Why do the republicans hate Bill Clinton?

June 21, 2004 12:07 PM

Why is there such a seething hysteric hatred from Republicans over Bill Clinton? I've never read or seen anything like it in modern political history.
posted by the fire you left me to Society & Culture (51 answers total)

Never read or seen anything like it? I see similarities between it and the seething hatred directed towards Bush. Don't get me wrong, I think in some ways the roots are different, but the emotion can be blinding and turn your brains to mush.

But on topic: sometimes I've thought part of the hatred of Clinton was that he made some of the progressive vision seem plausible, even when seen as a lying schmuck. Suddenly, folks like Rush had to cofront a guy who was not only a crazy liberal whose ideas were totally antithetical to his own, but one who might actually pull some of them off.
posted by weston at 12:14 PM on June 21, 2004

Culture. Bill Clinton represented everything they hate: intellectualism, open-mindedness, sexuality, lust for life, lack of punctuality, allowing his wife to have her own name and mind, really appeared to care about people who weren't just like him, etc. The man was that horrible cross-breed of hippy and intellectual elite which they so loathe.

Also, they probably felt that he was turning the country against everything that they held dear and that the libruls were winning. People were believing in him and that scared the bejesus out of them.

/partisan
posted by callmejay at 12:24 PM on June 21, 2004

you new round here? not seen the anti-bush feeling?
posted by andrew cooke at 12:24 PM on June 21, 2004

Any answer you will get in this thread will have heavy bias. I felt it was because he was so different as a president, that he admitted to marijuana use (although more marijuana arrests were made in his tenure than in any other time in history, go figure) in England, played a saxophone, and although certainly had his problems as others will surely point out for me, most were not severe.

My bias is in regards to GW Bush. As Weston said, anger is blinding and knows no limits, although I do not see the correlation between a president that cheated on his wife (which poorly represented his country) and a president that has yet to give proper evidence on an invasion that was a reaction to a terrorist catastrophe. Bush didnt know Abu Ghraib was torturing people, but he did start the war. That is why I am voting against him, not because of any political affiliation.
posted by Keyser Soze at 12:27 PM on June 21, 2004

seething hysteric hatred from Republicans over Bill Clinton


because he lost the popular vote and stole the electoral college with the help of Roger Clinton, his Florida governor brother, his millionaire ex-president daddy's CIA connections, and 5 SCOTUS Democrat justices
also because the liberal media gave Clinton a free pass on his lack of military service
posted by matteo at 12:31 PM on June 21, 2004

Bill Clinton made it quite explicit that he saw the religious right as his enemies. They responded in kind.
Bush has made it quite clear that he sees socially liberal professional elites as his enemies. They respond in kind, as you can see every day here on MeFi.
posted by fuzz at 12:38 PM on June 21, 2004

I've always felt that the main reason was that Republicans wanted revenge for what happened to Nixon- there was always a strong feeling by the R's that Nixon had been unfairly targeted for something "all presidents do", and they were damn well going to make sure it happened to a Democrat too.
posted by InfidelZombie at 12:44 PM on June 21, 2004

Bush has made it quite clear that he sees socially liberal professional elites as his enemies. They respond in kind, as you can see every day here on MeFi.

You're calling the posters here "socially liberal professional elites"? That's rather generous. I'd call them (us) "socially and economically liberal".

Professional, "elite" people aren't generally Democrats. Professors, maybe. But doctors, lawyers, engineers, et al many times vote their pocketbooks, which is why Bush is still a favorable alternative to any Democrat.

As to why Clinton was hated...because all popular politicians are by their political rivals. I don't think he was hated any more than Reagan was hated by Democrats in the 80's, or Bush today. But in the past 15 years we've seen an increase in tightly knit groups asserting their agenda. A prime example would be the religious wing of the Republican party.
posted by BlueTrain at 12:50 PM on June 21, 2004

The 70's & 80's; Carter & Reagan.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:50 PM on June 21, 2004

I really don't know that you can say that there was such seething "hatred" of Clinton. Certainly no more than Democrats hating Nixon/Agnew, or Republicans in the 30's hating FDR, or everyone hating Jimmy Carter. It was more partisan than anything else, in a era of increased poltical hate and rhetoric combined with the boom in mass communication. They would have hated Gore just as much if he had won in 2000. Add to that the fact that the Republicans controled both houses and had more to gain than usual from demolishing a Democratic President's credibility, and the fact that Clinton was an easy target, what with his goofy attitude, movie cameos, Hilary, paternity suits, sexual pecadillos and high-minded idealism that could never be implemented in the current political climate.
posted by loquax at 12:50 PM on June 21, 2004

My recollection only goes back to being a young kid in the late 70s, but I don't recall seeing Carter, Reagan, or GHW Bush hated like Clinton was.

It was clear to me in early February, 1993. Clinton took the oath near the end of January and I was getting gas one day in my conservative town and the guy in front of me had a huge handmade sticker that completely covered a pickup window with text. The text read:

IMPEACH CLINTON

The guy had been in office about a week and a half at that point. He hadn't really done anything yet, and his vote wasn't disputed. After I saw that sticker, I knew things were going to be rough for the next few years.
posted by mathowie at 12:51 PM on June 21, 2004

My take?

Not enough respect for himself, not enough respect for the country, to keep his hands and other parts off women besides Hillary. The diff between him and a boatload of other politicians, both left and right, is that he was really, really lousy at being discreet.

Also, Hillary didn't seem to understand that the country elected him, not her, and in THAT sense did not seem to know her place. I have a feeling that she plans to rectify that in 2008.
posted by konolia at 12:52 PM on June 21, 2004

Clinton was loved compared to Nixon. I have yet to see a President on the receiving end of such national vitriol as he. (Yes, I was alive and paying attention back then.)
posted by konolia at 12:55 PM on June 21, 2004

Blame the media.

Actually it's true this time. The media has fallen in love with the politics-as-war motif, and won't let it go. People then get their mild biases reinforced daily and it's all a big vicious cycle. Clinton hasn't been assassinated yet, on the other hand.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:00 PM on June 21, 2004

did not seem to know her place

konolia, that is really, really offensive to read, whether you are a man or a woman saying it.

I want to stress that this question is only going to stick around as long as people can keep it level headed, civil, and as free of emotion as possible.
posted by mathowie at 1:02 PM on June 21, 2004

I used to think the Clinton hatred was unique (I see the Bush hatred as being just as violent but of a different quality, based more on a hatred of what he has done and what he stands for than the man himself.) Anyway, I just finished William Manchester's excellent and vivid moment-by-moment recounting of the Kennedy assassination and funeral and the portrait he paints of Dallas the day JFK arrived is worse than anything Clinton faced - people openly calling for assassination, schoolchildren who burst into applause when the shooting was announced over the PA, very ugly stuff.
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:10 PM on June 21, 2004

I'm more libertarian than republican. I dislike Clinton and Bush II (though I'd rather have Clinton back now which is something of a huge surprise to me given how much I disliked the guy).

I took an immediate dislike to the guy. He seemed like the worst kind of slap you on the back salesmen. I just hate that type of personality. When he said he "felt our pain", I simply didn't believe it. It seemed like a cynical attempt to play to the masses. But it wasn't honest cynicism which I can respect. It was oily cynicism.

I think people kept going after him because there was something about him that just screamed out corruption. There just had to be something fishy going on there somewhere and if you just through enough crap at him, some of it would have to stick.

I'm surprised that all they could ever find was lying in a civil trial (though I did support the impeachment - as I would for Bush II if it turns out he's a treasonous traitor). It just seemed so apparent that there had to be something there I would have expected it to be easier to uncover it.
posted by willnot at 1:17 PM on June 21, 2004

I have yet to see a President on the receiving end of such national vitriol as he.

well, one wonders why.

Nixon repeatedly referred to blacks as "niggers" and "jigaboos" in other conversations with Kissinger. Nixon later complained to Erlichman that Great Society programs were a waste "because blacks were genetically inferior to whites."


"We're going to [put] more of these little Negro bastards on the welfare rolls at $2,400 a family—let people like [New York Sen.] Pat Moynihan ... believe in all that crap. But I don’t believe in it. Work, work—throw 'em off the rolls. That's the key ... I have the greatest affection for [blacks], but I know they're not going to make it for 500 years. They aren't. You know it, too. The Mexicans are a different cup of tea. They have a heritage. At the present time they steal, they're dishonest, but they do have some concept of family life. They don't live like a bunch of dogs, which the Negroes do live like."
—Nixon in May 1971

"You know, it's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob? What is the matter with them? I suppose it is because most of them are psychiatrists."
—Nixon to H. R. (Bob) Haldeman in May 1971

posted by matteo at 1:19 PM on June 21, 2004

I have a feeling that she plans to rectify that in 2008

you do listen to a lot of talk radio, don't you?
well, after all the Hillary bogeyman does wonders for fundraising, so you can't really blame them

did not seem to know her place
like, in the kitchen?
I assume your computer is in the kitchen, then, connie. if it isn't, what are you doing out of "your place"?
*shakes head*
posted by matteo at 1:20 PM on June 21, 2004

Maybe Konolia just meant that Hillary didn't know her place as Clinton's wife, and not the president herself and hence why she'll rectify the prblem in 2008? I see no problem with that allegation.
posted by jmd82 at 1:20 PM on June 21, 2004

CunningLinguist,
good stuff. Manchester was one of the good ones. I was sorry to see him go
posted by matteo at 1:22 PM on June 21, 2004

I've got to put blame on the media as well, but not in the same way as Space Coyote. I think the hatred is now:

1) More visable due to 24 hour news and internet access

2) More organized due to the same.
posted by neurodoc at 1:25 PM on June 21, 2004

This question is flamebait. Above and beyond that, any answer posted will be:
a) opinion
b) at very best second hand
c) unverifiable

Unless a prominant Republican starts posting about his personal feelings.

I vote for deletion.

But as long as we're at it:
They hate him because he won. Its not so much vitriol as it is competition. He is still by far the most prominant Democrat, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that he is more recognizable than Kerry, and it wouldn't surprise me if he stayed that way up to and past November. Why do they attack him? Because he's still on top.
posted by ChasFile at 1:28 PM on June 21, 2004

Oh Matteo yes, I went into mourning. Anyone who hasn't read Manchesters two volume bio of Churchill - get thee to amazon. They are page turners.
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:29 PM on June 21, 2004

I think willnot encapsulated the gut reaction many people had to Clinton very well. And it bolsters my theory that it was far more about his personality than his policies, whereas Bush hatred is the inverse.
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:30 PM on June 21, 2004

Hillary didn't seem to understand that the country elected him, not her, and in THAT sense did not seem to know her place.

konolia, that is really, really offensive to read, whether you are a man or a woman saying it.

While I'm on the opposite side of the spectrum from konolia, I think you're being a little hard on her. I think she was saying not that Hilary should have stayed in the kitchen, as one commenter so easily assumed, but that she, as an unelected spouse, seemed a little too eager to use her newfound position as a springboard for influencing policy. I don't agree with this, but it is a valid and non-sexist perspective.
posted by deadcowdan at 1:40 PM on June 21, 2004

Though he's painted as the worst sort of liberal now, part of what I remember Republicans being so mad about was that Clinton was actually bringing the Democratic party away from the left and towards the center. He was eliminating many of the tried-and-true Republican attack points while co-opting many of their winning issues and eating into their base.(think welfare reform, NAFTA, etc.)

They were scared that the Democrats under Clinton could solidly and successfully establish themselves as the party of the center and retake "Reagan Democrats" for good, sideline the opposition to hard-line irrelevancy for a long time (as Tony Blair has done with the success of "New Labour") and simultaneously legitimize things they hated (think gays in the military) on the back of successful policy initiatives "stolen" from Republicans.

Thus the immediate campaign to paint Clinton as immoral, insincere and dangerously liberal. (Notice the same sort of campaign against Kerry today.)

A good example of this was the strong resolution among the Republicans in power to oppose Clinton's efforts at health care reform, sight unseen. Why did it have to be defeated at all costs, before they even knew what it was? Because if it worked it would have been a stunningly defining political success for decades. The more likely it looked to work, the more vigorously they had to oppose it, and the politics of personal destruction are the politics of last resort. Thus the fomenting of the Hillary hatred as well, conflating hatred of her personally with the health care reform initiative.
posted by bradhill at 1:40 PM on June 21, 2004

konolia, that is really, really offensive to read, whether you are a man or a woman saying it.

Criminy, read in context. Parse the sentence. What did konolia say? What does "in THAT sense" mean? That Hillary Clinton behaved, to her eye at least, like someone who was elected to an office, and thereby having some sort of mandate, instead of like someone whose relative was elected. It's no more offensive than saying that it would be to say that Roger Clinton didn't know his place if he'd started making policy pronouncements.

You really have to go out of your way to be offended by this, or be reading too fast to bother actually reading.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:50 PM on June 21, 2004

that is really, really offensive to read, whether you are a man or a woman saying it.

like, in the kitchen?

Wow, am I the only one that remebers Hillary saying "Two for the price of one"? Hillary carried her self for those eight yeas as if she was elected co-president.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:59 PM on June 21, 2004

From the time they arrived on the national scene they had this smarmy and dismissive way of portraying anyone who opposed their policies as being motivated by greed or hatred or a reactionary desire to oppress. I didn't favor his policies -- I thought the attempt to nationalize health care under the banner of "reform" was vaguely Orwellian, and a bad idea. But their political M.O. was to portray any who opposed it as villanous or frightened.

Especially obnoxious was their way of portraying the 80s as a horrible decade in which Republicans (and Republicans only) had put greed above the commonweal -- when in fact the Clintons themselves were out trading cattle futures risk free, and getting involved in weirdo real estate deals, levering his public office to advance her law career, etc etc. It's ironic that he himself seems to have presided over a period when corporate ethics and stock market speculations grew even worse.

I think it's similar to how a lot of people react negatively to George W. Bush's efforts to paint policy differences in terms of morality or patriotism. Contrast it with his father's generally more patrician attitudes while in office (and look at how awkward and uncomfortable GHW Bush looked on the campaign trail, parroting Atwater). I think there's just less hypocrisy in the elder Bush than in either W or the Clintons.

I'm sure a lot of people feel differently but it's my opinion and I'm not going to change it. I do have this visceral dislike of Clinton -- I wouldn't call it hatred but rather extreme mistrust -- and so I feel entitled to answer this question without being challenged for it.

In the end I thought he was a pretty good "real time" president under some pretty trying circumstances -- many of which were of his own making. But from the very beginning through right through now I've thought he was mendacious, and his wife brittle and abrasive, and the both of them hypocritical and too ambitious by half in the pursuit of power.
posted by coelecanth at 2:37 PM on June 21, 2004

Why is there such a seething hysteric hatred from Republicans over Bill Clinton?

Because the U.S. has become bitterly partisan.

I've never read or seen anything like it in modern political history.

As a moderate Democrat who voted for Clinton and Gore, and will vote for Kerry, I feel very confident saying that the "seething hysteric hatred" from Democrats towards Bush far, far exceeds that directed towards Clinton by Republicans. At least when Clinton was in office, the more outlandish slurs (Clinton was responsible for X deaths/Vince Foster's murder, etc.) were justifiably dismissed as the rantings of the lunatic fringe. Similar claims about Bush seem to have much more widespread appeal among the way-Left.
posted by pardonyou? at 2:45 PM on June 21, 2004

konolia, that is really, really offensive to read, whether you are a man or a woman saying it.

I disagree. Same as the Roger Clinton reference above. Nothing to do with kitchens, everything to do with not having been elected.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:46 PM on June 21, 2004

Matt, you must really be skimming the site today, hon-FFF and the rest are right, I only meant in the sense of an unelected spouse. If Hillary ran, and won, would we really expect or want Bill to horn in on the Cabinet meetings and such?
posted by konolia at 3:03 PM on June 21, 2004

I'm about 99% positive that it was Bill Clinton himself that first said "two for the price of one" in reference to Hillary. I never got the feeling that Hillary was more involved than Bill wanted her to be. Konolia's "Hillary doesn't know her place" comment strikes me as wrong, since (1) Bill campaigned on their strength as a team and (2) he put her in charge on the health care issue -- it's not like she went in on her own and started holding meetings. So I find the idea that following through on the health care issue at the directive of her husband was "not her place" to be old fashioned and annoying, but maybe konolia's comment is based on something else.

The first major issue to hit the news during the Clinton presidency was gays in the military, in my memory. Clinton's initial stand on this would have offended both the republican Christian right and the republican military hawks who wouldn't want some outsider interfering with national security to promote a liberal social agenda. It was a tough issue for Clinton, and got much of the right against him from the start.
posted by onlyconnect at 3:13 PM on June 21, 2004

at the directive of her husband, the President,
posted by onlyconnect at 3:16 PM on June 21, 2004

onlyconnect, Bill certainly may have been the instigator but the fact remains that to many voters it just didn't sit right. IF I recall correctly it was her health care initiative that really raised all the hackles in that regard. But it is true that Clinton really did step in the proverbial hornet's nest with the gays-in-the-military thing.
posted by konolia at 3:19 PM on June 21, 2004

Am I right in thinking that in the American political system, the President appoints all the other members of his cabinet? In which case, why is Hilary Clinton any worse than any other political figure Bill Clinton could have appointed?

I'm interested in this question. It seems to me that Clinton came in for some real hard criticism, which I really can't understand. I hate Bush Jnr with a passion, but that's because of his actions, rather than how he looks like a second hand car salesman.

The only reason I can think of is that America has a serious problem with partisan politics.
posted by salmacis at 3:35 PM on June 21, 2004

salmacis, in the American political system the President's cabinet choices are subject to confirmation by the Senate; the President's wife is not. It was unseemly to many when the President invested his wife with real governmental power, such as chairing the healthcare reform commission.
posted by coelecanth at 3:57 PM on June 21, 2004

However, Presidents appoint people of their choice to non-cabinet positions of power all the time. Bush appointed Tom Ridge as head of the Office of Homeland Security, and only later [same link] changed his mind and decided to made it a confirmable position. I'm no expert, but there seems to be lots of leeway here.

(Because Clinton campaigned on the "two for the price of one" issue, I never had a problem with it and thought it was refreshingly progressive.)
posted by onlyconnect at 4:18 PM on June 21, 2004

The chair of an advisory commission has no "real governmental power" that resembles in any way that of a cabinet secretary.

Though Hillary's selection to chair the health care reform commission had whiffs of unseemliness, nepotism of that sort has long been and remains a common Washington practice for which the bitter, enduring and personal hatred towards her it engendered was out of any proportion to its historical unremarkableness.

Though perhaps not for the mefites posting here, in the large it absolutely was reactionary anti-feminism dressed up in a cheap, rented suit of anti-nepotism propriety.

Here's a Google search of rec.humor.funny for Hillary in 1993. This was before the AOL explosion, when the Internet was still a small clique of the educational and technical elite. Notice the preponderance of lesbian jokes and the like.
posted by bradhill at 4:32 PM on June 21, 2004

I'm with bradhill--he took away the "tax and spend" welfare state" "all wimpy liberals" etc bullshit that Democrats were portrayed as up until then. He was a winner, and much more likable and loved, especially compared to Gingrich, Lott, Dole, and the rest of the Republican leadership.

They were out to get him from the beginning and they never really did get him, even with the impeachment--it still galls them.
posted by amberglow at 4:45 PM on June 21, 2004

I've always thought some of the Clinton hatred was a class issue.
posted by eilatan at 5:03 PM on June 21, 2004

Though perhaps not for the mefites posting here, in the large it absolutely was reactionary anti-feminism dressed up in a cheap, rented suit of anti-nepotism propriety.

Right. All due respect: if can't see smarminess in the implication of that "perhaps" then you may not see it in the Clintons' attitude, either. Seriously. Also, I disagree that she had no "real" power. As a practical matter they drafted the legislation that ultimately scotched the initiative and the administration's appetite for "big" projects in its first couple of years. And didn't the GAO sue Cheney over his conduct of a similar commission?
posted by coelecanth at 6:06 PM on June 21, 2004

I really think the visceral hatred of Clinton and even more vicious hatred of Hilary was a backlash against progressive politics and feminism. The best thing I've seen written about Clinton was Primary Colors (book, not movie). It captured his personality.

Nancy Reagan probably had as much input on policy, like bringing in her astrologer, as Hilary Clinton. I think she's smart enough to know that she's unelectable as president. (On preview, that applies to Hilary and Nancy. heh.)

The vile treatment of Vince Foster's death still makes me angry. Even Chelsea Clinton was ridiculed in a mean-spirited manner, while the Bush twins, who frequently behave pretty badly, get little press.

I really hate Bush's politics, and presidency, but it's not personal, the way the hatred of Clinton was. I think Bush is wrong about virtually every area of public policy, and I think we'll be paying for it for a long time, in money, environmental damage, lost good will, and possibly in war.

How much of it is the Democrats being unwilling to stand together, and stand up for what they (we, in my case) believe? It took Howard Dean to speak up and wake up the Democratic Party. Does anybody think John Kerry will generate the same visceral hatred from the right?
posted by theora55 at 6:14 PM on June 21, 2004

"to horn in on the Cabinet meetings and such?"

you have your Rush Limbaugh talking points confused a bit here -- you're mistaking a most-hated-Democrat for another.
it was Rosalynn Carter who attended cabinet meetings with her husband.

and as others have pointed out already, it was Bill, not Hillary, who talked about 'two for the price of one'. Hillary was the one behind the 'stay home and bake cookies' thing. and anyway voters knew before the '92 vote that Hillary was bound to have influence on policy. and they kicked Poppy Bush out of the White House anyway, so, it didn't really come as a surprise

_______

" Clinton really did step in the proverbial hornet's nest with the gays-in-the-military thing."

yes, he definitely lost the GodHatesFags crowd there. not that they were potential Democratic voters, but still.
it didn't stop Clinton from crushing Dole really bad in 1996 anyway (here's a hint: people who don't fear/despise/hate homosexuals didn't really have a problem with the gays in the military issue to begin with. polls show that most Americans in early '93 were very worried about the Reagan-BushI huge national debt and about the BushI paralyzed economy -- the issue of those satanic gays polluting the Armed Forces was pretty much on the back burner, anyway. the Culture Wars usually fare pretty low on voters mind, outside of the Deep South)
posted by matteo at 6:32 PM on June 21, 2004

I've always thought some of the Clinton hatred was a class issue.

As in he has no class? 'cause I'm thinking classy guys don't get blown in the back office.

Played sax nicely, though. And even did it on a talk show. That was cool, very cool.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:59 PM on June 21, 2004

yes, he definitely lost the GodHatesFags crowd there.

Heh. Best line I've read in days. Kudos.
posted by BlueTrain at 6:59 PM on June 21, 2004

Does anyone know what kind of outcry there was when JFK made his brother the attorney general?
Because I simply can't imagine such a move now.
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:10 PM on June 21, 2004

IIRC, there was some public outcry over the perception that Nancy Reagan was manipulating Pres. Reagan during his term, including the example of her consulting an astrologer and then possibly making policy decisions for him based on that. But these concerns were expressed more in a more admonitory fashion, rather than the viciousness expressed towards Hillary and the Clinton presidency as a whole.
posted by Lynsey at 9:38 PM on June 21, 2004

Does anyone know what kind of outcry there was when JFK made his brother the attorney general?
Because I simply can't imagine such a move now.

I've had the same thought several times, myself.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:52 PM on June 21, 2004

Because I simply can't imagine such a move now.


today it'd be illegal -- a law has been passed forbidding exactly that.
anyway the story is, JFK's aides had the same objection. Pierre Salinger didn't know hot to break the news to the press, fearing a terrible outcry. JFK jokingly told him not to worry, that he'd do it himself -- he'd simply open his Georgetown townhouse's door at 2 AM and quietly whisper "It's Bobby"
then go back to sleep
posted by matteo at 2:14 AM on June 22, 2004