Hillary is a true fighter if you see what she is up against and still fights. I am proud. I hope she breaks this glass ceiling for us.

Please tell me. I'd love to know.....

.....who are indeed sexist idiots, but I refuse to accept the smear the assumption that Hillary is facing the criticism that she is simply because of sexism.

It's a really dumb, short sighted, and, honestly, pulled-out-of-one's argument why Hillary has the approval rating that she has......

Much of which is due to sexism and misogyny.

The OP doesn't suggest that all criticism of Clinton is rooted in sexism.

It's good for the soul.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

I think the brand of politics The Clintons epitomize is past its sell-by date.

Okay, I've reflected.

"pretty enough, soft enough, gentle enough" or you have other sexist reasons. The truth is some people don't agree with her, I get that, what I don't get are men who are afraid of strong women, in business, or politics.

You have a right to disagree with her policies, just not because she doesn't have the same plumbing as you do. Also, her husband is not a reason not to vote for her.

I have the utmost respect for women.....you peeps have to put up with us knuckle - dragging men after all!!

But this assertion about sexism is dumb. Really, really, really, really dumb. And it takes away from a critique of her positions and, yes, her judgement. Based on those criteria, I don't , and will not, support her.

I honestly wish either Bernie was female, or Warren would have ran.....we do need a female president......just the right one.

From cluster bombs to sniper fire to her support for a trade agreement she publicly promised to oppose to supporting the coup in Honduras to urging cutting Haiti's minimum wage in half she has shown herself to be utterly unable to do the right thing.

And, of course, Kissinger.

Those are just a few documented reasons for opposing her and NONE of them come from the right wing or Trump-the-chump.

They are a team. They are for better or for worse joined at the hip and up to their necks in all sorts of political and business intrigue which under cursory glance should at the minimum give most Working Class Women pause.


The point is, Bill Clinton's presence in the white house again matters greatly on many levels but her supporters do not seem to see this.

My personal feelings had Hillary divorced or otherwise broke completely away from Bill when they left the White House, some of us 'Older Fems' might be singing a different tune, depending of course on what other choices and decisions she would have made ON HER OWN.

She chose to stand by her man, which for me speaks to a lack of inner strength, lack of self respect and lack of independence. which goes to character obviously.

I do not want to see Bill at the helm again, not ever. I detest and loath HIM. What he did was beyond despicable. I don't want to live through more sleazy scandals by a Dem in the white house again.

But apparently HRC Supporters are all for it.

Why would anyone in our party want to repeat that?

I just can't wrap my brain around that concept.

See sig line..

people dislike her for reasons unrelated to sexism.

Try reading before whining.

Just sick of the sexism bs. It's constructed.

That's a common theme around here. I can point to a long list of examples.

The it's because of the relentless flogging of her so-called unlikeability by people on boards like this. They read it, they believe it.

I still stand by what I said. I have always liked her and if someone runs a phony poll up the flagpole to show otherwise, so be it. People desperately want this to be so, for some reason.

The pendulum will start to swing once the dust settles after the Dem primary season ends.

It burns.

See my post for one of those other reasons.

That's your mulligan...

domestic policy and foreign policy are her unlikablility problem with progressives).

I think sexism is part of Hillary's unlikablility problem with non-progressive voters.

Her approval numbers would be a ton better. And from what I see she does appear to be a women too. She is not known as a bought and paid for Wall Street corrupted speech giving war monger.

Vote for Carly Fiorina over a Male DNC person? Because from what I see of them they think being a women is most important quality in someone.

precursor to a putative 2008 POTUS run. Isn't that reason enough to despise her and everything she represents?

She's Adlai Stevenson minus the sense of humor.

Ugh,

just as there was obviously racism motivating some to oppose Obama. Clearly hard-core conservatives and Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat of either gender, but what is interesting is why people who don't have strong ideological objections don't like her - people like my brother, who is politically fairly liberal in a lukewarm way but he can't stand Hillary - and he can't really articulate why, except that he says she seems dishonest and phony. Whether there is a subconscious element of sexism involved in that impression I can't say. He dislikes Trump a whole lot more, but I do wonder how many people who are put off by both of them will just stay home.

Hillary's ambition doesn't bother me. You have to be ambitious, even a bit ruthless, to campaign successfully for even the nomination. What does bother me, besides her frequently-changing positions and pandering to Wall Street, is that she seems to be ethically flexible, like Slippin' Jimmy McGill on Better Call Saul. It's like if you visit a beautifully-decorated home, and all the furnishings are expensive and the place is perfectly kept-up, but you keep getting faint whiffs of something else, like someone forgot to scoop the litter box or take out the garbage. There's just something not quite right there. I'm afraid that if she's elected there will be more scandals or suspected scandals because I don't think she can resist pushing the ethical envelope. Do people judge unethical women more harshly than unethical men? Very possibly.

However, I will do what I can to keep Trump from getting elected because he's a loose cannon who could ruin the economy or start WWIII by doing something spectacularly stupid. Hillary is at least predictable.

and people not only can't relate, they don't trust that she will be thinking of anything but her career when she makes a decision. Good take on that here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/opinion/why-is-clinton-disliked.html

I don't care what the numbers say, Trump has a much bigger problem. Hillary may be all about her career, but part of that (a not inconsiderable part) has been dedicated to good causes. People disdain her, but not violently so. She doesn't cause riots in the streets because she has not targeted specific groups of people with hateful abuse.

Personally, I'm just tired of the drama, the scandal-of-the-month, and the fact that, if you elect one Clinton, you get the other free of charge (and announcing that she'd be dragging along Bubba as a sort of an "economics advisor" doesn't fill me with a lot of warm-and-fuzzies).

I'd just be happier if I never heard the names "Clinton" or "Bush" (or, for that matter, "Trump&quot ever mentioned again in a political context.

It's regrettable, because I think she's basically a good person, and certainly qualified. But bad things happen to good people every day, and she's no exception to that.

HRC has been the most admired woman in the world for the past 20 years.

And yes a lot of these polls are wingnut polls

presumptive nominee.

I think we are going to have highly polarized nominees for at least the short term future. Bush and Kerry were both relatively unpopular coming out of the conventions in 2004, with both just over 50% favorability ratings. We have a political culture that is not just vastly more correctly sorted (ie there are no Republicans that are more liberal than the furthest conservative Democrat), we have the parties increasingly polarized (more so than any time since Reconstruction.

For a long time the thought has been that politicians should move to the middle for a general election, but with a more polarized electorate and parties, and a roughly evenly divided population, appeasing the base can drive enough turnout to win. Look at Bush, especially in 2004 where he effectively made no effort to even claim being a "compassionate conservative" and just ran for his base. Likewise McCain and Romney picking Palin and Ryan was to curry favor with the radicals in the Republican party. Clearly neither of them offered much as a VP candidate (okay Palin literally offered nothing) to the middle of the political spectrum.

I don't know if somebody like a Trump and a probable rout in the general election will change that as clearly the Republican base has gone really stupid, but look at the way all of the elected officials who had said never Trump are hopping right in line. At some point demographic realities are going to either force the Republican party to evolve or die, but I suspect that neither will happen in the next few cycles.

But we have effectively changed from voting into a moral act. It's not enough to disagree with the other party (or other candidate in the primary), we know have to call them Bushitler, or Hitlary, or Bernie Bros. It wasn't that more people voted for the other side, it was cheating that let them win. Yes some choices like voter id laws are targeted to reduce minority voting, but there is no actual evidence of voting machines being tampered with, much less at a mass scale.

Do you really believe that?

But it's absurd to deny that much of the opposition to Clinton (over the course of a few decades) is irrational hatred rooted in sexism and misogyny. And it's off-the-charts lunacy to suggest that *NONE* of the opposition to Clinton is rooted in sexism.

Most of HRC's supporters never engage in policy discussion and I mean never.

be minimal.

It is not an issue of sexism or misogyny.

I don't know how else to put this, so I'll just be blunt. It's off-the-charts crazy to deny that much of the opposition to HRC (going back to her Arkansas days) is rooted in sexism and misogyny.

Before Bill and Hillary Clinton were nationally known, the right-wing in Arkansas politics was after them. This constant stream of spurious attacks continued as the Clintons advanced to the national level.

The remarkable thing is that there has been next to nothing that has stuck to the Clintons.

that's at least one metric where Hillary's numbers will continue to rise.

Depending on whom is in front of her at the moment. And she comes across as condescending and arrogant.

It feels like the studies cited are either old, or over samples an older generation.

I am sure that research can show such cases, and I may have to agree on the sexism, especially since in some ways things have gotten worse.

Misogyny, especially coming from international countries tend to happen as well, so I'm curious about the studies cited for the article in detail.

By the way... there must have been a typo on this opinion piece.

[div]There’s a reason why less than 5 percent of Fortune 1000 CEOs, only 6 of the nation’s 50 governor and less than 17 percent of mayors are women: women seeking executive office have to prove that they are capable enough, while remaining likable, an extremely tough needle to threat.
I think it was supposed to be thread.

Either way, there are many reasons people don't like her. Mine tends to be based upon lack of integrity, willingness to break the spirit of the law while following it, and many other reasons that I'm sure I've mentioned at some point.

This only adds to my acceptance that she's not going to win in November. I haven't made my peace with that thought but I am getting closer.

Bernie Sanders... he has been a disaster...and I can hardly wait until he is gone. He promised to run on ideas but instead attacked Hillary every day...I have come to despise him and hope never to hear his voice or see him again...politically speaking. I am a liberal and interested in progressive politics, but if Bernie is involved deal me out.

And gullible people believing them, of course.

Conversation if Elizabth Warren had decided to run.

But Warren hasn't been in the spotlight the way Clinton has for several decades, so it's apples and oranges.

The research doesn't suggest that *all* opposition to Clinton is rooted in sexism, nor does it deny that there's a valid leftist critique of Clinton and Democrats as a whole.

C'mon, folks, reading comprehension is your friend.

Writing is just as important as reading.

All I was trying to say was that Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

EW is for the 99%.
HRC is for the 1%.

Period.

End of story.

Often, voters are accused of being sexist when they say that Clinton is not good for America.

EW has a lot of support.

Many of the people who support EW would not be supporting HRC.

We don't dislike HRC because she is a woman. We dislike HRC because of her history, and her policies and her allegiances. Not because she is a female.

You implied that because Sanders supporters like Warren, the opposition to Clinton isn't rooted in sexism. As the OP and common sense make clear, much of the opposition to Clinton through the years has been rooted in sexism and misogyny. The OP isn't saying that *all* opposition to Clinton is rooted in sexism. There's a valid leftist critique of Clinton, yes. But there's also a lot of irrational hatred that dates back decades.

There is no doubt irrational hatred of Warren based on her sex, but not to the same extent partly because she hasn't been in the spotlight for the last several decades like Clinton has.

What do you not understand about what I just wrote?

And yet most Bernie supporters are huge fans of Elizabeth's and would have loved it if she had run for president.

On the Republican side, Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina are liked and admired.

Hillary is disliked for reasons other than gender.

The OP isn't saying that *all* opposition to Clinton is rooted in sexism or misogyny. But much of it is, going back several decades.