she seems like a good candidate, yet i hear so many negative things about her..why is it??..is it a sexist thing??i simply dont know
2007-03-20 21:05:29 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Most people who are knowledgeable on Politics seem to have a wise stance on her, but I think what you might be referring to is the "average Joe" on the street really hates Hillary!!
And those people know nothing really of her politics, so it's more like an instant hatred people have of her, which I agree, is really quite strange!
Politics aside, I think she is judged for being a "cold" and "un-female" woman, she displays nothing of "femaleness" and that riles a lot of people! People have certain expectations of a woman and she doesn't fit that at all, and people think she's trying to be a male in order to fit in. I don't think the average American is ready for a strong powerful woman - it goes against all their ideals.......good candidate or not she gets peoples back up for not conforming to "womanhood"......
2007-03-20 22:41:32 · answer #1 · answered by HC123 4 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Many people are threatened by her. They are stuck with the old feminine stereotype of the dependent little wife, baking cookies. It shakes them up at bit when she is smarter than most people and has a powerful agenda. A man can be ambitious and aggressive and he is a good candidate. A woman can be ambitious and aggressive and she becomes a hateful epitome of bitchy. There is a huge double standard. It amazes me that in 2007, people are still stuck on the governs better because is crested and not cloven to use the words of Queen Elizabeth I. We have not progressed to the point of UK, with Margaret Thatcher. We are still stuck in our old sexist ways. I think she is by far the best candidate. Daffy Duck could do a better job than Bush.
2007-03-21 00:21:12 · answer #2 · answered by kolacat17 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I hate what she represents - mediocrity masquerading as high quality and the royal succession of the presidency (i.e. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton). Hilary Clinton has stood with the Bush administration each step of ways on Iraq. She has shown no real administration and easily relied on the "inevitability" of her ascendancy to carry her by. at the same time as issues get problematical she motels to Carl Rove strategies and performs the gender card. i do not imagine i have seen Obama play the race card once - except possibly, possibly getting Oprah to do it by ability of proxy. McCain has been a more beneficial expressive opponent of Bush than HRC.
2016-12-02 08:22:45 · answer #3 · answered by bennison 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Many people are afraid of her. It is mostly a sexist thing, unfortunately & it seems that it's mostly perpertrated by other women, especially by those that say "you shouldn't consider her just because she's a woman, blah, blah, blah"....Well, pardon me, I'm a guy & I've been voting for men all my life, because they were men. Women were never even seriously considered up till now. She's very qualified, much more so than all the other "candidates" that are running up til now, & we need a change....big time!
2007-03-21 01:42:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
A lot of people love Hillary Clinton, she is amazing. A powerful woman that knows what she wants and knows how to get it. What makes her perfect for the Presidency is her knowledge and experience in world affairs. She is prepared to take on the daunting task of salvaging our world standing.
Her past will haunt her for the rest of her life. I could care less, I want a gifted woman to occupy the Oval Office and return this country to its former glory. We should be honored she offered.
2007-03-20 21:51:34 · answer #5 · answered by GO HILLARY 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why do I dislike Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate? Is it a "sexist thing" ... NO! I would LOVE to vote for a woman president!
Hillary Clinton will never get my vote! Here are a few reasons why:
1) She is a former lawyer! Enough said, too many former lawyers in government now!
2) She has already shown that she will not follow through on promises (she ran for re-election for the US Senator's job in NY State, then "threw her hat in the ring" for President! No different than someone who re-enlists in military service, then wants to "opt out" for a better civilian job.
3) Just where is she from? Illinois, Arkansas, New York? Too many faces for one body (have you seen her impression of a southerner, check it out, very FUNNY) the only reason she ran for Senator in New York is that we are stupid enough to have a very loose residency law! If the opening was in Hawaii or New Mexico, she would have studied the "Cliff notes" for that area...and ran for office in that state! She basically picked up a shopping bag from Bloomingdales, slapped a "Yankee" baseball hat on her head and declared "I'm a true New Yorker!"
4) She studied under Chuck "The wild west begins where the Hudson River ends" Shumer ... need I say more?
Show me a female candidate worth voting for ... and you got my vote! Give me a choice between Hillary Clinton and Condolesa Rice (or any of the "Bushies") and I'll vote for Elmer Fudd as a write in candidate (Daffy Duck as VP) in protest!
2007-03-20 21:40:09 · answer #6 · answered by ornery and mean 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
That's simple. Bill was so likable.
Go back as far as you like, and you'll find that every popular administration has a fall guy, a buffoon. The more popular the President, the more charactureized the buffoon.
You sound young, so I'll just go back to Nixon, ok? Not very popular personally, so no need of a major buffoon---but he surrounded himself with enough creeps that he lost his job.
Ford was popular, was his own buffoon in a way but Kissinger caught a lot of his flak, as did Ford's vice-President, Nelso Rockefeller.
Carter---he lost popularity quickly, and his brother Billy provided ample fodder for lampooning.
Reagan---oh boy, did his wife catch hell. I was AMAZED when he died recently how the whole press seemed to have developed a collective amnesia about how she was treated---and it got more savage as Reagan gained popularuty. it was really, really brutal. Nancy was probably the most-hated first lady in history, and Reagan was among the most loved.
Bush senior had Dan Qualye. Quayle was an easy target, because the only real qualification he had for the job was to be good-looking and loyal---he was not horribly bright. Nor was he stupid---he just did not have any wit of charisma. Quale was ridiculed more than any vice-President in history.
Bush jr is not horribly popular and does not need a buffoon, but Rumsfeld has caught plenty of crap, much of it richly deserved. And Cheney---well, don't get me started on Cheney. He's been catching crap since day 1. much of it deserved, but he DOES serve a purpose---no one wants to kill Bush and have Cheney become President...(Cheney is, truth be told, losing his marbles slowly, probably poor blood circulation to the brain, but he was never very well-liked)
Hillary is a self-posessed, confident, extremely bright lady. Therefore, she gets tagged as being a lesbian, being pushy, etc. She was the first first lady, except Rosalyn Carter, to have a strong voice in policy and a working-day presence in the East Wing, to sit in on Cabinet meetings, etc. People did not like it when Rosalyn Carter did it, and the practice soon tapered off. With Hillary, it did not. She had a lot of influence in the White House, including influence with who had access to Bill, and with that power comes some resentment---she is also liberal and trying to move toward the center a bit. As all liberals who seek office must do, or lose. Hillary is an easy target---Clinton, like Reagan before him, is a likable, "teflon" coated guy, and crap slides righ off him. And lands in his wife's lap.
Bottom line---Hillary is disliked for many of the same reasons Nancy Reagan was disliked---namely, because their husbands are so popular.
I like Hillary, and would vote for her over Guiliani or Obama or Romney. But McCain is my guy-----all the best, Brian
2007-03-20 21:38:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
She has very hard edge to her. Her speech style is that of someone talking down to a retarded 5 year-old. She has no charisma and acts like she is smarter than anyone else. I like a candidate who gives you feeling that you could sit down at your kitchen table for a cup of coffee and a cookie and have a meaningful conversation. I don't want to be lectured too.
2007-03-21 11:10:25 · answer #8 · answered by chrissyt 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because she cannot be trusted. During her husband's impeachment proceedings, she tried to portray herself as unaware of her husbands "activities". If this is true, she isn't too bright, if this is not true she is a liar. She still wants the Fed to take over the entire health care industry, totally unaware of the catastrophic results it may cause. She still has not given a credible reason why the Rose Law Firm files were not delivered to the Special Prosecutor for almost a year AFTER they were subpoenaed. She can't seem to make up her mind on the War on Terror. I won't vote for her. And, incidentally, it IS sexist to think it is a sexist thing.
2007-03-20 21:15:40 · answer #9 · answered by Sartoris 5 · 4⤊ 4⤋
It always amazes me when people say, "sure, I'd vote for a woman, just not Hillary" and then they go on naming women who are neither qualified nor are willing to run! Sure, I'll sell you some gas for $1.00 a gallon, I just don't happen to have any.
2007-03-21 02:01:40 · answer #10 · answered by mstrywmn 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋