I'll go ahead and say it. Hilary is unelectable.
I don't care how much money she has, she can't win the Presidency. Too many people are fervently against her. Why is she so hated? Did it all start when she bungled health care reform back in 1994? Was it the role she played in the White Water scandal back in 1993-97? Naw.
As far as I can tell, she hasn't done anything to deserve quite the following of haters that she has acquired. She's a fantastic speaker, a passionate progressive, and a very strong woman. What gives America?
So I asked my friend Google, "Why is Hilary so hated?"
Look Both Ways, a blog out of North Carolina, has what I would call a "First Theory": a theory that you have before you really dig into a topic.
"She is hated mostly because she personifies liberalism. Yes it's her policies. It's her name. It's her stupid smirks and her pride. Her carpetbagger ways and her socialist tendencies. Oh and also her husband. It's the families insistence that they are always right, even when they are wrong. (reminds me of a quote from Scarface,"I always tell the truth, even when I lie.") Too bad for democrats they elected the wrong Clinton to the White House because I don't think this country can take two of them."
This is the equivalent of, "She's hated because we hate her." Which leads nicely to the next commentator who has a slightly more evolved version of that.
John Lombard of the blog "I just don't like this George Bush prick" has an interesting theory that he borrowed from George Lakoff.
The theory is that, "Hillary is so hated because she's the antithesis of the ideal conservative: she doesn't have conservative values, she isn't self-reliant, she doesn't protect moral citizens, she undermines the morality of reward and punishment and she works to upset the moral order."
In other words, she supports a welfare mentality. Her programs and efforts are designed to help those who need helping and, in so doing, she is, "interfering with the natural struggle to survive."
Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post, likens the treatment that Hilary receives to that of Marie Antoinette back in the 1790's. His argument, in short, is that society needs a Hilary to hate.
They have questioned Hillary's honesty, sexuality, parenting, wifing and just about everything else. Just as Marie came to personify all that was wrong with the aristocracy, so Hillary has come to personify all that is wrong with Bill, the Democrats, liberals, working women, independent women and women of a certain kind -- which is any kind you don't happen to like. No man could possibly match her in that department -- or departments.
She has become, in Mr. Cohen's words, "a repository for so many fears, so much dread, such aspirations -- so much good and bad -- that we have to look past her office or her ambitions and suggest, strongly, that something deeply Freudian is at work." Now we're getting somewhere.
Bestandworst.com decided to run an online poll on the topic. I'm highly suspicious of polls (though I think they're fun - see left) - particularly given the potential for Freudian interference. In this case my suspicion is warranted. Turns out the number one reason people think she is hated is, "She is a secret Muslim believer and is trying to run for a third term as President." The second most popular theory is, wait...wait..yes!, "She's a stupid, two-faced bitch." By Jobe, that's it.
Susan Douglas of "In These Times", a magazine founded by James Weinstein dedicated to covering controversial political issues, makes a compelling case about the masculinity of Hilary making women feel that she isn't enough of a feminist. In short, she isn't with the program.
Millions of us have spent our lives crafting a compromise—or a fusion—between femininity on the one hand and feminism on the other. And for many of us feminism did not mean trying to be more like men. It meant challenging patriarchy. Hillary, by contrast, seems to want to be more like a man in her demeanor and politics, makes few concessions to the social demands of femininity, and yet seems to be only a partial feminist. She seems above us, exempting herself from compromises women have to make every day..."
That certainly would explain why the most powerful woman in America does not have the overwhelming support of American women. American women have been working hard to craft a version of themselves that can succeed without selling out to the male culture. Then again, most women don't have to succeed at the national level.
Those handing money to her might as well have donated it to curing the Bird Flu for all the good it will do them.