Do I Hate Hillary?

In a recent syndicated column entitled "Why They Hate Hillary," talk show host Bill O'Reilly raised the question of the intensity of the animosity for Hillary Clinton felt by many Americans. He noted that polls indicate that 44 percent of Americans disapprove of Sen. Clinton, which, says O'Reilly, is a "very strong negative for any politician, particularly one who wants to be president." He called it an "unhealthy obsession," far beyond the routine aversion people harbor for those who disagree with them politically.

O'Reilly attributes the hatred for Mrs. Clinton to three sources: women who believe "she made a deal with her husband" to "ignore his infidelities in return for his help in her political life"; those who object "to her leftist ideology" and see her as a hypocritical "limousine liberal who lives large herself, but wants to impose high taxation on those who are achieving in America"; and those who see her as "a cold, calculating woman with a sense of entitlement." I don't disagree with O'Reilly. But I think there is another dimension to the "hate Hillary" phenomenon.

First of all, I don't "hate" Hillary, certainly not in any way that clashes with Christian teachings. I wish her no personal harm. I wish her a long and happy life — out of public office. But I will admit that my dislike for her and her husband rises to a level of intensity far beyond what I experience in regard to other politicians with policy positions identical to theirs, people such as Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, and Nancy Pelosi, for example. I don't reach for the remote as soon as their faces appear on the television screen. There is something different about the Clintons for me.

Why? Because with Schumer, Kennedy and the others, you get what you see. I know who they are. These are individuals (Kennedy, Gore and Pelosi) who inherited or married into great wealth and have used it to build political careers by reciting lines prepared for them by their aides; or Democratic party operatives (Schumer and Biden) who have worked the system since their days as young lawyers by catering to the voting blocs back home that put them in office. There is no misrepresentation going on. They are the voice of the various factions that make up the political left in this country.

 I submit that is not the case with the Clintons. They have built their political careers by not letting us know who they are, by covering up their counterculture past. Both Bill and Hillary were active members of the anti-war protest movements of the 1960s. Bill has gone to pains to keep off the record what he was doing in Eastern Europe during the time he was supposed to be studying at Oxford on his Rhodes scholarship. He says he was just traveling and staying with friends. He refuses to elaborate. (He never received his degree at Oxford because so much of his time was taken up with the European anti-war movements of the time.)

Hillary's team takes pains to ensure that her work in 1970 with the ACLU, in defense of the Black Panthers on trial for murder in New Haven while she was a law student at Yale, is not discussed publicly. She has also refused to discuss why the Clinton White House contacted the president of Wellesley College in 1993 to convince her to put under lock and key Hillary's senior thesis on the work of the radical leftist Saul Alinsky. Wellesley's president at the time, Nannerl Overholser Keohane, agreed. She issued a directive stating that the senior thesis of every Wellesley alumna was to be made available in the college archives for anyone to read — except for those written by either a "president or first lady of the United States."

Whenever these questions about the Clintons come up, sympathetic reporters — many of whom share the Clintons' counterculture past — treat those who raise them as kooks and conspiracy theorists. The charge is made that it is unfair to focus on an individual's youthful political activism; that we are all entitled to make mistakes in judgment in our youths. Fair enough. Republicans are willing to accept George Bush's defense of his youthful indiscretions with his comment, "When I was young and stupid, I was young and stupid."  Al Gore made a similar observation about some anti-military statements he made as a graduate student. The point is that Bill and Hillary have never said anything similar about their youthful radicalism. Instead, they have worked to keep discussions of that part of their lives verboten, as if only narrow-minded hate-mongers would even bring it up.

There were many anti-war activist-types in the late 1960s and early 1970s. There were Catholic Worker-types motivated by pacifistic sentiments. There were those who simply reached the point where they thought the war in Southeast Asia not worth any more American lives. There were the thoughtless hangers-on who grew their hair and wore their beads and spouted the anti-war rhetoric of the time because it was the thing to do.

But there were others of a different stripe, people who read Herbert Marcuse, Frantz Fanon and Antonio Gramsci, and who understood the full revolutionary implications of the youthful slogan of the time: "Drugs, Sex and Rock and Roll." This group was not just posturing to impress their friends when they wore their Che Guevara t-shirts or marched under the Viet Cong flag chanting "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is gonna win." They understood perfectly well the end game. I encountered literally dozens of people — professors, fellow students and colleagues — who fit this description in my graduate school years and early years as a teacher in the 1960s. They were as commonplace as long hair and peace buttons in those days.

Their analysis of the political currents of the time was shaped by Marxist notions of economic determinism, class struggle and imperialism. They would not have hesitated for a second to tell you that what Fidel Castro and Mao Tse-tung were doing was a better choice for mankind than the policies of the American "establishment."  This group did not just mouth the words to the Beatles's song "Imagine," as if it were a harmless ditty. They knew what John Lennon was advocating (probably more than Lennon himself) when he called on young people to aspire to a world where "there's no heaven," where "there's no countries," and "nothing to kill or die for and no religion too."

What am I implying? That Bill and Hillary were hard-core Marxist radicals of that sort during their youths? That they were comparable to the SDS and the Weathermen and other militants who called for violent upheaval at the time? Well, I would bet the mortgage that the two of them never did anything more violent that shake a placard at a police officer. But I would also bet the mortgage that they spouted the Marxist rhetoric in vogue at the student sit-ins about the inherent contradictions of capitalism and wars of national liberation. I mean spouted. Remember whom we are talking about — two of the planet's premier motor-mouths.

Should that have disqualified Bill for the presidency? Does it disqualify Hillary? Not necessarily. It depends. Many of the old radicals who once talked about bringing down the system "by any means necessary" are now selling stocks or real estate. People change. Bill and Hillary could have defused this issue years ago by letting us know what Bill was doing in Eastern Europe and why they wanted to keep the public unaware of what Hillary wrote in her senior thesis about Saul Alinsky's tactics — and by explaining to what extent they have changed in their thinking from those days. Or the extent to which they have not. The voters are entitled to know such things.

The way that they and their allies in the media have succeeded in covering up the matter is what is hard to take. Compare it to the months of network news coverage we were given about George Bush's National Guard career. Bush was about the same age at the time he is alleged to have missed some National Guard assignments as Hillary was when she was defending the Black Panthers, and Bill was doing whatever he was doing in Eastern Europe.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Guest

    I am not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton (due to her stance on life issues).  However, I think the hatred toward her is completely out of proportion and I think a lot of it is that people feel threatened by a strong woman.  There are plenty of other politicians who are secretive about their past, and whose past views differ from their current views, yet they do not receive a fraction of the hatred that Hillary Clinton does.  And regarding the Democrats who "build political careers by reciting lines prepared for them by their aides"–Please!  This is not limited to just democrats!  Does George W. Bush write all his own commentary?  His unrehearsed speeches leave a lot to be desired.

  • Guest

    I submit to Claire and others who may read this article that there is something else to the so-called "hatred" of Hillary: she is disproportionately manly.  One can say that America feels "threatened" by a strong woman – that is crazy.  America, at least nowadays, falls at the feet of a strong woman; but, Hillary does not act like a woman, i.e., lady-like, in any meaningful sense of the word.  She, like many women of her generation, refuse to accept the God-given place for women.  This is not to prejudice women: many men are guilty of the opposite extreme – not accepting their place and thereby acting effeminate.  

    Nature will not be denied its proper place in the end.
  • Guest

    I think the main point that James is trying to make is the apparent lack of honesty the Clinton's have with the country about who they are and what they really believe.  I don't think the "hatred" is about Hillary being a strong woman, but more of it is driven by fear of who she is pretending not to be.  Now I know that the game of politics is played by both sides and keeping quiet certain things in the past is not just a Clinton strategy, but in the end you'll find it's those politicians who earn the public's trust through honesty that also earn their votes. 

  • Guest

    Wow.  More hatred of women in the guise of concern for morality.  I can't hear criticism of Sen. Clinton's honesty without laughing, considering the utter, unapologetic deception of the current administration.  I'm not saying she's completely honest, but can we at least give her the same leeway we give other politicians?  She is no different in this respect.  Can we also remeber that she worked consistently and hard for social justice issues — children's rights and universal health care, etc.  By the way, remind me how many people suffered capital punishment under George W. Bush? A record-breaking 152, was it?  Not exactly pro-life . . . why doesn't that make anyone cringe the way Hillary supposedly does?  Isn't that worse than a bad personality?

  • Guest

    Hatred for Hillary

    I can only speak for myself.  I see her as a focal point for the glorification of self and the complete erasing of God from our human conscious.  She, and others to lesser degrees, promulgates this error that will lead millions of soul to perdition.  It is not hatred of the person, but of the ideology represented, hatred of the ideas she has chosen to symbolize in her person.

    Error is at its most insidious when mixed with a fair amount of truth, and at risk are the eternal souls being swept away in the tide of not-knowing, and not understanding . . .

  • Guest

    Adjesumpermariam,

         In what way is Hillary "un-ladylike"?  What do you mean by her "God-given place for women", and how has she rejected this?  Do you mean that God does not intend for women to hold political office?  I have never known this to be an official teaching of the Catholic Church.  I don't think she has masculine mannerisms.  I think she has a poised and polite manner.  I'm a little uncomfortable being in a position of defending Hillary, because, as I said, I do not support her due to her views on life issues.  But I am also having difficulty understanding the intense hatred that so many people have toward her, when I can think of much more corrupt politicians in the world.  And I am not sure I understand the point that you are making against her.

  • Guest

    Hillary doesn't scare me but she sure does seem shrill.  I could handle her, except for her stand on life. 

    I am glad that there are term limits on Presidents.  I am glad a Presidential term is finite.

    All these Bozos need limits.  They all scare me.  We need to get limits on Senators and Reps.  The sooner the better.Money mouth

    We need to elect some non rich people too.  I'd love to have a black woman in the White House.  Find a decent black woman who is not rich and I'll vote her in.  I've definetly had enough of white guys who are rich and connected.Surprised

    GK – God is good!

  • Guest

    Way to go, Charles Ro!

    I can add nothing to your analysis.  Thank you!

  • Guest

    This isn't about hating the Clintons but more about the far-right's dissent for anyone who has opposing views.  It's almost obscene to read biased political propaganda in this website. What courage to fiercelessly attack a democratic candidate when our present administration is a blasphemy of our political system? Pleaasse! 

    Being Catholic does not mean being blind. I could never be in agreement with the ultra-conservative, dogmatic, hypocritical ideas such as war-waging for self-serving reasons; bullying poor countries world-wide in order to push our own agendas; proclaiming pro-life and having no regard for the killing of thousands.  Just how Christian are we? WWJD? 

  • Guest

    "Shamefully we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management."  Ted Kennedy

     

     

    "I can't think of a damn good reason to give America over to super-hypocrites like Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Ruth Bader Ginsburg."

     

     

    "Say Never Again to the Holodomor!" 

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

     

     

  • Guest

    As a woman I would have loved to vote for a woman for president but because Hillary represents the far left to the extreme…..pro-abortion, pro-gay, anti-traditional family…I am just disgusted by her political stance on most everything. She also seems to herald that image of "career woman" to the max; something which many women in years have realized is not what God intended for most women. Motherhood is the better career and actually takes a lot more courage, virtue and heroics. Raising children is a full time job that goes unappreciated and I don't see Hillary, despite being a mother herself, as someone who represents that aspect of women. Instead, she attaches herself to liberal extremist organizations who push for the killing of the unborn (in the name of women rights) and attends gay right events. She is not someone any Christian could vote for in good conscience despite what she may say regarding finances or war.

     

    I'm hoping to vote for Brownback. He is a pro-life, pro-family man who seems closest to Christian values.

  • Guest

    Good article.  I read Marx for a seminar in college.  I am familiar with Marxian "economic determinism, class struggle and imperialism."  Say what you want about politicians – slimey, greasey, lying, snake oil salesmen – but these two top out the charts by a long stretch.  We have seen Hillary play it "straight" in the Senate.  This has disturbed some of her ultra-left feminist (read femi-nazi) supporters . . . because they are essentially Marxists as well.

    It should disturb Christians as well because despite the embrace of, and emphasis on, "values" in society today (as long as they are not of orthodoxy Christianity, thus calling for ongoing conversion of heart and mind to Christ) Hillary actually retreats from standing for her values.  Values such as the disparagement of motherhood because it perpetuates a woman's subjegation to a man, and the absolute rejection of anything traditional.  (Interestingly enough, MODERNISM is the cheif enemy of the Church today.)  Marxists assume that anything traditional was established by rabid capitalists for the sole purpose of subjegation of people.  Revolution is required in order to overthrow the capitalists and their institutional puppets (family, churches, etc.).  This is what the Soviet Union stood for.  This is what Lenin's "Imagine" is about.

    It is worthwhile having a health fear of anyone who is SO eager for power that they even refuse to acknowledge their beliefs if such beliefs will prevent an obstacle to their attainment of power.

     It is also worthwhile to hold with disdain anyone who can do little but spout double-talk.  Madame Senator contradicts herself habitually.  The best example that comes to mind is her call for dialogue issued to pro-lifers, excuse me, anti-abortionists, although she refuses to reject abortion on demand.  That's like Hitler calling the Allies to peace but telling them he refuses not to conquer them!

  • Guest

    It seems like some people who have posted are very angry.  This article wasn't about the far right or even Catholics.  And people on the "far right" would dissent from people on the "far left" and people on the "far left" would dissent from people on the "far right".

    Being a Christian is not about supporting a particular political party or politician.  It is, in part, about showing Christ's love to the weakest among us. In order to honestly assess who is the best able to serve society, one must list the hierarchy of "goods" and procede to protect the greatest "Good".  Therefore, in many Christian communities the greatest good is protecting the most innocent and weakest among us: the unborn, 45 million legally murdered since Roe V Wade, the elderly(euthanasia is on the rise), the disabled.  One party at this time has AS THEIR PLATFORM the goal of keeping abortion on demand legal.  That party at this time is the Democrat party. 

    Another good that some people pursue is no oil drilling in the Alaskan wilderness tundra.  Although being a good steward is a duty of all citizens of Earth, there are other goods that surpass it.  The Democrat party members in general seem to be opposed to drilling in Alaska for oil. Please check out how many humans live there and, in fact, how many caribou live there.

    Many  decisions are  based on  the hierarchy of goods.  Perhaps many Iraqi people are glad that they can now return to their homeland because they are now free of the dictator that tried to exterminate them.  (For all you environmentalists, check out what Saddaam did to the wetlands along the Tigres and Euphrates river delta.  See how the US has restored it and returned refugees and animal life to this fragile environment.  What credit does George W  get for this from Greenpeace–an abortion proponent itself?)

    Nowhere have I seen this website walk in lock step with the current administration.  However, I do believe that the authors use the principle of the "greater good" when making both prudential decisions: like minimum wage decisions or whether or not to drill in Alaska and decisions which are based directly on the Law of God: though shalt not kill—even the weakest,burdensome, tiny, unseen humans.

    And if you are filled with hate, remember what JPII once wrote in a poem, "the greater the anger, the greater the explosion of love." 

     

  • Guest

    First of all, along with everybody else who has responded to Mr. Fitzpatrick's essay, I don't hate Sen. Clinton…but I come as close to it as one can without prayer to keep you from falling over the line!  Now that that's settled, the responses to this essay are enlightening in themselves.  The same kind of emotion is shown in them on both sides of the aisle.  I can think of no figure in public life who elicits this to this degree – thank God!  The reason for it is, I believe, people like the Clintons are so proudly sneaky and "superior" to the common herd that people react to them on a visceral level.  Something in your gut tells you these two are not to be trusted, and would sell your grandmother if it suited their purposes.  That is, if you are one of those people who actually believe your fellow citizens can get along just fine, thank you, if the government would get out of their way.  I am one of those people, and am of the opinion we have no need of the majority of government programs and social engineering.  Remember the "Great Society"?  How many billions were wasted before someone woke up to the fact you could not tax people into virtue, especially when you were denying there was any one acceptable definition of the word.  And don't forget former President Clinton's, "It depends upon what is is" when being questioned about desecrating the dignity of the Oval Office.  When the dictionary  is seen as pliable, we have real trouble!  Well, on the plus side, if Sen.Clinton did become president (shudder) one good thing would probably happen.  Trying to figure out what the hell she was saying would no doubt frustrate the president of Iran into exploding like a short, cheap firecracker!

    Then there are the people who love the Clintons.  I have yet to meet or talk to one who made the least bit of sense.  They just loved them and wanted to be near them, and that was that.  If you questioned the wisdom of this devotion, you were a Nazi, or a big old meanie!  Why if Hillary and Bill thought the oh so efficient and fiscally prudent government should be in total control of medicine and medical professionals in this country, it just had to be a great idea!  Wow.

    Overall, I think it's amazing and wonderful that we live in a country where a couple of hucksters can be in charge of anything and somehow the country survives.  In fact, I think it's the best example in favor of the position that God is watching over us, no matter what Hillary Clinton thinks of Him.  God bless America!

  • Guest

    I am always amazed that so many actually believe the Clintons are “good” people.

     

    All one need do to actually see the truth is to look back and see just how many times this couple has “reinvented” themselves to fit the political climate they were seeking to be elected to in order to #1: control, and #2: profit from.

     

    Akin to gazing at a chameleon that is constantly changing colors to match its background, the Clinton’s cannot be judged by their “color of the day”, yet that is exactly what they want all of America  (and now the United Nations) to do.

     

    As Hilary “prays” for all to see, along with her photo ops showing how “well” she gets along with the military commanders (i.e. Iraq), we as Americans, as Christians, and especially as Catholics MUST remember her words to the “religious right” during the Monica Lewinski media blitz.

     

    Does anyone still remember her bitter diatribe against the religious, as her husband dared to stand before the whole country and shake his finger at us and insist he “did not have sex with that woman”. Nor did he inhale either. Remember that one? And the News Media had absolutely no problem with showing Bill walking into Church time after time carrying his “bible” while the country was force fed rationalism in order to build in us all a very strong apathy, resistant to the truth of even the most demanding questions of our age.

     

    If one truly wants to know the truth of the Clintons religious affiliation, one need look no further than to the horrific “art” inaugurated by Bill and Hillary that occupies a very protected space behind the White House. No Pictures allowed!

     

    It is all about statues with their heads cut off, a clear indication to Rev.20:4, and the image of a “beast” sitting atop the “rock”, apparently in “deep thought”, symbolizing the Age of Reason that Masonry believes will supplant the Age of Faith.

     

    Hidden behind the trees, laying on its side is also a massive Freemason symbol, or Logo constructed of heave gauge “I” beams, which bears a very striking resemblance to the “I” beams pulled from the wreckage of the fallen World Trade Center Towers. All this and more, with hidden occult symbols throughout the grounds. That’s what the Clintons believe in. All one need do is open their eyes.

     

    To get caught up in feminism as the issue, or political “correctness”, or any other device designed to tear apart America, is to allow those who strive to direct public awareness to their own ends and means free reign to accomplish “more than can be believed”. (Da.8:24)

     

    And to try and force each other to believe our own opinions is not, and will never bring us any peace. If you truly want to know what the Clintons are really up to, look for the truth, and not what the popular opinion is, nor what the Media and the spirit of the world tells us all to believe. Compare their words, actions, and inactions against what the Word of God says is right and wrong. Then there will be no “gray” area any more.

     

    Of course, this requires effort, even study, and especially humility, three things people of our day and age “have no time for” anymore. If we do not make time for the truth, what else then can we expect to receive?

     

    As Scripture states, all who will not receive (it’s a gift from God) a love of the truth, WILL receive the operation of error, to believe lying. (2Th.2:10-11, see also vs. 3 & 4)

     

    Now, just try and imagine what America and the world will be like with Hillary as the U.S. “President”, and Bill as the U.N. President.

     

    Countless salesmen all over the planet know that to effectively make a sale, the client or customer should not be offered a “yes or no” decision, but rather an “either –or” decision. In this way, whatever choice the customer makes results in a “sale” for the salesman.

     

    As Americans, we are being sold a “Bill of Goods”, whether it is Clintons or Bushes, Republicans or Democrats, and our choice in not a “yes or no” choice, but is an “either-or” choice, and all the choices bear the mark of Freemasons, Illuminists, and basically occultists.

     

    Hillary is just the “new advertisement” on the same old billboard, the new bait on the old hook.

     

    John Paul II said it in the most effective way ever, visibly angered after meeting with Bill Clinton to discuss many different issues:

     

    “A nation that kills it’s weakest (i.e. “unborn”), has no hope for the future”.

     

    To know the truth, one must first live it, then all the rest is clearly seen for what it, or they truly are.

     

    P.S. Read the (short) Encyclical: Humanum Genus, then take another look at today’s politics.

  • Guest

    People like the show American Idol.  Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that people will elect Hillary.  It just makes sense.

     

    NY already did it.  Twice!

     

    GK – God is good!

  • Guest

    Why should we, as women, be forced into voting for her because she is a woman? Like Obama's wife said "How can you vote for someone who can't keep her own house clean" I am paraphrasing as I don't know the exact way she said it. I will not vote for a woman who knowingly lets her husband cheat on her. End of discussion

  • Guest

    Another point which makes the Clinton's habitual duplicity disurbing.  No matter her original orientation (I assume heterosexual), and for whatever reasons (Bill's serial philandering, an internal moral void) Hillary is now a lesbian.  She does not admit this, of course, but the dumpy unshaven women who form her inner circle certainly tell the tale.  The fear is that Hillary, in addition to other radical causes, is now the stealth candidate for the gay agenda.  This is another reason why she must be stopped.  (Note, if there were any value to the gay agenda, I wouldnot be offended is someone like Barney Frank tried to make the case directly to the American people.  I very much mind, however, Hillary trying to sneak the damn thing in through the back door, so to speak.)

  • Guest

    Since it is wrong to vote against a candidate because of their gender or race, I can not understand why it is not wrong to vote for them because of their gender or race. 

MENU