Why is Hillary Clinton the devil incarnate?

[welch]

I have puzzled for 16 years, almost:

Why is Hillary Clinton, a conservative / moderate democrat, an old-fashioned stiff Methodist, treated as the Devel incarnate?

Bill Clinton backed NAFTA, and won the bill with the support of free-trade Republicans. Labor Democrats opposed NAFTA. Check a website for any trade union. Think back to that third candidate, Mr Ross Perot, an ex-Republican who warned that "the great sucking sound" was the sound of job being lost to low-wage Mexico.

NAFTA and globalization was not a Clinton conconction.

Tom Friedman (The Flat Earth) applauded all the NAFTA efforts.

My experience in the computer industry -- as global as you can find -- has been that Friedman missed all the defects in the new global economy. Still, that's a different topic.

That is -- I started to read and comment on the book about two years ago, but before my heart attack. Fan Fram Annapolis (AKA IrnBrus, but you're still FFA to me) was interested and started to comment. I've been trying to build up my strenth, and to keep my job ever since.

Sorry, but there is a lot to say. Stories, good things, bad things.

(a) A late night (we were on a "death march" schedule) in Oerlikon, a miniature silican valley on the outskirts of Zurich. I walked into out test lab, where we had set up 16 test servers, and surprised a pair of young Indian kids, holding hands, tapping feet, and swayng to the music from a large flat-screen broadband connection to a kind of Indian MTV. Not my music, and they immediately dropped hinds in embarasement, but I never forgot.

Thousands of miles away. In Switzerland, a country that hates foreigners (we all -- Yanks, Brits, Belgians, Germans, French, Ozzies -- were warned to stay inside on MayDay), here was a cute young couple breaking Indian courting tradtion (arranged marriages) humming along to a music video brodcast thousaands of miles away.

Yes, Friedland has something: country barriers are evaporating.

(b) About ten years about we worked at a division of GE when my friend Don asked for a larger raise. Don was worth it -- one of te first MSCS from Stevins Institute, who had run the IT goup at his origianl business until they collapsed. We hired him, and I learned that Don could learn anything, and that he never pannicked under pressure.

Our boss, though, warned: If I get you the raise it'll paint a big taget on you back.

I moved to another company, and recruited Don. Last year, the company told Don that they were shifting his job to another state, and replacing him wih a rookie making half his salary.

Friedman missed the kown fact -- known inside the Industry -- that the rookies are not as good as the people they replaced. We few survive, but it is tougher and tougher. They barely understand what we are talking about. Mention Fred Brooks The Mythical Man Month , a classic, and they look blank.

None of this came from Bill or Hilliary Clinton. Geroge HW Bush barely noticed. Scholars at various think-tanks pondered...but this was never something that the Clintons concocted.

And it had the enthususiatec support of those Republicans who did not follow Perot or Buchanan.

To repeat: why does Hillary Clinton set Republicans to shrieking? New York state varies from down-downstate social democrats (consider Fiorello Laguardia) to upstate Rockefeller Republicans (Governor Pataki). There are even some far right-wing Republicans. In the Senate, she seems to work with everyone.

What causes the screeching?

[corected for typos]

[ATV]

What causes the screeching?

The Right Wing media machine (rhetorical question, right?).

[KazooSkinsFan]

Why is Hillary Clinton, a conservative / moderate democrat, an old-fashioned stiff Methodist, treated as the Devel incarnate?

A conservative / moderate? Wow.

For me, I'll give you the biggest one. The federal government is roughly 20% of our GNP. She wants to grow it by 15% with national health care. That's a 75% growth in one swoop.

I'm a libertarian, our government is WAY too big. I see her healthcare socialism as consistent with her other views and far left. In what possible way is she conservative, much less moderate?

On NAFTA, that was in my view the greatest achievement in Bill's Presidency, I'm an Adam Smither, but I am not clear what that has to do with her. I'm not clear what the anti-dotes have to do with free market economics which rewards those that make efficient decisions. I worked for GE for 11 years, that story is such a small piece of the picture there.

[crazyhorse1]

There is absolutely nothing in Clinton's positions to set anyone screeching.
She's closer to the middle than any other serious candidate of either party. She's, in fact, too moderate for me. That there's such a rapid group of Hillary haters out there can't be easily explained, but probably involves a combination of things: she's a woman, she's an intelligent and ambitious woman and therefore a threat; the Republican propaganda machine has been successful; she was cheated on, which has bred contempt; she doesn't appear as intellectually soft or as emotional as red
blooded males like their women. At any rate, the fault is not with her; it's
part of the deep neurosis of American society.

[Countertrey]

At any rate, the fault is not with her; it's
part of the deep neurosis of American society.

Ahhh, yes. I keep forgetting... it's that "Great Right Wing Conspiracy"

[crazyhorse1]

At any rate, the fault is not with her; it's
part of the deep neurosis of American society.

Ahhh, yes. I keep forgetting... it's that "Great Right Wing Conspiracy"

I said, "...deep neurosis of American society."

[crazyhorse1]

Why is Hillary Clinton, a conservative / moderate democrat, an old-fashioned stiff Methodist, treated as the Devel incarnate?

A conservative / moderate? Wow.

For me, I'll give you the biggest one. The federal government is roughly 20% of our GNP. She wants to grow it by 15% with national health care. That's a 75% growth in one swoop.

I'm a libertarian, our government is WAY too big. I see her healthcare socialism as consistent with her other views and far left. In what possible way is she conservative, much less moderate?

On NAFTA, that was in my view the greatest achievement in Bill's Presidency, I'm an Adam Smither, but I am not clear what that has to do with her. I'm not clear what the anti-dotes have to do with free market economics which rewards those that make efficient decisions. I worked for GE for 11 years, that story is such a small piece of the picture there.

She's soft on civil liberties (including a woman's right to choose and rights of defendants), fiscally conservative, moderate on the war, supports no Constitutional changes, reasonably strong on defense but not aggressive in relation to American hegemony, strong on education, moderate on the environment, traditional in relation to religion but favors separation of church and state. She seeks no reforms. Her views on universal health care are now unclear. She's about 12 shades of vanilla. I don't know any Hillary haters who know anything about her views. Her supporters don't either, except that she's intelligent and competent. She would be, if elected, an executive who minds the store while the yahoos are screaming nonsense about her.

[Countertrey]

I don't know any Hillary haters who know anything about her views. Her supporters don't either, except that she's intelligent and competent.

These two statements define my problem with Hillary. Nobody knows what she is... and, that's just how she wants it. I suspect, because of her behavior in her younger years, that she is probably not going to be very friendly to conservative or libertarian sensibilities... that she is, all in all, a big government, liberal, or worse.

Nobody knows who Barack Obama is, either...

[ATV]

Nobody knows who Barack Obama is, either...

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/

[Countertrey]

ATV, that is what Barack Obama SAYS he is. I require a little more than that before I choose to cast a ballot.

[ATV]

I require a little more than that before I choose to cast a ballot.

How should one do that? I assume you voted for Bush - What was it, other than things he "said" he was, that made you think he wouldn't turn out to be the worst President in history?

[Countertrey]

I assume you voted for Bush

I did.

He was the least offensive of the candidates in both elections. The Democrats, early on, had several candidates I could have voted for. They elected to run nincompoops instead.

What was it, other than things he "said" he was, that made you think he wouldn't turn out to be the worst President in history?

I rely on record, as I would hope any thinking voter would. Obama has none, though it appears that his agenda is not acceptable to me anyway. Just another "big government, save me from myself" liberal. Bush's was weak prior to the first election, stronger prior to the second (in my opinion), however, Gore's and Kerry's were atrocious, and gave me no reason to even consider them.

The worst President in history? Sorry... that man was elected in 1976, and shown the door ASAP.

[tcwest10]

[ATV]

I rely on record, as I would hope any thinking voter would. Obama has none

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/cong ... key-votes/

Just another "big government, save me from myself" liberal.

Ah, ok, right. Nevermind. Move along.

The worst President in history? Sorry... that man was elected in 1976

End-of Presidency Job Approval Ratings (ABC News Data):

Bill Clinton (2001) 65%
George Bush (1993) 56%
Ronald Reagan (1989) 64%
Jimmy Carter (1981) 34%
Gerald Ford (1977) 53%
Richard Nixon (1974) 24%
Lyndon Johnson (1969) 49%
John F. Kennedy (1963) 63%
Dwight Eisenhower (1961) 59%

George W Bush's? Quickly heading toward Nixon territory....

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

[Countertrey]

You're going by approval ratings at the time of departure? History judges Presidents, not polls.

But, since you brought it up, I'll use your same medium... keep in mind, that I have a low opinion of opinion polls. Here's a sampling:

The 1995 Sienna Research Institute Survey
http://www.siena.edu/sri/results/95%20Presidency%20Survey.htm

Clinton - 16
Reagan - 23
Nixon - 23
Carter - 25


5 years later...
Federalist Society - The Wall Street Journal Survey on Presidents 11/16/2000
http://www.opinionjournal.com/hail/rankings.html

Reagan - 8
Clinton - 24
Carter - 30
Nixon - 33


Opinions are all over the map... however, there is a trend... the farther we get from his presidency, the higher Reagan's rating gets... and Clinton's has gone down. Carter and Nixon both seem to swing up and down.
The polls predominantly rate Carter higher than Nixon. I suspect this is primarily due to the Watergate scandal... a comparison of accomplishments out side of that, however, shows that Nixon had far more achievements than Carter. I suspect that ultimately, Nixon will be ranked higher.

[ATV]

You counter with two convoluted studies, the first done by some small religious school (see below) that nobody has ever heard of, the second performed by the conservative Federalist Society (see below) - Neither of which actually samples either a straightforward approval rating or a sampling across a broad spectrum of Americans?

Lame.


Sienna College (www.siena.edu) - Siena, a Catholic and Franciscan college (2,900 students), founded in 1937 by seven Franciscan friars, is an independent undergraduate liberal arts college located in Loudonville, New York, a suburban community just outside the state’s capital.

Federalist Society (wikipedia) - The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, most frequently called simply the Federalist Society, began at Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, and the University of Chicago Law School in 1982 as a student organization that challenged the perceived orthodox American liberal ideology found in most law schools. The Society has many prominent conservative members, including United States Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia (who served as the original faculty advisor to the organization), Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, former United States Circuit Court Judge Robert Bork,...

[Fios]

He was the least offensive of the candidates in both elections. The Democrats, early on, had several candidates I could have voted for. They elected to run nincompoops instead.

I will maintain to my last breath that, had the Democrats run Wesley Clark, they would have won and it might have been a pretty resounding victory.

[crazyhorse1]

You counter with two convoluted studies, the first done by some small religious school (see below) that nobody has ever heard of, the second performed by the conservative Federalist Society (see below) - Neither of which actually samples either a straightforward approval rating or a sampling across a broad spectrum of Americans?

Lame.


Sienna College (www.siena.edu) - Siena, a Catholic and Franciscan college (2,900 students), founded in 1937 by seven Franciscan friars, is an independent undergraduate liberal arts college located in Loudonville, New York, a suburban community just outside the state’s capital.

Federalist Society (wikipedia) - The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, most frequently called simply the Federalist Society, began at Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, and the University of Chicago Law School in 1982 as a student organization that challenged the perceived orthodox American liberal ideology found in most law schools. The Society has many prominent conservative members, including United States Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia (who served as the original faculty advisor to the organization), Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, former United States Circuit Court Judge Robert Bork,...

Ironic isn't it. All the big time conservatives and libertarians reluctant to denounce a President who has blatantly done his best to attack the Constitution and Bill of Rights and create a monolitic state under his personal and (projected) one-party control.

Some of our friends actually supported and still support a human monster who has no respect for their freedom because of perceived and relatively
trivial flaws of his opponents. My mother, who hated and hates the war, voted for Bush because of Kerry's hair, others because of the Swift Boat lies. Some voted against Gore because they believed, incorrectly, that he said he invented the internet, which he didn't, and because they thought he was off the wall about global warning.

The latest disinformation is about Gore spending a fortune each month at his house for energy, as if he and his wife lived alone, instead of-- like other former Vice Presidents and Presidents and their families--
in virtual compounds with a large contingent of the secret service.

The lies don't stop from Fox. The gullible fall for them almost all the time and end up voting their misconceptions rather than their interests.

[ATV]

Fios, you were a Clark supporter too? We gave him $150 and voted for him (hey, he won Oklahoma). I was hoping either he or Edwards would win the nomination. We were pissed that by the time the election hit Illinois the race was already over (talk about lame). I still really like him, but I feel Obama's candidacy is more realistic, and he might even be a better candidate. Who are you pulling for?

[Countertrey]

Some of our friends actually supported and still support a human monster who has no respect for their freedom because of perceived and relatively
trivial flaws of his opponents.

I do not consider consorting with the enemy (Kerry) a trivial flaw. I do not consider accepting multiple illegal donations (Gore) trivial. Additionally, despite your protests, both stand considerably to the left of the party.

Your "human monster" hyperbole not withstanding, I will not undermine the CinC when troops are under fire.

[Countertrey]

You counter with two convoluted studies, the first done by some small religious school (see below) that nobody has ever heard of, the second performed by the conservative Federalist Society (see below) - Neither of which actually samples either a straightforward approval rating or a sampling across a broad spectrum of Americans?

That's the point. No poll is reliable. You can rip out all the polls you want, I can rip out one to say the opposite. The difference is, I know they are bull, you believe they have the weight of fact.

[ATV]

You can rip out all the polls you want, I can rip out one to say the opposite.

Some are more legitimate than others.

No poll is reliable.

Every few years our nation conducts a really big poll called elections. While no election is perfect, we strive to make this poll as accurate, unbiased and fair as possible so that it can be considered official. The nation does not allow, for instance, the Democratic party (or some supporter of the Democratic party) to host/operate the polls. Can you imagine if moveon.org did this for all the voting for the 2008 presidential election? Would you, as a conservative, have any reason to trust the results? There are major reasons why polls should strive to be as reliable as possible, and major reasons why we need to trust their legitimacy.

[Countertrey]

Some are more legitimate than others.

Especially the ones YOU choose to use.

You are a funny man.

The nation does not allow, for instance, the Democratic party (or some supporter of the Democratic party) to host/operate the polls.

You are aware, are you not, that election workers are invariably members of political parties.... and that the majority tend to be members of the party in power in your localitiy... So, while technically not run by the party, they are selected by the party in power... which, technically does not run them, but only selects the members, which tend to me members of the party in power...

Sorry... got stuck in a logic loop.

Basically, yes, I trust them... as long as they are not poll workers in south Florida.

[KazooSkinsFan]

He was the least offensive of the candidates in both elections. The Democrats, early on, had several candidates I could have voted for. They elected to run nincompoops instead.

I will maintain to my last breath that, had the Democrats run Wesley Clark, they would have won and it might have been a pretty resounding victory.

Clark embodies the problems both parties have. How do you win a nomination in a dogmatic party (as both are) AND the general election? Reagan is the last to do it effectively where people actually liked him because he was able to separate personal right values (appealing to the Right) from actual policy (government out of personal lives).

Since then we've had politicians who couldn't manage that and we end up electing the least unelectable candidate. Which is also why neither candidate got 50% for 3 straight elections and W only broke the string in 04 because Kerry was so exceptionally unelectable.

The reason I dislike Clark now is the reason I dislike for example Mitt Romney and John McCain, rather then like Reagan disarming their social ideology with effective policy start shifting them. I found some of Clark's later comments offensive even if I understood why he was saying them.

What I like is to hear from the Right is like Reagan that small government doesn't involve government making our choices for us or from the Left a candidate who while declaring a need to support the needy saying government isn't the sole solution to that either. Both are unfortunately in short supply these days.

[ATV]

Reagan is the last to do it effectively

End-of Presidency Job Approval Ratings (ABC News Data):

Bill Clinton (2001) 65%
Ronald Reagan (1989) 64%

where people actually liked him

Or hated him.

he was able to separate personal right values

"Right values" as in illegally selling arms to Iran and using the proceeds to illegally fund a right-wing guerrilla organization in Nicaragua (in between funding them with drug money)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

is like Reagan that small government

"Small Government" as in overseeing the largest increase in National Debt in our history?