Professor Stanley Fish analyzes the phenomenon known as Hillary Clinton-hating on the New York Times blog. He argues there is a mass of people who feel and express a “level of personal vituperation unconnected to, and often unconcerned with, the facts.” They obsess on the trivial, he argues, such as her cackle, style of dress, and hair.
The knee-jerkiness and emptiness of it compares to Anti-Semitism, he charges. Yes, he did go there. To avoid fanning the sometimes aggressive flames of anti-Anti-Semitism, he issues a disclaimer to his analogy: “I don’t mean that the two are alike either in their significance or in the damage they do.”
As an aside: What bewilders me about this analogy is why did he choose anti-Semitism as the anologue, why not racism in general? Islamaphobia seems the better analogue given its mainstream expression. Is anti-Semitism the only form of racism that is kosher to discuss these days? Or, is Hillary a Jew? ha ha. What about the more obviously applicable chauvinism, sexism?
That said, I want to respond to Fish’s argument in two ways. First, we cannot disconnect the triviality of Clinton’s detractors from the triviality of American voters and political commentators. Remember how Kerry was lambasted for being “patrician” and snooty? The electorate seems most attracted to the guy, yes guy, who they most would like to have a beer with. Just as their attraction is trivial, so is their detraction.
Finally, as a Hillary Clinton-hater, I can tell you my reasons in a way that Stanley Fish cannot.
Firstly, her cowardice on Iraq from the beginning. While she claims she believed the administration’s claims, she and the rest of the Democratic establishment were willing dupes. Why? The top international experts on Iraq at the time, those who followed the weapons inspections and saw the state of Iraq, knew the Hussein regime’s weapon capabilities were severely limited. Contrary information was public and well-documented, but the truth did not fit into the political calculus.
Secondly, when she was first lady, the US-administered sanctions led to a genocide in Iraq, more than one million casualties and the utter deprivation of the country. Sure, I can only blame her so much. After all, she was not in power. However, her lack of remorse or even cognizance about it came out when she voted for the invasion of Iraq.
She and Bill — who would have direct political influence again if she is elected — are just as associated with the suffering of Iraqis as is George Bush. This is a huge reason to oppose her (see “What I see when I see Hillary” photo above).
This reasoning goes for the anti-terrorism legislation passed by Bill Clinton. He helped pave the legislative road of “anti-terrorism law.” Hillary voted to re-authorize the PATRIOT Act as a legislator.
Thirdly, I reject her warm embrace of political interests, from the pro-Israel lobby to big pharm. While I admire her fight for universal health care in the early days of the Clinton administration, she now takes large donations from her former adversaries. Similarly, a once somewhat critical stance towards Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories transformed into enthusiastic Zionism.
This is why I see Clinton being much more like “more of the same” than Obama, for instance.
Lastly, I hate family dynasties. After two Bushes, we should never have related presidents again. While it is obvious she is her own self, distinct from Bill in many ways, their relation is still a problem and borderline undemocratic.
I actually like her demeanor, her voice, and how articulate she obviously is. If she wasn’t a Clinton, so special interest-dependent, and so associated with Iraq’s demise in my mind, I might almost back her.
Though I speak in hateful terms, I actually would not say I have hatred for her. I use “hate” in the way Fish does, as a loose and sensationalized category of opposition. Real hate takes too much energy and obsession, which is why most people who hate are weirdos.
What I feel is more like utter contempt, not just for Hillary, but for all the candidates — least of whom would be Obama. Despite his unwillingness to take on corporate America, I see him as embodying the greatest departure from the status quo power base. I would not get too excited, though. The President is an institution tied to set interests and conventions. So how much change we’re talking about is going to be limited. Still, I want to see her pasty ass lose.
Related posts:
- The Two Faces of Hillary
- Giuliani’s Terror Video + Tuck Calls Hill “Neo-Con”
- To Israel With Hate—And Guilt
- Israel’s Arab Problem: It’s Nothing a Little Hate Can’t Cure
- McCain on North Korea: It’s Clinton’s Fault
Don’t forget that instead of running for office in her own state on her own merits, she came to New York (where residency rules are nonexistant) and ran for office as “the first lady”. Her only intention was to get to the presidency. It is insulting to the people of NY state.
Thats why I will not vote for her. (that and aipac)
Posted by Anonymous | February 5, 2008, 5:52 amWhat bewilders me about this analogy is why did he choose anti-Semitism as the anologue, why not racism in general?
Because he is Jewish and writing to an audience of New Yorkers, who understand.
Jeez, first you don’t know the difference between the “right of free assocation” and obstruction of justice and criminal contempt, and now this?
Hillary is awful in many ways, and would be a terrible president, but I bet at least she knows the basics of criminal and con law, which is more than can be said of you, Will.
But hey, at least you’re only embarrassing yourself in front of an audience of tens of people. She makes a fool out of herself in front of millions every day. So you got that going for you.
Posted by Anonymous | February 5, 2008, 7:25 ammust be nice to hide behind anonymity… oh wait
Posted by Anonymous | February 5, 2008, 7:36 amThere are a couple of things to like about Hillary, though.
(Ok, not really.)
Posted by Roy | February 5, 2008, 8:12 amShe lost my vote (not that I have one) when she leapt on the ‘all Ayrabs are terrorists’ bandwagon in the DP World / P & O fiasco. Obama da man.
Posted by Keefieboy | February 5, 2008, 8:16 amdammit roy!!!! someone please gauge out my eyes!
Posted by Anonymous | February 5, 2008, 11:35 amNobody gives a shit why you hate all the candidates, Will. You consider the 68% of Americans who either “strongly support” or “support” Israel to be Zionists. You consider the 23% who don’t have an opinion to be idiots. You are a single-issue, and it’s less than 3% of the American population who support your single issue. That means that you are a nobody.
And I’m sure you think that it’s just the “Israeli Lobby” that has caused all this, but you know what? Nobody cares about that, either. The Israeli lobby doesn’t get politicians elected. Votes get politicians elected. And, you don’t have the votes. You should be happy – this is only the second time in US history (2004 and 2008) that the middle east has even been a factor in US elections. And you know what? The reason that the ME has been an important issue in this election and the last one is TERRORISM. It may come as a surprise to you, but fear of terrorism doesn’t actually work in the favor of Palestinian activists such as yourself.
So either resign yourself to the fact that most Americans don’t really like your cause very much, or emigrate to someplace where people do. This whining and crying about “zionists” and “Israeli lobby” is pathetic.
Posted by programmer craig | February 5, 2008, 3:13 pmAn Open Letter To Hillary From An Arab American,
By Maytha
I hate the political entity of you.
The end
Posted by Maytha | February 5, 2008, 5:10 pmWill,
I wish you’d left the man hands.
Posted by nev | February 5, 2008, 6:48 pmLife is a bitch. Don’t vote for one.
Posted by Fayyad | February 7, 2008, 12:48 pmWell said, Will. Hillary’s claim to liberal credentials are nixed by her war support and other moves like labeling the Iranian Rev Guard as a terrorist organization. That’s probably my main reason for being opposed to her. Now, as for why I hate her, that’s mainly due to the same thing so many of her rabid supporters display – entitlement. There’s this notion that this is ‘her’ presidency, supported strongly by so many bitter boomer feminists. And I could go on…
And speaking of rabid hateful people…why is this Programmer Craig (what a witty handle btw) still lurking around here spewing poison, always telling everyone else what they think? Kahllis!
What’s Happening keeps getting preempted by the Africa Cup and Will, you are not on nearly enough episodes. Dont get me wrong, I love all the girls but we men nedd a little representation there and the humor you bring is fun.
ma’ salaama
Posted by alfannaan | February 7, 2008, 11:57 pmWHAT ABOUT HILLARYS & PETER PUAL
What About the Campagne Fin Scandle? How did she get away with ducking from the IRS a total of 2 million dollars SHE WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT of what IRAN?
Or Better yet The Federal Prison guild
Posted by Anonymous | June 7, 2008, 1:07 am"The Diary of Hillary Clinton's Secret Campaign Consultant" just came out on Kindle. If you really want to know what Hillary is like you should read this one. Remember how she refused to give credit to the ghostwriter who wrote "It Takes a Village?" She did the same thing with the unpaid campaign consultant who saved her 2000 Senate and made her a viable presidential candidate. She then turned her attack machine on the consultant like she did with Barbara Feinman – the ghostwriter. The consultant is trying to avoid homelessness by publishing the eBook. Just before it came out, Hillary suddenly re-announced that she will not stick around if Obama wins a second term. Maybe she got wind of the bad news and wanted to bury it by recycling old news. She has no grace and no class.
Posted by Josh Half | February 8, 2012, 4:05 pm