"Don't call her 'Hillary!!!!'"

[Puppycow]

Hillary is like a song on an oldies station you've heard so many times that you change the station after hearing a few bars.

Anyway, here are Hillary's Greatest Hits, NSFW for her potty mouth.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...st-hits-get-fcked-stay-the-fck-out-of-my-way/

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hildabeast.asp

Origins: Attempting to assign any kind of status to this 2007 collection of purported quotes by Hillary Rodham Clinton poses something of a problem. All of them have appeared in print as things the former first lady and current U.S. senator from New York supposedly said (although some of them are missourced in the example reproduced above), but they are stripped of explanatory context (and/or accompanied by misleading explanations), and they range from scripted public statements to spontaneous private utterances, from reports by mainstream journalists to revelations by unnamed or anonymous sources to mere hearsay repetition of rumor.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hildabeast.asp#Fo7PXsj80IgItAXk.99

 

[Tony Stark]

4chan down this evening?

you're the Clinton conspiracy theorist not me

 

[fuelair]

Well, I don't know about the "not nuts" part, but they all "got nuts" if that matters.

Large nuts hanging to tiny branches. And a tip 'o the fuelair hat for the set-up!!!!!!

 

[BrooklynBaby]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hildabeast.asp

The source for every quote is at the link I provided. Who knows, it could be a conspiracy against Frau Hillary by all those sources. Everybody could be lying, right? (Note I complied with her request not to call her just "Hillary" this time.)

 

[Tony Stark]

The source for every quote is at the link I provided. Who knows, it could be a conspiracy against Frau Hillary by all those sources. Everybody could be lying, right? (Note I complied with her request not to call her just "Hillary" this time.)

The person(s) who compiled the list are highly dishonest and twisted the truth to make it seem as bad as possible. Basically a typical Republican. And at some of the sources themselves are suspect. As I proved, the very first quote is suspect according to the person who wrote the original article. And the same people (Arkansas state troopers) are the original sources for some of the others.

 

[Ladewig]

I think the point was her undisguised contempt for the "little" people who were unfortunately assigned to protect her.

I am still not getting it. Why should undisguised contempt for the people assigned to protect her be a factor in deciciding I'd she is capable of setting priorities for executive agencies, assembling a competent cabinet, negotiating across the aisle to steer legislation, dealing with foreign heads of state, and doing the dozens of other things a president must do?

I've been led to believe that Jimmy Carter was very nice to the staff and never swore at them; yet that trait is not even in the top 20 things I want from a president.

So how about it BrooklynBaby, why is this relevant in any way?

................
ETA

The source for every quote is at the link I provided. Who knows, it could be a conspiracy against Frau Hillary by all those sources. Everybody could be lying, right? (Note I complied with her request not to call her just "Hillary" this time.)

So we are on page four already and you still haven't figured out that it was not her request.

 

[Puppycow]

The source for every quote is at the link I provided. Who knows, it could be a conspiracy against Frau Hillary by all those sources. Everybody could be lying, right? (Note I complied with her request not to call her just "Hillary" this time.)

Just because a source is provided doesn't make it verifiable.

Often the source is a book and the author is just repeating quotes from anonymous sources or sources with credibility problems.

For example, Snopes notes:

But in 1998, David Brock himself expressed skepticism about the validity of some of the claims made in his American Spectator "Troopergate" article:
I guess that I should confess that as the author of the infamous piece, I think "proving Troopergate" may be a tall order. I was as sure of that story when I wrote it as any journalist can be of any story. But in the years since then, the troopers have greatly damaged their credibility.

I'm sure you remember that during the Senate Whitewater hearings, the troopers made fools of themselves with improbable claims about the circumstances of Vincent Foster's death. One of the two troopers who went on the record with me, Larry Patterson, helped promote the infamous Clinton Chronicles, a crackpot video accusing [Bill Clinton] of drug running and murder. Patterson was also recently cited as a source for The Secret Life of Bill Clinton, by British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. So I've had occasional pangs of doubt: Is it possible that they took me for a ride, embellishing their account for fame and fortune?

 

[halleyscomet]

The source for every quote is at the link I provided. Who knows, it could be a conspiracy against Frau Hillary by all those sources. Everybody could be lying, right? (Note I complied with her request not to call her just "Hillary" this time.)

So you admit most those quotes are of dubious authenticity at best.

 

[Mudcat]

God, we have two years of crap like this ahead?

Unless we get lucky and Capital Hill gets leveled by a meteorite.

 

[epepke]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/14/opinions/drexler-dont-call-her-hillary/index.html

"Whether she endorses the idea or not, calling Clinton by her first name serves to, at best, reinforce gender and workplace stereotypes -- that women need to be "approachable," not abrasive or aloof, in order to get the job done and be liked while doing it -- and at worst, infantilize and put her in her place."

Holy crap, has our society become SO thin skinned and sensitive????

Maybe, but that's secondary. There's a strategy here, and it appears to be working, because people are missing the point.

Like most of this stuff that purports to be against sexism and gender stereotypes, it is, of course, in favor of them. Hillary Clinton, being a woman and all that, is not to be permitted to decide what she wants to be called as a Presidential candidate. Someone needs to defend her; she can't be allowed to do this herself.

This is, of course, 100% sexist, even in the traditional sense of sexism against women. Nobody would ever try to do this with a male candidate, such as "Jeb" Bush or "Ike" Eisenhower. But if you talk loudly enough about how you're against stereotypes of women, then you can crank up your sexism knob to 11 and few people will notice.

This happens a lot. Feminist rhetoric is shot through with admonitions that women be kept in their place.

 

[Puppycow]

So I have been paying attention to the political media ever since this came up and I did notice at least two high profile male candidates that are often referred to by their first name alone: Jeb and Rand. What they both have in common with Hillary is that another person in their family is also a famous politician. If you listen to any podcasts or radio programs that cover politics, see if you don't notice this. You may also see it in some news articles. Not all the time of course, but it happens.

 

[Foolmewunz]

So I have been paying attention to the political media ever since this came up and I did notice at least two high profile male candidates that are often referred to by their first name alone: Jeb and Rand. What they both have in common with Hillary is that another person in their family is also a famous politician. If you listen to any podcasts or radio programs that cover politics, see if you don't notice this. You may also see it in some news articles. Not all the time of course, but it happens.

That's an excellent point. It also helps that those are not totally obscure but fairly uncommon first names. As was Mitt, who got referred to as "Mitt" (only) quite often. As does Newt. People who have more common names often get referred to by their surname (Palin, McCain, Dukakis, Dole, Gore, Bush I and Bush II, Bachmann, Santorum, Carter, Reagan). A few get so well-known that their first name, even if not unique, becomes readily identifiable during their time in the spotlight.... Teddy comes to mind.

ETA: You know who breaks the mold, though, don't you? Obama is Obama. It's more exotic and furriner sounding, so while Barack is fairly unique, it's never used by itself. Neither was Geraldine (and old sort of name)... because Ferraro just sounded so, so, ... immigrant. Opinion makers (newswriters) on both sides of the aisle play to the crowds.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

How about "The Grandma Formerly Known As Hillary"?

 

[Butter!]

How about "The Grandma Formerly Known As Hillary"?

Ooooooh, burn. Where's the aloe?