I had a soft spot for Hillary back in 92 when Hill and Bill were on their first national campaign, She was (and is) a very bright lawyer (ranked in the top 100) and highly knowledgeable on a vast number of topics. At that time the media and many of opponents wanted her to be the traditional first lady. However she fought back, with her "I don't bake cookies" comment and others...which I thought was great.

However, for the last 16 years Hillary never seems to have stopped fighting. She fought travelgate, for her healthcare plan, whitewater, "the vast right wing conspirency", the media, et al. (Though she chose not to fight Bush on the Iraq war and the Iran "revolutionary guard" vote.) When she talks about her campaign against McCain, she uses the language of "taking the fight" to him. Even McCain doesn't talk like this...and he's supposed to be a hot head. When she talks about "healthcare" she sprews a lot a detail and then say's she's going to "fight" for a plan tha covers everyone. Now she's in a bar fight over some "off color" comment from a media guy whom hardly anyone even one cares about.

It struck me that the reason many folks, including me now, simply don't like Hillary is because her calculated positions, calculated smile, and calculated everthing is simply her expecting a fight and attracting one.

For the last 8 years, the US has had a first class fighter and supreme jerk as its CIC. Perhaps it's time the nation had a breather. Obama, may be lighter (but definately not light) on details. However he's got the first and most important step right. For true and lasting change, we need to work together, and need to stop demonizing each other. However, if you expect a fight, you'll definately get one.

There are an awful lot of Republicans who don't agree with Obama's "liberal" positions, but would nevertheless vote for him because they feel he'll be reasonable. A some level, I belive that many voters for Obama are simply looking for a truce.

Well said, Bullspotter. I have had the same instinctive dislike of Hillary as many others, for quite awhile. She comes off as phoney, robotic, and nauseatingly self-righteous...

But you've made me realize that those bad qualities may arise from a constantly perceived state of siege. NOW I've added to her minus column the notion that, if politics has made her so miserable and defensive, then maybe it's not the career for her...

I wonder if you, or most voters, perceived the same antagonism in Bill Clinton while he was president. The negative preceptions of Bill were much more along the lines of his being slick, smooth, and insincere.

Bill was a centrist - he didn't fight for much. He didn't make a battle of judicial nominations, he abandoned gay rights, passed welfare reform and dozens of other compromise measures.

The only time Bill was pugnacious was in defense of phony scandals - Travelgate, Whitewater, and Monica Lewinsky.

I have listened to the speeches and debates of all the candidates, Republican and Democrat. Other than in her criticism of Obama's vague promises to "reach across the aisle" I haven't seen Hillary as more antagonistic than anyone else. As you note, Hillary has hardly taken any fight to the Republicans in the Senate.

In fact, I can't think of one time - other than perhaps her healthcare initiative - in which she escalated any fight in any matter of policy. Faced with this real lack of evidence that she does use antagonistic rhetoric, or takes antagonistic positions more than McCain or her husband, I reach a different conclusion as to "why Hillary can't get a break:" a sexist double standard that manifests itself in dozens of inconsistent and unfair perceptions, such as the notion that she is spoiling for a fight.

Fighting on matters of Gov't policy is heroic.

However, as you correctly stated Hillary's fights are seldom about policy. She'll gladly roll over on war votes, the patriot act, etc.

Hillary's fights are about personal things such as, distrust for the media and persons whom she percieves as enemies or disloyal. I agree that she is a smooth and polite in her scripted speeches. However it doesn't take much to peel off the veneer.

Take this journalist incident as an example. It's fine to complain to the journalist, to his boss...even employer. Perhaps even ban further interviews with the guy. But Hillary threatened to by ban MSN from any future debates, because of an off the cuff remark by some dumb journalist. That's like burning down your neighbour's house becasue he happened to "borrow" your garden rake without asking. That's borderline psycho.

An no, I don't believe there is a sexist double standard. Bush II, and Guillani were all identified correctly as SOBs. Even McCain carries the "hothead" label. The double standard is trying to protect Hillary, by suggesting that critics have a double standard.

There are an awful lot of Republicans who don't agree with Obama's "liberal" positions, but would nevertheless vote for him because they feel he'll be reasonable.

Well said - as a Republican, I agree whole-heartedly with this argument. I also feel that where most disenfranchised Republicans (what I've taken to calling those of us who joined the party for realism in international politics and conservatism in spending habits) are feeling the worst brunt of Bush's policies, they see the same ideas in the Clinton campaign. Her spending history and policy plans as well as her "not fighting" on the Iraq and Iran issues leave a bad taste in my mouth. She's also more liberal than Obama in the areas I'd rather see Bush stick to his conservatism on - free trade (or rather, a lack there of), separation of church and state, and gender in education (having co-authored a bill with Sen. KBH stating that separate classes based on gender could be good for the students - separate but equal?).

"Borderline psycho?" Not much bias in your views, is there?

As to the Schuster remark, you don't get it. It isn't about the remark of one journalist - it is about a pattern of sexism on the network. And no, Hillary didn't start or lead the charge - media matters did:

<link>

<link>

Is mediamatters "psychotic?" A Clinton front group? Or is mediamatters headlining this issue likely a sign that the problems as MSNBC transcend Hillary and this one incident?

Your claim is that Hillary fights over "personal" things. Other than the scandals of the Clinton years, which should had every reason to fight over - being accused of murdering Vince Foster, for example - do you have a scrap of evidence?

As to the double standard - a bit of googling shows that there are some liberals who think that McCain's temper is an unexploited issue. But I can't find anyone who is claiming that they opposed Guilliani or McCain because they are "fighters" or "hotheads" - except that you make the claim that many people won't vote for Hillary for this reason.

You or I can google all over the internet and pick up scraps of information, articles, viewpoints, cartoons etc to support one argument or another.

The New York times, no less, ran a scathing article on Guiliani's vindictiveness, just a few days before the Florida primary.

No leader, no matter how smart or informed, can be effective unless he or she can convince others to row in the same direction. Hillary hasn't been able to do that, either when she as first lady or senator. Her healthcare proposals fell off the table. As a Senator she sponsored lots of bills, by hardly passed anything of significance, (you can easily google that.). And, in case you're wondering...yes Bill "triangulation" Clinton was just as ineffective. His successes were primarly due to a Republican congress that held his feet to the fire, baby boomers in their high income/earning years and, the dot com boom. Nothing more.

I guess you've given up even pretending to argue your point, which had nothing to do with trangulation, or Clinton's general effectiveness as a leader. Your point had to do, specifcally, with your perception of her as someone who picks or invites fights. In response to my request for evidence, you pointed only to the current Schuster dispute, but you have no response to the fact that the issue is larger than Schuster and you can't even discuss that issue rationally, instead asserting that Hillary is self-evidently psychotic. Now you're down to arguments like "anyone can google."

I saw Bill Maher the other night on Larry King. He made the comment that Clinton hatred has almost nothing to do with the Clintons - it's about the haters. You're a perfect case in point.

In the early stages of the campaign, I remember people were unsure whether America was ready for the black president. Most Dems, including African Americans sided with Hillary, because they didn't want to do anything to jepordize getting the White House back.

Obama started working on those perceptions and start to turn people's minds. Iowa was a watershed. After they nearly lost NH and knew they were going to lose SC, the Clintons came up with the brillient strategy of painting Obama as the black candidate, in hopes that it would turn off whites. Bill Clinton famously compared Obama's likely win in SC to that of divisive Jesse Jackson.

Well guess what? There was a huge backlash and the Clintons had to keep quiet on race.

Unfortunatley Obama's performance lately has been like a freight train. He's racked up multiple victories lately...drawing on a people from across the political and racial spectrum .

So how do you stop a freight train. Well, perhaps it's time to play the always reliable race card. It time to play on people's fears that America is not ready for a black president. This time, Ed Rendel, stauch Hillary supporter and her quarterback in PA, has been trotted out to do the dirty work. He recently floated the idea that there are a lot of white people who would never vote for Obama. Why is he talking about this now? Why not months ago? When...ever in his career, had Ed even offered this or any similar sentiment?

The Clintons are beneath contempt...but then according to Bill Maher, it could just be me, the Media and the "vast right wing conspiracy". BOO!

Hey Kanzeon, her are a few more shamless clinton haters.

<link>

"Fighting" metaphorically goes on in many arenas every day, and there is nothing wrong with Hillary using the word. Innumerable politiciians have used it to express their determination to get certain pieces of legislation passed. This nit-picking of every word Clinton says and giving a pass to Obama could back-fire on you Hillary-haters.

When you can't defend your original post, change the topic. Then when called on it, change the topic again. Tiresome.

How exactly would if backfire?

And: doesn't it occur to you that all these "Hillary-haters" might be a problem in November? How do you justify the subsequent risk in nominating her?

Ok Kanezon, let me connect the dots.

Clinton attracts a lot of negative feelings because that's what she puts out. You wanted examples of her calculating aggressive personality. I've given two.

No one likes to hear people speak ill of their kids. But when it Hillary's kid, she's ready to take the gloves off and start bashing the network. Nobody likes to lose. However when Hillary's losing (badly) she'll do anything to win, including playing the race card.

Everything is peachy as long as Clinton is on top. But as soon as she doesn't get her way or she feel's she is being personally opposed, Hillary is quick to pick up a broken beer bottle. This is why we call her "calculating" and aggressive.

However, I've offered something more than just examples of "my perception" of Hillary's calculating and aggressive attitude.

Don't you think the former first lady and lioness of the Democratic party would have been able to get her fellow senators to join her on some of the many of the bills she proposed. Apparently not. Her weak legislative record, despite being elevated to a number of prominet committees and being treated as the provebial rock star Senator is a clear signal that, either her fellow dems and all moderate reps have joined the vast right wing conspiricy or...she can't play well with others.

The article which I linked, puts the final piece of the jigsaw puzzle in place. If we ignore for a moment the it's was written by that famous Hillary bashing outlet, the Associated Press (that sarcasm Kanezon), it lays bare all the bad feeling, broken promises and double crosses that the Clintons have put out.

Hillary is buddy only as long as you give her your full and unblemished loyalty. No doesn't that sound like a President we currently know and love. (more scarcasm)

The facts are simply that you don't like Hillary, and that you can't discuss the Clintons without saying they are "beneath contempt" or that Hillary is "borderline psychotic."

You can't "connect dots" because your dislike is unfocused, and once you can't defend one thesis (the "fighter" idea), you move onto the next (Bill Clinton's comments in South Carolina) and then the next (some superdelegates don't like Clintons position on NAFTA). The discussion isn't about whether some people don't like Clinton, or whether there are legitimate critiques of her political style or policies, but the idea that you brought forth at the beginning of the thread - that Hillary's main, or at a least a significant, problem is that she invites fights.

You also can't discuss the specific issue that I and others have raised of irrational Clinton hatred. You don't address it by pointing to articles that are simply critical of Clinton, as the Clintons are certainly not free of criticism. Reporting facts is very different from the shifting (and shifty), nit-picking unfocused dislike of Clinton which attaches a nefarious motive to absolutely every gesture, or which throws out one unconnected bogus theory after another to justify a preordained and unsupportable disdain.

The AP article you link focuses on members of the party who, for one reason or another, may not be with Hillary for the long haul. Reasons cited vary from the notion that Clinton lied about the Lewinsky matter and possibly cost Gore the election, to NAFTA, to welfare reform.

All of that is fair and probably likely analysis. But it has nothing to do with "connecting dots" with your orginal point regarding Hillary inviting fights.

It also has nothing to do with your inability to stay on topic, defend your postion, or discuss the matter rationally. Other than George Bush - who has a long record of betraying fundamental American values - I wouldn't characterize any candidate, on the left or the right, as "beneath contempt" or "borderline psycho." Not Guilliani, not McCain, not Huckabee, much as I dislike their policies or consider what they stand for to be against the interests of America. There's a simple reason for that - I don't have any reason to hold them beneath contempt or argue they are borderline psychotic, but all of them carry the faults and limitations of everyone else, and all of them make the devil's bargains necessary to remain successful in politics.

The personalization of political preferences is an unfortunate method of making vital decisions for the nation to begin with. However, the unfocused contempt you display in your posts is a unique feature of certain people's relationship with the Clintons. First, your problem with Hillary is that she is a fighter. Then it's that she only fights over personal things. Then your problem is Bill's comments in South Carolina. Then your problem is that some superdelegates are iffy on the Clintons because of NAFTA.

If you can't simply make a case, but need to shift and pretend you are "connecting dots" then it is a waste of time to debate or discuss your viewpoints, because you lack the focus to defend your position fairly. If you can't discuss a politician without claiming he or she is borderline psycho or beneath contempt, then you haven't given anyone any reason to take you seriously in the first place.

And I'm done wasting my time. Thank you for illustrating my points so clearly.