clinton's Bush/Cheney/Rove-style politics of fear "vote for me or al Qaeda will hit us again." She really couldn't answer for that last night, and Obama didn't let her get away with it.

I think that's the low point of the campaign for the Clintons so far.

I used to dread what would happen if Hillary Clinton won the presidency, but no longer. Sure, there will be lots of people who are obsessed with demonizing her, but that works only when she is not actually in the public eye. It always amazed me how much time the talking heads have spent divining Hillary's every move, yet the ratio of actual TV face time to time spent talking about her was about .0000001.

When voters in NH actually saw her, and saw the disconnect between her haters and their own eyes, it became readily apparent that it was her detractors who were way off base.

So yes, Andrew Sullivan, Chris Matthews will finally marginalize themselves right out of the picture. It is too embarrassing to watch grown men and women get all in a lather about a rather wonkish, highly ntelligent, rather nice, middle-aged lady who wants medicine for sick kids.

I had written a brilliant analysis of Hillary hatred from the point of view of a 62-year-old lifelong feminist and a therapist, but it got lost when I failed the under 40 spam code test. In many blog software programs, you get another chance without losing your original post. I will recreate it on my own blog.

The short version: HIllary hatred is fury at not being able to burn this witch, even after 15 years.

Top state the obvious:

Sure, Bush Derangement Syndrom is in certain respects like unto Clinton hatred, at least in terms of its toxicity. (I admittedly have suffered it from the moment I first laid eyes on that prick.)

The difference is that Bush has gone and vindicated all the dread and worst suspciiosn that any of us could ever have had about him, but spectacualrly so. At this point in time, 2008, to say that one suffers from BDS is like saying they have an allergy to cyanide.

The Clintons, on the other hand, while not everyone's cup of political tea, left nothing in shambles. Hating them to the degree that many - like Sullivan - do, really is an unaccountable pathology (though Tyro's analysis is damn good), and Ezra is correct to wonder if it behooves the Democrats, or the nation, to fuel that pathology. (translation: one of the reasons I'm for Obama, I admit it, is my desire for people like Sullivan to STFU and go take it out on their dog.)

Also be it noted: any time anyone accuses Sullivan of hating Clinton on account of misogyny, he will routinely point out that the whole reason he got into poltics in the first place was Margaret Thatcher, and apparently rumor has it she was a woman.

Hillary has ties to people in nuclear power too, so it's sort of a meaningless statement. We know that Obama has donors in the nuclear power field, thanks to legislation he authored.

And why all the fearmongering about nuclear? Hillary Clinton supports nuclear power... at least outside of the state of Nevada.

"I think nuclear power has to be a part of our energy solution."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cZqtrvDIVs

Read the writings of environmentalist Dr. James Lovelock. Nuclear power is the most efficient means of providing the power we need to get rid of greenhouse gas producing coal plants, which threaten global warming, snowpack melting, water shortages, insane food prices, and widespread famine.

Nuclear power should be seen for what it is. A stopgap solution that can rapidly cut our greenhouse emissions, in order to buy us time to develop practical green energy solutions. Solar and wind simply are not efficient enough yet, and cannot be developped fast enough to prevent the worst effects of global warming, so going nuclear for awhile makes sense, in that nuclear waste is a relatively minor threat as compared to worldwide famine.

All of the above statements are true: Hillary-hatred is irrational. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in a decent slice of the electorate. Likewise just because MSM commentators (Matthews, MoDo) are certifiably stupid and vapid does not mean that they cannot drive public opinion to influence the election.

As Democrats, we can fly straight into this problem (nominate Hillary and, at best, win 51/49) or avoid it (nominate Obama, have at least the chance for a transformational election and real success for the progressive movement).

Pat, thanks for your input, but that doesn't help us answer the original question we had on our minds.

Except that Obama's reaching across the aisle to repubs, many of which are the haters described bove, does not seem that progressive to me.

I agree with whomever (in the GQ) article said that the Clinton hatred stems from the lone fact that Bill manage to wrestle the presidency from repub hands after their 12 years of control; it was assumed they'd have it forever, and that is a grudge they are willing to give up.

"Funny - I think many of your comments about Sullivan's obsession with Clinton, seeing everything through a certain lense, could apply to the way many progressives view Bush. Posted by: Ender

Don't you have some buggers to eradicate or something?

@&$%$@ launchies . . .

Hilarious, I live in Denver and see that nut all the time. Shocked to see him on Ezra's page.

You should see his other signs

"Clinton Raped Juanita" is my personal favorite.

oops. make that "a grudge they are NOT willing to give up."

If Hillary hatred indicates that the US is not get grown up enough to accept a woman as the most powerful person in the land, should we keep postponing dealing with it? Perhaps my 62-year-old memory is fading, but I thought feminism and the eradication of sexism were vitally important progressive issues.

Why aren't Edwards and Obama criticizing the virulent sexism of the media? Instead their reaction to Hillary's showing she is human encouraged it. Anytime I want to watch smoke come out of my ears, I
rewatch Jesse Jackson's Jr.'s statement: "Hillary cried over her appearnce, not about Katrina."

Right wing hatred of clintons.. it makes complete sense. He united people as a popular figure more effectively then any democrat ina long time. He actually stole a lot of republican support. Of course they hate thm, just to try and discredit their 'enemy'.

..as for current hatred of Hillary. I think a lot of this is drastic over analysis. Yes quite a few people do go over the top. ..but a lot of it is just the fact athat people dont like her. Shes not very charismatic toa lot of people.

Its the flipside of what were used to, just as her husbnd was charismatic, and JFK was charismatic though both had significant issues. She has little really to support her in the positive, other then a vague 'record of change' and vague plans to use her 'experience' to guide the country.

She has really changed very little. Just as Joel Hanes listed out above, she has in fact voted often for things that the left find upsetting.. that even many non neocon republicans find upsetting.(medicare D, patriot act) Those votes right there have helped change america in a very bad direction.

I dont hate hillary. However I really do not like her. I like her record even less. I like her empty claims to experience even less, especially when spoken in the same frame as Joe Biden. Finally I like her shill political tactics even less then that.

There is also an amount of people that have an unreasoned affinity for her. Why do older women like her so much? ..or is it just membership in the group that deserves that following?

Hopefully someone beats her for the nomination so we dont have to listen to her droning anymore. Ill even take Edwards.. :p at least hes got something substantive to say!

I don't understand why more Democrats DON'T hate the Clintons. During Bill's presidency, we lost the House for the first time in 40 years, had the fewest governors in the post-war era, and lost more party ID that at any other time in the history of polling. And yet so many Ds fawn rapt over the glory years.
Posted by: Vermonstrous

The 90s might not have been that great for the Democratic Party, but for the country as a whole? Low unemployment, no more Cold War, Japan no longer looking like it was going to crush our electronics, a tech bubble, reasonable home prices, and a budget surplus. Doesn't sound that bad.

Vermonstrous and joel hanes, I definitely see where you're coming from that the Clintons haven't been all that great for the Democratic Party or for left/liberal/progressive causes, and they do get more support than they deserve based on that alone. But for Sullivan and Chris Matthews and David Broder, all that stuff is neutral if not positive, so why do they hate the Clintons so much? It's disturbing, and interesting to try to figure out.

One excellent reason for the Democrats not to hate the Clintons is that Bill Clinton was the only Democratic president elected to two terms since FDR. What does the Democratic Party have to offer to voters if we disown them? Truman became president when Roosevelt died and only ran in 1948. Johnson succeeded after Kennedy's assassination and only ran once in 1964.

Republicans don't attack their own tradition.None of them would even disassociate themselves from Bush in the last debate.

Sometimes I wish Democrats showed some of the party discipline of the Republicans.

Liberals suck at Politics. It is a sad but true fact. We would rather be right then actually accomplish anyhting. The problem in America isn't that our politicans aren't liberal enough, it is that our liberals aren't political enough.

And Ezra is one of my favorite writers, but to suggest that after eight years of Bush Cheney's false advertising that we need someone who will write make a great commerical, rather than someone who will actually work to get real things done is a bit crazy if you ask me. It is sad that the only SPECIFIC change Obama has called for is for Republicans to change to Democrats for a day to vote against Hillary. Republicans are scared shitless of a liberal who will actually work to get something done instead of grandstanding all day.

Sullivan's deranged hatred is nothing but misogyny. He telegraphed the underlying motivation when he insisted on national TV that Hillary Clinton needs to learn how to speak in a really deep voice so that she sounds like a man.

My biggest disappointment in this campaign has been the lack of leaders in the Democratic Party speaking up against the obvious sexism permeating the media coverage. Given that women account for the overwhelming majority of votes for Democratic candidates, I find this silence disappointing enough to rethink my commitment to the Democratic Party.

There are a lot of reasons for it. I'll try to enumerate as many of them as I can.

She was an enthusiastic supporter of GWB's Iraq war propaganda, false intelligence, and dishonest pretense for the war.

She was a big part of the bankruptcy bill.

She has ridden her husband's coattails into a Senatorial seat, and a presidential bid.

Her Husband's record is less than liberal: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Welfare Reform, Defense Of Marriage Act, the widening gap between the rich and the poor, he did nothing to stop global warming.

Her Husband's record is less than good for the Democratic Party. During his tenure we lost the house and the senate, and lost governorships.

Basically, the Clintons want to be the standard-bearer for liberalism, and they've convinced some people that they are in fact legitimate liberals, but people who follow the news can see that they're pretty conservative, perhaps even dangerously so.

The conclusion that a lot of people draw is that the Clintons must be stopped, less liberalism shrivel up and die.

I just want to add Dowd to this list as well -- I'm an Obama supporter, and I can't stand the junk she writes about Clinton. It has all the feel of a high-school essay written the night before it's due.

I've noticed the level of hatred at Sullivans blog site too...it's so intense and so nasty that it surprises me...Andrew often has some good things to say...

And it the clown pictured in the story is indicative of the Hill haters, she'll do find. This guy looks like he couldn't find his ass with both hands in the dark!

"Anytime I want to watch smoke come out of my ears, I
rewatch Jesse Jackson's Jr.'s statement: "Hillary cried over her appearnce, not about Katrina.""

I agree. Hillary only showing emotion when her political ambition is threatened really pisses me off as well.

Oh, and what Jeremy said.

I thought feminism and the eradication of sexism were vitally important progressive issues

Redstocking, I thought the same thing. My bad, I guess.

I'm a moderate-to-liberal Democrat who voted for Clinton in '96, Gore in '00 and Kerry in '04. Though "hate" might be too strong a word, I really don't like Hillary. She counterproductively demonizes her opposition ("right-wing conspiracy", etc). She is utterly charmless. She has an arrogance and an attitude of entitlement that I find disgusting and at odds with how she came to national prominence.. And I believe her lust for power, disregard for truth and "ends justify the means" tactics are exactly wrong for our country in this moment.

That said, if she emerges from the Democratic party, I'll likely vote for her -- it would be completely irrational for me, policy-wise, to go with McCain, Romney or the other knuckle-draggers of the GOP. But, unlike most of the posters here, I don't believe the Hillary Hatred is purely irrational.

oh its not entirely irrational. alot of it because she is the front runner some peo here and elsewhere try to pretend it is. i mean when i brought up the donors in the WH scandal as one that was bad not because of the right but because of the act, I was attacked for pointing this out. Now, when bush did this recently all the progressives said it was bad, but continue to clinge to it wasn't bad when the clintons did it. that being said, i don't see any perfect choices here, do you?

Ryan,

Can you back up your reasons:

arrogance
charmlessness
lust for power
etc

with concrete evidence?

Otherwise, your hatred sounds nebulously irrational.

God, we don't even need the Republicans to tear our candidates apart anymore; we apparently pre-tear them apart in the primary and serve them up on a nice little platter by threatening to not vote for any or one of them due to (often superficial) issue or some kind of bizarre ideological purity test. Why are we talking about whether or not we will vote for the democratic nominee? How is that even a question? Did we not learn our lesson over the past eight years, or do we constantly unlearn it when the realities of politics do not add up to our ideals?

We have three good candidates for president. They are all extremely well-versed in policy, either hard-hitting or inspiring, and two of them even have the bonus of being historic. Yet we're all (and I have been guilty of this at times) think that the election of some of our liberal, democratic candidates will mean the end of western civilization.

This is, to put it mildly, insane.

"I can only guess that Hillary and Bill are hated because of what they represent. The Clintons are seen as the "dirty hippies" and the younger siblings that went off in life to do what they wanted and live as they pleased and succeeded and got away with it."

I don't know about "dirty hippes" so much, but it is sort of *true* that in 1992, *Bill* "got away with" some things that no presidential candidate had gotten away with before. This was only a few short years after Gary Hart got knocked out of the race *completely* for his affair.

On top of that, Republicans had the White House for 12 years. And, while it was easy to protray Papa Bush as out of touch on the economy, I don't think they had much cause to think he'd actually lose. HOWEVER, Papa really didn't pander to the hard right elements of the party. So, I think when they lost, they decided to come out really swinging and Clinton at the time-- look, he won by going on MTV and blowing sax, going "it's the economy, stupid," and getting the press to ignore personal indiscretions that were chopping other people off at the knees.

They sunk their teeth in his fat ass, re-took congress in 1994, and today Junior panders to the hard right. It's working for them. Why stop?

brewn, are we on the same page. I was pissed off at Jackson. Unless he stalks her with a 'm camcorder, he doesn't know she didn't cry over Katrina.

Besides she didn't cry. Jon Stewart had a great comment after showing the headlines and running the clip. "That's it, that's it, I'm lucky no one sees me get a flu shot."

"The 90s might not have been that great for the Democratic Party, but for the country as a whole? Low unemployment, no more Cold War, Japan no longer looking like it was going to crush our electronics, a tech bubble, reasonable home prices, and a budget surplus. Doesn't sound that bad."

And what does that have to do with Bill Clinton? Nothing. How bout today's economy? Plenty.

But you're right. People are stupid.

The Clinton era policies are basically irrelevant since that was almost ten years ago, and the problems are a little different, as will the solutions be. Nobody hates Hillary or the Clinton's because they didn't do a completely acceptable job their last go at it, or because they are "dirty hippies" (do people even think hippies are dirty anymore?), we hate them because she had her chance and she used it to put her husband in office, and she is always referencing the Clinton administration like it's her resume and then talking about change, that is when she even answers the questions she is asked. She isn't change she is the same old shit we are all, apparently including her, sick to death of.

so, Anon, by that logic, you concede that Bushy can't take credit for our not having been attacked by terrorists since 9/11, yes?

Come on, Sullivan may not be any fun to read around the Clintons, but he's still nowhere near the bile and insanity that's still pouring out of the right whenever her name is mentioned. Loathing her debate performance just doesn't match up to imagining her running an insane totalitarian future.

"But, like the homeschool mom in the cell beside me, I cry too. I cry mostly because it didn't have to be this way. Just three years ago – in 2007 – we had a chance to unite and achieve our lifetime goals of restoring protection to children in the womb, and protecting our foundational relationship of marriage between a man and a woman. And now the suggestion of it is treated like the illegal mention of a "mom" or "dad" to the California School Board."

It's simple really:

Hillary has a bigger penis than Andrew. And he does not like that. Not one bit!

As a liberal, young democrat who pays great attention to politics, I have grown to really, really dislike Hillary Clinton. I read Sullivan every day because he is the only smart blogger who seems to see both what is so unappealing about Hillary and what is so exciting about Obama. Strangely enough, the tipping point for me was her decision to attack Obama on his support for ending Mandatory Minimums in drug sentencing. Its ruthlessly exploitative, and almost Nixonian in its coded bigotry. I will have a very hard time ever pulling the lever for her.

"The Clintons, on the other hand, while not everyone's cup of political tea, left nothing in shambles."

Unlike some of the young'ns here, I recall what a disaster the Clintons were, especially in their second term. This is when these "liberals" signd the Telecom Act, NAFTA, WTO, killed welfare, increased draconian drug laws and left a scorched earth policy at Waco.

Clinton gave us Bush, people. And Hillary's pandering to her moneyed constituents has nothing to do with progressivsm.

All three could have taken a stand and at least challenged one of those fools about NBC censoring Kucinich, but they're much too greedy and anti-democratic.

Andrew Sullivan has gone off the rails on Obama, and he's to be taken as seriously as Hugh Hewitt's boy-crush on Romney. Sullivan is the perfect AMERICAN IDOL voter, ignoring depth for surface gloss. That's what makes him a good Republican and his ability to filter out Obama's gay-hating preacher is indicitive of Sully's blind crush. His fawning support is why people dislike Obama supporters more than Obama.

Andrew is doing what Andrew does...obsess. Although, like with past obsessions, there is a grain or 100 of truth to his rants about Hillary. ]

In this case, yes, Billary are ruthless, unapologetic, dishonest and driven. Part of the diagnosis is the Republicans made them that way. They chose never to waver. Never. For that i am appreciative.

But, i began to see through their BS in '96 with BIll's "New Covenant" speech, when he literally listed off 20 programs he wanted to start in his last 4 years. Strict pandering and rhetoric.
Then, with this campaign, it has all crystallized. For me, anyways. I see that their country, party and fellow democratic upstart be damned if they get in the way of their goal. They have destroyed their legacy with many Dems, i'm finding out, with the way they have conducted themselves. Yeah, my 64 year old mom hasn't seen it, but that's becasue she doesn't pay as close attention as i do. You have to to understand how they operate in such a narcissistic way. It's so sublime to the casual follower of politics. That's how they have gotten away with it for so long. That and the internet boom of the late 90s.

I voted for Bill twice but i won't vote for "them" in '08 if she is up against McCain. No, i don't want to vote for 100 years of Iraqw occupation, but i live in TX so i might as well just consider this my protest vote.

boo boo

i meant subliminal, not sublime.

Although, with the behavior of some supporters, it maybe is appropriate.

I get it because I share it and I know what sets it off - dishonesty. She is really dishonest, again and again and again, and if you care about that - maybe he and I are supersensitive to it, I don't know - you start to feel like you're wearing those glasses in the John Carpenter movie "Them" and it's kind of overwhelming - when she lies - CLEARLY! - about Bob Johnson, for example, he and I think "lie! nobody cares..." and that second part also makes us more sensitive to the lies. It makes them sting more. You all are on our side with George Bush, but you are blind to her lying. Or don't care, because of her policies or whatever. The policies says she has.

can we ever move past all of this controversy?

"yes we can!"

You're describing the Clinton 'mystique' that has Sullivan in its grips. People talk about Obama's charisma, but this woman has been the most fascinating personality in American culture for 16 years. That she still exists at all -- let alone the fact that her star is still rising -- is beyond amazing.

Her critics just can't take their eyes off of her. That's why she can't get swiftboated. Gore or Kerry can't answer smears without media cooperation -- which they never get. Clinton doesn't need a fair and balanced media to get her message out.

Case in point: "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy."

Case in point: "A willing suspension of disbelief."

She talks. It goes viral. She plays the 'obsession' card brilliantly.

can we ever move past all of this controversy?

"yes we can!"

Is disliking Hillary any different from disliking Karl Rove? This campaign has made it clear that they are two sides of the same coin. It's the wrong kind of competence.

I understand there is some hatred for Hillary from those still living in the 90s. There are also a lot of apologists still living in the 90s. Now if someone would just re-invent the world wide web and set off an economic bubble, our reenactment of the 90s would be complete.

Between the Dems wanting to relive the 90s, and the Reps wanting to relive the 80s, I'm feeling left out as someone who was until recently looking forward to the 10s.

SULLY IS RIGHT ABOUT HILLARY!!! anyone who disagrees with her royal highness must be part of the Vast Right Wing Consiracy, including lifelong Democrats like me and every independent voter in america. Hillary is so polarizing, hypocritical, divisive and Rovian that one can't help but obsess on her disingenuousness.

hillary = 4 more years

obama = a new beginning

you can piss on us all you want, but we aint' voting for hillary. no way. no how.
She is karl rove in a pants suit.

can we ever move past all of this controversy?

Yes, but it will just be some other bullshit.

It's entertaining to read all the Clintonistas, out in legion, defending this insufferable woman.

Anyone who trusts a word that comes out of either of the Clintons' mouths is a fool.

One need only observe the myriad lies told by the Clintons about Obama to understand that these people are only out for themselves, and care not who suffers for their success.

[Cue Hillarybot angrily asserting that no lies have been told about Obama.]

Try supporting the person the Clinton's run against. It's quite illuminating in understanding where some of the hatred comes from. They are self-serving liars who will dishonestly bury anyone (including good Dems) who get in their way.

I got tired reading Andrew's writing a year ago after I noticed his obsession with Hilary Clinton. I sent him an e-mail where I made it known his hatred for HRC is well known by all his readers and to move on to something else!

Clinton's are power crazed, narcissistic's that have just as much baggage to hide as the Bushies if not more. The obsession lies with our failure as a Republic to bear even the consideration of them being placed back into power. Leave Sully alone - the message must be heard.

"I can only guess that Hillary and Bill are hated because of what they represent. The Clintons are seen as the "dirty hippies" and the younger siblings that went off in life to do what they wanted and live as they pleased and succeeded and got away with it."
- Tyro

This sounds to me like a "they hate us for our freedoms" argument. I’m not buying it. I think the common denominator for the Clinton "hatred" from both the left and the right is the feeling that the Clintons are more concerned with being in power, and keeping their power, than with serving the people or the country. I used to like Hillary Clinton, before she had the record in the senate that she has now, and before her cheerleading of the war for what appears to be political reasons. Maybe the reason that some people find the "Clinton Hatred" an enigma, or have trouble understanding where it is coming from, is that most of these cues of insincerity and selfishness are communicated not just in her record in the Senate, but in nonverbal and subtle ways. Humans, I think, are pretty good at picking up on these signals. After identifying this pattern, can folks start getting paranoid and projecting onto the Clintons calculated statements where they don't exist? Yes, but I still think the pattern exists.

She's certainly not the first or last politician with these qualities, and I wouldn't hate her under normal circumstances, but the prospect that after suffering through Bush, the best I'm going to be able to replace him with is her really pisses me off. In fact, given the seriousness of our current problems and the current state of corruption, I wonder about the folks that it doesn't piss off. I try to channel my frustration through more constructive means, like volunteering for candidates that I think are more genuinely in politcs to serve and involve people, instead of venting on blogs like this, but it still pisses me off sometimes. That's all. You can lump me in with the crazies if you want.

"brewn, are we on the same page. I was pissed off at Jackson."

No, we are not. While Jackson would not be my choice for a spokesman, I did understand Hillary to be choking up because, it you remember, her dream of being president was dying.

That she managed to turn around and claim that she was the only one who wanted good things for our country, and that every other candidate was a pretender who must hate America, was merely a bonus in the Clinton mendacity sweepstakes.

Anonymous, I'm more apt to view the hatred of Hillary Clinton from the left through the prism of her stubborn, reflexive hawkishness and her refusal to back down from this, along with her toadying up to the right.

From the right, I really can't view hatred of the clintons through the same prism, because I find it hard to believe that they hate the clintons because they're too conservative and too quick to collaborate with the Republicans. As a consequence, I can only conclude a cultural hatred. It's the only thing that explains the outright hatred, rather than, say, the disdain they might have for someone like Carter or Mondale.

If you remember the 2-minute hates from Orwell's "1984," you shouldn't have any problem understanding Hillary-hatred (or Bill-hatred). People were taken to an auditorium and shown images of Big Brother's primary enemy, Emmanuel Goldstein, and of Goldstein's associates and were encouraged to shout out their hatred at the screen.

Right-wing hate radio brainwashes people in much the same fashion. The audience is encouraged to hate the right wing's enemies -- e.g., the Clintons, Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, etc., etc. -- at a very visceral, completely emotional level and soon such hatred becomes a simple Pavlovian response.

The Clintons have just been better than most Dems at defeating this hatred politically, though of course they get quite bloodied in the process. But the only institution that can possibly stop the GOP Hate Machine is the media -- and at present they'd rather enable the brainwashing and the hatred than stop it.

Remember, no matter who the Dems nominate, they will be the primary target of the GOP Hate Machine. Neither Clinton ran in 2000 or 2004, yet the GOP Hate Machine and its presstitutes in the so-called "liberal media" had no problem targeting Al Gore, Howard Dean and John Kerry. If Barack Obama or John Edwards gets the nomination this year, they will immediately become the primary target of visceral hatred from the GOP base and the media, and there's nothing they can do about that.

Stop speculating. I'm telling you, it's the lying. Some of us care about that, a lot, and some of you don't even see it. And so you think we're "derranged". And I'm not right-wing, not one bit.

It's not the ambition - Obama and Edwards are just as ambitious and I don't hate them. It's the lying.

the thirty-eighth play has finally been found....

The
Historie
of William and Hillary

With the humours
and Swaggering
As it hath been sundrie times publickely
acted.
Newly imprinted and enlarged
to almost as much
againe as it was.

I am an Independent with little affiliation to either party, and I hate Hillary passionately. My dislike for her even surpasses the negativity I feel for W.
I don’t think Sullivan is being tactful in letting his emotions rage free and expressive, as he clearly does on his site, but that’s an issue of strategy, not emotive reaction. His posts on Hillary are close to the unedited first impulse that I have when hearing and/or watching Hillary, and after the self-criticism kicks in, the hatred gets toned down to mere disgust.
I’m no misogynist, and I don’t have a problem with white people in power. I’m not part of the massive GOP Christian Right, and I really really like lots of Democrats.
My hating of Hillary has nothing to do with her record or her policy positions qua policy positions. It has everything to do with character.
To quote Ryan, “She has an arrogance and an attitude of entitlement that I find disgusting and at odds with how she came to national prominence. And I believe her lust for power, disregard for truth and "ends justify the means" tactics are exactly wrong for our country in this moment.”

JJ, you’re right in asking for concrete evidence.
Unfortunately, character has a lot to do with subjective judgment. But as I generally trust my instincts with regards to the people in my life, the natural responses I have to Hillary are not of those that I doubt.
An example. In regards to the now infamous almost-cry video clip: what was most fascinating to me was not whether she cried or not, but rather what she cried about and her attitude during the segment. Pundits were talking about whether or not it was staged, and claims of the inherent sexism in the critique of her (‘plenty of male politics have cried before – and they’re saying this about HRC? Tsk tsk …), and mostly disregarded the fact that she was tearing up (that terminology should make everyone happy) about her own campaign and ambitions and nothing else. She wasn’t crying about American losses, or about the sad state of American politics – she was crying because she, in the role of age-old soldier who silently and persistently is at work for the team, wasn’t being appreciated. Boohoo. And the other kids in school aren’t letting me play with their toys either. Grow up, and develop some character. Every other candidate was suffering just as much as she was at the time (Edwards had a 36-hr marathon of campaigning, Obama’s voice was destroyed, McCain is, well, old, etc.), and she gets all emotional.

If ever there was a point of the media's sexism, I’m inclined to think that here it was. Imagine Obama or Edwards or any other candidate in the same position – becoming so emotional in response to the difficulties of a presidential campaign, and how it’s difficult to exercise and how awful it must to eat too much pizza. Dear baby jesus, they’d be laughed out of the race. You want to run for President and you’re getting soft from the difficulty of the campaign?

In that video, I see her pathetic sense of entitlement, her playing the wounded martyr, and her pathetically vacuous underlying claim that she has risked everything in her life for a powerful position when she isn’t interested in power in the first place. Please.
Add to that the way she projects the kind of moral righteousness and indignation that is similar to the worst religious figured I can think of.

I’d go so far as to say that her moral righteousness/indignation/arrogance is equal or surpasses that of W, but for one big and crucial difference, which is the reason why W is less pathetic in my eyes: W is honest about it. Ask him and he’ll probably tell you, ‘I’m right buddy, you know why, cuz the Good Book / Jesus told me so, that’s right’. Hillary, in contrast, would bullshit you until she was able to convince you how wonderfully humble and patient she is, how she is simultaneously assertive and quick to judge, and how she is anything you need her to be, and all at the same time, if you need that too. Just make sure that she is in a position of power and that she can smile about how much she’s done and accomplished and how little her opponents have. And don’t forget how she’s really interested in change and being bi-partisan, and kicking the shit out of the Republicans and taking back the gov’t.
You remember that question about whether God could create the four-sided triangle and defy the laws of logic? Well, Hillary can......and she can't (if you're religiously committed to that position and she needs your vote).

In contrast, although Obama is usually too general for my likes, and I don’t agree with most of his policies (I’m more fiscally conservative), my admittedly subjective sense is that I can trust the guy. And I’m voting on character. Trust, for me, is a necessary condition for political leadership – I have to start there.

To be fair, I should be clear: character assessment, like in this instance, is a lot about subjective judgment. I’m not claiming scientific evidence – this is just how I hear her and how I read her, and it’s visceral and intuitively clear to me. And she proved herself with this recent issue of race: not a degree of concession on MTP, and then she’s singing a soft version of kumbaya, of course coincidentally, after Obama calls for a halt to the bickering. But sure, she is sincere and honest.
Did you have that female friend who in college would fall for the frat guy, the sweet talker who everyone knew was full of hot air, and yet he managed, 5 out of 7 nights a week, to convince the girls that he was serious…. and so, your nice female friend buys his story and goes home with him, and all you can think of is ‘Damn, why can’t she see through this guy’s shtick?’ That’s how I feel for those of you who actually buy Hillary’s horseshit. I don’t hate you or dislike you in the slightest – I just want to smack you upside the head and bring you back to reality – the ever compelling subjective reality that I live in and see from.

JoeCHI: Why, because someone “is not an American citizen and is unable to vote”, does it mean that “our electoral process is simply none of his concern.” That has got of the more asinine comments left on the board up to this point. It’s hard for me to know where to begin, so I’ll just start and stop right here: why don’t you help me out and simply explain to me why this is so simply the case. Please. Simply.

Monchie b. Monchum: I am very pro-Obama, and I’m not part of the GOP propaganda machine. I try and direct hatred towards them as well, but Hillary just simply begs for more.

Dear Larry Birnbaum, if you “hate to do armchair psychoanalysis”, then why oh why dear sir, do you, um, how shall we say it, well, immediately proceed to do armchair psychoanalysis?!? And let me tell ya, Friend, you’re not the only one who hates it. In form, you sound like the petty (or brazenly stupid) personalities over the last week who, in referencing the issue of Obama and race, have begun statements with the likes of, “I know it’s not my place to even mention the whole Obama cocaine issue, but……” When confronted with something you know you shouldn’t be doing, or with something that you hate to do, just don’t do it Larry, simply don’t do it.

It's crap like this:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/080116_Clinton_Mailer.pdf

Obama's plan would only increase taxes on people making over $97K. Not to mention that Social Security is off-budget, so balanced budgets won't affect it one bit. Someone in the Whitehouse in the 90's should surely know that... Hillary has no real plan to address Social Security. She knows that, but she sent the flier anyway.

And this:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2008-01-05_hillary_negative_mailer_2.jpg

Obama voted exactly as Planned Parenthood asked him too, and has a perfect voting record on abortion. Hillary knows this, but she sent the flier anyway.

Add in a little voter suppression in NV...

She is more interested in seizing power through lies and tricks than letting democracy work. How could you *not* hate her?

David asks: “There is also an amount of people that have an unreasoned affinity for her. Why do older women like her so much?” At 62, the mother of four grown daughters, the grandmother of a 8-month-old grandson son, I probably qualify as an older woman, even though I am married to a 46-year -old Englishman, who miraculously escaped Sullivan’s emasculation by the Iron Lady.

The insulting media explanation is that women supporting Hillary are voting with their vaginas. Older women are more likely to be feminists, who have fought sexism all their lives. They might want to elect a brilliant, hardworking, competent woman president in their lifetimes. Having struggled for 20 or 30 years to combine child care and elder care with careers, older women might want a president who has been a mother and a daughter of an aging parent. Perhaps only a woman president will fight for government policies that will assist families. Perhaps only older women realize that the US does less to support parents and children than any industrialized country on earth.

They might want a mother who has a clue that our society has turned nightmarish for our children, who, in the millions, are being diagnosed with lifetime mental illness and tranquilized on drugs never tested on children, Older women spend more time worrying about aging parent care than child care. They might believe only a woman president will address the abyss of long-term care for chronically ill seniors, not covered by Medicare or private insurance.

Bitchy older women occasionally get pissed at the casual, unthinking sexism of some progressive bloggers, both male and female. Let me clarify something before you all jump at me. Sexism affects men and women; it traps both sexes in narrow, outdated conceptions of maleness and femaleness. Call a woman a bitch and a man girly is equally offensive.

Well essentially Redstocking you doth protest too much, since the case as you stated it describes voting with your vagina.

You gave no piece of her record that would indicate she works any more effectively for womans rights and causes then any of her male counterparts.

Your second paragraph descibes your affinity for her as:
1. She has children.
So does Obama.. so that would seem to be penis'ism right there.
2. Shes a daughter of an aging parent. ..ok, not sure why your so specific about it being a daughter, since a son could have one as well, but sure.

Then you describe a belief that because she is a woman, and a mom that she will have a closer realtionship to issues of children, old age, and childrens health care. ...why?

She did vote 4 medicaid part D. I guess thats something for old people. Of course it mortgages the future pocketbooks of US children to do it.. so that kinda balances out.

..you kinda made my point for me.

Aeili..

I like the way you put some of that.. I think you're right, more people then usual just personally dont like her. Thats the point that her charisma drops the starting blocks for most people. She has to start there and win people over with some substance, some policy or solid evidence that shes worth getting over your dislike and voting for her anyway.

..something like president Johnson. Listen to some of those white house tapes. Personally I think the guy was a complete ass. But he came out in favor of some decent legislation in the end. (No I didnt delve completely into his history, just a quick though of an example.)

..argh cant believe that I spent this much time reading/writing about H.C.
blech.

"Unfortunately, character has a lot to do with subjective judgment. But as I generally trust my instincts with regards to the people in my life, the natural responses I have to Hillary are not of those that I doubt."

Fair enough, aeli,
and I have to trust my instincts too. They say she is well-intentioned and not some power-hungry monster that Sullivan (whose "power" goes up at the mere mention of her name, by the way)and some of the commenters here portray. The reason the tear resonated, with those it did, was because we recognized she was not crying for herself, or even the rigors of the campaign, but for the time wasted on petty bs like this when so much W damage needs to be repaired. How is that not obvious?

Monchie b, above, had it right; it's the decades of hate radio.

These same arguments were trotted out before, and, as a result, we had to wait fourteen years for another discussion on national health care.

Most likely not voting for her in the primary, but really, people, get over the hate. It's a time waster.

Redstocking Grandma,

Thank you for your candor. You talk about fighting sexism all your life, and then in the next breath suggest things that "only a woman" president would do. With all due respect, that IS sexism.

Replacing the old boys club with the old girls club is not progress. It's just a new problem.

Anonymous,

It won't be sexism until the boys club is actually replaced (doubtful); until then, it's just BEGINNING to even up the score.

jj,

If replacing the old boys club with an old girls club is sexism, why should it even be a goal?

The goal should be to eliminate the old boys club, not replace it.

Please, for the good of the country, select a president on merit, not to even up some score.

The Republicans hate the Clintons because they win. That's understandable. Unfortunately I sometimes get the feeling that some Democrats hate them for the same reason.

What Mrs. Clinton has been complicit in with regard to protecting her priapic husband from the consequences of his disgusting and degraded activities is more than enough for any (and every) woman to turn her face away from Mrs. Clinton's farcical run for the presidency.

The Republicans hate the Clintons because they win... Unfortunately I sometimes get the feeling that some Democrats hate them for the same reason.
Winning is certainly part of it. But more important is how they win. Some may say that she/they are just "tough" and that the Dems need a warrior in order to defeat the GOP machine. But they're not fighting a Bush (both of whom are completely ruthless in political campaigns)and they have better options than the pedantic Al Gore or the windbag John Kerry this time around. Thus, with all the advantages in the Dems' favor in '08, Hillary's shameless, dishonest political tactics aren't needed. Worse, doing so risks alienating yet another generation of voters who will view the two parties and think, "What do these people stand for other than their desire for power?" And, if Hillary does wind up getting elected, it'll be a party forever branded by a family representing partisanship, dishonesty, and inauthenticity.
But, hey, they're good at winning. And the ends justify the means, right?

On taxes, trade, regulation, foreign policy and minority rights (specifically gay rights) the Clintons and the DLC fundamentally altered the nature of the democratic party. It had been, since the early part of the century the only nationwide institution that even occasionally represented the interests of the poor, working classes and minorities or defended those interests from the powerful.

The reason for the huge policy changes the Clintons forced through seemed to be nothing other than likelihood of electoral success. There is no compelling evidence that Keynesian macroeconomic policy (both fiscal and monetary) doesn't work. There is no compelling evidence that militarism makes anyone safer. There is a mountain of evidence that free trade worsens economic inequality and poverty to the benefit of multinational corporations alone. There is no coherent moral argument for things like Don't Ask Don't Tell or DOMA.

The Clintons took our party from us. When the national labor and communal agrarian movements failed in this country the Democratic party was all that the people had left. And they took it from us and gave it to wealthy donors.

That is why I hate them both. That is why everyone I know in the gay rights, anti-war and living wage movements hate them too.

I am fascinated by her because she has become the loathesome Doppleganger of her odious spouse. She herself is slowly morphing into a Manichaen daemon of pure evil, a sort of Darth Mutter [or Mudder?] of the dark side of the Force.

Hillary and her husband have turned the bald-faced public spectacular lie into an art form. She hasn’t a scintilla of shame or an ounce of compunction when she concocts or repeats whatever might advance her interests or destroy her opponents, regardless of the truth or accuracy of what she’s saying.

Pandering is where she excels the most in the fine gradations of saying what will get her votes. She probably picked up this particular skill-set on promising to do what she perceives the particular interest group or ethnic/gender/sex-orientation subset she is wooing from her husband/spouse/collaborator-in-chief. He never hesitates to change the record or lie openly about his own record & achievements & felony/misdemeanors. It’s what he does.

And going to the videotape or soundtrack doesn’t make him miss a beat, as he will explain how his mental reservations or jesuitical special exemptions from law & morality [he learned well from the Jesuits at Georgetown during his undergrad years] make him immune from the normal constraints that limit politicians or public figures.

He is the world’s best and biggest liar and she seems an avid student who may well surpass him someday if she is elected POTUS.

I'm very late to this party (and it's late everywhere), but I think that probably the real key to irrational Clinton hatred is in the old Broder/Quinn snarkiness ('trashed the place & it's not his place,' etc.)-- IOW, it's a class thing on some level. They're upstarts, people from modest means who admittedly made good (although Arkansas isn't exactly a venue that's respected, I guess), and more importantly, they mastered a game without fully becoming part of it. They learned DC hardball, but instead of becoming more relaxed about it & treating it as just a game, they remained closed & brittle... I've often thought that this is mostly insecurity on their parts, as often happens with people who move up enough to be perpetually uncomfortable, but it could also be the resentment of people who feel like they've been forced to stray too far from their ideals. In any case, they seem to have set up a sort of shell version of the usual political operation, one that exists uncomfortably within the larger hive of DC.

And I always thought that Hillary exhibited these tendencies more than Bill, even though her background was somewhat more affluent, but his behavior lately has been pretty revealing. But she's certainly the more brittle & secretive of the two, which may or not be inherently gender-related, but it seems to be the glue of their marriage at least.

Aside from that, I agree with most of the criticisms of her character above; my theory (as ill thought out as it is) seems to make sense when dissecting the pandering, self-serving attitudes, cynicism, and so forth, but understanding it & even sympathizing to an extent doesn't mean that I want to reward it further.

"... it'll be a party forever branded by a family representing partisanship, dishonesty, and inauthenticity. "

LOL, projecting repub and Bushy woes again, I see...when we talk about inauthenticity, in particular, let's start with THE president NOT EXACTLY ELECTED, and the stream of constant dishonesty that follows that one act, shall we?

"If replacing the old boys club with an old girls club is sexism, why should it even be a goal?"

uh, reread above, Anon; I DON'T AGREE that replacing the obc with an ogc IS sexism; it's not anything. It doesn't actually exist anywhere but in your cache of straw man arguments, which are helping to sway one who wasn't voting Clinton, her way, by the way.

"The difference is that Bush has gone and vindicated all the dread and worst suspicion..."

I recently talked with a Clinton hater who cited the whole 1990s Mellon-Scaife list of alleged crimes. I asked for the beef -- indictments, convictions -- and was told they hadn't shown up because the Clintons had so thoroughly subverted the justice system.

Yessirree, I thought: if we're worried here in January 2008 about subversion of the justice system, 1978 Little Rock land deals are definitely Job One...

I've been thinking about what, exactly, "authenticity" is supposed to mean in a political context. I don't care if the reason the next president gets universal health insurance passed is because he or she is a great humanitarian, or because he or she is a competitive asshole who wants to look good in the history books. I just want it done.

I believe authenticity in this context is a very anti-empirical and even mystical notion -- a yearning for someone who we can project our hopes and dreams onto. And for that reason a dangerous notion.

aeli -- You are possibly one of the two or three most ignorant posters I've read lately. Go back to school, if you were ever there in the first place.

Pat,

I can't quite put my finger on why, but I'm finding it difficult to respond to you. Did you want to say anything of substance, or are you more comfortable leaving your comments exclusively in the ad hominem realm of things?

I am so sick of hearing the word "hate Hillary" on progressive blogs.

I started out thinking of supporting Barak Obama but I changed, I just don't think he's ready. Nice enough and certainly a gifted orator but not ready yet. I still was considering him but reading the blogs, which I used to like for their insight, reporting,and most of all, the writing, have changed so completely with obsessive love
for Obama and vitriol for Hillary.

I am so done. I will vote for Hillary.
.
demonization of Hillary.

thNKA شات