Hillary Probably The Most Vilified Candidate In History Outside Of Obama.

[TheMastersNemesis]

If you were to rate the vilification of politicians Hillary has to take 1st place. Obama would be 2nd, Bill Clinton 3rd place and perhaps Jimmie Carter in 4th. Of course other politicians and notables like John & Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were vilified as well. Then again they were assassinated.

Still cannot understand how a country can reject one of the most qualified candidates in history. Instead we have someone who will turn out to be the most immoral, immoral, sadistic and vicious crook in history.

There is something wrong with the picture that anyone who stands for social and economic justice in this country are either killed outright or their characters and person hood are assassinated and vilified. So how are we different from a banana republic.

Now is you take the biggest crooks and liars on the planet Trump is 1st, Nixon 2nd and Ronald Reagan is 3rd in recent memory. Yet their phony and faked reputations remain intact. As bad as Trump is he has many admirers and even if he wrecks everything somehow the GOP will find a way to elevate them.

The Bushes are an enigma. It is hard to decide if they were just hapless and ignorant or evil. I suspect Bush junior was clueless in some ways. He would at least make 4th place at least.

It is tragically understandable why the country is now so fucked up.

[Not Ruth]

1. I am pretty sure that Lincoln tops them all

Known almost exclusively by his got-up nickname "The Railsplitter," Lincoln had won the 1860 election in November with 39.8 percent of the popular vote. This absurdly low total was partly due to the fact that four candidates were on the ballot, but it remains the poorest showing by any winning presidential candidate in American history. In fact, Lincoln received a smaller percentage of the popular vote than nearly all the losers of two-party presidential elections. Immediately, however, even this scant total dropped in the panic of the Secession Winter, as seven Southern states left the Union and worried Northerners repented their votes for the Illinoisan.

At the time he was sworn in, Lincoln's "approval rating" can be estimated by examining wintertime Republican losses in local elections in Brooklyn, Cincinnati, Cleveland and St. Louis, and state elections in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island; by the observations of Henry Adams (of the presidential Adamses) that "not a third of the House" supported him; and by the published reckoning of the New York Herald that only 1 million of the 4.7 million who voted in November were still with him. All these indications put his support in the nation at about 25 percent — roughly equivalent to the lowest approval ratings recorded by modern-day polling.

[LisaM]

2. I would actually rate her higher than Obama.

At least in the 2008 primaries; it was kind of toxic for Hillary supporters at the time. However, I'll say that they both took a lot of undeserved heat, two essentially good, thoughtful, hard-working, qualified, decent, and intelligent people.

I don't think the Bushes are hapless, just for the record. I don't know how the last 8 years, or maybe the 2016 election, has softened peoples' opinions of W, but I still see him as evil, reckless, and completely without a moral compass. If you don't like the factors that gave us Trump, including repealing the VRA and enacting Citizens United, you need look no further back than the 2000 election. I think they made a calculated power grab with ramifications that could go on for many more decades.

[samnsara]

3. ..and the most qualified...

[Hortensis]

4. Absolutely higher than Obama. Far more villification. I was continually

amused when the right was obviously afraid of being called racist by attacking Obama with all the dangerous black man accusations they had used extravagantly against Bill Clinton -- of leading an illegal drug ring, raping a white woman (!), murdering people who crossed him, being terminally lazy, dirty and smelly, vandalizing the White House, decorating the WC Christmas Tree with condoms, and on and on and on -- all stories that circulated for years about Bill Clinton. Obama got off far easier with birtherism and some relatively sneaky though continual swipes of childishness, laziness, and inability to eat at a state dinner without spilling food down his shirt. Of course, both were low-IQ inferiors supposed to have cheated their way through Ivy League schools they could only have gotten into by affirmative action.

Hillary's own villification started back in the 1990s when she was the wife of the governor of Arkansas and continued, revved up to high gear already then by mainly by the money and vicious idiocy of Richard Mellon Scaife, and exploded in intensity over the next 25 years (still to this day funded by a Scaife trust) and others of his sort.

Obama's essentially started after he defeated her for president.

[tammywammy]

5. The vilification of Hillary started when she moved to Arkansas.

She's been attacked constantly since then.