Why is Clinton always held to a higher standard?

[jollyschwa]

I don't know why "always" appears in the title of this thread when you can adduce only one example (i.e. her dropping out immediately against Sanders's staying until the convention).

To answer the question concerning her dropping out and Bernie's staying, you have to acknowledge the differences between Hillary and Bernie.

Bernie stays likely because, at 74 years old, he will never run again, nor will he ever have so many eyes on him ever again. Thus, he must act now if he wants to propagate his radical ideas; angering the party is secondary to that purpose.

Hillary in 2008, on the other hand, likely had 2012 or 2016 in her mind; so she dropped out quickly to maintain the favor of the party in order to run again.

Also consider that Hillary, from the beginning, apparently had a big advantage over Bernie in super-delegates, a product of her establishment ties. Therefore, many people feel that Bernie, an outsider in the Democratic party, got cheated; so he stays as long as possible to get whatever justice he can. Some people truly believe that Bernie lost solely because the system leaned towards Hillary.

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.

Just wanted to say this was a great post.