Anti-Hillary sentiment (real and imagined)

A contributor named Lisa (Posted: lisa December 8, 2007 11:29 PM ) doubts the veracity of my remarks concerning popular opposition to Hillary Clinton (see my post on Bill Moyers' blog.)

The distrust and polarizing features of Ms. Clinton's candidacy I mention in that post, are not only consistent with my own views (and those of a camp referred to these days as "A.B.H." (Anyone But Hillary) they are also supported by some non-partisan research.  

This report from USA Today and Gallup may help others see Ms. Clinton's baggage.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102907/What-Behind-AntiHillary-Sentiment.aspx#2

Note how analyst Jeffrey M. Jones asserts in his subtitle, reasons for Ms. Clinton's negatives...

"

Hillary Clinton, official public photo

Basic dislike, policy disagreements, character concerns commonly mentioned"

Jones also contends that...

"...few candidates have ever begun the campaign with such polarized ratings."

Want more? Consider this Harris Poll:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=744

What's unfortunate about some Hillary Supporters (HS), is that they'll routinely attribute criticism of Ms. Clinton to misogyny. What a slap in the face to all women in public affairs or women with alternative views on Ms. Clinton.

Millions of Conservative men will enthusiastically vote for a woman presidential candidate who shares their views. Unfortunately, such women are not available in this race.  

Yet, some HS maintain American men will only support women if we don't feel "threatened" by them and by extension women we do admire are only sycophants - shrinking violets in need of male pollen. 

Sadly, some people on the Left can't fathom how an African-American like Justice Clarence Thomas holds beliefs at odds with their own.  Some even suggest he is an "Uncle Tom". After hearing that explanation, one might ask - who is actually bigoted?

Similarly, for gender card-playing HS who continue to make excuses and stereotype reasons for male opposition to Ms. Clinton, one might ask - who is actually sexist? 

Ron Paul on Glenn Beck's TV program tonight

We now know that Dr. Paul's supporters include those who accused TV host Glenn Beck of treason, those who threatened Glenn Beck's life and those claiming that the US Government perpetrated the horrors of 9/11.

Glenn Beck, Wikipedia

People holding those views do not represent a plurality of Dr. Paul's supporters and he did distance himself from these angry voices on Mr. Beck's program, but the question remains -- why is this group attracted to the Paul candidacy?  

Ron Paul, official public photo

MEET THE LESS

Meet The Press, Wikipedia

Tim Russert remains one of my favorite television journalists of all time. He's tough, always prepared and fair to everyone he interviews. Today, however, he disappoints this fan. He has an hour with Mitt Romney and how does he use the first 24 minutes?

Mr. Russert spent the first 13 minutes discussing Romney's Mormonism and the next 11 minutes on abortion. What an abject waste of good interview time.  

Here are issues, that could have dominated the interview: National Security, Healthcare Reform, Illegal Immigration, the Iraq War, Education, Tax Reform, Energy Policy or Federal Spending Reform.

The program did improve after that first 24 minute segment. However, Mr. Russert still squandered a third of the time playing to single issue viewers.

After watching Bill Moyers I posted on his blog...

"Mr. Moyers,

Your dialogue with Ms. Jamieson suggests that you are genuinely astonished at all of the vitriol surrounding Hillary Clinton. While I do not approve of all of it - I understand where much of it comes from.

It's not related to gender or politics. Men and women, Republican and Democrat, draw such fire in campaigns.

A more intriguing question is - why is Mrs. Clinton such a polarizing figure? I believe the answer goes to the heart of who she is - many believe she has a deep integrity problem and that she is purely craven for power. It's easy to see into her soul.

If we must have a Democrat winning the White House in 2008, many Republicans including this writer would find Mrs. Clinton by far, the most objectionable of all candidates in her party.

Respectfully,

JJM"

Does party affiliation matter?

Representative Ron Paul hedged recently when asked whether he'd support the Republican nominee, regardless of who it might be and it's a safe bet it won't be him.

In essence, Dr. Paul replied that his support would depend upon the candidate's willingness to end the war and other positions about which Dr. Paul feels strongly.  I respect his fidelity to core principles but I'm not clear why Dr. Paul remains a Republican except perhaps out of political expediency.  Several of his views are out of touch with the party mainstream which begs the question -- does party affiliation matter anymore?

Shirley Chisholm: Wikipedia

Growing up in fiercely independent and purple Wisconsin, I recall hearing a familiar line from adults, "I vote for the man, not the party." (And in those days, with few exceptions, like Shirley Chisholm, it was overwhelmingly men).

As an impressionable kid, I respected adults who publicly affirmed beliefs in something higher than party politics. A sincere allegiance to core principles will always trump those screaming people wearing funny hats at the party convention, or so I believed.

Now in my late forties, I'm often skeptical of the "I-vote-for-the-person-not-the-party person." Why?  Unless one has a record of voting for both Republicans and Democrats, or a history of supporting third party candidates, the party-less advocate makes a politically safe and meaningless proclamation.  

True Independents may be the most noble voters of all, but nobility is by definition....a rare attribute.    

Financial humor

If so, please check out this month's "back story" from the November issue of Conde Nast Portfolio magazine. The piece I refer to is called the "2005 SUBPRIME-MORTGAGE APPLICATION"

Note the free bank check at the bottom of the page with inscription, 

"DUPLICATE AS NEEDED".

Portfolio is a new and inspired business periodical. I give its creators plaudits not only because I cackled for five minutes after reading the aforementioned spoof on lax mortgage underwriting practices, but also because this magazine contains incisive stories, fine writing and an attractive layout.

It is likely to succeed in an already crowded space.

**********************************

HUMBLE UPDATE -- FEBRUARY 1, 2015

Though I never posted anything about this print publication afterward, the magazine announced its closing back on April 27, 2009. 

So much for my prediction. -- JJM

**********************************

Sad irony

I heard from an American Muslim troubled by my September 20, 2007 column, "National security vs. civil liberty in America" My reply to him follows...

"I appreciate your thoughtful reply and I apologize for the length of time it has taken me to respond.

Before I address the points you make below, I should like to make clear that I fully recognize that the overwhelming majority of Muslims (American and otherwise) are peaceful, decent, people of faith. Radical Islam represents only a small fraction of the one billion-plus Muslims in the world. Unfortunately that small fraction still equates to a large number of people that we must monitor and defend ourselves from, in order to preserve our freedoms.

As for the incident that took place at the Minneapolis airport in 2006, it is obvious that you are troubled by my use of the word “suspicious.” If the 6 clerics involved were simply and quietly praying as you maintain, the flurry of events that made their presence so newsworthy, would not have developed. After all, thousands of Muslims travel through American airports every day without the same type of fallout. Your benign characterization of their actions during the whole ordeal does not at all comport with statements from eye witnesses, the gate agent, or excerpts that I read from the police report.

Whether one chooses to describe the activities of the clerics as suspicious or merely provocative, misses the point.

In this day and age, after what we have all been through, greater sensitivity on the part of the clerics would have been highly advisable. People are understandably on edge, particularly in airports. By saying that, I do not in any way, shape, or form, suggest that anyone should refrain from public prayer and again, I do not share your view that all that occurred that day was harmless prayer misunderstood by ignorant Americans. I am fully aware of and greatly respect your practice of praying five times a day. I am also a person of faith and most Americans are not as woefully ignorant of Islam, as you believe.

After this whole sad episode, the clerics elected to sue not only the airline, but also the passengers that shared their concerns with authorities. Therefore, in the future, some who would be inclined to alert authorities to potential danger, will have to weigh the possibility of being incorrect and then becoming the recipient of a fresh lawsuit. I find that conundrum more than a little troubling.

Should you receive this message in time, I’d invite you to watch a local television program called 4th Street Forum, tomorrow afternoon @ 3PM, on Channel 36. The topic of my last column (that you take issue with) is explored during a panel discussion and I was privileged to participate. Within hours of taping that program, I learned that bombs exploded in Pakistan killing 134 people. The latest reports indicate that it was more death coming from the evil hand of al Qaida.

The timing of that tragedy and the taping of the aforementioned TV program was sad irony for me, but I draw no comparison between decent people like you and people who celebrate the murder of Western children, so please do not paint me with such a broad brush. I argue to preserve freedoms not just for myself, but for people like you as well.

That is why I sometimes get discouraged by reactions like yours. Yet I become encouraged when I read and hear other American Muslims like Muqtedar Khan who fully recognize where to place their energy and advocacy. If you are not familiar with Dr. Khan’s work, you may wish to read one essay in particular called “Memo To Mr. Bin Laden: Go to Hell! It can be found at http://www.ijtihad.org/BinladenII.htm

All of this notwithstanding, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to write to me. I wish you well.

- John J. Maddente"