<p>Sorry, I mistakenly thought it was Hillary who made the comment directed at Obama. My apologies. I’m glad to hear it wasn’t her.</p>
<p>I actually don’t dislike Hillary. I’ve never understood why some people hate her so much.</p>
<p>If Ron Paul doesn’t win the Republican nomination (or run as an Independent) I’ll be voting for Hillary or Obama (or Edwards, as the case may be).</p>
<p>“Do you mean distancing himself from the fact that there are Muslims in his family? Understandable.”</p>
<p>No. From his pastor. Just as I said.</p>
<p>"“It’s safe to say that Romeny’s speech does no good in a party that says the separation of church and state is wrong and should be abolished.”</p>
<p>Huh? Which party says that? "</p>
<p>Not mine. Which is the republican. Don’t you just love people putting words into others’ mouths? I wonder why that habit seems so pervasive on the left here.</p>
<p>“I actually don’t dislike Hillary. I’ve never understood why some people hate her so much.”</p>
<p>Because in a nation of millions of spectacular women, it’s offensive that the first serious candidate for president got to that place because of whom she married.</p>
<p>“got to that place because of whom she married.”</p>
<p>Yet no one complains when a serious male candidate (such as Bill Clinton, among countless others) attributes his success in life to the person he married.</p>
<p>Either they really believe that their spouse was critical to their success, in which case it ought to be OK with Hillary as well, or else they’re lying about that belief, in which case they should be taken to task for the lying, and they never are.</p>
<p>Hanna, it’s not the same thing at all. Bill was actually elected to those offices, for good or ill, on his own merits. Did she help? I’m sure. But she did not ever run on her own merits, as a candidate on equal footing with others. Hillary would not be a credible candidate for president and wouldn’t be (God help me) my senator if her husband hadn’t been president. I find that extremely offensive. Feel free to disagree.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yeah, but that can’t be the whole explanation, because there are a lot Hillary Haters who have hated her right from the start - back in the early 90s and LONG before she became a serious candidate for president herself. And it’s often not an ordinary, political dislike for her; it’s pure, visceral, mindless, hatred.</p>
<p>“Yeah, but that can’t be the whole explanation, because there are a lot Hillary Haters who have hated her right from the start - back in the early 90s and LONG before she became a serious candidate for president herself. And it’s often not an ordinary, political dislike for her; it’s pure, visceral, mindless, hatred.”</p>
<p>Perhaps people sense something in her or missing from her. Whatever other gifts she possesses, Hillary is not likeable.</p>
<p>I’m opposed to dynastic succession in all its varieties, and I’m with Obama – the first time in my entire life that I’ve gotten involved in a primary beyond voting. </p>
<p>But I’m not sure how one measures what is and is not a candidate’s own merit sometimes. Occasionally it’s easy – Lurleen Wallace was plain and simple a means to allow George to evade term limits. In the case of Hillary and even W, though, it’s much harder to disentangle the reasons why their presidential bids were taken seriously. I think the voting public makes a lot of terrible mistakes, but one thing that’s clear is that fame, without more, will only carry so far. Look at Teddy Kennedy. In other words, I think Hillary has a lot in common with Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger: she became a household name for something besides winning an election, but ultimately she’ll be judged on something resembling her merits. I mean, whatever you think of Reagan, he’s not remembered as a movie actor. In contrast, Schwarzenegger will be. As for Hillary, we’ll find out next year.</p>
<p>And I agree with coureur that huge numbers of people hated Hillary with a remarkable vehemence at least as far back as 1992, long before she’d done much of anything on the national scene.</p>
<p>zooser: So I assume you hate all of the candidates from politically prominent families, then? Or just Hillary?</p>
<p>It’s only relatively recent that most women in Congress got their positions without having their husband die in office first. I did a paper on women in politics in a course about 20 years ago and the majority of women then were women who were appointed to fill their open seats and then ran for re-election and won.</p>
<p>By the way, how can it be dynastic succession if the voters pick the candidate?</p>
<p>“zooser: So I assume you hate all of the candidates from politically prominent families, then? Or just Hillary?”</p>
<p>It’s not family ties, 1of42. It’s the bond of matrimony as the path to success that offends me. there’s also the fact of te circumstances surrounding Ms. Clinton’s run for the Senate. Using the sympathy factor because her husband is a dog. Both of those things reek to me. Yes I’m a republican. No, Bush was not my first choice candidate. I voted for him twice but was not a party to his initial nomination, and I’ve never heard of any hint of impropriety between 41 and 43.</p>
<p>Oh and 1of42, thinking of Mary Bono, I am equally offended by her assumption of her husband’s seat. she’s the only current republican I can think of off the top of my head.</p>
<p>With all due respect, you might want to read more detailed accounts of HC’s Senate race (the first one). She did a great job campaigning in areas that don’t vote Democratic and she did quite well in those areas – not because of sympathy but because she wowed them with her knowledge and interest. Her opponent took those areas of the state for granted and as a Long Islander did not relate to NYers in rural areas and in cities outside of the metro NY area which had severe declines in manufacturing. And she did even better in those areas for her re-election.</p>
<p>The fact is, who you are in terms of family ties and so forth is vital in politics. I don’t particularly like it, but Hillary is not at all the most egregious example of it either, in my opinion.</p>
<p>“how can it be dynastic succession if the voters pick the candidate?”</p>
<p>The voters can choose to implement dynastic succession if they want. I’m opposed to that choice, but I’ve only got one vote.</p>
<p>What’s the problem? We all know folks where the parents and kids do similar work. People grow up with certain ways of seeing the world and direct and indirect experiences with particular kinds of work. Spouses often met because they worked together or shared an interest.</p>
<p>"With all due respect, you might want to read more detailed accounts of HC’s Senate race (the first one). "</p>
<p>You do know that I’m a New Yorker, don’t you? And the fact remains: Nita Lowey would have been our senator if Ms. Clinton’s husband hadn’t been president. Do you think some random woman off the street can just come in and be the democratic nominee in New York state? If you think that, you know nothing about New York politics.</p>
<p>It’s not really about voters choosing the candidate. With a few exceptions (mayor recently and the wretched George Pataki), many office holders are chosen by the democratic political machine when put fort as the party’s candidate. This is not a split registration state. People here are overwhelmingly democratic voters.</p>
<p>And how did Bobby Kennedy become Senator from NY, pray tell?</p>