A perception poll - please read before answering

[tcfrogs]

Poll question: A perception poll - please read before answering

Who is/was more hated/disliked by the opposition? Clinton or W? Not your position, but what you perceive?

I'll provide more insight as to why I'm asking later - please give me your honest responses.

ON EDIT - I changed the wording to hated AND/OR disliked...

[rucky]

1. Bush is more feared...

with Clinton it is a visceral hatred

[tcfrogs]

6. Let me say this...

I WAS a Repug - voted for Bush in 92 & Dole in 96. I never hated Clinton. I didn't like the fact that a Democrat was in the White House. I respected the hell out of Clinton for being a GREAT politician.

I sense SO MUCH HATE for W. That's why I asked the question, since I'm a convert. I don't hate W, I just don't agree with many of his policies.

[yardwork]

2. I can only assess my own feelings

I don't hate shrub. I just want him and his family out of power, and I'd like to see them answer for the injustices they caused. I see mostly the same feeling among other posters here at DU and elsewhere.

The things I've read and heard about Clinton. It's insane. The way people feel about him is literally insane.

[abrock]

3. Definitely Bush.

I mean, Clinton was, at worst, a very immoral man who didn't do much for the country. Thats what his detractors can say without being 'disproven' . However, you can't really state many facts proving he was a bad President.

As for Bush, well... we all know the crimes against humanity this chimp is guilty of.

[Chili]

12. exactly

...whether there's real hatred involved or not in your feelings about Bush, the two men and presidencies aren't really comparable. There was no Iraq with Clinton, no untouchable propaganda machine, no high unemployment, the economy flourished, there was no vast corruption with a cabal of ideologues lining their pockets over the dead bodies of Americans... there's no comparison. Any hatred of Clinton could not have been for his policies. It was simply whipped up by the Limbaughs and Coulters and Hannitys and based on something I never could understand. And this is underlined by the fact that Clinton's approval ratings peaked at 69% right in the middle of the impeachment process.

I've never been able to fathom hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

But Bush... that I can understand.

[Leilani]

4. Did not vote

Cannot decide.

A visceral hatred of both, I think.

The only thing is Clinton was hated by a group of troublemakers before he even reached the WH.

Bush was treated very fair by his opposition, in spite of the fact that it was a disputed election, & he received less votes.

After 9/11, the Dems tried to work with him, & he laughed in their faces. That is what angers people so much...his smug arrogance.

I think both were hated, but Bush deserves it; Clinton never did.

[Longhorn]

5. OMG, I just voted for Bush! LOL!

Seriously, from what I've seen, those who are against Bush absolutely despise him! I didn't see that as much with Clinton but then I'm choosy about the company I keep! ;)

[tcfrogs]

7. Don't worry - it doesn't count in the election

:)

[tcfrogs]

8. Kick - I need more votes...

[cheshire]

9. I see more hate coming from the repugs about everything.

[LittleClarkie]

10. Bush got a 9/11 induced honeymoon

He was already in trouble before that happened, and then we rallied around him for two years until we realized what was going on.

The other side was going to get Clinton on SOMETHING if it KILLED them.

[last_texas_dem]

14. 9/11 is a good indicator

If Clinton hadn't been term-limited from running again in '00 and had won re-election (which I believe he would have), I don't think he would have gotten nearly the honeymoon period that Shrub got, had 9/11 still happened on his (Clinton's) watch. I think that's indicative of something. Democrats really dislike Shrub, and did even back then, but even the majority of them (admittedly, myself not included) "rallied around the flag" long enough that * had an approval rating in the low-90's for a month or so after the attacks. The dislike/hatred of Clinton bordered on the pathological among the hard right-wing of the Republican party to the point that I don't believe Clinton's approval rating, even in the event of a national crisis, would have ever risen above the seventies. I could be wrong, but this is just my perception, and this is one of the main reasons I think the hatred of Clinton was a bit stronger than the hatred of * is now. However, I am also around a lot more strong conservatives than strong liberals, so I may just have not seen enough intense Shrub-bashing for me to judge fairly!

[LittleClarkie]

21. And that strikes me as quite unpatriotic

especially coming from those who claim to be the patriotic party.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

11. The Right Wing wants you to hate Kerry even though he doesn't have a

record of fucking the country and world over. But it is already working with many Republicans. They HATE Kerry even though they don't even really know much about him.

[alphafemale]

13. They hated Clinton before he was in office and they hate him still.

I think most people just want * out of power.

I for one won't think much more about him then.

[BurtWorm]

15. I can't imagine a news anchor saying of Bush what John Gibson said

of Clinton when he was awaiting a quadruple by-pass operation: "Some of you might not be happy to hear this, but the prognosis for this operation is very good." (Words to that effect. I don't know if they use words like "prognosis" on Fox. They have their fans to think about.)

No, the right wing is insanely hateful of Clinton. They're still obsessing over him. A month after Bush loses (knock wood), he'll be a bad memory--unless he gets tried for war crimes. But more likely he'll slink into well-deserved obscurity.

[tcfrogs]

16. I believe you - but is there any link that Gibson said that?

When Gibson was on MSNBC or CNBC, I always thought he was a liberal. If he said that, that's just obscene.

[BurtWorm]

25. I have it on hearsay from DUers who witnessed it

and reported it in this forum.

[tcfrogs]

29. Hearsay is good

:)

[abrock]

33. After Bush's election is over, HE is not.

I do not want to let him fade into obscurity. He needs to be put on trial, but common sense tells me he won't. Not even after he pardons all the people in Enron.

[Senior citizen]

17. What opposition?

There is no effective opposition to W. Only Congress can call for investigations and they won't. No Republican Congress or courts would impeach or convict him. Whenever there was the slightest rumor that Clinton might have done something wrong, investigative teams were dispatched, millions of dollars were spent, leaks were made to the media.

Whenever there is proof that W did something wrong, i.e. paid for an abortion, snorted coke, was a drunk, didn't fulfil his National Guard obligations, lied about the war, lowered pollution standards, ran up the biggest national deficit in history, etc., etc., ad mucho nauseum, there's a lot of internet traffic, a few minor media moments, and nothing happens.

We don't have a Richard Mellon Scaife to fund anything and everything that might harm W. We don't own the media, or control Congress, and we haven't managed to appoint judges we own. We don't even own the electronic voting machine companies.

All we have is a majority of citizens--ordinary citizens. In the 2000 election many of us weren't permitted to vote, and many more of us found out that our votes didn't count. Do we hate W? I don't think so. I think we hate what his administration has done to our country. I think we know enough about him to lack all respect for him as a person. But what distinguishes us from pukes is that we're not haters. The real haters, the people who seek power so that they can enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else, who despoil the world for their own personal profit, who think everyone else is inherently inferior--the bigots, the people who commit hate crimes, the pedophiles--they know which party welcomes them and which does not. If you read Conason's, "The Hunting of the President," you know that there was overt racism among the white-supremacist Clinton-haters.

We may intensely dislike W, but the fascists and the fundamentalists are the ones who are filled with hate, not us. Most of our actions aren't done to destroy anyone, not even W, but to protect ourselves and those even more vulnerable than us. I'm reading David Bacon's book, "The Children of NAFTA: Labor Wars on the U.S./Mexico Border." I know, as all decent people know, that the race to the bottom, i.e., the emphasis on maximizing profits by cutting labor costs has, historically, led to slave labor (concentration) camps. We fear that unless we can regain control of our country, the next world war will involve the entire world against the one imperialist power that needs nobody's permission to invade other countries with no more justification than pure greed, and that therefore threatens global stability the most: us.

[tcfrogs]

20. OK - devil's advocate here

George Soros is a comparable to Richard Mellon Scaife

[Kenneth ken]

28. Bad comparison

George Soros doesn't own any newspapers. I'm sure he could buy some, but he does not, in fact, currently own any that I am aware of.

[tcfrogs]

30. OK

like I said, devil's advocate...

[Indiana_Dem]

36. Wow. I love what you've written. Very good.

I think I'll bookmark this thread just for this post!

[LSdemocrat]

18. The level of hatred is the same, but they are different kinds of hate

Clinton was hated on a very personal and cultural level. It was a hatred that had little to do with policy. He managed to push all of the right-wing's cultural hot buttons at once. Lawyer, intellectual, the 60's generation, highly nuanced beliefs, married to a strong, independant woman, perceived sexual infidelity (a rather hypocritical hatred for many on the right), an agent of change.

The hatred of Bush, while originally having some basis in his personal life (life of priviledge, never really working a day in his life, having the keys to the country handed to him by his father, the Republican party, and five members of the Supreme Court), has evolved into a hatred having almost entirely to due with policy and politics. Wasting of the greatest surplus ever, wasting the world's goodwill after 9/11, John Ashcroft the "Patriot" Act and the shredding of the US constitution, gutting of environmental regulations, the war in Iraq, and the list goes on and on.

Despite the differences in the type of hatred, I can't really say that one was more hated or disliked than the other.

[Nightowl_2004]

19. IMO, Bush hands down

The resistance to Clinton, while always there seemed kind of half hearted and like a joke. "Come on guys! Is that the best you got?" It seemed like his opposer's never took their opposition seriously. Bush haters/dislikers/whatever's are far more fanatical, resolute and determined. They are filled with passion.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

22. The resistance to Clinton seemed "half hearted?" You have GOT to be

kidding me. Ken Starr? Impeachment? WTF planet are you coming from?

[Nightowl_2004]

24. Excuse me, I phrased it VERY Wrong

I see that now. I should have just stuck with what I said initially, The resistance seemed like a sick joke. Someone taking a small, nothing of an issue that didn't have anything to do with politics and trying to make it political. In that respect, It was sort of laughabbly riddiculous, "Is that really the best you guys have got" sort of thing to me. Those who resist Bush are filled with a passion that I never saw in Clinton opposers. They have a personal stake in their cause as do all Americans and are determiend to get a man that is driving the country into the ground out of office. When Republicans went after Clinton, It was pathetic to see that the best they could do was go after a purely personal issue.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

27. That clarifies a lot. I thought you were completely coming out of

the planet Freepatron, "Clinton was treated with kid gloves but there's so much bashing and hatred of Bush." LOL, can't agree with you on your police work there, Norm!

[AntiCoup2K4]

23. There's certainly more valid REASONS to hate Bush.......

....but if you believed the mediawhores, you might think he was the most popular president since Lincoln.

Of course even Abe was only popular with half the country at his best.

Clinton was hated and persecuted by these assholes for years before he even did anything to warrant their hatred. (which even then was NOTHING compared to what Reagan & Bush Sr had done, and never came near the crimes this Fraudministration has committed)

[Kenneth ken]

26. My perception

is that Clinton was more hated.

The media ran with pretty much every nasty allegation against him; the Republican-led Congress treated him with much more disdain than any Democratic members of the current Congress have shown to Bush*; heck Rubbish Limbaugh made himself an icon on his one-note demonization of Clinton.

Nearly four years out of office, that level of hate has subsided only by a small degree.

[Indiana_Dem]

31. I agree with you.

I never saw so much hatred and polarization than I did when Clinton was elected. Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh and other Republicans pounded and pounded Clinton from the minute he was elected until the day he left and then still to this day they demonize Hilary. I never understood it. I think this is why things are so polarized and partisan today and for this election.

I have been around and mindful of politics since Nixon and was first able to vote in '82. I never saw such partisanship and blatent hatred until Clinton became president. This is what makes me so mad about Bush. It kind of feels like I'm trying to even the tally for all the disrespectful bashing Clinton received all those years. Otherwise, I don't think I would be so involved.

I actually consider myself a fiscal conservative--meaning I would like the national debt paid down. I'm not anti-gun either. I'm against globalization to it's fullest extent, which is supported on both sides. Every other issue would put me in the liberal category.

So Republicans never bothered me to the extent that I HATED them. It wasn't until their playground mentality during the Clinton years that totally turned me off. What I don't understand is Clinton was so moderate he could've been a Republican in some respects. Why do they hate him so much? Must be the personal life but I don't think personal sexual conduct would ever enter into my decision to vote for a candidate or not. I just don't understand Republicans. Clinton did his job well and was a great diplomat.

Bush, on the other hand, has done more to destroy this country in such a short period of time than any other president I've seen yet the party still backs him regardless. I don't feel like I would support a Dem if he did that much damage and contempt to our country.

[Kenneth ken]

35. we may not be that different

in political views. Paying down the debt should be a national priority.

I think part of the reason for the Clinton hatred is/was that Republicans are interested in power, and he took away the Presidency from them, the only thing they had at the time, since both houses of Congress were Democratically controlled.

But, as we contniune to see, hate, anger, and fear are pretty much the only tools they have; if they were honest about their policies and goals, they would lose every election, every time.

Communism had fallen, so they couldn't use fear.

[DemBones DemBones]

32. "Hate" is a strong word. I think there are more people

who think Bush* is a disaster as pResident and want him out of office than there were people who felt that way about Clinton. Thus, I voted "for" Bush* in the poll.

But I think there were more people with a visceral hatred for Clinton than there are who truly hate Bush*. They still hate his guts, while I can't imagine myself thinking much about Bush* once he'd out of power. I think that's because RWers really get into hatred for others and are able to justify it to themselves more than people whose politics are more leftist. If we liberals/ progressives hate someone, we feel guilty and try to change, while the right thinks it's fine to hate your enemies. That's a handy attitude for war. Sometimes liberals can also be that way, such as right after 9/11, when almost everyone was talking about revenge.

[0rganism]

34. Quantitatively, W is far more disliked

Compare the re-elect numbers for Clinton and W. Most people LIKED Clinton, even if they thought he was an immoral SOB. He won his second term easily.

Every indication is, this next election is going to be about as close to a bloodbath as we've ever seen in America. Even some of bush's supporters don't like him very much.

[NV1962]

37. My uninformed hunch: Clinton

The Clinton-bashing propaganda machine was really out in full force.

Even with the "benefit" of a post-9/11 hindsight, let's not forget that Clinton also had to deal with the war in/over Kosovo, OKC, WTC, Embassies in Africa, USS Cole... the shrill hurling of the most absurd epithets didn't stop - not during war (remember Kosovo and the treasonous Repugs with their "wag the dog" meme?) and not in the wake of terrorist attacks either.

I take that as a lithmus test - compared to that, and yes I know that "9/11 made everything different" (yada yada - as if the terrorists managed to sequester even the right to a healthy critical attitude, even when it's not used...) but I vividly remember how post-9/11 the Dems closed ranks around the President.

Again - I'm not sure; it's my hunch that tells me Clinton was enormously villified - much more than we despise W.

[tcfrogs]

38. kick

for the morning crowd