What’s the deal with the Hillary haters? – Dale Peacock


I feel a bit guilty writing about issues south of the border but with a Prime Minister who is still riding high in the polls and the recent visit from William and Kate and their adorable moppets, Canada really is a happy, happy place at the moment. Okay, there’s Kathleen Wynne to criticize but I think there is enough dumping on her already.

On to the circus that is American politics. Apparently there are many Americans who are willing to vote for a narcissistic, disagreeable, uninformed con man with visions of grandiosity dancing in his oddly coiffed head because they don’t trust or they don’t like Hillary Clinton? By almost any measure Hillary Clinton is possessed of a razor-sharp intelligence, an abundance of experience and may well be the most qualified person ever to run for the U.S. Presidency.

The odd thing is that when pressed for specifics, most people who are anti-Hillary can’t really come up with anything. Sure, there’s the odd outburst about Benghazi but a House Judiciary Report found “no attempt to mislead over Benghazi.” Let it go…question asked and answered. Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean it’s not definitive.

Then there is the brouhaha about her private email server. Yes, the FBI called her handling of them “extremely careless” and maybe she’s been disingenuous when explaining it, but it did not warrant any prosecution. And of the tens of thousands of emails, 113 contained classified information and only three of them had classification markers. Again…nothing to see here so move along.

So why DO so many people on the right hate Hillary Clinton?

Most of the anti-Hillary commentary doesn’t deal with her views on immigration, the use of the military, taxation, social programs or health care. They don’t debate how she voted in the Senate. They don’t refer to her performance as Secretary of State. All of which are pretty stellar actually.

They just attack her as a woman whose life was a blank slate until she got married. Again and again you see commentary suggesting that Mrs. Clinton rode to fame on Mr. Clinton’s coat-tails. If anything, the reverse may be closer to the truth. It is sexism pure and simple. We like to think that we are better than that…or beyond it…but it simply isn’t true.

A few indisputable facts:

“Hillary Clinton graduated with honors from Wellesley College where her commencement address was featured in Time (June 13, 1969) and Life (June 20, 1969).

After graduating from Yale University School of Law, she went on to work for the Child’s Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Her article, “Children Under the Law”, was published in the Harvard Educational Review.

In 1974 she was a staff lawyer of the House Judiciary Committee during its consideration of impeachment charges against Richard Nixon.

Keep in mind that all of these things above occurred before she was married.

In 1988 and in 1991, Hillary Clinton was named one of the “100 Most Influential Lawyers in America” by the National Law Review. And she was twice elected to the United States Senate before serving as the Secretary of State.” (Compiled from online sources)

The woman has credentials up the wa-zoo!

People criticize her shrillness, her voice, and her “masculine” speaking style. What she uses is a rhetorical style of speaking, which is also used by men called great orators – Reagan, Clinton and Obama. Some wise person said, “Our failure to appreciate the highly developed argumentative skills of an expert advocate, when the advocate is female, reveals our deficiencies, not hers.”

If she laughs it’s called a cackle. If she smiles she is said to look crazy. If she looks a bit tired they call her old and past her prime. Sexism and ageism are both in full display on this one. So, when she holds her emotions in check (not unlike Barack Obama) and speaks in a calm, logical, detached tone, they call her cold and calculating.

As to being a part of the old establishment, it seems to me that Clinton just wants to work within the structure that exists, unlike a Bernie Sanders for example, who wanted to radically transform American society. It’s a not unreasonable position.

The hatred – and I don’t use that word lightly – for Hillary Rodham Clinton is personal and irrational and sexist and ageist. And it just might get the most willfully ignorant and intellectually lazy person ever to run for President elected. He makes George Bush look like Albert Einstein.

Dale PeacockFollowing a career in the hospitality sector and the acquisition of a law and justice degree in her 50s, Dale embarked on a writing career armed with the fanciful idea that a living could be made as a freelancer.  To her own great surprise she was right.  The proof lies in hundreds of published works on almost any topic but favourites include travel, humour & satire, feature writing, environment, politics and entrepreneurship. Having re-invented herself half a dozen times, Dale doesn’t rule anything out.  Her time is divided equally between Muskoka and Tampa Bay with Jim, her husband of 7 years and partner of 32 years.  Two grown ‘kids’ and their spouses receive double doses of love and attention when she’s at home. 

Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free, twice-weekly newsletter here.


  1. Dale, you’ve hit the nail on the head! That is exactly what is going on. And your stance is well supported. It is more than an opinion, it is a well-illustrated argument.

  2. Sharon Stock Feren on

    Bias, Bigotry and ignorance certainly have been the highlight or lowlight of the whole process of this election. Some people I know are viewing it as entertainment rather than the serious business of electing a president of the United States of America. The comedic aspect is making some people lots of money. The stupidity is magnifying and spewing more hatred than any country can deal with. I only have heard from one person who ‘hates’ Hillary and I didn’t delve into it, but it has something to do with her and some connection to Monsanto. This person is Canadian and won’t vote anyway, but I did not ask if Trump would be a better choice and if so, why? I am hoping that my American friends and relatives do the ‘right’ thing.

  3. Double standards, misogyny, ageism–you name it–Hilary has to deal with it all. The thing that astounds me is the measure of dignity that she shows in the face of opposition that is utterly boorish and quite frankly dangerous. I agree with you wholeheartedly Dale. There has never been anyone so well qualified for the Presidency!

  4. Mary Lou Verbonac on

    Just a sad reminder we may not have come all that far since winning the right to vote. There is still so much more that needs to be changed to ensure our mothers, sisters, and daughters are recognized for their intelligence, accomplishments and leadership abilities There are no rational reasons to believe Donald Trump could possibly be a better President than Hillary Clinton. The anti-Clinton conspiracy theories run rampant and we know there is no rationality there. Fact checking is at everyone’s fingertips, yet those who have settled into their deeply-dug Trump trench are unwilling to enlighten themselves. What I find especially disturbing are the slurs and diatribe directed to Hillary Clinton by her American sisters. Women should stand with a deserving sister and Hillary Clinton has proved herself to be one.

  5. You left out a number of relevant facts. Just one, in 1974 as a staff lawyer for the House Judicary Committee which you mentioned, you left out that she was fired from her first job out of law school by the Democratic chairman of the committee for “Lying and unethical conduct.” What about the scandals surroounding Hillary over the years. To mention just a few: Cattlegate, Whitewater, Rose Law firm billing, Travelgate, et al.

    • Dan, I think you should fwd this important info to the Trump campaign immediately. I`m sure if they had these facts they would already have flung them at Hilary !! {TIC} While I`m not a great Hilary fan she is the only choice under the circumstances !!

      • This is OLD news. The media and her supporters choose to ignore this and a number of other facts about her past. She is held to a different standard. And has gotten a pass on many things. The FBI’s reputation has been severely damaged by their handling of her email usage. Over 50% of Americans do not find her honest and trustworthy. The same can be said of Trump. A sad commentary on the US election process. As a US citizen who spends 4 glorious months in Huntsville each summer, while voting for other offices, I more than likely will withhold my vote for either of these candidates.

  6. Dale thanks for a well written article. I have come to the conclusion that the dislike or even hatred for Secretary Clinton is totally gender based. It is because she is female and to be blunt, sadly, there is a lot of hatred for women in our culture. It is so difficult for a woman to be successful in politics with all of the double standards that people have for the behaviour of women that they don’t apply to men.

    As for her being fired from the commission investigating Richard Nixon, this is simply not true. She retired from the committee when it was disbanded after finishing it’s work. You can read all about it here: http://urbanmyths.com/urban-myths/politics/fact-or-fiction-was-hillary-clinton-fired-from-watergate-investigation/

    And another interesting exercise is to go to snopes.com and do a find on Hillary Clinton: http://www.snopes.com/search/?q=Hillary+Clinton

    There are Hundreds of outrageous statements about her which are all completely fabricated. “She used hand signals in the first debate”, “She wears a defibrillator”, “She kissed a Klan member”, “She has Parkinson’s Disease”. If you believed all this you would know she died almost a month ago, She was disbarred in 2002 and on and on. All false. She has never been charged for anything. Nothing sticks because there is no truth to the things being investigated. So why do people make up these thing and why do people pass them on without doing any checking? Because they can’t abide the possibility of a woman being in power.

    • I wonder how much of this smear campaign against Hillary Clinton can be traced back to the Republican party? They’ve been trying to get something on Ms. Clinton for years. Do they have a hand in spreading all these half truths and lies? Repeating them over and over until people have started believing them? The Republicans have spent millions of tax dollars investigating Ms. Clinton, and they’ve turned up NOTHING.

  7. Thank you, Dale, for your usual well-researched and cogently argued article. I fervently hope that there is not enough anti-Hillary sentiment to let Mr. Trump anywhere near the levers of nuclear power.

    I do, however, wonder about a few stories which seem to swirl around Ms. Clinton; their inability to support charges notwithstanding. Of course, you are aware of both, and likely have sources in cyberspace, which is destined to remain forever a mystery to me.

    The first is about funds illegally acquired from the “bag man” of the Democratic Party. Apparently, there have already been two deaths of witnesses who were going to testify against her; ergo, the “Killary” moniker.

    Secondly, she allegedly accepted some $600,000 from the pharmaceutical industry to prohibit a successful-trial drug vs. cancer from reaching the marketplace.

    Admittedly, the latter seems a tad far-fetched: How would she have that control and $600,000 is pocket change for her. But the former just will not go away, and could place The Donald as the oddly-coiffed Head of Government.

  8. Rob Millman, you should be ashamed. You are no better than Trump, throwing out lies, using smear tactics, and allegations. These are the same conspiracy theorists who attacked President Obama. It is shameful.

    1. On 11 July 2016, Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer Seth Conrad Rich was shot and killed just after 4 AM in Washington, D.C. There is zero evidence behind the conspiracy theory that Rich was gunned down while on his way to meet with the FBI to discuss testifying against Hillary Clinton regarding election fraud in the 2016 primaries.

    2. Former U.N. Diplomat John Ashe died in June of this year and his death was quickly followed by conspiracy claims that he was about “to testify against Hillary Clinton in US District Court.” Although Ashe’s cause of death was initially reported as a heart attack it was subsequently attributed to a weightlifting accident. And he was never he was not about to testify against Hillary Clinton or the DNC at the time he died. He was set to begin pre-trial meetings related to corruption charges against himself!

Leave a reply below. Comments without both first & last name will not be published. Your email address is required for validation but will not be publicly visible.