<p>Erewhon,
I do not purport to know what HC has or has not done to benefit her constituency. However, I trust that the constituency is satisfied, as the repubs knew better than to invest a great deal in her opposition and she was reelected handily.</p>
<p>E: Ever heard the phrase “beating a dead horse.” As far as I’m concerned, we’ve reached dead horse status on this point. </p>
<p>Very Happy: Merci!</p>
<p>“I really truly absolutely believe that the reason for the hatred of Clinton – and the distrucst of everything she does – is because she is a woman. I think it’s completely unconscious in those who hate her, but I think that women continue to be objects of derision, and seeing a strong, smart woman who’s a real “contender” is very upsetting to many people. So, they “hate” her, “don’t trust her,” and generally put her down.”</p>
<p>Completely disagree. I am a Hillary reviler, but when Bill was first elected I was a supporter. But after the lapses of ethics and then riding in to my state on her carpet bag, I joined the hating camp.</p>
<p>“Pimped out = duded up? or promote? or advertise? Not in this context it didn’t. It came across to me as a tasteless allusion to putting one’s D out on the street, as in prostituting herself. Obama’s campaign spokesman rightly decried the remark as “deplorable” rather than pooh-pooh Clinton’s reaction. (If he keeps that up, I’m going to have say I’ve known of at least one politician with class.)”</p>
<p>That’s exactly right. It wasn’t “pimped out” like a spiffy car. It certainly did imply putting their daughter on the street, which is grotesque. I do think, however, that the Clintons are making hay of the outrage for (a) sympathy factor and (b) revenge for the Chris Matthews comment.</p>
<p>“Erewhon,
I do not purport to know what HC has or has not done to benefit her constituency. However, I trust that the constituency is satisfied, as the repubs knew better than to invest a great deal in her opposition and she was reelected handily.”</p>
<p>Not a fan, but if one is to be fair, Senator Clinton is well known for her excellent constitutent service and professional, engaged staff. I am a transportation activist here and I can tell you that her office is always knowledgeable and helpful on transportation issues. I am a constituent but not a supporter and find it unfair and untruthful to indicate that Senator Clinton is not a good Senator. I never voted for her and don’t agree on policy, but she was fairly elected by the voters of my state and she does a good job for those voters.</p>
<p>zoosermom: Thanks for those three posts. I agree with all of them. </p>
<p>I actually feel that the three main candidates are among our most hard-working and effective Senators. But a good Senator may not be a good President. Just like a good football player may not be a good basketball player.</p>
<p>zooser: </p>
<p>Is it “making hay” or drawing a line? At some point, don’t the people running for office — if we want quality people to put themselves into this grinder — have to say, “that’s it…that’s the line.” I think we all have to say it. How far, how insulting, how degrading, should we allow our national commentators to go as they “comment” rather pointlessly on the people running for office. Let’s have some standards.</p>
<p>Jazzy, I think the keeping it going for days after the apology and suspension is where it crosses the line into “making hay.” They need to change to conversation right now to get it away from Obama’s big mo and this is where the Clintons are most sympathetic and respected – as parents. I made it clear that the comment was disgusting, support the apology and suspension, but I’m calling it as I see it.</p>
<p>“Not a fan, but if one is to be fair, Senator Clinton is well known for her excellent constitutent service and professional, engaged staff.”</p>
<p>Then I apologize. On my countless visits home, I’ve heard nothing but grumbling that she ignores the poor counties and the myriad of local problems and focuses on national issues because she has been running for president from the time she was elected. And that’s from people that voted for her. Having said that, those I know who voted for her are satisfied with her views on national issues and will vote for her again, despite their consternation she ignores their local problems. It appears I’ll have to be more discerning when opinions are bantered about.</p>
<p>Not that it matters, no one that disparages her local involvement has less than a BA/BS…most have more advanced degrees. Could be education affects perception ;)</p>
<p>“Then I apologize. On my countless visits home, I’ve heard nothing but grumbling that she ignores the poor counties and the myriad of local problems and focuses on national issues because she has been running for president from the time she was elected”</p>
<p>I think there is some truth to that in that she is running for President. That said, she has an excellent staff which, of course, is attributable to her, and things haven’t been left undone in her absence. It’s possible for the Senator, herself, to be out of town but to have left an apparatus in place to make sure that nothing slips in her absence.</p>
<p>“It’s possible for the Senator, herself, to be out of town but to have left an apparatus in place to make sure that nothing slips in her absence.”</p>
<p>I agree. Companies don’t collapse when CEOs are absent. The complaints I hear relate to the fact she’s instigated little federal help for NY in countless counties and cities. Not that I believe you can throw money at every problem and expect it to magically go away.</p>
<p>ZM, lest you believe I’m a Republican Evangelist, nothing could be further from the truth. I didn’t vote for Ted Kennedy, but I respect and admire him, and his views on healthcare reform are nothing short of inspired. It’s just possible he might get my vote next election</p>
<p>erewhon, we have had a vacation home in western NY for many years and I know of many friends and neighbors there who have availed themselves of assistance from Hillary’s Rochester and Buffalo offices. They have always been treated kindly and their issues have been handled expeditiously. What local problems is it that she is ignoring?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It assumes nothing of the sort. We weren’t talking about those who like her. That’s another discussion. Your apparent complaint back in the first line of post #13 was that it is somehow wrong to describe those who hate her as having irrantional or visceral hatred. </p>
<p>It’s perfectly okay with me if Republicans or anyone else dislike Hillary Clinton. My point is that that when someone offers mild reasons for a mild dislike or disagreement, then that level of dislike is consistent and perhaps even logical. But when someone can come up with only very mild reasons for a fierce, venomous hatred, then the degree of that dislike is not consistent and not logical. It’s clearly not based on any sort of rational thought. It’s blind, visceral, and mindless. Simple as that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s only simple if you entitle yourself with the right --and the presumption of being able – to measure correctly what constitutes a mild reason on the one hand and a fierce and venomous hatred on the other hand. </p>
<p>Although I reject its foregone conclusion, I do understand your reasoning.</p>
<p>God, please let this thread die. What the reporter said was reprehensible, but worse stupid (wouldn’t any campaign let the Stanford-educated son or daughter of the candidate do some heavy lifting at some point?). Whether the Clinton’s are using it to play victim doesn’t change the fact that what the reporter did was reprehensible and stupid. And I would say this if it were a Bush or Reagan or Clinton or whatever child who had been commented on.</p>
<p>Could the moderators please kill the thread and hand me some soap so I can wash that guy’s mouth really well and, as a profilactic measure, do the same thing to Imus, too? I heard he is planning a comeback.</p>
<p>I agree with the above poster who said she’d be suspicious of a child who didn’t campaign for his/her parent. </p>
<p>The media’s treatment of the Clintons-- Hillary and Chelsea in particular-- is mean, unforgiving, disgusting, and-- as usual-- transparent. Why not give equal treatment to Obama’s people? Is he “pimping out” Oprah, Caroline Kennedy, Maria Shriver, his wife, et al ??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These activities IMO aren’t driven by a pro-Obama fervor, more an anti-Clinton animus. And anti-Democrat too. The real question is was Laura Bush “pimped out” by W when he needed her.</p>
<p>For two plus years, much of the ‘media’ had Hillary anointed as the Democratic nominee. The media insisted that she was the front runner and could not lose.</p>
<p>Now Hillary is the “underdog”. I find it amusing now that a single reporter made a stupid inappropriate comment that all of a sudden the media is all against the Clintons. I think I remember reading many times in the past that CNN was actually referred to by some conservatives as “the Clinton New Network”, etc.</p>
<p>I also find it very disingenuous that some voters now hold such a distasteful remark against another candidate, and suggest that such distasteful remarks be used against other candidates as well in order to promote “equal” treatment. That is really sad. It wasn’t any other candidate’s campaign that prompted the remark, or even condoned it! Yet the Clinton campaign won’t let it go!</p>
<p>In the end, this may do her more harm than good.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but the ultimate effect (direct or indirect) becomes “pro-Obama.” When I hear stuff like this, though, it makes me want to vote for Clinton. Honestly-- for someone undecided, it’s a dumb thing to do if they’re doing it because they’re anti-Clinton.</p>