Theories on why it's okay to hate the Clintons

[BurtWorm]

and not the Bushes in the mainstream media. Why did the NY Times, for example, degrade itself throughout the 1990s pursuing non-existent stories to trash Bill and Hillary Clinton personally? Why is it acceptable, even to the point of being conventional wisdom, to add a clause when talking aboutthe Clintons, even among liberals, about what sleaze bags they are, but it is not acceptable in polite society to point out what pieces of shit every last Bush is?

Theories?

(Mine: Bill Clinton was born in the "wrong" class.)

[AP]

1. Clinton was so likable that the press had to work double time to make him

unlikable.

If the guy was easier to hate they wouldn't have whored it up so much.

[goclark]

6. They are smart and they are slick

The slick part is what makes the media and the haters made.

The Clinton couple knows how to outslick the bullies and the media.
They also know how to rise about ignorance directed at them. They rise about by doning good deeds for others.

The BushCrooks don't give a bit about other people and it shows.

[zbdent]

2. Clinton didn't "embed" reporters

and threaten them with "not being allowed to cover the major stories".

Also, Clinton's administration didn't send any reporters who actually dared to ask questions to the "back of the bus", er, room.

You see, intimidation is everything. A reporter who doesn't get to ask questions is not doing too much of a job, eh?

[eg101]

3. you should hate the clintons

DINOs are eminently hateable.

[auntAgonist]

7. I'll bite, .. what makes the Clintons DINOS ?

I'd like to hear your explanation. Or are you trying for sarcasm here?

[eg101]

12. clinton == free marketeer who wants less govt == DINO n/t

[wyldwolf]

19. thanks for setting the official definition

Now Clinton joins a long list of Democrats through the history of the party - including a few liberal heroes - who were free marketeers and prefered less government. :eyes:

[eg101]

21. some people will believe any TeeVee neoliberal propaganda

....and some people will not.

[wyldwolf]

22. that is for sure

"TeeVee neoliberal propaganda" :crazy:

[eg101]

23. oh, that's right! You are one of those DLC supporters!

Yeah, I remember seeing your sig with the NDOL graphic. NDOL==DLC.

Well, good for you! The DLC certainly is a FINE organization.:crazy:

[wyldwolf]

24. thank you. Yes we are

slight correction: DLC member

[BurtWorm]

8. I doubt they're officially hated because they're DINOs.

That would make them eminently lovably among a certain class, and I would, rather than feel compelled to defend them, feel compelled to retch every time I see them. The fact is, I'm not in love with the Clintons. I think Bill is a brilliant politician, but was a deeply disappointing president, from a liberal perspective. Hillary is too cautious by half (and then some) for me. But I'll never forgive their enemies for what they've done to the political system. And I'll never forgive lefties who collaborated (unwittingly) or not with their enemies. Never!

[auntAgonist]

9. You're right BurtWorm, did you see "The Hunting of the President"?

[BurtWorm]

10. No, but I read the book.

It's one of the best political books I've ever read.

[rkc3]

4. Getting a hummer from an intern is not acceptable.

Asking her to lie about it is worse.

Therefore, he must be an evil person.

[Orangepeel]

25. the hatred started long before that...

or there wouldn't have been an investigation that led to uncovering that particular sin.

[Bluzmann57]

5. Your theory is probably on the right track

Bill Clinton was born to a working class mother, he loves her dearly, he has human weaknesses, and he is better at playing the political games than his opponents. And for that, he is hated, He also dared to empower women and minorities, and we just can't have that now, can we? He wasn't afraid of hard work and it's obvious that a great many media members want nothing more than a free ride. His wife didn't leave him, actually forgave him, and that is no good either. And she actually has (gasp!) her own mind and opinions that come along with it. How dare she.

[scbluevoter]

11. As corny as it sounded. . .

he really felt the pain on middle and lower class people. That ticked off Washington insiders. This is mentioned briefly in "The Hunting of the President." Also, I really think his heartfelt compassion for minorities did not sit well with the Establishment.

[newyawker99]

13. Hi scbluevoter!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[blindpig]

14. hey there!

damned few of us in the Upstate. Welcome to DU!

[eg101]

15. what makes you think he really felt their pain?

That sappy expression on his face? He should have won an Oscar for acting, I'll warrant that. But I would not shake the man's hand. He probably sent more jobs overseas than Bush could ever dream of.

[Pepperbelly]

16. petty, much?

He would shake your hand even though you are clearly a hater. He'd probably even find some good in you.

Unless you know the guy, those sorts of observations can be based only upon what is in your heart, not his.

[eg101]

17. So what is so wrong about "hating"?

But is the object of hate deserving of that hate? That is the question. I would say that Clinton is deserving of hate for all American wealth he sent overseas and into the pockets of the investors and the CEOs.

You claim I do not know Clinton.

"By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them...."

Oh, I know him. And I know Bush. I know them both by their fruits, foul and poisonous.

[Pepperbelly]

20. hating never hurts anyone more than the person harboring it.

And the good that the man did so far ouverbalances any harm that your hatred is almost laughable. Almost only because hatred inside of someone is never a laughing matter. It is bad for a person. Messes up their digestion, their blood pressure and their ability to enjoy life.

It messes up their ability to experience happiness.

And yes, Bill Clinton is a very good man. I know of his kindness firsthand and without television cameras filming it. Again, I believe yur view is so skewed as to defy reality but hey, people believe all kinds of weird shit and I'm not going to throw rocks because of it.

[BurtWorm]

18. There's no doubt that some of Clinton's policies caused a certain amount

of harm, especially with respect to people on welfare and on the margins of the global economy, as well as in Iraq (though he inherited that mess from Bush boy's dad, he certainly kept it cooking on their terms).

Still, in most respects, what Clinton did was no worse, and in some respects was vastly better, than what Republicans have done and have been doing. People are, of course, entitled to feel however they want about whomever, but I still find it disturbing to see lefties in bed with the ultra-rightists where the Clintons are concerned. Clinton-hating lefties enabled the ultra-right Clinton-haters who have made American politics into a cesspool. You may blame the state of American politics on Clinton himself. You may feel no responsibility whatsoever for the mess. But just ask yourself why, if Clinton was essentially "as bad" as Reagan or the Bush's, it's only Clinton who is considered a legitimate target across the political spectrum for attack? Why do Republicans or ultrarightists hold fire when the target is one of their own, allowing attacks on Republicans to appear "marginal" and "extreme?" Why don't Dems and lefties have that sense? I ask because I don't know. I'm as guilty of Dem-bashing as any body. But when someone is being persecuted, the way the Clinton's clearly were for phony "crimes" like Whitewater, and their "crimes" are being exploited to advance a far-right agenda, that's when I think you've got to sit up and pay attention. You've got to hold your fire for the targets that deserve a nice blast of buckshot.