Why is Clinton always held to a higher standard?

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm all for having a debate at the convention, wulfric. I'm all for talking things over and reaching some fair compromises. I'm all for Bernie exerting his radical ideas. I'm all for him having influence. Heck, he got 12.5 million votes. He deserves a lot of influence. He deserves a lot of respect.

I just don't understand why he can't acknowledge that she's won. You can. Everyone else can. I even see people on r/s4p admitting they have no case. So why can't Bernie?

[This account no longer in use.]

So, anybody want to take bets on how long before Jfern and/or Landslide Lyndon post in this thread?

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Without meaning to, you allude to another reason why "underlying sexism" is certainly part of the answer to the OP's question.

We like to bandy around the words "establishment ties" like this is some unfair built-in advantage that Hillary Clinton had. It's not.

We've yet to see a woman in American politics demonstrate the kind of "charisma" people usually look for (and find!) in male candidates, likely because these traits are really rooted in gender (Obama gives a forceful speech while Hillary yells too loudly like fingernails on a chalkboard... ). These differences find their way into the campaign. Bernie's message resonated in part because he was a passionate blunt-talker; Hillary tried that in the first round of Benghazi hearings ("what difference at this point does it make?) and got shat on. So she has always needed to campaign, at the very least, differently.

These "establishment ties" represent decades of hard work: Hard work overcoming the invisible barriers that sexism presents inside a gentlemen's club like a political party, and hard work building these connections, proving herself to potential allies, winning favour, gaining trust...

No candidate has had as much establishment support as Hillary. It sounds shady to people on the outside, but it is really a testament to how good she is. Bernie's been around for just as long, and there's no real line up of people with experience looking to back him.

So the point is, she has always had to do things a little bit differently, and a lot of the reason is gender and sexism. Bernie has the luxury of staying in because he's been catapulted into the national spotlight in part on force of personal and strength of delivery. Which means he can keep shouting for as long as he wants with little consequence. Hillary couldn't do that in 2008; her strength necessarily came, in part, from building connections, and those would have been in jeopardy if she'd stuck around as a thorn in Obama's side.

It is a double-standard to be sure, but one that seems voluntary even though it's largely by necessity.

I'd like to give this post the recognition that is due....it's a great post with great insight. Yes, Hillary has had to do things differently. From the moment she became First Lady of Arkansas, all the way to First Lady in the White House and beyond, she has had to change and morph to people's expectations of her. The clothes she wears, her hairdo, to the fact that she kept her last name Rodham in her title caused great discomfort to the people of AR in her role as the First Lady there so she had to change it, to the way she talks or "shouts" or "shrills"....there's just so much.

Hillary has adapted to it all. She learns and changes and grows. She makes mistakes, but she keeps on keeping on. I don't see anyone in politics anywhere who has the resiliency she has.

As for the title of this thread, I don't quite understand what the author wants. Is it all about being compared to Bernie?

Bernie is not Hillary. He's a white male which comes with inborn privileges. He may be a fighter in his own arena, but so is Hillary. She is much more well-rounded and diverse than Bernie could ever hope to be, and maybe that's why she is held to a different standard: there is much more to her personality than to Bernie's or anyone else's personality in politics for that matter.

Hillary has much more substance for us to examine and criticize, and add to that the fact that she has been around for a long time. People have come to expect more of her because she has so much more to give than the others.

That's my biased opinion. ;-)

I might agree to this, but let's not cry too many salty tears for her.  Never in my lifetime has a political party been so in the tank for a candidate who was not the incumbent President as the Democratic Party has been for Hillary.  Sanders' challenge was an outside-the-party challenge of a unique style; he caucuses with the Democrats, but he isn't really a Democrat, and I doubt he'll run as a Democrat in 2018 for re-election.

I would also agree with Larry Sabato in that Sanders, who won over 20 primaries and caucuses and has over 40% of the delegates, is in a position to demand significant concessions at the convention.  This is hardly unusual, and hardly remarkable.  Sanders wants to leave his imprint, and this is hardly remarkable; if it was just about electing a Democratic President, he could have just gotten on the bandwagon with everyone else.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

There was a great article I read, where they looked back at Hillary's approval (etc) ratings going back to 1992 and there's a scary correlation between when she seeks power or position it drops, versus when she's IN the position and it spikes.

[BlueSwan]

There was a great article I read, where they looked back at Hillary's approval (etc) ratings going back to 1992 and there's a scary correlation between when she seeks power or position it drops, versus when she's IN the position and it spikes.

"Hillary Clinton. Great in office - terrible on the campaign trail".

While it is hard to campaign on that slogan I think it would be a good idea for Clinton surrogates attempt to plant that idea in the general public.

[RINO Tom]

She's not.

[HAnnA MArin County]

It's because she's a woman: plain and simple. Posters dismissing sexism just don't want to acknowledge it because it's true. Obama himself even came out and said that the media was biased towards him. The media was writing her political obituary after Iowa and then New Hampshire happened and they reduced it to all because she cried. They kept talking about how important the Latino vote was, and yet I don't remember seeing hardly any coverage of the Nevada caucus but the South Carolina primary sure was promoted. The media was incredibly nasty to her, her family, and her supporters, calling us a bunch of dumb uneducated backwoods racist rednecks for wanting to "stop" the first black man from occupying the Oval Office. Yet this primary, we had to be "sensitive" to the butthurt Sanders supporters so that we didn't "alienate" them. Yeah, the double standard is sickening. Had the tables been turned and had Bernie miraculously won the nomination after March, the media would call on her to drop out hourly and to be a "good team player" and other PC garbage that they applied to her in 2008 but not to Sanders this go around.

That's one thing Sarah Palin did get right out of all the word vomit she's spewed: lamestream media.

[RINO Tom]

The media was biased toward Obama against McCain and Romney, too.  I'm not saying there was no sexism in the 2008 primaries (not that it wasn't balanced out with some racism...), but the media's hard-on for Obama has always been more about him than his opponents.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

It's because she's a woman: plain and simple. Posters dismissing sexism just don't want to acknowledge it because it's true. Obama himself even came out and said that the media was biased towards him. The media was writing her political obituary after Iowa and then New Hampshire happened and they reduced it to all because she cried. They kept talking about how important the Latino vote was, and yet I don't remember seeing hardly any coverage of the Nevada caucus but the South Carolina primary sure was promoted. The media was incredibly nasty to her, her family, and her supporters, calling us a bunch of dumb uneducated backwoods racist rednecks for wanting to "stop" the first black man from occupying the Oval Office. Yet this primary, we had to be "sensitive" to the butthurt Sanders supporters so that we didn't "alienate" them. Yeah, the double standard is sickening. Had the tables been turned and had Bernie miraculously won the nomination after March, the media would call on her to drop out hourly and to be a "good team player" and other PC garbage that they applied to her in 2008 but not to Sanders this go around.

That's one thing Sarah Palin did get right out of all the word vomit she's spewed: lamestream media.

Hillary's just not likeable.  One of the problems with the women who've run for the Presidency or Vice Presidency is that they are all rather unlikeable.  Geraldine Ferraro was the MOST likeable; what does that say?

Hillary may be held to a higher standard, but that comes with trying to be an Historic Figure when you are, by the standards of Presidential candidates, rather ordinary.  She was 8 years a Senator when she thought herself up to the big job, but just what exactly did she have going for herself in 2008 that was a bigger deal than Obama had going for him?  Four more years in the Senate?  Her previous White House experience?  Really, her "experience" was, far more, in the POLITICAL realm than in the GOVERNING realm until then.  When she put her fingers into governing, it always went bad (e. g. ClintonCare, the White House Travel Office, Benghazi).

Why HER?  That's the question.  What has SHE done that's distinguished her from any number of potential candidates?  Why her, and not Joe Biden?  Is this age discrimination?  Why her, and not Amy Klobuchar, who has been a far more workmanlike and policy-oriented Senator than Hillary was, and would be a First Woman President without the unsavory scandals.

She's a woman, and "it's time"?  OK, I'll roll with that, but this is a woman who participated in smear campaigns against those who accused Bill Clinton of sexual impropriety.  Any ordinary person would be pilloried if they questioned the veracity of a woman claiming she was violated, sexually, but Hillary was a field general in the "Nuts and Sluts" whispering campaign.  (Overlooking that demonstrates that the Feminist Left is truly Feminism over Females.) 

Hillary's no one special.  She doesn't break the string of less-than-stellar Presidential nominees, and she doesn't have any special insights that will lead her to a successful Presidency.  She's not inspiring, and that's in no small reason due to the fact that she does not have the personal qualities of honesty and integrity that inspire.  She has grit; I'll give you that, but it's the kind of self-absorbed grit that wears thin on people fast.

I've not ruled out voting for Hillary, although I'm leaning Trump.  But I can't find a real complimentary thing to say about her. 

[IceSpear]

The media was biased toward Obama against McCain and Romney, too.  I'm not saying there was no sexism in the 2008 primaries (not that it wasn't balanced out with some racism...), but the media's hard-on for Obama has always been more about him than his opponents.

It was both. They had a hard on for Obama AND despised Hillary. Double trouble. It's a miracle she managed to do as well as she did under those conditions.

Compare to 2016, where they still despised Hillary but didn't really care for Sanders either, except to the extent he could give them ammunition for "HILLARY COLLAPSING!" "HILLARY IN DANGER!" etc. stories.

The Republican Party really screwed the pooch this time. They could've gotten the media on their side for the first presidential election since 2000 by nominating Rubio, Kasich, or even Jeb, but they went with Trump instead, one of the few people the media wants even less than Hillary.

[Ebowed]

Hillary Clinton does face sexism, particularly from certain parts of the media, but I disagree that she is held to a 'higher standard.' She is, after all, a nepotist, a self-admitted 'not a natural politician', and demonstrably lackluster on the campaign trail.  While she may be a competent executive, it's ludicrous to complain that she is held to a higher standard when the Democratic party literally cleared the field for her so that she could essentially run unopposed.

The Democrats are very lucky that Donald Trump, incapable of mediating his despicable personality and views, has basically thrown this election.  Hopefully it translates into serious congressional gains.

[HAnnA MArin County]

It's because she's a woman: plain and simple. Posters dismissing sexism just don't want to acknowledge it because it's true. Obama himself even came out and said that the media was biased towards him. The media was writing her political obituary after Iowa and then New Hampshire happened and they reduced it to all because she cried. They kept talking about how important the Latino vote was, and yet I don't remember seeing hardly any coverage of the Nevada caucus but the South Carolina primary sure was promoted. The media was incredibly nasty to her, her family, and her supporters, calling us a bunch of dumb uneducated backwoods racist rednecks for wanting to "stop" the first black man from occupying the Oval Office. Yet this primary, we had to be "sensitive" to the butthurt Sanders supporters so that we didn't "alienate" them. Yeah, the double standard is sickening. Had the tables been turned and had Bernie miraculously won the nomination after March, the media would call on her to drop out hourly and to be a "good team player" and other PC garbage that they applied to her in 2008 but not to Sanders this go around.

That's one thing Sarah Palin did get right out of all the word vomit she's spewed: lamestream media.

Hillary's just not likeable.  One of the problems with the women who've run for the Presidency or Vice Presidency is that they are all rather unlikeable.  Geraldine Ferraro was the MOST likeable; what does that say?

Hillary may be held to a higher standard, but that comes with trying to be an Historic Figure when you are, by the standards of Presidential candidates, rather ordinary.  She was 8 years a Senator when she thought herself up to the big job, but just what exactly did she have going for herself in 2008 that was a bigger deal than Obama had going for him?  Four more years in the Senate?  Her previous White House experience?  Really, her "experience" was, far more, in the POLITICAL realm than in the GOVERNING realm until then.  When she put her fingers into governing, it always went bad (e. g. ClintonCare, the White House Travel Office, Benghazi).

Why HER?  That's the question.  What has SHE done that's distinguished her from any number of potential candidates?  Why her, and not Joe Biden?  Is this age discrimination?  Why her, and not Amy Klobuchar, who has been a far more workmanlike and policy-oriented Senator than Hillary was, and would be a First Woman President without the unsavory scandals.

She's a woman, and "it's time"?  OK, I'll roll with that, but this is a woman who participated in smear campaigns against those who accused Bill Clinton of sexual impropriety.  Any ordinary person would be pilloried if they questioned the veracity of a woman claiming she was violated, sexually, but Hillary was a field general in the "Nuts and Sluts" whispering campaign.  (Overlooking that demonstrates that the Feminist Left is truly Feminism over Females.) 

Hillary's no one special.  She doesn't break the string of less-than-stellar Presidential nominees, and she doesn't have any special insights that will lead her to a successful Presidency.  She's not inspiring, and that's in no small reason due to the fact that she does not have the personal qualities of honesty and integrity that inspire.  She has grit; I'll give you that, but it's the kind of self-absorbed grit that wears thin on people fast.

I've not ruled out voting for Hillary, although I'm leaning Trump.  But I can't find a real complimentary thing to say about her. 

So only women for running for President have to be likable? That's not sexist at all. I remember that question being posed to her in a New Hampshire debate and Obama gave a cheap "You're likable enough, Hillary" remark that some attribute to his loss there.

Nothing stopped any other candidate from jumping into the race. Biden could have run. Klobuchar could have run. Nothing was holding any other candidate back from entering the race, they just didn't want to.

You talk about accomplishments, but what has Trump accomplished by himself that wasn't the product of his silver spoon upbringing? Furthermore, why are you not as concerned about his sketchy Trump University scheme as the right is all bent up on the faux EmailGate and Benghazi scandals? You talk about likability being a determining factor, and Trump was the second least likable candidate who ran this year (and he only edged out Ted Cruz because of the way he continuously insulted him and I do give Trump much credit for castrating and destroying the Republican Party).

I have so much more to say to this thread, but time to get ready for work.

To Be Continued.

[SillyAmerican]

It's because she's a woman: plain and simple. Posters dismissing sexism just don't want to acknowledge it because it's true. Obama himself even came out and said that the media was biased towards him. The media was writing her political obituary after Iowa and then New Hampshire happened and they reduced it to all because she cried. They kept talking about how important the Latino vote was, and yet I don't remember seeing hardly any coverage of the Nevada caucus but the South Carolina primary sure was promoted. The media was incredibly nasty to her, her family, and her supporters, calling us a bunch of dumb uneducated backwoods racist rednecks for wanting to "stop" the first black man from occupying the Oval Office. Yet this primary, we had to be "sensitive" to the butthurt Sanders supporters so that we didn't "alienate" them. Yeah, the double standard is sickening. Had the tables been turned and had Bernie miraculously won the nomination after March, the media would call on her to drop out hourly and to be a "good team player" and other PC garbage that they applied to her in 2008 but not to Sanders this go around.

That's one thing Sarah Palin did get right out of all the word vomit she's spewed: lamestream media.

Hillary's just not likeable.  One of the problems with the women who've run for the Presidency or Vice Presidency is that they are all rather unlikeable.  Geraldine Ferraro was the MOST likeable; what does that say?

Hillary may be held to a higher standard, but that comes with trying to be an Historic Figure when you are, by the standards of Presidential candidates, rather ordinary.  She was 8 years a Senator when she thought herself up to the big job, but just what exactly did she have going for herself in 2008 that was a bigger deal than Obama had going for him?  Four more years in the Senate?  Her previous White House experience?  Really, her "experience" was, far more, in the POLITICAL realm than in the GOVERNING realm until then.  When she put her fingers into governing, it always went bad (e. g. ClintonCare, the White House Travel Office, Benghazi).

Why HER?  That's the question.  What has SHE done that's distinguished her from any number of potential candidates?  Why her, and not Joe Biden?  Is this age discrimination?  Why her, and not Amy Klobuchar, who has been a far more workmanlike and policy-oriented Senator than Hillary was, and would be a First Woman President without the unsavory scandals.

She's a woman, and "it's time"?  OK, I'll roll with that, but this is a woman who participated in smear campaigns against those who accused Bill Clinton of sexual impropriety.  Any ordinary person would be pilloried if they questioned the veracity of a woman claiming she was violated, sexually, but Hillary was a field general in the "Nuts and Sluts" whispering campaign.  (Overlooking that demonstrates that the Feminist Left is truly Feminism over Females.) 

Hillary's no one special.  She doesn't break the string of less-than-stellar Presidential nominees, and she doesn't have any special insights that will lead her to a successful Presidency.  She's not inspiring, and that's in no small reason due to the fact that she does not have the personal qualities of honesty and integrity that inspire.  She has grit; I'll give you that, but it's the kind of self-absorbed grit that wears thin on people fast.

I've not ruled out voting for Hillary, although I'm leaning Trump.  But I can't find a real complimentary thing to say about her. 

I agree with what Fuzzy says here, except for the part on not ruling out voting for Hillary. For me, judgement is important, and believing your personal privacy to be of greater importance than national security concerns, that kind of judgement is disqualifying, at least in my mind.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

It's because she's a woman: plain and simple. Posters dismissing sexism just don't want to acknowledge it because it's true. Obama himself even came out and said that the media was biased towards him. The media was writing her political obituary after Iowa and then New Hampshire happened and they reduced it to all because she cried. They kept talking about how important the Latino vote was, and yet I don't remember seeing hardly any coverage of the Nevada caucus but the South Carolina primary sure was promoted. The media was incredibly nasty to her, her family, and her supporters, calling us a bunch of dumb uneducated backwoods racist rednecks for wanting to "stop" the first black man from occupying the Oval Office. Yet this primary, we had to be "sensitive" to the butthurt Sanders supporters so that we didn't "alienate" them. Yeah, the double standard is sickening. Had the tables been turned and had Bernie miraculously won the nomination after March, the media would call on her to drop out hourly and to be a "good team player" and other PC garbage that they applied to her in 2008 but not to Sanders this go around.

That's one thing Sarah Palin did get right out of all the word vomit she's spewed: lamestream media.

Hillary's just not likeable.  One of the problems with the women who've run for the Presidency or Vice Presidency is that they are all rather unlikeable.  Geraldine Ferraro was the MOST likeable; what does that say?

Hillary may be held to a higher standard, but that comes with trying to be an Historic Figure when you are, by the standards of Presidential candidates, rather ordinary.  She was 8 years a Senator when she thought herself up to the big job, but just what exactly did she have going for herself in 2008 that was a bigger deal than Obama had going for him?  Four more years in the Senate?  Her previous White House experience?  Really, her "experience" was, far more, in the POLITICAL realm than in the GOVERNING realm until then.  When she put her fingers into governing, it always went bad (e. g. ClintonCare, the White House Travel Office, Benghazi).

Why HER?  That's the question.  What has SHE done that's distinguished her from any number of potential candidates?  Why her, and not Joe Biden?  Is this age discrimination?  Why her, and not Amy Klobuchar, who has been a far more workmanlike and policy-oriented Senator than Hillary was, and would be a First Woman President without the unsavory scandals.

She's a woman, and "it's time"?  OK, I'll roll with that, but this is a woman who participated in smear campaigns against those who accused Bill Clinton of sexual impropriety.  Any ordinary person would be pilloried if they questioned the veracity of a woman claiming she was violated, sexually, but Hillary was a field general in the "Nuts and Sluts" whispering campaign.  (Overlooking that demonstrates that the Feminist Left is truly Feminism over Females.) 

Hillary's no one special.  She doesn't break the string of less-than-stellar Presidential nominees, and she doesn't have any special insights that will lead her to a successful Presidency.  She's not inspiring, and that's in no small reason due to the fact that she does not have the personal qualities of honesty and integrity that inspire.  She has grit; I'll give you that, but it's the kind of self-absorbed grit that wears thin on people fast.

I've not ruled out voting for Hillary, although I'm leaning Trump.  But I can't find a real complimentary thing to say about her. 

So only women for running for President have to be likable? That's not sexist at all. I remember that question being posed to her in a New Hampshire debate and Obama gave a cheap "You're likable enough, Hillary" remark that some attribute to his loss there.

Nothing stopped any other candidate from jumping into the race. Biden could have run. Klobuchar could have run. Nothing was holding any other candidate back from entering the race, they just didn't want to.

You talk about accomplishments, but what has Trump accomplished by himself that wasn't the product of his silver spoon upbringing? Furthermore, why are you not as concerned about his sketchy Trump University scheme as the right is all bent up on the faux EmailGate and Benghazi scandals? You talk about likability being a determining factor, and Trump was the second least likable candidate who ran this year (and he only edged out Ted Cruz because of the way he continuously insulted him and I do give Trump much credit for castrating and destroying the Republican Party).

I have so much more to say to this thread, but time to get ready for work.

To Be Continued.

Trump's the kind of person who's hated by his enemies, but loved by his partisans.  That's because he is perceived as telling folks what he'll do, without parsing words, and telling people (at least his partisans) that he'll do the things they believe he ought to do.  I'd hardly describe Hillary in those terms.  I do agree that "authenticity" is overrated as a quality for the Presidency,

The ONLY reason Hillary is a big deal to female voters (or, at least, the one's supporting her) is because she's a woman.  If she were a man, she'd be, at best, a back-of-the-pack Democrat striving to break out of a crowded field, and not distinguishing herself from anyone else in the pack to any significant degree.  If she were a man, and the husband of a female President, that person's candidacy would be a joke and a non-starter, even if that former First Gentleman served 8 years in the Senate and 4 years as Secretary of State.  Such a candidacy would reek of nepotism, but Hillary (and her supporters) have blatantly played the "woman card" to trump (no pun intended) the "nepotism card".  Think of how many people are screwed in the workplace on a daily basis due to nepotism, then tell me if Hillary's unpopularity is all sexist.

Along with nepotism is profiteering.  People don't like folks who get rich from public life.  Hillary Clinton, while not "dead broke", had a negative net worth at the end of the Clinton years, but now, she's worth something like $32 million dollars.  However she came to this point, she wouldn't be there if Bill hadn't been President, because without that, there would be no Clinton Foundation.  LBJ agonized over a poll in 1946 which put him back in the pack in a Senate race he wanted to enter.  He asked his adviser, Alvin Wirtz, why people didn't like him.  "That's easy." said Wirtz.  "You got rich in office."  (LBJ had profited greatly from the broadcasting business which was Lady Bird's.)  Hillary got rich in office as well, beginning as Senator from NY.  That doesn't make her crooked, and I don't believe she is crooked in the Bob Menendez sense, but she got rich in office, people know it, people don't like it, and being a woman has mitigated this greatly. 

I consider the "Hillary is a victim of sexism!" crowd, by and large, to be baseless whiners, making excuses for their flawed candidate, and being sexist themselves in seeing Hillary's gender as something that ought to trump all other considerations, at least in terms of Hillary being a Democrat.  Hillary has reaped YUUUUGE advantages in this race simply because of her gender.  She would have struggled to be a viable candidate had she been a male.  Furthermore, to whine (and, yes, I consider it whining) about how Hillary is a victim of sexism is to marginalize the real female victims of sexism in our society.  Perhaps the place to start on that list is the women who accused Bill of sexual harassment, only to face a campaign of being labeled "nuts and sluts".  A campaign in which Hillary, herself, participated in, actively. 

[All Along The Watchtower]

The real question is why is Trump always held to a lower standard.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

The real question is why is Trump always held to a lower standard.

The standard people hold candidates to is whether or not they agree with them.  Trump's candidacy is rocket-fueled not by his outrageousness (although some of that helped), but by the recognition that many Americans, including many in his own party, were forced to support candidates who, in significant ways, advocated policies that opposed THEIR best interests, especially free trade and foreign interventionism.  Folks haven't had a candidate on the shelves like this since Eisenhower.  There was a reason Eisenhower was popular; he gave the folks what they wanted, and what they wanted at that time was, more often then not, what was best for America as a whole. 

[All Along The Watchtower]

If people could agree on "what was best for America as a whole" then there would be no need for political parties - hell, there would be no need for a democratic political process, period. We could just appoint a benevolent dictator to run things and that would be that. Maybe that's what Trump and his supporters want. Though I don't think the "benevolent" part would actually be a part of his hypothetical rule: the thing about dictators is that they tend to be authoritarian scumbags, especially once they have real power.

Anyway, what you see as Trump advocating 'what is best for America as a whole" I (and many others) see as him leading an aggressively offensive campaign which ostracizes and demonizes minorities, immigrants, and other already-socially marginalized groups, and unsurprisingly, attracting many of the most noxious (and frankly, horrifying) elements within American society like moths to a flame.

I am legitimately scared of a Trump Presidency, and I'm even more scared of (many of) his supporters, and what they would do if they actually had power. These are angry, often aggressively racist, xenophobic, and misogynistic people who almost invariably have a huge chip on their shoulder about "immigrants taking our jobs!" or their perception that there is a looming threat of "white genocide". Moreover, they are not above resorting to violence, as we have already seen - which should come as no surprise to anyone who knows anything about white nationalist and other far-right political movements. I seriously question the judgement (if not the intentions) of anyone who supports or legitimizes Donald Trump.

[Hermit For Peace]

The real question is why is Trump always held to a lower standard.

Bingo!

[Hermit For Peace]

Trump's the kind of person who's hated by his enemies, but loved by his partisans.  That's because he is perceived as telling folks what he'll do, without parsing words, and telling people (at least his partisans) that he'll do the things they believe he ought to do.  I'd hardly describe Hillary in those terms.  I do agree that "authenticity" is overrated as a quality for the Presidency,

The ONLY reason Hillary is a big deal to female voters (or, at least, the one's supporting her) is because she's a woman.  If she were a man, she'd be, at best, a back-of-the-pack Democrat striving to break out of a crowded field, and not distinguishing herself from anyone else in the pack to any significant degree.  If she were a man, and the husband of a female President, that person's candidacy would be a joke and a non-starter, even if that former First Gentleman served 8 years in the Senate and 4 years as Secretary of State.  Such a candidacy would reek of nepotism, but Hillary (and her supporters) have blatantly played the "woman card" to trump (no pun intended) the "nepotism card".  Think of how many people are screwed in the workplace on a daily basis due to nepotism, then tell me if Hillary's unpopularity is all sexist.

Along with nepotism is profiteering.  People don't like folks who get rich from public life.  Hillary Clinton, while not "dead broke", had a negative net worth at the end of the Clinton years, but now, she's worth something like $32 million dollars.  However she came to this point, she wouldn't be there if Bill hadn't been President, because without that, there would be no Clinton Foundation.  LBJ agonized over a poll in 1946 which put him back in the pack in a Senate race he wanted to enter.  He asked his adviser, Alvin Wirtz, why people didn't like him.  "That's easy." said Wirtz.  "You got rich in office."  (LBJ had profited greatly from the broadcasting business which was Lady Bird's.)  Hillary got rich in office as well, beginning as Senator from NY.  That doesn't make her crooked, and I don't believe she is crooked in the Bob Menendez sense, but she got rich in office, people know it, people don't like it, and being a woman has mitigated this greatly. 

I consider the "Hillary is a victim of sexism!" crowd, by and large, to be baseless whiners, making excuses for their flawed candidate, and being sexist themselves in seeing Hillary's gender as something that ought to trump all other considerations, at least in terms of Hillary being a Democrat.  Hillary has reaped YUUUUGE advantages in this race simply because of her gender.  She would have struggled to be a viable candidate had she been a male.  Furthermore, to whine (and, yes, I consider it whining) about how Hillary is a victim of sexism is to marginalize the real female victims of sexism in our society.  Perhaps the place to start on that list is the women who accused Bill of sexual harassment, only to face a campaign of being labeled "nuts and sluts".  A campaign in which Hillary, herself, participated in, actively. 

Fuzzy Bear, I acknowledge that you think this stuff is true, but I also know that it's your truth, not mine. In fact, I think your post is full of misinformation and delusion. I think you have a lot to learn about sexism in America.