Someone explain to me how Hilary Clinton had any greater hubris or was any less a liberal than Obama. I'm asking this seriously. She was basically identical to Obama ( who I voted for twice) on domestic policy issues and foreign policy. Other than having endured 20 years of attacks and a philandering husband ( who I also voted for), s…
Someone explain to me how Hilary Clinton had any greater hubris or was any less a liberal than Obama. I'm asking this seriously. She was basically identical to Obama ( who I voted for twice) on domestic policy issues and foreign policy. Other than having endured 20 years of attacks and a philandering husband ( who I also voted for), she and Obama should have been equally supported by liberals. Instead Obama seemed to get a free pass from criticism while Hilary was pummeled about everything from her personality ( I had a liberal woman tell me with a straight face that she wasn't 'warm' and should behave like "a big sister' and not so assertively) to her centrist, hawkish positions, identical to Obama's, by Bernie and everyone else. The same people who criticized Hilary's personality loved Bernie's brash, ranting behavior. Presumably, Obama got a pass as the first black president, but even after that, when no woman had ever been elected president, it was open season, no holds barred when it came to Hilary. Someone explain this to me, please.
Hillary was tone deaf and not charismatic, and Obama was both of these things. America was done with Obama's policies after Obama. They didn't want more, and Hillary was a weak candidate. The house, senate, many state legislatures and a good number Governor's mansions were all lost to the GOP during Obama's tenure. It's not like dissatisfaction with the democratic party came out of the blue in 2016. There was a study done where the roles of Trump and Hillary were reversed in the debates, and the male Hillary came across as "punchable". Simply put, the American public rejected more of the same. To attribute the 2016 election to sexism or racism or whatever-ism is to be just as tone deaf as Hillary. It was the economic impacts of globalism on the US, endless bank bailouts, a federal reserve policy that favors the wealthy, and the abandonment of the working class in favor of identity politics that cost Hillary the election.
Oh and I forgot-- the support for endless foreign intervention also known as the forever wars cost Hillary some votes too. To this day one of the accomplishments Trump supporters can rightly boast about is that we didn't start any new wars from 2016-2020.
I agree about her lack of charisma and with many of the other posters' comments here and I think identity politics has way over-simplified in subscribing everything to clear-cut racism or sexism when there is usually a combination of factors at play, but I don't think there's any doubt that there was an element of sexism (a double standard) in the way Hillary was criticized, and a good part of that came from other women. (Just as minorities internalize negative stereotypes, so do women.) I don't put much stock in the theater exercise you cited, but I agree that some of Obama's actions, most importantly, his massive bail out of the banks while failing to hold one single major player accountable was a huge factor. Matt Tiabbi was one of the only reporters to actually point this out at the time rather than quietly giving Obama a pass. Obama, a few years later, would accept huge speaking fees from Wallstreet groups. That is as 'sleazy' as anything the Clinton Foundation ever did. If most liberal and conservative political non-profit foundations were actually scrutinized like the Clintons' was, I'd bet you'd find all the same kinds of cozy conduct.
Looking back I can't readily think of any double standards. If there was anything overt she surely would have made political hay with it. Do you have any concrete examples of this double standard you can share?
>> Obama, a few years later, would accept huge speaking fees from Wallstreet groups. That is as 'sleazy' as anything the Clinton Foundation ever did.
Hillary was raking in those fees long before she ran for potus, and was quite unapologetic about it when asked. "Because that's what they offered" was her explanation. I'm willing to bet that cost her more votes than a double standard.
You are talking about a woman from Chicago via Arkansas who claimed to be a Yankees fan her entire life - thinking that people wouldn't notice the bullshit.
This is a fair question and I will endeavor to answer it, although I don't think I will reach the level of explanation.
The easy answer is that America prefers a black man as President over a white woman. I think your analysis that their policy positions differed -- if at all -- insubstantially is accurate.
Barack was just a better bullshitter, is all. In a way, I feel for Hillary; she always did what she was supposed to do to get ahead in the system. But you can't buy charisma with gold stars.
That could be part, or all of the reason. Another theory is at a time when America wanted something different, Hillary Clinton brought a 40 year political history and Obama brought a year.
People can't tell me that they did not view Trump differently after 4 years than they did when he had a clean political slate. Those type of things allow people to project their wishes onto a candidate.
On a personal note I know someone who knew both Bill and Hillary in law school. He felt that in person they were just the opposite. Hillary came across as warm and friendly while Bill came off as arrogant and aloof.
We will never know, but that would not surprise me.
Senator Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War. Obama protested it (he wasn't in the Senate yet). Clinton's longer history also hurt her, while Obama was fresh. The Clinton Foundation always seemed sleazy, and riding into the Senate on Bill's coattails was not a great look. I do think Obama's skin color helped him win the nomination.
Someone explain to me how Hilary Clinton had any greater hubris or was any less a liberal than Obama. I'm asking this seriously. She was basically identical to Obama ( who I voted for twice) on domestic policy issues and foreign policy. Other than having endured 20 years of attacks and a philandering husband ( who I also voted for), she and Obama should have been equally supported by liberals. Instead Obama seemed to get a free pass from criticism while Hilary was pummeled about everything from her personality ( I had a liberal woman tell me with a straight face that she wasn't 'warm' and should behave like "a big sister' and not so assertively) to her centrist, hawkish positions, identical to Obama's, by Bernie and everyone else. The same people who criticized Hilary's personality loved Bernie's brash, ranting behavior. Presumably, Obama got a pass as the first black president, but even after that, when no woman had ever been elected president, it was open season, no holds barred when it came to Hilary. Someone explain this to me, please.
Hillary was tone deaf and not charismatic, and Obama was both of these things. America was done with Obama's policies after Obama. They didn't want more, and Hillary was a weak candidate. The house, senate, many state legislatures and a good number Governor's mansions were all lost to the GOP during Obama's tenure. It's not like dissatisfaction with the democratic party came out of the blue in 2016. There was a study done where the roles of Trump and Hillary were reversed in the debates, and the male Hillary came across as "punchable". Simply put, the American public rejected more of the same. To attribute the 2016 election to sexism or racism or whatever-ism is to be just as tone deaf as Hillary. It was the economic impacts of globalism on the US, endless bank bailouts, a federal reserve policy that favors the wealthy, and the abandonment of the working class in favor of identity politics that cost Hillary the election.
https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html
Oh and I forgot-- the support for endless foreign intervention also known as the forever wars cost Hillary some votes too. To this day one of the accomplishments Trump supporters can rightly boast about is that we didn't start any new wars from 2016-2020.
I agree about her lack of charisma and with many of the other posters' comments here and I think identity politics has way over-simplified in subscribing everything to clear-cut racism or sexism when there is usually a combination of factors at play, but I don't think there's any doubt that there was an element of sexism (a double standard) in the way Hillary was criticized, and a good part of that came from other women. (Just as minorities internalize negative stereotypes, so do women.) I don't put much stock in the theater exercise you cited, but I agree that some of Obama's actions, most importantly, his massive bail out of the banks while failing to hold one single major player accountable was a huge factor. Matt Tiabbi was one of the only reporters to actually point this out at the time rather than quietly giving Obama a pass. Obama, a few years later, would accept huge speaking fees from Wallstreet groups. That is as 'sleazy' as anything the Clinton Foundation ever did. If most liberal and conservative political non-profit foundations were actually scrutinized like the Clintons' was, I'd bet you'd find all the same kinds of cozy conduct.
Looking back I can't readily think of any double standards. If there was anything overt she surely would have made political hay with it. Do you have any concrete examples of this double standard you can share?
>> Obama, a few years later, would accept huge speaking fees from Wallstreet groups. That is as 'sleazy' as anything the Clinton Foundation ever did.
Hillary was raking in those fees long before she ran for potus, and was quite unapologetic about it when asked. "Because that's what they offered" was her explanation. I'm willing to bet that cost her more votes than a double standard.
You are talking about a woman from Chicago via Arkansas who claimed to be a Yankees fan her entire life - thinking that people wouldn't notice the bullshit.
This is a fair question and I will endeavor to answer it, although I don't think I will reach the level of explanation.
The easy answer is that America prefers a black man as President over a white woman. I think your analysis that their policy positions differed -- if at all -- insubstantially is accurate.
Barack was just a better bullshitter, is all. In a way, I feel for Hillary; she always did what she was supposed to do to get ahead in the system. But you can't buy charisma with gold stars.
That could be part, or all of the reason. Another theory is at a time when America wanted something different, Hillary Clinton brought a 40 year political history and Obama brought a year.
People can't tell me that they did not view Trump differently after 4 years than they did when he had a clean political slate. Those type of things allow people to project their wishes onto a candidate.
On a personal note I know someone who knew both Bill and Hillary in law school. He felt that in person they were just the opposite. Hillary came across as warm and friendly while Bill came off as arrogant and aloof.
We will never know, but that would not surprise me.
Senator Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War. Obama protested it (he wasn't in the Senate yet). Clinton's longer history also hurt her, while Obama was fresh. The Clinton Foundation always seemed sleazy, and riding into the Senate on Bill's coattails was not a great look. I do think Obama's skin color helped him win the nomination.