U.S. News: Clinton has "longtime image among critics as a harridan and a polarizer"
In a March 4 U.S. News & World Report article titled "Crafting the New Hillary," chief White House correspondent Kenneth T. Walsh wrote that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) presentation at a recent energy policy conference in Washington, D.C., "was devoid of hard edges, contrary to her longtime image among critics as a harridan and a polarizer." After stating that Clinton's "critics" view her as a polarizing figure, Walsh went on to assert as fact that she was polarizing, writing, "perhaps it's no wonder that Hillary is just as polarizing as President Bush, maybe more so." From U.S. News & World Report:
Her [Clinton's] presentation was devoid of hard edges, contrary to her longtime image among critics as a harridan and a polarizer. Instead, Clinton has begun trying to present a warmer, more genial side -- and she's having some success. Forty percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton, but 58 percent see her favorably, according to the latest USA Today/Gallup poll. That's an improvement from just a few years ago (chart, Page 26). And she enjoys a substantial lead over her Democratic rivals for the 2008 presidential nomination.
[...]
"When you're attacked," she [Clinton] declared in Iowa in late January, "you have to deck your opponents. You can count on me to stand my ground and fight back." With that kind of rhetoric, perhaps it's no wonder that Hillary is just as polarizing as President Bush, maybe more so. Republican strategists, in fact, say she has so many detractors that she could never persuade more than a bare majority of Americans to vote for her. This again raises the nagging question of her electability, long a sore point. Her advisers are doing their best to counteract it.
As Walsh noted in his article, according a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted February 9-11, "Forty percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton, but 58 percent see her favorably." Despite speculating that Clinton may be more polarizing than Bush, Walsh did not note that according to the same poll, 55 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of President Bush and 44 percent view him favorably.
"Chief White House Correspondent" pretty much explains this. These people still appear terrified to risk their spot in the pressroom or on Air Force 1 at the buffoon's elbow. To suggest that Clinton is a polarizer because she didn't crumble under the massive assault against her (see Blumental's The Clinton Wars) for over a decade now is bad enough, but to say that she may be worse than a guy with a 33% approval rating who is flaunting the will of 75% of the American Public in Iraq is inane.
The article doesn't say "longtime image as a harridan and a polarizer", it clearly states "longtime image AMONG CRITICS as a harridan and a poliarizer".
I would say her critics feel that way, there is no misinformation here.
Except that, as MMFA noted, the author transferred the charge from "critics' " to "verified and accepted" in the structure of the very next sentence.
Oh, woe is me! Here comes ANOTHER round of "MMFA is endorsing Hillary" from Tommy and his crew.
Then why not use the author's "verified and accepted" assertion in the headline, instead of the one that included "harridan"? My guess would be for effect, and that fact that not too many disagree that she is indeed a polarizing figure.
Citing the MMFA's response, apparently at least 58% feel she is not so polarizing? And CERTAINLY less so than Bungle, rather than "maybe more so."
Moreover, the purpose of the article is to tar Hillary as exactly the polarizing harridan her critics claim her to be - thus the shift from "critics charge" to statement of fact for the first charge, and the implication that the second follows therefrom.
Oh, woe is me! Here comes ANOTHER round of "MMFA is endorsing Hillary" from Tommy and his crew.
And what is the problem with MMFA endorsing her?
None with me. MMFA can endorse whowever they like. I have never insinuated otherwise, despite the poster's admonition.
If they had endorsed Hillary, there would be little enough problem - but they didn't!
Rather, they merely exposed the malice involved in designating her as polarizing - "just as polarizing as Pres. Bush, maybe more so."
'Specially since the polling denies those claims. Exposing nutzoid misinformation - even when Hillary is the target; how is that a bad thing?
I don't believe the poll concerning their favoribility ratings necessarily has anything to do with whether they are polarizing figures or not......that goes more to the hardening of the support against them over time, not one poll. One can have a high favoribility rating and still be very polarizing because their unfavorability rating is nearly unshakeable.
Mrs. Clinton has had a history of a very steady unfavorability rating over the years, people don't like her and they never will, most likely. And some love her, and always will.
Well said Tommy.
Hillary has been a polarizing figure, I think even those that don't fall under the category of "Clinton's critics" would agree with that.
As far as Hillary being a vicious shrew [harridan], well from the several books I've read about the Clintons that has sometimes been inferred. However since I don't personally know Hillary, I'll withhold any definitive opinion on that aspect of her personality.
right tommy, she has a pretty much steady unfavorable rating of around the mid forties. know why? all the republicans hate her and won't vote for her, but that is true of almost any democrat. the idea that she is the only one the republicans will demonize is nonsense. it's their standard operating procedure. look at kerry, five medals in vietnam and saved a man's life under fire, and he was the weak sister compared to the heroic bush.
They are endorsing Hillary. It is kinda obvious. But it is a partisan website and flies the Blue D banner. So here all Democrats get a pass....no matter what they've done to us. Too many people have yet to learn that a lesser of two evils is still gonna be evil and that's there's real good out there who would take the job on and do it far better, if only people were willing to stand up and vote for them. Otherwise, we just get keep getting evil, no matter what the degree. 99% of the evil is done by damaged egos who are attempting to hide mediocrity. It's obvious they don't know what they're doing. The treasury is filled with a black hole, the public in record debt and they keep spending all the tax money on wars we can't afford. 2008 will roll around and they'll probably have attacked Iran by then and they'll be arguing pro-war candidate D versus pro-war candidate R to death on tv and in the papers all over again. Seems to be a common theme of our times.
The only one who can stop it is the American voter. They must break their addiction to Democrats and Republicans and just say "No more. Not in my name." and the killing will get one huge step closer to stopping. If our elected representatives refuse to make peace, then it's up to us to put in people who will.
Harridan! Cool...a new word we can use to describe Evil Ann.
We all know that the Troglodytes despise Hillary. Why? Because they were told to. She's the victim of one of their more successful smear campaigns.
When I listened to her speak the other day, i just felt chills of disgust run through my veins. When Obama spoke, I felt warm. Something about the dialect, makes me fell she is looking down upon those she is speaking to. Yukkkkkk
No one put that in my head.
Prejudice is genetic? Wow, is THAT a liberal take on things!
You are speaking in another language to me. Mind simplifying it? You have a problem with my opinion?
Easy enough to clarify: based on preconception, and tone, you have judged Hillary. Since no one put that into your head (even stealthily, with constant assertions for fifteen years, that she is cold, calculating, dishonest, and feels entitled) it must have entered your being via some genetic flaw? Or maybe (ala Hannibal and O'Lielly) it is because women are "shrill"?
LOLOL... I got ya. Ya know, I was very young when they where in power. I am only in my late 30's now. I did not start to follow politics until the last couple years. What I should say is, I have not based my opinion on what the Pundits say, because I do not watch those shows. I read the internet and artcles. SO yes, someone put it in my head. But not the most recent, most corrupt admin in history.
let's see, "late 30's", let's say 38? so in 1992, you were 23? and 31 when clinton's term ended. what is so "very young" about that?
I was a liberal, then grew up into a conservative! ;0)
Kidding. I was not into politics at all.
obviously still not.
I remember posting on this board a long time ago that I didn't like the way Bush walked with his arms stuck out...as if he were squaring off in a gunfight. I also didn't like the way he said "aaaahhhhhhh....." every third word when he was speaking without a script. I also didn't like that little reptilian head bob that he does, or his inability to speak of the most serious subject without that ever-present simian smirk.
Of course, that was back when he enjoyed a whopping 60% approval rating, so I was roundly thrashed for being so shallow.
Can anyone who hates Hillary give us a logical reason, beyond the sound of her voice or her fat ankles?
I simply do not trust her. I am following my gut on this one. She is Pro what I am not for. Big business for starters. Health care for all. And I wll explain that one. If healthcare for all is sooo great, why did cameron dias who claimed America sucks have her baby here instead of england? Because her buddy who also hates America, Madona, told her the hospitals sucked in Engalnd, in a nutt shell. DO I want that here? HELL NO!
Her and her hubbie while in office had their problems. Little dark secrets. The unexplained death of a staff member. Bombing the asprin plant. Monica. Why in Gods name would I trust the wife of a president that was not that great?
I want some NEW blood.
Come on Evil, that's like you saying you wouldn't trust my wife because I'm such an ass.
You are not the x/president of the united states. The apple does not fall far from the tree.
Well, I'm glad you did such exhaustive research on Madonna's opinion before coming to your conclusions on universal healthcare. For a minute there, I thought you might have based your opinion on something silly.
Being smart are you? What is the problem buddy? Why do you find it soooo stupid?
Just waiting for you to give us a substantive reason that universal healthcare won't or can't work. Madonna's opinion that British hospitals suck doesn't quite cut it.
But then again, who knows more about sucking than Madonna.
OUUUUUUCHHHHHH!!!!!!
The Hypocracy kills me in people like her. She bashes the USA, yet would come here in a heartbeat to give birth. Seems she does not like the socialist state afterall.
I have several friends that live in Canada. It is a royal pain to get perscriptions filled ect. I pay big bucks for my health care, and have no problem with it. If you think I want to continue paying big bucks, AND pay for those that can not get ahead, you are wrong. Not MY problem. As well, I refuse to go to a crappy place like Kaiser. Long lines, BS prices on perscription fills, no way. NO WAY. Kick the 13-20 million illegals out and, bam, half the problem is gone.
Ok, your turn. Explain to me how it will work.
Single payer plan. Government sets up its own insurance plan which is optional. Those who can afford it pay premiums. Those who can't get free coverage. This would cover those who are rejected by Insurance companies or can't afford insurance. Those who chose could still buy their own insurance through private companies. Everything else stays the same, except there would be a new, very large government run insurance plan. Doctors and patients still make medical decisions.
Oh, of course, the billionaires might have to give up some of their tax cuts to pay for it, so I'm sure it won't fly.
Ok, far enough.
I do not mean to sound selfish. As long as it does not affect my coverage, my existing doctor, and plan, I am fine with it. As well, my taxes. I have worked to hard, too long, to have what I got squashed. When I get hurt, my Doc sees me that day. No lines, no worries. I refuse to give that up.
You shouldn't have to. Of course, we might not be able to bomb as many brown people, but you can't have everything.
<> By the way, in which American hospital did Cameron Diaz give birth?Bomb brown people? Like my Son? My son is a brown person btw..... Islander Flip brown, and I LOVE IT..
You cal, your brown son "it"?
You call your brown son "it"? My typing sucks.
LOLOLOLOL.... you one funny guy! Or, should I call you a "It"?
By the way, in which American hospital did Cameron Diaz give birth?
I have no idea. I read this in a book.
Then, you may find this article interesting.
[link to www.allheadlinenews.com]
I get a "Access Denied", but look here.
www.aceshowbiz.com/news/detail/2007-02-17.html
I did look there. Nothing about a baby that I can see. In essence, as best I can determine, Diaz is childless. Madonna did say that English Hospitals were too "old and Victorian". Not sure what that proves.
I owe Cameron a appology. It is Gweneth Paltrow. I left early yesterday with the damn fluuuuuuuu. That is my reason for the late response.
Ill go read it again to make sure what I read.
Ill go read it again to make sure what I read.- evillib1727
Good rule of thumb.
I am sorry. I am nt good with actors/ actresses. I meant Gweneth Paltrow(sp?)
"I meant Gweneth Paltrow"
-----
It doesn't matter who you meant. They're all irrelevant to the topic of this discussion.
C-SPAN had a segment for veterans to call in with their experiences with VA health care - GOVERNMENT health care. Not good. I wouldn't trade for it. The few people who thought they or their loved ones got good care either (1) were simply grateful that at least they had that or they'd have no health care or (2) said their local VA was good but knew that other VA hospitals were not good.
The other government health care is Medicare/Medicaid and those two are going to bankrupt the country. Why would we want to extend it to the whole population before fixing the problems? And they are tough problems to fix because it involves denying service, i.e., no open more open heart surgeries once you get to a certain age or have Alzheimers.
She's done nothing for the people. Her entire political career has been nothing but right-wing votes and no movement from the status quo. Her past is as a corporate lawyer for some of Arkansas's worst, like Tyson. She spent one year of her life on health care and came up with a zilch, never touched it again. Spent the next 7 posing about the world. As Senator from New York, she and Schumer have taken the state into a war it can ill afford and are not working to end it. She's not an idea person, she's not an initiator or innovator. That's Hillary in a nut-shell....very little to her, really...very little indeed.
I can't believe it's two years to the next election and the candidates are already announcing. Guess the soap opera has to run without interruption.
You left out her business experience. Her husband had to put the arm on MacDougal to get her some legal business -- thats how great a lawyer she was. One of the top 100 in the country, or so we were told in '92! Or her cattle futures trading, that she can't explain how she did it. Or when she tried to build houses in the Whitewater development.
That Whitewater Development is something progressives should look to and understand the Clintons. Those were "contract" land sales, a kind of real estate sale that takes advantage of the least knowledgeable buyers. Unlike an outright sale, with contract sales, you don't own it until you pay off the contract. People can lose their entire investment if they're unable to keep up the payments. Why did it appeal to the Clintons to do that kind of business?
First, before I comment, why doesn't Clinton, Obama, and the rest of the legislators focus on doing their jobs now rather than being focused on campaigning for President, in which the election isn't for another year and a half? Are they so incapable of making a difference as a lone Senator or Representative?
Democrats still setting themselves up for a loss and are in denial. My opinion is that Clinton won't win because she can't attract conservatives nor sufficient progressive voters. That means even without any other Democratic candidates she is going to be stuck probably in the 40's percentile range. She will spend the next two years preaching to the same group of people who like her now; but won't win over new voters. Democrats still have a year before the primaries to get a candidate acceptable to progressives to push her past the 50% mark. Or they can sink withHillary's quote (paraphrased): If they want an antiwar candidate, they can vote for someone else.