Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What Are the Main Reasons Right Wingers 'Hate' Clintons?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Parche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 03:52 PM
Original message
What Are the Main Reasons Right Wingers 'Hate' Clintons?
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 03:53 PM by Parche
:shrug: :shrug:

It gets vile out there sometimes.....

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. She was giggling and thanking Karl Rove on Fox today.
Not much hate there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. There's two parts to it,imho.
One, the wingers will do anything to anyone.

Two, the Clintons have their own issues.

Maybe all politics are like that. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. For years
I protected them. The Clintons made me look foolish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
4. You can remove the quotes -- they really DO hate them
Starts with them believing they were ENTITLED
to a second Bush I term, and in whatever way(s)
necessary, they were going to either remove
Clinton and/or discredit him. When Bob Dole
cried around the time of Clinton's election that
he wished "the best man had won" he was
serious -- they thought Clinton was a hick
from Arkansas with a questionable past who
wasn't "our kind" -- the ruling class in D.C.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Starts with them believing they were ENTITLED to a second Bush I term
Kinda like Hillary believing she's entitled to be President now?

That actually illustrates why the GOP doesnt like the Clintons.

They know the Clintons are Republicans in Democratic guise, always usurping GOP platforms and making them their positions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
30. yeah but
what about all the hicks that hate him. They are part of the ENTITLED class. I think the entitled class is now very comfortable with the Clintons, but the average working class Joe Republicans that blindly hates them. The people that will go on and on about Monica Lewinsk. The answer to that is really unclear. Working class Republican hates Clinton, working class Democrat is voting Clinton over Obama. The difference is amazing given how bad Republicans have been to the working class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 03:55 PM
Original message
Jealousy
Clinton competence and success -- 8 years of peace and prosperity -- by its very existence makes plain the VAST republicon homelander failures & corruption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. It's a sign of degeneracy. Degenerates, traitors, and drug addicts tend to hate the Clintons.
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 03:56 PM by Perry Logan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
devilgrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
6. Because Bill & Hillary are better Republicans than Republicans.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justitia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. They did go apeshit when the Clintons co-opted "welfare reform". Course, we got screwed too. -eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
7. First major battle of Clinton administration
let gays into the military. Even though "don't ask, don't tell" was a compromise....it was an issue which the wingers are not willing to compromise on

there are of course other reasons...but Clinton started out liberal and started out trying to fulfil his campaign promises. Of course, the media was already under winger control so the policies were less liberal than we wanted.

Even DOMA was a political move to undercut a Constitutional Amendment drive by the wingers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. gays have always served in the military
that battle concerned a legitimate effort to stop the homophobic, sickening PERSECUTION OF GAYS IN THE MILITARY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. yes I realize that they have always served
and that when they were outed (even if they didn't do so themselves) they could be forced to leave
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. the problem back then was
that was the FIRST issue that hit the news from Clinton and you are correct - it sent the conservative hompophobes into a feeding frenzy and as such, was probably not the wisest choice
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. apparently its never convenient to take the side of homosexuals
because we must always kiss the ass of the religious
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justitia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Too bad the Clintons threw the gays under the bus. And she STILL won't fully repeal DOMA. -eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. DOMA did not throw the gays under the bus
it was an attempt to cut the feet off of a drive to make a Constitutional Amendment protecting us from gay marriage.
It worked in terms of it defeated a movement to change the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justitia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Well, that's one way to spin it. Why won't she repeal it? She refuses. -eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Do you want gay marriage used as a wedge issue again?
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 04:21 PM by aquart
Great goals you've got.

And one Senator or one President can't actually repeal anything. You do know that, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justitia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. I'm calling the Clintons on their triangulating bullshit, they'll sacrifice the Party to get elected
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. no spin, I don't know how
both Obama and Clinton are effectively the same on DOMA

They'd repeal part (Obama says all but also says states rights would allow individual states to discount marriages in other states which have different rules).


So both Obama and Clinton say that individual states can chose to ignore same sex marriages performed in other states if that state does not recognize gay marriage. "Like Clinton, he supports the prerogative of each state to decide whether to recognize out-of-state same-sex unions."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justitia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Wrong. He'd repeal it, she wouldn't. Plain as day. Bill dropped this shit in our laps.
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 04:24 PM by Justitia
The Clinton DOMA says the FEDERAL GOV'T can never recognize any states claim.

Totally different than Obama rolling it back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seeking Serenity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
8. According to DH, the conservative (not the perjorative 'right-winger')
his distaste for the Clintons (as a native Arkansan, he's had a lot of time to watch them) is rooted in what he says is their shamelessness, their absolute willingness to say anything, adopt any position, cozy up to any person, be all things to all people, to get their way. (Of course, he thought they cozied up to slightly conservative positions to mask their true liberal colors.)

That's my conservative's reasoning. YMMV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
23. Did you just describe Obama's platform or what?
Because, isn't that what Obama is faithfully promising to do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seeking Serenity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Umm, I guess, maybe. Did I?
I was stating DH's opinion, not necessarily mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DinahMoeHum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
11. After 12 years of a 'Puke in the WH, these folks had a sense of entitlement
which was taken away from them in 1992 - they had gotten too complacent and ended up losing to what they considered a hick politician who basically beat them at their own game.

There was also a matter of meritocracy at work - something the RWers preached about but didn't walk; and didn't exist in the profile of George HW Bush, much less his sons.

I've said it numerous times: You have to be born a George Bush. Anybody can be a Bill Clinton.

Just my 2 cents.

:kick:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drmeow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #11
26. I agree that this is part of it
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 04:56 PM by drmeow
I would add (and I posted this comment a few months ago):

One of the reasons why Bill and Hillary were and still are hated by the right wing (not necessarily by conservatives):

The president's wife has frequently been a strong driving force behind the scenes. We almost always got not just the president but a team - president and his wife. But in the past it had never been a openly public partnership. For example, Nancy Reagan had an incredible level of influence but it was all behind the scenes. With Bill and Hillary it was the first time we had a public partnership. And that violated the traditional roles in the White House and slammed home to a lot of people who hated the changes in women's roles that the world really had changed.

Here was a woman who had kept her maiden name, had a successful career as a lawyer (making more money than her husband), and was actually named to an official position in the administration. For everyone (male and female) who bought into traditional roles for men and women, this was a huge threat to them. It was bad enough that women's roles were changing but as long as the power elite maintained the illusion that women were not gaining power and were not changing their roles, people who preferred traditional roles felt that their ideology was validated. The success of the Clintons (and Bill's popularity) threatened to invalidated their choices and ideology more than any other change since the 60's.

More women in the work force could be justified by economic circumstances. A rich woman doing charity work (which, as the name states, can be as much work as any other job) could be dismissed as not being "real" work (and not taking work away from men). A president's wife taking on a pet project (usually a safe one that everyone can support) was just a good woman using her position of influence to do good in the world. But a successful married FEMINIST taking an active role in government (and supporting issues relating to women's rights) was a traditionalist's worst nightmare. It violated everything from feminists are just lesbians or unattractive women who can't get a man to a woman's primary role is to take care of her husband and kids.

The Clintons made a mistake putting Hillary in charge of health care reform. They should have put her in charge of something that was not perceived as socialist. She became not just a feminist who didn't know her place but a communist who was hell bent on destroying America.

It all ties in with the ideology that the man is the head of the household, the authoritarian parenting style, and the right wing adherence to the "strict-father model" (Lakoff). The fundamental core of the Clinton's life invalidated all of the traditional belief systems (and choices) of the right wing - and Bill's popularity fanned the flames of their fear that the world really had changed.

I base this theory in part on some work by Kristin Luker (Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood) who argued (based on interviews with extreme pro and anti abortion activists) that abortion had little to do with life or even due process and had a lot to do with gender roles. I also have taken into account Sternberg's Self Theory which argues that our concept of ourselves is built of fundamental beliefs (postulates) and we get the most angry and oppositional when our fundamental postulates are challenged or violated. Not only did the Clinton's personal life and relationship challenge/violate the right wing's fundamental postulates, their public/political life and relationship did the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chovexani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #26
33. Excellent analysis.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justitia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
13. Goes back decades, and it's irrational, but its undeniable. They hate all things "Clinton" -eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
27. Bill was seen as a sexual rival. They feared their wives were fantasizing
about Bill instead of them while doing their "wifely duties."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eilen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
28. I suggest you ask this question on Free Republic
you might get a thoughtful answer from a conservative.

Rush Limbaugh made his fame while Clinton was in office, I don't wonder that he is pushing for people to vote for Hillary.

or just google, I'm sure the progressive review, newsmax and the national review have archives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
29. If they were Repukes, they'd be revered
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 05:58 PM by zbdent
and Monica Lewinsky would never be heard from ... and horse-faced Paula Jones wouldn't have had a book deal ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YvonneCa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
31. Brainwashing...
...by talk radio.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnnyCougar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
32. Two words: Clenis Envy. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gold Metal Flake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
34. Because they are told to.
They don't think for themselves.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
35. Sex freaks them out.
:7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-05-08 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
36. Wrong forum. See:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 23rd 2014, 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC