Why do right wingers consider Hillary Clinton to be a "radical leftist"?
822675
I had a similar question that I posted at the same time as yours. I hear Hillary described as far left, but I'd call her right of center. She was a born Republican, is still an Iraq war hawk, opposes flag burning and criticized Kerry's recent remarks.
164612
Nay.\n\nBefore Bill Clinton was elected, Hillary "Clinton" portrayed herself as a "stand by my man" kind of woman. She wore long hair and appeared on TV shows wearing dresses and baking cookies. After Clinton was elected, she become Hillary "Rodham-Clinton", chopped off her hair and wore suits in favor of dresses. She misrepresented herself because she thought it would further Bill Clinton's career.\n\nAfter Clinton was elected, Bill Clinton appointed Hillary Clinton to the National Health Care Task Force. And the policies she came up and tried to push bordered on Communism. And this appointment despite the fact that not one American had ever voted for her for anything. Congress was not given the opportunity to confirm her to a position that had the potential to affect every American in world.\n\nHillary Clinton is universally hated by conservatives and Republicans alike. Among the Democrats, it is a split vote. Some Democrats cannot stand her. Some liberals cannot stand her. Some women cannot stand her. And those are her three main bases. With half the country (conservatives and Republicans) against her, she would have to have a solidified base amongst Democrats, liberals and women. And she does not have it.\n\nWatch Hillary Clinton. She is just like her husband and adjusts her positions based on opinion polls. I say, "No, thank you." I would rather have someone in office who has the strength of his convictions, who knows the difference between right and wrong and acts on it.
536949
Hillary is nothing more than a pawn for the democrats. Used to win the hearts of feminists. She is not strong, not tough, just a pawn of the men using her.
1155044
1. Neocons... hehe (thought I'd throw my own version of name calling in) use name calling as a method of 'winning'. That's all in the own head btw.\n\n2. I've watched some detailed research on this subject on CSpan and it was actually a goal of the Republican party to have a campaign designed specifically to make the word 'liberal' derogatory. Their goal was to have the words liberal and democrat to mean the same when someone is talking about each party.\n\nTheir strategy worked btw. Today even us democrats use the word liberal to describe us when we all know that the far left is only a minority of the democratic party.\n\nDid you know that Clinton was a moderate democrat? Yep. But if you listen to ppl today, they say, '... that liberal democrat Clinton.....'.
961748
The "left-rigth polarization" technique is the most effective technique of both parties. However, and I hate to say this, I find the technique to be used in it's worse by Conservatives (Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists). Has Clinton ever said anything like that? Even Reagan didn't go to that extreme.
408691
Usually liberals are people who have been so hurt by other people that they completely give up on reality and try to stop the hurt by controlling everything everybody does. And even then they can't love another person so they pour all their feelings on the little creatures of the forest - every one of them who would rip the throat out of the liberal if it ever found said liberal alone in the forest.\n\nLuckily for liberals they never actually go to the forest, this is how they manage to make sense of taking a SMALL piece of Alaska, a state half the size of the continental US, and FREAK OUT when you try to drill for oil there.\n\nThey're morons. And Hillary Clinton is their new God.
990389
No I think both extremes are pretty wacked.  The left really has no agenda - just hatred of everything moderate and to the right.  At least I don't get or understand the far lefts agenda.  The radical right agenda would border on racist and is full of hate as well - I guess "hate" is the similarity of the two.
1079719
Yes and no. Yes because either criticism or slamming U.S. foreign policy is seen as a one way ticket to sitting with the radical left. No, Americans tend to overcome their sensitivity with humor or do not care much for different point of views. It seems everyone tends to walk on eggshells now a days.
1105060
Hillary Clinton made a half-baked attempt to appease her socialist cronies.  Until someone takes a serious stab at this issue, nothing will get done.  The fact of the matter is, neither the republican or democrats care about the average American.  The reason is there's no money in it.
12410
Why is she unpopular with me? This goes back to the early days of the Clinton campaign.\n\nShe deceived the country. She pretended to be a "stand by her man" type of woman with long hair in the kitchen baking cookies in a dress. Yes, she actually appeared on TV doing that. And her name was Hillary Clinton.\n\nAs soon as Bill got elected, out came the man pants, the hair got chopped off, she hyphenated to Hillary Rodham-Clinton and promptly scoffed at women who cooked as too repressive.\n\nHillary was appointed to develop a national health care policy - a policy that half the country was dead set against. Not one person voted for her. Not one Senator voted to confirm her to any post. Yet she had the audacity to feel it was her God-given right to develop this policy.\n\nShort and sweet, Hillary Rodham-Clinton is a Socialist - borderline Communist. Listen to her comments sometime. Scary.
700258
That really depends where you are yourself,where you define the center.\nSome people even call the Clinton's far left while they are moderate in my view.\nHistorically communism,being for the nationalization of everything and the end of private ownership,is considered far left.
598655
Assume you mean word (not phrase) 'leftist'.\n\nLeftist = someone on the left side of the political spectrum; generally socialist-leaning.\n\nLeftist tend to embrace: environmentalism, higher spending (although the right has blown that out of the water recently), welfare...
1080246
I haven't heard much about Clinton lately and I listen to a conservative talk show station on the radio through much of the week. While I am not a Clinton fan, I do agree with you that there are a lot of people (D's & R's) in 'power' right now that need to make some adjustments in their ideaologies. It just seems like one big crying pitty party from both sides right now. I am not registered as an Indp. but I am starting to think that I need to pay closer attention to the Indp party 'cause the others are whining too much.
609077
Jesus was most definitely a radical. The message he was spreading in many ways attacked the very fabric of society at the time.\n\nAs for being a liberal, well there is nothing wrong with that at all. For some reason it has become a term of abuse in the US while very few people understand what they are attacking.\n\nThe dictionary comes up with - \n\n\nAdjective\n\n1) a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. \n\n2) a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor. b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes. \n\nNot strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation. \n\nOf, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education. \n\n3) a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman. b. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious. \n\nNow personally most of the characteristics in the first definition seem pretty good.\n\nI particularly like the idea that if you are not a liberal you are a bigot, dogmatic and closed to ideas of progress.
871887
I stopped listening to Rush back when early in Clinton's first term, he made a reference to Chelsea, being the white house dog..\n\nI dont have time for BS like that..\n\nPeople like Rush and Coulter dont care what their opposition think, they are the fast food market for the ultra right wing..They serve them and only them.\n\nThough I lean more conservative on many issues, It's best to be a free thinker, and not waive the flag of either party nor their court jesters like Rush or on the opposite end of the spectrum; Franken
128651
I would consider my self a leftie and I think it would be a horrible choice if she ran for a number of reasons.\n\n1. We already know who will vote for her(the same people who voted for Kerry) and we know that Kerry lost.\n\n2. She won't gain any support from the Republicans.\n\n3. We need someone who can who pleases BOTH sides of the party, not just the one will vote for them.\n\n5. We need someone from the south, who will appeal to them, not another "yankee".\n\nTheoretical would she be a good president? Meh perhaps. Would she win? I highly doubt it.\n\nTo bostoncowboy62, she was born in Chicago, not Arkansas.\nNext time check your facts and my name is spelled without an I. ;)
39428
One reason a number of Democrats do not support Hillary Clinton for President is that they doubt she could win the election.  As is demonstrated by answers here, she brings a lot of negative baggage with her that other candidates would not (whether or not it is fair baggage.) The right wing talk shows and others have spent a lot of time vilifying her for no reason I understand (she is far from being a liberal despite her image -- e.g., she is one of the few Democrats calling for troops to stay in Iraq -- another reason some Democratic women do not support her.)\n\nAnother reason some Democratic women might think she would not be elected is that a significant number of people will not vote for a woamn -- or hold a woman to standards they would never hold a male to -- such as requiring her to "control" her spouse.