« Rockefeller Center | Main | White pole »

October 22, 2016



Ever since the nominees were chosen, I decided to vote for Hillary, but I'll hold my nose while pulling the lever, and then take an enema afterwards. I really hope no one else uses this misogyny card.

The list of jokes that Freedland found at the GOP headquarters is nothing compared to what Hillary supporters have done. There are videos of middle aged women getting punched out because of Trump signs, posted on twitter with the message, “F*ck white people”. An elderly man was beaten with a crow-bar because of his Trump tee-shirt.

“The intensity of this hatred can’t be explained solely by the controversies over Clinton’s emails, her hawkishness or links to Wall Street.” Yes it can. We can even add to that list that she has consistently lied about Libya, what the FBI found about her emails, the workings of her foundation, and how the DNC worked to deny the nomination to Bernie Sanders, reducing the country’s politics to that of a banana republic.

“…no candidate in the modern era has ever been more qualified..” How far back does “modern” go? Eisenhower? Truman? FDR? The praise heaped on her is preposterous.

And finally, what is most scary is the way the media is in cahoots with her. I can’t stand the idea that I will have four more years of this nonsense.

Forget the misogyny card. The only thing she has going for her is that she’s not Trump.

Jon Guze

Dom is right; misogyny has very littel to do with it. There are lots of reasons to dislike Hillary, and while the fact that she's a woman may appear on some peoples' lists, I'm sure it's nowhere near the top of anybody's. The awful things she's done and said are part of the explanation, but the main reason people don't like her is that she's simply unlikable. Seriously, who, apart from Huma Abedin, actually likes her? She's only a viable candidate because she's Bill's wife and has the Clinton machine behind her, and even with the backing of that powerful machine, she wouldn't stand a chance if she weren't running against Donald Trump,

Most of the men who hate Hillary and don't want to vote for her would be perfectly happy to vote for Carly Fiorina, or Condoleezza Rice, or, if she were still alive, Margaret Thatcher. What needs explaining is why so many women are willing to hold their noses and support Hillary, although no doubt Donal Trump has something to do with that. Progressives always shout "racism" or "misogyny" when someone doesn't like their candidate or their policies. It's effectlve, but it's cheap and nasty all the same.


Freedland's point is lazy because it lets him off the hook for having to honestly judge this candidate against any halfway acceptable standard of competence, integrity or commitment to democratic values (as opposed to facing her real commitment, which is to her own power to remake the world).

Clinton's personal nastiness, as attested by any number of people who have worked with her over time, isn't actually of much concern to me, and isn't really the problem. I'd rather have a hard-nosed and abrasive president than one who lacks the courage to do the job properly. It's her obsession with power and control and my belief that she would never hesitate to knock down any constitutional impediments to her program that disgusts me.

We're winding down the presidency of a man who never fails to demonstrate his dislike of, and disappointment in, his own country and its people. Now we have the natural successor to him on the ballot--someone who has those same attitudes--and I'm supposed to sit quietly and be called a racist and misogynist? Out of respect for our host I'll refrain from giving that insult the response it deserves.

Echoing Jon Guze, I would happily and proudly vote for any of the other women he mentioned, and probably a lot more with fewer credentials.

As I have said to many people this year, and which I'm disappointed to have to say here, you really need to have higher standards.


Lol. Hillary Clinton, like her or not, is the best qualified presidential Candidate in living memory.

The reason you'd happily vote (so you say) for the women stated above is that none of the have been nominated, done nothing to deserve being nominated and therefore have none of the "muck" associated with being a political person at the highest level for almost 40 years.

Perhaps you're not affected by misogyny - but to deny it's a major element in this campaign is ludicrous at best, mendacious at worst.


I mean, ffs, John Guze writing "She's only a viable candidate because she's Bill's wife" says all you need to know about where John Guze is coming from.

Hilary Clinton is more qualified and always has been than Bill fucking Clinton. What he has is charisma. She has intellect and policy. Agree or disagree with her but don't fucking pretend she's not intelligent and formidable.



What Phomesy said.

Yes, she sometimes got her hands dirty doing political things, but no one in over a century has had a more intensive, and largely successful, political apprenticeship for the US presidency. She knows the institution and has served it honorably. In the few cases when (as far as we know publicly or via her emails) she would have done things differently than Obama, hers was a thoroughly intelligent stance.

Martin Adamson

Where has all the money come from? She has spent all her life in public service, neither she nor her husband have ever earned more than $250,000 in any year in the last 30 and yet somehow she is worth $300 million. Where has the money come from?


What have you been drinking Martin?

The US President earns over half a million dollars a year in personal salary and allowances (a good portion of which is non-taxable). I'm not sure what the Secretary of State earns (or her pension) but I'm sure it's substantial. But most of the Clintons' money comes from giving speeches. It's all public (unlike Trump's earnings).


And: http://moneynation.com/hillary-clinton-net-worth/

As for her qualifications, here's a reminder:



Will Jones

I don't recall Freedland white knighting Palin when she was copping it far worse than HRC. But of course, Palin was on the other side, so misogynistic attacks are fine and dandy in those circumstances: side not the principle.
There are lots of reasons to dislike her, the fact she is a woman may be one for some people, but I suspect not the vast majority opposed. It's lazy thinking, and avoids addressing the real issues people have with her; ultimately, all American will lose because honest debate is shut down.
If she truly is competent, and has the pedigrees/attributes claimed, then she shoud be able to stand the scrutiny and answer the honest concerns people have withou her or her team resorting to name calling. The fact she obfuscates and counter accuses only adds to people's disgust with her.



Palin was "copping it" because she was - and still is - a nincompoop. Try to make the same case against Clinton, if you'd like. I've read all the major attacks on her re. Benghazi, emails etc., and to borrow Gertrude Stein's comment, "there's no there, there". You may not like her political positions (e.g. she would be more aggressive with Assad and Russia than Obama), but just shouting "crooked Hilary" doesn't impress anyone outside of a Trump rally.

The comments to this entry are closed.