Um, why? In the first place, what on earth business is it of yours? In the second EVERY person I have encountered expressing disapproval of women keeping their previous names has been female. I have never met a man who thought it was a big deal, though I have heard it used as additional supporting evidence of an allegedly whipped husband. In the third place, stipulating that there is some reason why your opinion is legitimate on this issue, why is it more appropriate for a woman to retain the name of the patriarch with whom she was associated by random chance, rather than take the name of the partner she chose for herself?
Some leftwinger tried to perform a citizen's arrest on him in his first year in office! All he did to garner hatred was refuse to roll over and die when Al Gore decided to try stealing the election by recounting ballots in a handful of his favored counties until he scrounged up enough votes to take Florida and by extension, the election. Also, because a LOT of liberals are too stupid and ill-informed to understand the electoral college. The hatred was far more unreasoning for Bush.

Left-wingers keep insisting that he is charming, attractive and appealing to youth, and one of our most popular presidents ever.

Hillary Clinton has been involved with policy at the federal level for over 20 years, and her path to presidency is even more unique and irregular than Donald Trump's. More than anyone else it is plain that this has been a calculated strategy and that a certain faction views the Presidency as her due, to which she is entitled. Clinton was not elected, but was given a role in the administration of the White House, and was embroiled in some of the most corrupt and seedy shenanigans from day one. Liberals like to make it all about silly little sex scandals, but upon taking office, the Clintons tried to fire apolitical White House functionaries to give their jobs to cronies and donors, and when that caused problems, attempted to smear them with criminal charges, and that was the sort of thing in which Hillary was involved from the first, just as much as Bill. Whatever your own opinions on socialized medicine, a great many Americans despise the notion, with Obamacare only passing because the Democrats had enough votes in the Senate to obviate any procedural methods typically used to stall attempts by the majority to ram through sweeping legislation. Back when Clinton tried his version, the White House put her front and center as the face of it. The measure was so unpopular, that it is generally credited with the GOP's subsequent retaking of Congress in the next election, and it was Hillary Clinton running that thing. During their election campaign, she gave out a very mixed message, both playing it soft (supposedly her fashion style was intended to convey the image of a typical political spouse, and she abruptly switched styles immediately after winning the election), and at the same time, giving out an ideological vibe of contempt for family and traditional institutions. In Pat Buchanan's 'Culture War speech at the GOP convention he replied to comment by Clinton deriding the family as an institution (think Michelle Obama's "first time I'm proud of my country" gaffe, only personally insulting to the average member of a traditional family). He quoted Clinton comparing families to instruments of oppression, and retorted "Speak for yourself, Hillary!" She made a comment of support during the first of Clinton's sex scandals, that I took her to mean she was supporting Bill because he was innocent, rather than simple spousal fidelity, but a lot of people took it as a direct insult against wives who practiced that loyalty. It was especially unfortunate, since the umbrage against Clinton's behavior was due to his transgression against the same values his wife seemed to spit on.

The point is, she came out even before the election as the ultimate feminist archetype, and leaned into that issue, and she got to do so in the White House, from the "bully pulpit" of the Presidency, to which she was never elected. Where previous first ladies confined themselves to occupations suitable for people who had NOT been elected, and who could hide behind chivalry and the privacy of marriage, from the sort of public scrutiny to which elected officials are subjected, Clinton interjected herself into policy matters and public affairs. And of course, when criticism of his wife arose, Bill Clinton or his spokesmen would make comments like "You're lucky I'm the president and can't punch you for that!" One of the most anger-inspiring aspects of feminism is not women's demands to have all the supposed perks or opportunities which are allegedly the province of men, but their refusal to play by the same rules men have to. No one minds a woman in the workplace, they mind her jumping between feminist rights and chivalric feminine prerogatives as it suits her. And that's kind of what Clinton was doing in her husband's 8 years in office. How dare anyone speak against this pioneering feminist hero when she availed herself of access she only gained through marriage, but when her public or professional conduct came under scrutiny, Democrats reacted as if critics were speaking of an innocent stay-at-home housewife, like Pat Nixon or Barbara Bush. And then she had the temerity to write a book about child care, advocating government involvement in the family, and interference in raising children, leaning on having popped out a cursory child to be raised by nannies while Clinton carried out real estate scams at the Rose Law Firm.

When she first ran for actual office, she did so from the White House, with its resources to help her. She cherry-picked a state she could win despite a lack of any real connection to New York, rather than try to take a tougher fight in one of her home states of Illinois or Arkansas, and everyone recognized exactly what she was doing, and what her intentions were.

She was also the originator of the birther myth, knowingly lied to the country about her husband's guilt during the investigations of his administration, helped suppress evidence and lean on his alleged rape victims and all sorts of other unsavory stuff, to the point that she started her official career with more political scandals, ethical issues and negative exposure than many politicians accrue in their entire careers.

Hilary Clinton involved herself every bit as much in politics as Bush did, despite her lack of any official mandate to do so, and earned just as much enmity for the same reasons, whatever her lack of official office. And then she, and/or her apologists come along and pretend she was some ordinary innocent private citizen who was targeted for no good reason, when everyone knows the truth. That can't help but exacerbate the distaste so many on the right and left feel for her.

I despite Bush & Obama as politicians as much as I do Clinton, but neither man comes close to her criminality, her rapacious behavior and her cynical self-presentation and conduct. I have no doubt that both men entered office with good intentions and as idealistic an outlook as a successful presidential candidate can retain. I have seen nothing in the much longer time Clinton has been in the public eye (Clinton was making enemies eight years before anyone knew anything about Dubya beyond his paternity and a dozen years before anyone knew Barack Obama's name) to convince me there is anything to her beyond self-serving ambition, or the slightest bit of personal character or belief in anything besides herself.