"Thinking about Hillary - a plea for reason".
Aug 4, 2016 1:19:43 GMT
lucyg, scorpeao, and 6 more like this
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2016 1:19:43 GMT
link
I ran across this article last night but was 't going to post it until I read this comment in another thread. I think this a pretty general feeling from those who don't understand why Hillary supporters support her. It's one of the nicer comments in slamming us Hillary supporters. "I do think that Hillary supporters really believe she is the best hope for our nation - but only in regards to the alternative: Trump."
Well how about we support her because of all the candidates who ran, on both sides, she is the most qualified. It's as simple as that.
Its clear the Hillary supporters don't see Hillary the way the Hillary dislikers do. It is also clear that both supporters and dislikers are absolutely positive they are seeing the "real" Hillary. But who is right? The supporters or the dislikers or is she a combination of how both sides see her? Curious to find out what the "other side" is seeing that I'm not I asked questions. I checked out the responses and found out it wasn't as presented. Then I ran across this article.
The article is "Thinking about Hillary - A plea for reason" by Michael Arnovitz. In the article there are several links to other articles written in the 90's. The author singles out one that he feels started the entire "we can't trust Hillary" movement. It was written by William Safire called "Blizzard of Lies" that has no evidence to back up his accusations. Kind of like the guy who wrote Clinton Cash where he at least admits he has no proof. But in both cases there are people, without proof, who take this information as gospel. And that is a problem.
Along with the written notes of Hillary's conversations with her "best friend" Diane Blair who decided it was a good idea to write the conversations down. Upon Diane Blair's death her husband donated the written notes to a university in Arkansas where they were made public. By the way I read some of the notes. The comments are the type we would make to our "best friend" if we were venting.
This guy believes the big reason folks don't like Hillary is because of sexism. And to cover the sexism, articles like "Blizzard of lies" become the root of the "We don't trust Hillary movement". And I think he makes a good case.
He talks about how when Hillary is doing the job, like First Lady, Senator, & Secretary of State she gets high approval ratings. But the minute she asks for a "promotion" her approval ratings tank. He even has a Nate Silver chart to back up what he is saying. I have heard over and over again she is a lousy campaigner but once she gets the job people like her again. It would seem Nate Silver's chart adds credibility to that scenario.
The guy does make a good case of sexism and I believe a lot of people don't want to give women "more power" by electing them president. But I also think there is a certain amount of truth in this quote from Sally Quinn from the Washington Post way back in the 90's. " There is this old joke about the farmer who's crop fails" she says " One year, he's wiped out by a blizzard, and the next year there's a rainstorm, and the next year there's a drought, and so on every year. Finally he's completely bankrupt - he's lost everything. He says Why Lord? Why why me? And the Lord says "I don't know. There's just something about you that pisses me off". She pauses and says "That's the problem- there's just something about her that pisses people off. This is the reaction that she elicits from people." I think she may be right.
The guy points out that Hillary is a politician and as such she does things all politicians do. The good and the bad. In fact he says that she is more honest then other politicians who get a pass for their actions while she gets slammed for doing the same thing. Sexism or folks just flat out don't like her for no real reason.
As to the emails. She made a mistake. A big mistake. I think her answers about the emails on Fox News were a bad attempt to spin the results in her favor. And it didn't work. But yet that is exactly what other politicians would do if they make a mistake. Most if not all would just get a pass regardless of the mistake and regardless of what office there were running for. But not Hillary.
Anyway there is a lot of information in the article and various links. He makes a good case for sexism but I think Hillary is one of those people others don't like for no particular reason. And people look for excuses. She is no saint but that doesn't mean that she isn't the most qualified of the candidates that ran or that if elected she couldn't do a good job. And she is certainly not anywhere near the level of Trump as so many want us to believe when they call her "evil".
So please don't insult us Hillary supporters especially since it's becoming clear your view is based on lies told by others about her.
I ran across this article last night but was 't going to post it until I read this comment in another thread. I think this a pretty general feeling from those who don't understand why Hillary supporters support her. It's one of the nicer comments in slamming us Hillary supporters. "I do think that Hillary supporters really believe she is the best hope for our nation - but only in regards to the alternative: Trump."
Well how about we support her because of all the candidates who ran, on both sides, she is the most qualified. It's as simple as that.
Its clear the Hillary supporters don't see Hillary the way the Hillary dislikers do. It is also clear that both supporters and dislikers are absolutely positive they are seeing the "real" Hillary. But who is right? The supporters or the dislikers or is she a combination of how both sides see her? Curious to find out what the "other side" is seeing that I'm not I asked questions. I checked out the responses and found out it wasn't as presented. Then I ran across this article.
The article is "Thinking about Hillary - A plea for reason" by Michael Arnovitz. In the article there are several links to other articles written in the 90's. The author singles out one that he feels started the entire "we can't trust Hillary" movement. It was written by William Safire called "Blizzard of Lies" that has no evidence to back up his accusations. Kind of like the guy who wrote Clinton Cash where he at least admits he has no proof. But in both cases there are people, without proof, who take this information as gospel. And that is a problem.
Along with the written notes of Hillary's conversations with her "best friend" Diane Blair who decided it was a good idea to write the conversations down. Upon Diane Blair's death her husband donated the written notes to a university in Arkansas where they were made public. By the way I read some of the notes. The comments are the type we would make to our "best friend" if we were venting.
This guy believes the big reason folks don't like Hillary is because of sexism. And to cover the sexism, articles like "Blizzard of lies" become the root of the "We don't trust Hillary movement". And I think he makes a good case.
He talks about how when Hillary is doing the job, like First Lady, Senator, & Secretary of State she gets high approval ratings. But the minute she asks for a "promotion" her approval ratings tank. He even has a Nate Silver chart to back up what he is saying. I have heard over and over again she is a lousy campaigner but once she gets the job people like her again. It would seem Nate Silver's chart adds credibility to that scenario.
The guy does make a good case of sexism and I believe a lot of people don't want to give women "more power" by electing them president. But I also think there is a certain amount of truth in this quote from Sally Quinn from the Washington Post way back in the 90's. " There is this old joke about the farmer who's crop fails" she says " One year, he's wiped out by a blizzard, and the next year there's a rainstorm, and the next year there's a drought, and so on every year. Finally he's completely bankrupt - he's lost everything. He says Why Lord? Why why me? And the Lord says "I don't know. There's just something about you that pisses me off". She pauses and says "That's the problem- there's just something about her that pisses people off. This is the reaction that she elicits from people." I think she may be right.
The guy points out that Hillary is a politician and as such she does things all politicians do. The good and the bad. In fact he says that she is more honest then other politicians who get a pass for their actions while she gets slammed for doing the same thing. Sexism or folks just flat out don't like her for no real reason.
As to the emails. She made a mistake. A big mistake. I think her answers about the emails on Fox News were a bad attempt to spin the results in her favor. And it didn't work. But yet that is exactly what other politicians would do if they make a mistake. Most if not all would just get a pass regardless of the mistake and regardless of what office there were running for. But not Hillary.
Anyway there is a lot of information in the article and various links. He makes a good case for sexism but I think Hillary is one of those people others don't like for no particular reason. And people look for excuses. She is no saint but that doesn't mean that she isn't the most qualified of the candidates that ran or that if elected she couldn't do a good job. And she is certainly not anywhere near the level of Trump as so many want us to believe when they call her "evil".
So please don't insult us Hillary supporters especially since it's becoming clear your view is based on lies told by others about her.
