OK, bitch is a strong word. And of course you know I don't mean a female dog... but I use it to convey a description that I think almost everyone will understand. I did not use it to be offensive... so if it does offend some of you, I offer a semi-apology.
I think if it offends you, you are too easily offended, but, I am aware that I may be placing too little importance on the "offensiveness" of the word, so if I am wrong and you are truly offended, then I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt, and accept my explanation for my use of it as a semi-apology.
But let me surprise you...It is not a leading question being used to allow me to rant about why I think she is one, (I do, and even worse, I think she is a conniving one too).
It is a serious question to see how others perceive her. The topic was prompted by a recent read - former FBI agent Gary Aldrich's book.
The book is Unlimited Access, (you get to read some excerpts free), and he, (the author), was an FBI agent assigned to the White House with the primary responsibility of processing background checks on new staffers and political appointees, including cabinet nominees, in order for them to receive permenant passes, (to the White House), and security clearances for classified information. It took less than 10 pages to realize it was a super-biased hit piece written exclusively to capitalize on sensationalism to sell the book.
But... as with most good cons, (and good lies), a kernel of truth is included to lend a possibility of legitimacy to claims made.
Here are two of the major ones he describes that would fit Hillary to the topic description.
ps. he is hell on the rest of the Clinton administration staff too, but this topic is Hillary)
1) There was a major and serious confrontational brouhaha over Al Gore's vice president's office space. Apparently there is a specific office that for past decades has been designated as the vice president's office. Aldridge's story tells of major shouting matches - overheard and testified by staff - of the first lady proclaiming she was entitled to that office, and Al Gore could find alternate accommodations. He even stated it was bit of time before the issue was finally settled - leaving VP Al Gore hanging for multiple days during the transition without an office.
pss, there are multiple references of Hillary, ( and many staffers), thinking of her as the "co-president.
Hmm... sounds like her to me, (remember I don't like or trust her, so I am admittedly biased), but, could there be a kernel of truth to his claims? Is there a way to check the validity of his accusations? What do you think?
2) Another claim - Hillary really did think she was above the "little people." Mr. Aldridge cites several examples, the two most damning were his lamentations about "FOH," (friends of Hillary), staffers and appointees that refused to cooperate with background check interviews because they felt that as friends, supporters, and appointees of the Clintons, they were "above" the trivial security requirements of "regular" folks. The second portrayal was of her White House travels persona. He relates stories that she made it known that she did not want "small talk" or greetings from staffers or other White House personnel during encounters as she traversed the halls and corridors of the White House. In his descriptions, if you weren't cabinet level, you were to just stand aside and let her pass.
I know, I know - sounds like a made-up ridiculous hit piece. And remember, that is the opinion I quickly formed of the book. But seriously, he asserts that the background check part of #2 resulted in a change of the 90 day Temporary White House Pass for new administration personnel , to a redesigned and extended temporary pass because the staffers just would not comply with background check interview requirements in order to meet the 90 day pass deadline.
Even discounting Mr. Aldridge as a man with an agenda, is the pass extension thing verifiable? Could there be a kernel, (or more), of truth in his accusations? What say you?
I have admitted I don't like her, and more importantly I don't trust her. It has nothing to do with her party affiliation. And I know the book is a hit piece. But... I am left wondering if it is a complete fabrication, or is its bits of truth, (or more), real and just poorly supported in an obviously "for the money" book?
What do you think folks, is Hillary the presidential caliber "statesman" she, (and her supporters), portrays herself to be, or the self-important bitch Aldrich describes?
Hillary has been promised the White House for backing down when her and Obama were tearing out each others guts in the debates during the first election. In exchange for the favor she was given the Head of State position to groom her for the White House bid she will soon undertake. This gave her time to disassociate will Bill as just the First Lady and also give her some legitimacy for President having much foreign policy experience. In turn Obama is raising money as Bill did for him so that not only she will have full coffers when the time arises but also trying to get her a compliant bunch in the House. Is Hillary a bitch? How else could anyone navigate through the White Water, Vince Foster and Benghazi mess's with her tail in the air with all the broken lives these scandals created?
The GOP had better get a good candidate, not a party stooge or religious zealot and not rely on discrediting her reputation as she has shown she can arise way above the critics and vanquish those that get in her way.
Those are some pretty definitive claims. I knew the Aldrich book I referred to was a hit piece, and unless you have some evidence for your accusations, your response reads like one too.
How do you know there was a deal made for her to back out? I know the situation looks like it fits the duck theory, and you may or may not be right, but it sounds like I am hearing a Hannity show rerun. If it were a man in your described explanation, would he be a male version of a ... (OK, I am really sorry I used that word in my OP, I am tired and uncomfortable with it already) - self-centered self-important person?
I thought I was pretty clear that my point was more about her personality and behavior than just more of the same old cutthroat backroom politics.
Having followed the scandals fairly closely as they evolved in the past my deductions are as the say educated guess's based on the outcomes and direction all of the characters have taken since they happened.
I was not a fly on the wall when Obama visited Hillary and Bill at her residence in DC but the dramatic and sudden withdrawal from the race does fit the "duck theory" as you say but it would never hold up in a court of law with no smoking gun.
If it sounds as if I speak with "Hannity knowledge" I am sorry as maybe it does sound a bit like his buffoonery but as you say if it walks like one is my only authority by which I speak.
But if I were to throw the shoe on your other foot what evidence do you have of her "label" having the required substance to affix the label to her? After all we see so many things taken out of context and editing is the new poison pen tactics of the bias media. Having not read the Aldrich book I am totally without any authority to claim any accusations made in the book so where are we now as they say. Opinions based on logical deductions make for good copy none-the-less.
I know what you mean. I too was among the thongs of anti-Hillery watchers during the primary process.I also heard versions of your view from multiple sources, mostly pundits, and as always, some had a little more credibility than others.
And I agree that the way events unfolded, I would not be surprised if you were right.
But... and here is the Hannity part... "Had been promised," "she was given," Obama raising money for her," all seem to be declarations of facts - which I haven't seen sourced.
I guess I should have understood that you meant to say, "I think...etc. etc."
As for putting the shoe on the other foot... my label is also one of perception and not hard facts, but I have do think it has some semi-hard facts. My perception, formed by my own evaluation of her, was frequently reinforced by further readings. I have several Clinton era, Clinton history, and Clinton administration books. None impressed me as hit pieces like the Aldrich book, even though a couple were a bit more fluffy, and thus may have needed a grain of salt or two. Very few pundits added anything to the opinion already formed.
The one I liked the most, as it seemed the most honest and truthful, was George Stephanopoulos' book, All too Human", His honesty really impressed me. And his Clinton anecdotes, both personal and administration types, affirmed a lot of my thoughts.
So I am comfortable with my assessment, but even so, if you look back you will see that I qualified my statements with qualifiers like, "I think." Better safe than sorry is a good motto.
I am sitting here hysterical. I am trying to picture you “among the thongs of anti-Hillary watchers!”
Mark me among the throng of hilarity watchers.
LOL, and I just missed Woodstock too. Now you have me wondering if that was just an oops, or considering the topic, was it only a half-oops?
I will freely admit to being anti-Hillary-in-a-thong.
Really! Did you really have to put that mental image in my head?
You can expect payback for that one - as soon as I change mental channels and think of something equally dastardly.
I came across this article which explains pretty much what I was saying.
http://news.yahoo.com/pre-book-tour-gop … ction.html
I read your link, and its explanation of the Republican efforts to dissuade or discredit her are not news. The article also does not discuss any of the accusations in your post that we were discussing.
I am not trying to be contrary, but I don't see how it explains anything about what you were saying. Maybe I read the wrong part...
While I conceded that the Obama meeting, Vince Foster reference and Whitewater stuff was an opinion the article does outline the intended actions the GOP wishes to partake of in chasing Hillary out of the race.
At the same time, the GOP is building an anti-Clinton infrastructure that aims to undercut her appeal more than two years ahead of the presidential election.
"Ultimately our goal is to stop Hillary Clinton," said Garrett Marquis of the Stop Hillary PAC...."
"Republicans say Clinton's tenure at the State Department lacked any notable accomplishment and that many of the choices were bad ones."
"Stop Hillary PAC, meanwhile, warns on its website that by 2016, "it will be too late to stop Hillary. We've got to hold her accountable right now."
"Many Democrats say Republicans attack Clinton almost nonstop because they see her as the strongest possible presidential opponent by far, and that it conveniently fires up conservative voters who are crucial in the fall elections."
Do you trust C-Span?
If you prefer another source (http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/vp-residence):
"In addition to the Vice President's Office in the West Wing, the Vice President and his staff maintain a set of offices in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB), located next to the West Wing on the White House premises. This office, called the Vice President's Ceremonial Office, served as the Navy Secretary's Office when the EEOB housed the State, Navy and War Departments. Today, the Vice President uses the office for meetings and press interviews."
uhh... thanks but I already knew there really was an official VP office. My thought was whether there was any truth to the story as related in the book.
It certainly fits my low opinion of her. I could totally believe the story, if I weren't concerned with basing a belief on anything more than a perceived agreement of perspectives.
Even worse, because it reflects poorly on me, I want it to be true because it fits so well with my image of her - I guess I need to dig a little deeper and see if there are any other sources to corroborate it.
How can there be a fight over the VP office in the white house if it is actually in the Observatory?
Or, as usual, am I missing something here?
Oh no, have I gotten off on the wrong exit again?
The book's anecdote referred to the "office traditionally reserved for, and used by, the Vice President." I just assumed, (damned assumptions), it was referring to the one in the West Wing. I also knew about the "working" offices in the EEOB, which were used by the VP's staff.
So where did this "Observatory" office come from?
OK, so how many rooms are in the house, what color is the front door, how many steps to the second floor, and what the hell does the house at the Observatory have to do with a discussion about an office in the West Wing?
I am not certain about the word you use to describe her, but she is certainly shrill, unpleasant and a bit churlish.
I don't care is she is a bitch or a reptoid alien. Either she does the job well or she doesn't. Anything else is just tabloid-level bollocks.
Damn it Psycheskinner, stop being so sensible! I have seen your comments in other threads, and you do it there too!
You are right. Even though I can't stand the thought of her succeeding to the presidency - only because she is doing it for all the wrong reasons - for herself, and not her country, and because I think she really is the person I described with the word I now wish I had not used in the first place - your point is exactly right. If she does what the job requires and our country is better for her actions, then all hail the reptoid.
Thanks for popping in.
If she became President, she wouldn't be the first one with a temper. She would, however, be the first to be called a "bitch."
The key question is whether she has the temperament to be POTUS. I think she has demonstrated the ability to handle everything that has been thrown at her over the years. She has nerves of steel, a sharp mind, and the ability to interact professionally and diplomatically with world leaders.
Whether or not you agree with her politics, you can't legitimately deny any of that.
I see no evidence of any of your assertions. She is a harpy and is insulated from any real examination of her abilities by the cry of 'sexist," mush like Obama has been shielded by the cry of "racist."
If she was all she is claimed to be, Bill would have come home after the "I didn't have sex with that woman" liefest to find his crap on the White House law.
I agree about the temper thing, but that is not what I was referring to. As for her demonstrated ability, while I agree she has shown tremendous political savvy and endurance, I don't think that equates to having the right temperament for the job. My view of the presidency is to do what is right for the country, I am more concerned she would do what is right for Hillery.
"...She has nerves of steel, a sharp mind, and the ability to interact professionally and diplomatically with world leaders."
Yes, she does have all that - so did Nixon.
So, you described three things, I believe (I didn't go back and re-read it, so I might have forgotten something): a brouhaha over office space, her friends believing they do not need to be investigated like everyone else, and her desire to not be interrupted by just anyone as she is walking down the hall at work. How, exactly, does that make her a bitch? I'm trying to figure that out.
I hope you saw enough of the thread to see my responses were I really regretted using such a crude descriptor. My vocabulary is not that limited, and I really should have tried harder. If it helps me at all, I did freely admit my bias.
To your point, the brouhaha was not over just any office space, it is the apparent arrogance, (if the story is true), to think she could demand the VP's office - by virtue of her connection to the president. About the friends resistance to background checks - you are right, that isn't really relevant to the question.
But her arrogance, (again, if true), of deeming herself so far above "the little people" that she could not be bothered by their "interruptions" - (addresses as simple as "Good Morning?), or perhaps even their presence around her, seems to be quite to the point - to me.
Those two alone would weigh heavily in favor of the label, if they are true, and, in my opinion of course. But there were multiple other allegations pointing to the same personality type. Since the book is easily identified as very biased - and even though the portrait painted agrees with my own perception, I am skeptical about the truthfulness of the anecdotes. Hence the question was posed for discussion.
Are you saying that even if the stories are true they don't necessarily earn her the title? How much more would it take?
Thanks for commenting. I appreciate you pointing out that the staffer's investigation issue should not, perhaps, have been included in a conversation about Hillary.
My honest assessment is that it's much ado about nothing, an excuse to call Hillary Clinton a "bitch," which I know you now regret and I accept, but once you say it, it's hard to take it back.
As to your question, "how much would it take"? I don't care to speculate. It seems a silly exercise to ponder upon what Hillary Clinton would have to do for me to think her a bitch. ;-) I'd rather consider what Hillary Clinton would have to do to make me want (or not want) her as my President if she runs in 2016.
by Susie Lehto20 hours ago
After THUMPING Clinton in Monday night’s debate, Trump headed to the sunshine state for a YUGE RALLY in Melbourne, Florida. (National poll has Trump 46.7% and Clinton 42.6%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/ )...
by Grace Marguerite Williams9 months ago
PresidentLove or hate Hillary Clinton, she is leading significantly in the polls for Democratic presidential candidate. She has the political smarts & experience to led this country. She also have...
by Grace Marguerite Williams13 months ago
her? Why? Why not? Ms. Clinton seem to have the best qualifications for president. She also has political experience and is a quite savvy person?
by PrettyPanther13 months ago
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ … ogyny.htmlThis:"Donald Trump holds one core belief. It’s not limited government. He favored a state takeover of health care before he was against it. Nor is it...
by ahorseback14 months ago
Hillary or, ANY ONE OF THEM , why do we keep up the same insanity ?
by Mike Russo8 months ago
In a criminal court of law, the presumption of innocence prevails until the defendant is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil court of law, the defendant is innocent until the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.