Support NeoGAF

[Autodidact]

I genuinely think Warren had no desire to run, say, five years ago upon her election to the Senate. But since then, people seem to have been filling her read with delusions of grandeur - nothing truly megalomaniacal, just the erroneous idea that she could actually win. I doubt she could, even if she hadn't handed them the Pocahontas gaffe when she was less seasoned. My nightmares abound with images of the Democrats uniting behind her - "True progressive!" - only to have her flop in the general election, like the Mondale/Ferraro ticket reversed. The idea of the presidency has lured in and destroyed many.

EDIT: I just saw your post, Kirblar, and though I see the sense in it, I still worry. I fear that she truly has gotten it into her head that she could win, and her increased media profile might signal a run. But as you say, she could just be the decoy.

 

[kirblar]

Warren isn't Hillary. Much more self aware.

 

[RDreamer]

This is madness.

If you honestly think that "if there is an Illuminati, she's in it" with Hillary, you're already against her. No rational mind thinks the Illuminati exists, not least with someone who has fought against sexism so long and so hard, both professionally and politically.

Oh, and, yeah, she gives off a "fake vibe" every now and then - perhaps if you were torn apart from the late 80s on, you'd put-up a veneer between yourself and the public.

Also,



People voted for a fucking multimillionaire white guy, so I'm going to question your analysis here.

Edit:

Relevant - GOP Hopes to Use Anti-Clinton Strategy to Kill Warren 2020 in the Cradle

ex-fucking-actly.

I really wonder if people who think Hillary is oh-so-fake were around for any of her time as first lady or before. I was pretty damned young but I saw a lot of it first hand since my dad was really into politics... and also really sexist against her. I heard the Rush Limbaugh shit. I saw the news and media against her.

Warren isn't Hillary. Much more self aware.

Also less bullshit thrown at her for less time. Not that there hasn't been some bullshit, it's just everyone wasn't hearing it back in the 90s constantly.

 

[The Technomancer]

Ah, it seems like some wires got crossed somewhere. I assumed you were using "you" to refer to a hypothetical resident of WV. I live in Chicago.

Man I wish I knew what I could do here in Chicago to like...make progress on all the shit this city has going on. I need to research more

 

[kirblar]

Man I wish I knew what I could do here in Chicago to like...make progress on all the shit this city has going on. I need to research more

IIRC it's one of the few big cities slated to lose people.

 

[Box of Kittens]

According to Census estimates the city (and metro) lost people this past year, although the estimates are up (very) slightly from the official 2010 numbers. Some parts of the North Side are growing but a lot of South and West Side neighborhoods are losing population at a steady clip.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Hillary brutally and truthfully called out half of all Trump supporters as deplorables & look where that got her

Her biggest flaw is not being good at lying because that's an essential skill for a politician.

 

[Makai]

IIRC it's one of the few big cities slated to lose people.

Related, this page fascinated me when I found it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_cities_in_the_United_States_by_population_by_decade

I knew there was suburbanization but I didn't really get it until I saw the numbers. Population of top cities killed by highways (I guess) in 1950s and never recovers, other than LA.

 

[Pixieking]

Hillary brutally and truthfully called out half of all Trump supporters as deplorables & look where that got her

Her biggest flaw is not being good at lying because that's an essential skill for a politician.

*nods* You can almost see her think, in some interviews, "Well, I know what the right answer is, and I know what the answer they want me to give is, and they aren't the same."

By contrast, (plucking two names out of the hat) both Bernie and Trump share an ability to say what's required for their relevant bases, even if that isn't perfectly honest, or particularly insightful.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Something something win back West Virginia.

Ctrl+F racism. 0 in page.

Okay. Sure.

 

[Taiser]

Edit:

Relevant - GOP Hopes to Use Anti-Clinton Strategy to Kill Warren 2020 in the Cradle

so they "hope" that calling her Pocahontas 24/7 will yield the same results like
decades worth of scandals / pay-to-play Clinton Foundation / rapistpedo Bill Clinton / crying Bengahzi Moms / under FBI investigation while running for President etc. ?

well shit... Liz is finished!


Gillary*Booker 2020 it is then.

 

[Diablos]

Hillary brutally and truthfully called out half of all Trump supporters as deplorables & look where that got her

Her biggest flaw is not being good at lying because that's an essential skill for a politician.

I still see trucks with stickers on them that say "I'm a deplorable"

 

[Spladam]

This is madness.

If you honestly think that "if there is an Illuminati, she's in it" with Hillary, you're already against her. No rational mind thinks the Illuminati exists, not least with someone who has fought against sexism so long and so hard, both professionally and politically.

Oh, and, yeah, she gives off a "fake vibe" every now and then - perhaps if you were torn apart from the late 80s on, you'd put-up a veneer between yourself and the public.

Also,



People voted for a fucking multimillionaire white guy, so I'm going to question your analysis here.

Edit:

Relevant - GOP Hopes to Use Anti-Clinton Strategy to Kill Warren 2020 in the Cradle

Whoa.. wow. I wasn't saying the Illuminati exist, I was using the statement metaphorically with regards to the sense in which people tend to see her, as a well connected elitist who would put her ambitions above most other values.

She was fighting to be on top, for her ambition, hence the "would join the Illuminati thing". If there were such a thing she would have LOVED to be part of it. Hahaha.

The Republicans didn't create that image for her, they just ran with it and pounded it for their own advantage. I always got the distinct feeling that when Bill got caught messing around, she was way more upset about the "getting caught" part then she was about the messing around part. I don't know if that is true, but that is the vibe I get from her.

She's the consummate politician. come on... I'm quite sure she's had to face sexism, and had to deal with being dismissed as a women. You can visibly see how these things have affected her character, as you've implied. But the battling she's done was in the pursuit of her own career, she comes off as a cold calculating politician because she very much was a cold calculating politician, everyone in the game is to some degree, but the patronizing way she went about it was cringe inducing.

Remember when she was on that black radio show and she pulled the hot sauce from her purse and claimed she carries it everywhere with her? It was that kind of stuff, the transparent patronizing crap that makes you say "come on, really?....". She didn't need to do that, she could have done without the obvious manipulative shit, but she couldn't resist. She came off as someone who would say and do anything to win.

As far as the "Rich white lady syndrome", well, that has a different effect on HER base than it does on the Republican base. She lost some turnout because of that, she was not really that likable. This is not deep insight, it was pretty apparent and rather well known.

Warren isn't Hillary. Much more self aware.

Very much so. Warren comes off as genuine because she very much is, you can hear the true desire and purpose in her words. Warren is in so many ways what Hillary is not, and I feel would have CRUSHED Trump.

It's just that Hillary had worked her entire life for that moment, and the DNC felt it was her time, I"m sure there was much pressure on them to feel that way. I empathize with her and feel bad for Hillary in that regard, the sense of despair and loss of her life's work that defeat must have been. To loose to that man none the less, it was devastating. She just was not the right candidate.

Yes, the U.S has a woefully uneducated electorate that is partly filled with half baked dipshits, it's the symptom of our society. But I'm pretty sure Warren would have dispelled much of the mistrust of rich politicians that Hillary could not, and easily beaten Trump with that, which was part of his *gasp* draw.

 

[Maledict]

I'd like to preserve that post for history as an example of everything that is utterly wrong with the American left, and how institutional sexism really fucking sucks.

p.s. The hot sauce thing is true, it's been known for years, and Hillary loves spicy food. Ask yourself why you immediately thought it was fake and false without even trying to substantiate why you thought it a lie?

 

[Spladam]

I'd like to preserve that post for history as an example of everything that is utterly wrong with the American left, and how institutional sexism really fucking sucks.

p.s. The hot sauce thing is true, it's been known for years, and Hillary loves spicy food. Ask yourself why you immediately thought it was fake and false without even trying to substantiate why you thought it a lie?

How is that sexism? I'm talking about her as a politician? WTF?

Tell me, why do YOU think I thought that was fake? Why do I NOT get that sense from Elizabeth Warren?

-Edit: Fuck it, perhaps it has something to do with all the pandering I've heard from her over the years and have NOT heard from Warren?

-Edit 2: Yeah, she likes hot sauce, but come on, carries it in her bag, just like the Beyonce song that had dropped two months before? You don't think THAT's why she brought that up THERE!!!!

 

[shinra-bansho]

Heaven forbid someone work to advance their career. No one ever does that in politics. Try to reach the top? Ambition? The nerve of it.

 

[Spladam]

Heaven forbid someone work to advance their career. No one ever does that in politics. Try to reach the top? Ambition? The nerve of it.

What does that have to do with her being a WOMAN???? Everyone in politics is like this, I MENTIONED THAT IN MY POST!! Why does she come off the way she does? Warren is a woman and does not come off that way.. Drop the sexist bullshit, it's just a line. I get it, you like Hillary, that does not make everyone who did not A SEXIST. Holy crap.

Fuck the snarky sarcastic crap is so fucking dumb. THAT is what's wrong with political discourse. The right loves to employ that bullshit.

 

[Pixieking]

I'm trying to post something constructive, and... I just can't.

I mean, she's ambitious? Fuck me! Not like Obama wasn't ambitious. Or Bill Clinton. Or Al gore.

Jesus...

When I argue my point most places (here more than most, though), I tend to quickly Google around to see if I'm right or wrong about something. Here's what I found in 30 seconds

The personal insult leveled at Mrs. Clinton by Newt Gingrich's mother yesterday indicates that even when she's off the political radar screen she's still one of the conservatives' favorite political targets.

(Miklaszewski, J. (Reporter), & Gumbel, B. (Anchor). (1995, January 5). Hillary Clinton: A New Type of First Lady. [Television series episode]. NBC Today Show. Retrieved from https://preview-archives.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/browse/?cuecard=4366)

That insult?

In an interview on "Eye to Eye With Connie Chung" on CBS, Gingrich said her son Newt told her that Hillary Rodham Clinton, then first lady, was a "bitch." Chung was criticized for airing the comment because she promised Gingrich she would keep it "just between you and me."

And you have the temerity to say that the Republicans didn't "create that image for her"?

Begone to the Ignore List folder with you.

 

[BanGy.nz]

...Charlamagne bought up hot sauce. 🤷🏽*♀️

 

[shinra-bansho]

I mean it would be worth more discourse if you realised the way in which gender has shaped the narrative you've so readily bought into about the cold, calculating, overly ambitious female politician.

Warren has not been in politics as long and has never sought positions of real leadership, such that she's come up against as much of the female leadership double bind. If Elizabeth Warren does run for President, she will face a similar narrative.

Because one should be ambitious if they want to be President. They should be self-assured in their desire for the top job. They should plan their career well.

We don't describe male candidates brimming with ambition in the negative. We do not talk often about how calculating the career decisions of male politicians are. That makes them smart.

We as a society do not ask that any of this be a barrier to every male President ever. I.e. all of them.

 

[Spladam]

I'm trying to post something constructive, and... I just can't.

I mean, she's ambitious? Fuck me! Not like Obama wasn't ambitious. Or Bill Clinton. Or Al gore.

Jesus...

When argue my point most places (here more than most, though), I tend to quickly Google around to see if I'm right or wrong about something. Here's what I found in 30 seconds





That insult?



And you have the temerity to say that the Republicans didn't "create that image for her"?

Begone to the Ignore List folder with you.

I got that sense from my own observations about her, I don't pay attention to Republican pundits or their bullshit. The people I talked to on THE LEFT did not get that from Republican pundits and people like Newt Fucking Gingrich, I assume EVERYTHING that dude says is shit. The right magnified an image she was giving off all on her own. She was not good at pandering for someone who did it so much.

I was talking about the essence she emitted to the public, it's well documented, regardless of what you can google quote Republican pundits saying. SHE WAS NOT THAT LIKABLE. Barrack Obama was an ambitious politician, who beat her in a primary and did NOT give off that vibe.

 

[Spladam]

the narrative you've so readily bought into about the cold, calculating, overly ambitious female politician.

Where did the "female" part of that come from. It had nothing to do with my narrative. In fact, it was you and another poster that brought that into the narrative. She did not come off as cold and calculating because she was a woman, she just came off that way. She was shit at pandering, and did lot's of it. Hey, that sucks.

I've seen quite a bit of Warren, yeah, she has not been in the spotlight for the amount of time Hillary was and had a different career trajectory, but I get NONE of the sense from her that I get from Hillary, nobody does. I wish she ran.

 

[Autodidact]

SHE WAS NOT THAT LIKABLE. Barrack Obama was an ambitious politician, who beat her in a primary and did NOT give off that vibe.

That's the point we're trying to make to you. Obama got nasty in that primary, but people still perceived him as the cool guy with whom you could have a beer, while Hillary was the icy ex-wife. Again, two different perceptions for approximately the same behavior. Obama seemed more likable because you've been conditioned to view men's behavior in a certain way and women's in another. A lot of the criticism directed at Hillary stems from resenting her for actions that would be applauded in men.

How can we make things simpler? I have the day off and can draw pictures if you like.

 

[shinra-bansho]

There is no narrative about cold, calculating, overly ambitious male politicians. That seems to be the point escaping you.

The greater the position of authority a woman holds or seeks, the less she is liked. This is a researched phenomenon.

Clinton says the Bible influenced her. It is called pandering despite being raised a devout Methodist, and in passing on passages in her private email correspondence.

Clinton has been carrying around hot sauce since forever, you cite this as pandering despite doing this forever. That sure was a long game plan.

If she does something it was clearly pandering, because she is cold and calculating, because look at how she's pandering, and it's pandering because she's cold and calculating. Infinite loop.

Clinton is therefore she panders.

I'm not sure why you think people on the left have somehow been immune to a thirty year narrative simply because it was built by the right. They've bought into plenty of nonsensical crap.

 

[Pixieking]

Also, "not that likable" is subjective.

For instance, Trump isn't all that likable, yet 60+ million Americans voted for him.

It can be claimed that "Hillary wasn't that likable" but what you mean to say is that "You and people like you" didn't like her. Which very much makes this less an objective "she wasn't a good politician/didn't have good policies", and more a personal "I have an issue with her".

Also, this whole thing is a moot point - a President should not be "likable", they should be strong, composed, intelligent, and willing to take advice. Likability should be consigned to the dumpster.

 

[Spladam]

That's the point we're trying to make to you. Obama got nasty in that primary, but people still perceived him as the cool guy with whom you could have a beer, while Hillary was the icy ex-wife. Again, two different perceptions for approximately the same behavior. Obama seemed more likable because you've been conditioned to view men's behavior in a certain way and women's in another. A lot of the criticism directed at Hillary stems from resenting her for actions that would be applauded in men.

How can we make things simpler? I have the day off and can draw pictures if you like.

You couldn't resist the snarky bullshit could you? I'm wrong, you're right, we're all sexist. OR. OR. Obama was just MUCH smoother at it. Was a better public orator. Was more skilled in the pandering and managing his public presentation. Nah, it's because we're sexist.

Is there a shitload of sexism, yes there is. Did that work against her, sure it did. I personally don't think it's why she lost.

There are many females in politics that do not come off the way Hillary does. Condoleezza Rice always had a stern face, spoke in an assured voice, even when she was spouting bullshit in defense of her president, and DID NOT manage to come of the way Hillary did.

She is a politician that I greatly respect despite being opposite of my views. She was not all that 'likable", yet I find her more likable than Hillary.

 

[Spladam]

Also, this whole thing is a moot point - a President should not be "likable", they should be strong, composed, intelligent, and willing to take advice. Likability should be consigned to the dumpster.

I agree with you there entirely.

 

[Aaron Strife]

How is that sexism? I'm talking about her as a politician? WTF?

Tell me, why do YOU think I thought that was fake? Why do I NOT get that sense from Elizabeth Warren?

-Edit: Fuck it, perhaps it has something to do with all the pandering I've heard from her over the years and have NOT heard from Warren?

-Edit 2: Yeah, she likes hot sauce, but come on, carries it in her bag, just like the Beyonce song that had dropped two months before? You don't think THAT's why she brought that up THERE!!!!

Clinton loving hot sauce has been known for years.

Like Jesus, the woman can't talk about how she likes hot sauce without everyone jumping on her over it.

Like I hope you realize just by bringing it up you completely invalidated anything you said. You would complain about the way she fucking eats crackers.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Maybe, in four years, when Elizabeth Warren has been successfully rebranded by her opponents as a cold, manipulative, ambitious ladder-climber, it'll be easier to see what these posters are trying to tell you.

 

[aspiegamer]

Trump certainly has an interesting strategy to try to take pressure off the Russia situation. "Hey, I'll withdraw from a climate agreement that literally the entire planet is behind so that the media will be furious about this instead."

Meanwhile, the literal rest of the entire planet is laughing at us, and the EU is teaming up with FREAKING CHINA to further make the US look like chumps. The EU... and the world's largest polluter... will set a more ambitious agenda with an explicitly stated purpose to fill in the leadership vacuum that US is leaving on the world stage. Fucking hell. This is a tailor-made situation where the US is traditionally supposed to step up to continue to show off our continued influence. And, a shock to no one, Obama recognized this and went in big. But no, no longer. Because Trump. You can't even entirely say "because GOP" this time because even the energy industry is behind the treaty!

But hey, we can keep putting big angry low mileage V8s in our pickups until the next administration so thisisfine.gif I guess?

Edit: Even a plurality of Trump voters want to stay in the treaty, 49%. Hah. 69-16 for the general public. (CNN poll they just showed)

 

[TestOfTide]

GOP Hopes to Use Anti-Clinton Strategy to Kill Warren 2020 in the Cradle[/URL]

How many times did I say this was already happening?

I told ya'll that letting Warren be the nominee would be walking into the GOP's trap.

 

[BanGy.nz]

How many times did I say this was already happening?

I told ya'll that letting Warren be the nominee would be walking into the GOP's trap.

They're going to do that to the front runner no matter who it is Bernie, Booker, Forma, O'abs, Zuckerberg or Tyler Clinton. Doesn't matter who.

 

[Maledict]

Whoever wins will be 'the most liberal xxx ever'. You can always guarantee on that line.

 

[Rootbeer]

Really enjoyed the interview Hillary did with Recode (stream archive here). The part about how she was handed a more or less bankrupt DNC that she had to inject money into while Trump was handed state-of-the-art facility really helps flesh out the picture. I just hope the Democrats are finally feeling hungry enough to put their money where their mouth is and invest in what we need to win the battles to come.

 

[TestOfTide]

They're going to do that to the front runner no matter who it is Bernie, Booker, Forma, O'abs, Zuckerberg or Tyler Clinton. Doesn't matter who.

It absolutely matters who. When they say "anti-Clinton strategy", they are referring to the fact that everyone and their mom knew as early as early December 2012 that Hillary Clinton would run again, so the GOP spent 2013-2016 focused on attacking Hillary with constant negative narratives to the point where even people who weren't conservative were buying into some of those narratives. It was death by a thousand cuts. And they have been hoping to have Warren be the next nominee because they have been ALREADY starting the same tactic on her.

The GOP attack machine didn't work on Obama with anyone except conservatives because they never had time to build narratives around him before he became a presidential nominee.

 

[royalan]

I mean, people realize that the whole reason that Beyonce's line, "I got hot sauce in my bag, swag" from Formation was so hot was because we all know a woman who actually does that. My favorite aunt growing up literally carried hot sauce in her purse wherever she went.

Beyonce didn't invent the concept. Fuck, Beyonce doesn't even ACTUALLY carry hot sauce in her purse.

And the fact that people STILL desperately clung to the idea that Hillary was being cold and calculating despite there being EVIDENCE that she actually did love hot sauce and carried it with her just shows the impossible hill she had to climb.

It absolutely matters who. When they say "anti-Clinton strategy", they are referring to the fact that everyone and their mom knew as early as early December 2012 that Hillary Clinton would run again, so the GOP spent 2013-2016 focused on attacking Hillary with constant negative narratives to the point where even people who weren't conservative were buying into some of those narratives. It was death by a thousand cuts. And they have been hoping to have Warren be the next nominee because they have been ALREADY starting the same tactic on her.

The GOP attack machine didn't work on Obama with anyone except conservatives because they never had time to build narratives around him before he became a presidential nominee.

I think you need to also consider that, the Republican nominee in '08 and '12 was McCain and Romney. And while I shit-talk them, they weren't willing to sink as low as Trump did.

The 30 year smear campaign against Clinton certainly took its toll, but part of the reason it was so effective was the most heinous attacks were coming directly from the top of the Republican ticket.

 

[tbm24]

I mean, people realize that the whole reason that Beyonce's line, "I got hot sauce in my bag, swag" from Formation was so hot was because we all know a woman who actually does that. My favorite aunt growing up literally carried hot sauce in her purse wherever she went.

Beyonce didn't invent the concept. Fuck, Beyonce doesn't even ACTUALLY carry hot sauce in her purse.

And the fact that people STILL desperately clung to the idea that Hillary was being cold and calculating despite there being EVIDENCE that she actually did love hot sauce and carried it with her just shows the impossible hill she had to climb.



I think you need to also consider that, the Republican nominee in '08 and '12 was McCain and Romney. And while I shit-talk them, they weren't willing to sink as low as Trump did.

The 30 year smear campaign against Clinton certainly took its toll, but part of the reason it was so effective was the most heinous attacks were coming directly from the top of the Republican ticket.

I can't help but be offended at the notion that talking about hot sauce to a minority group would be deemed as pandering. Anyone who brings it up I can't help but question why they associate hot sauce to the minority group in the first place.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I can't help but be offended at the notion that talking about hot sauce to a minority group would be deemed as pandering. Anyone who brings it up I can't help but question why they associate hot sauce to the minority group in the first place.

Comes from the same people who used "He marched with MLK tho" as a catch-all retort to Bernie's very blatant problems attracting the black vote, and who complained about Hillary supporting the 94 crime bill when Bernie is literally on record voting in favor of it. They don't care unless it's convenient for their narrative.

 

[TestOfTide]

Like, the GOP was also hoping for Hillary to be the nominee in 2008, and when she lost the primaries to Obama it completely fucked over the GOP's 2008 plans.

If Warren is smart, she will run, but purposefully let her campaign falter early enough for a true underdog to rise.

 

[dramatis]

What does that have to do with her being a WOMAN???? Everyone in politics is like this, I MENTIONED THAT IN MY POST!! Why does she come off the way she does? Warren is a woman and does not come off that way.. Drop the sexist bullshit, it's just a line. I get it, you like Hillary, that does not make everyone who did not A SEXIST. Holy crap.

Fuck the snarky sarcastic crap is so fucking dumb. THAT is what's wrong with political discourse. The right loves to employ that bullshit.

I think you are frustrated that your arguments are being taken as sexist when you don't realize your arguments are sexist.

A lot of posters here jumped on you for hot sauce, but I think you should step back and look again at the paragraph you wrote assuming that Hillary was probably just mad that Clinton "got caught" and not because he cheated on her. "I get that vibe from her" is a clear admission to your personal prejudice. Why make the assumption immediately that Hillary Clinton couldn't possibly be a human being who was hurt privately and publicly by her husband's very public shame?

You keep saying that you're not like the right, but what you are doing, making assumptions based on your gut feelings of Hillary, is no different from what the right does when they craft an image of her as a cold, ambitious woman. That your image matches with theirs is somewhat telling of what men consider undesirable that you and the right have stacked onto Hillary Clinton as an example of an "unlikeable" woman.

 

[tbm24]

I think you are frustrated that your arguments are being taken as sexist when you don't realize your arguments are sexist.

A lot of posters here jumped on you for hot sauce, but I think you should step back and look again at the paragraph you wrote assuming that Hillary was probably just mad that Clinton "got caught" and not because he cheated on her. "I get that vibe from her" is a clear admission to your personal prejudice. Why make the assumption immediately that Hillary Clinton couldn't possibly be a human being who was hurt privately and publicly by her husband's very public shame?

You keep saying that you're not like the right, but what you are doing, making assumptions based on your gut feelings of Hillary, is no different from what the right does when they craft an image of her as a cold, ambitious woman. That your image matches with theirs is somewhat telling of what men consider undesirable that you and the right have stacked onto Hillary Clinton as an example of an "unlikeable" woman.

Having missed that comment, the idea that Hillary would not be upset about Bill's cheating, really at this point people who fall into that thinking have robbed Hillary of all her humanity. Which means the right won with their narrative.

That's how hard it is to be a woman and have aspirations as high as Clinton had

 

[Wilsongt]

Obama era officials subpeonas for unmasking.

This should be good.

*popcorn*

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

That's the point we're trying to make to you. Obama got nasty in that primary, but people still perceived him as the cool guy with whom you could have a beer, while Hillary was the icy ex-wife. Again, two different perceptions for approximately the same behavior. Obama seemed more likable because you've been conditioned to view men's behavior in a certain way and women's in another. A lot of the criticism directed at Hillary stems from resenting her for actions that would be applauded in men.

How can we make things simpler? I have the day off and can draw pictures if you like.

You can frame it how you like, but it's pure assertion that man/woman is the crucial divide influencing this difference in perception.

 

[tbm24]

You can frame it how you like, but it's pure assertion that man/woman is the crucial divide influencing this difference in perception.

I mean, I don't see how Trump himself doesn't make that crucial divide as clear as possible.

 

[Spladam]

I think you are frustrated that your arguments are being taken as sexist when you don't realize your arguments are sexist.

Oh man, holy shit..... lol.

A lot of posters here jumped on you for hot sauce, but I think you should step back and look again at the paragraph you wrote assuming that Hillary was probably just mad that Clinton "got caught" and not because he cheated on her. "I get that vibe from her" is a clear admission to your personal prejudice. Why make the assumption immediately that Hillary Clinton couldn't possibly be a human being who was hurt privately and publicly by her husband's very public shame?

You keep saying that you're not like the right, but what you are doing, making assumptions based on your gut feelings of Hillary, is no different from what the right does when they craft an image of her as a cold, ambitious woman. That your image matches with theirs is somewhat telling of what men consider undesirable that you and the right have stacked onto Hillary Clinton as an example of an "unlikeable" woman.

I'm forming an opinion after a lifetime of observing her. I don't feel that way about other women in politics. How is it you think it's only the "right" that feels this way? What is that nonsense? She was not favored by much of her own party and un-liked independents. I am not alone in this. Why do you HAVE to assume that it has anything to do with her being a woman and a sexist thing on my part?

It's effing crazy that you can't even fathom that maybe it's because she just puts people off because of her. Do you not like Trump because he's a man? It's crazy that without indication this is where you go...

I talked about how I thought she was hurt privately, by her defeat. I'm am aware that she is human. Wow. I just never observed much intimacy or.... The Clintons seemed like a power couple first, where the Obama's seemed like a power couple second, but a couple first. She had already dealt with Bill's cheating by that point, and I'm sure it's something that hurt her, but by that point she was focused like a laser beam on her career, and knew her husband.

It's crazy that you think this is just an opinion of the right.... Her lack of support on the left is well documented and polled. I've been observing Hillary Clinton for more than 20 years, it's crazy that me forming an opinion that is not yours means I must be sexist. That is freaking insane. I mean, I gave you specific examples of other women politicians I don't feel this way about, some that I DON'T EVEN AGREE WITH POLITICALLY.

FiveThiryEight.com: Americans' Distaste For Both Trump And Clinton Is Record-Breaking

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...people_who_hate_hillary_clinton_the_most.html

It might seem as though nothing much has changed in 20 years. Many people disliked Hillary Clinton when she first emerged onto the political scene, and many people dislike her now. She is on track to become the least popular Democratic nominee in modern history, although voters like Donald Trump even less.

But over the last two decades, the something that pisses people off has changed. Speaking to Gates, former Republican speechwriter Peggy Noonan described ”an air of apple-cheeked certitude" in Clinton that is ”political in its nature and grating in its effects." Noonan saw in Clinton ”an implicit insistence throughout her career that hers were the politics of moral decency and therefore those who opposed her politics were obviously of a lower moral order."

Noonan's view was a common one. Take, for example, Michael Kelly's 1993 New York Times Magazine profile, mockingly titled ”Saint Hillary." ”Since she discovered, at the age of 14, that for people less fortunate than herself the world could be very cruel, Hillary Rodham Clinton has harbored an ambition so large that it can scarcely be grasped," Kelly wrote. ”She would like to make things right. She is 45 now and she knows that the earnest idealisms of a child of the 1960s may strike some people as naive or trite or grandiose. But she holds to them without any apparent sense of irony or inadequacy." Kelly's piece painted Clinton as a moralist, a meddler, a prig.

Few people dislike Hillary Clinton for being too moralistic anymore. In trying to understand the seemingly eternal phenomenon of Hillary hatred, I've spoken to people all around America who revile her. I've interviewed Trump supporters, conventional conservatives, Bernie Sanders fans, and even a few people who reluctantly voted for Clinton in the Democratic primary but who nevertheless say they can't stand her. Most of them described a venal cynic. Strikingly, the reasons people commonly give for hating Clinton now are almost the exact opposite of the reasons people gave for hating her in the 1990s. Back then, she was a self-righteous ideologue; now she's a corrupt tool of the establishment. Back then, she was too rigid; now she's too flexible. Recently, Morning Consult polled people who don't like Clinton about the reasons for their distaste. Eighty-four percent agreed with the statement ”She changes her positions when it's politically convenient." Eighty-two percent consider her ”corrupt." Motives for loathing Clinton have evolved. But the loathing itself has remained constant.

Washington Post: A record number of Americans now dislike Hillary Clinton

 

[Blader]

Like, the GOP was also hoping for Hillary to be the nominee in 2008, and when she lost the primaries to Obama it completely fucked over the GOP's 2008 plans.

If Warren is smart, she will run, but purposefully let her campaign falter early enough for a true underdog to rise.

I don't think she should be wasting her and a lot of other people's time and money to run a fake campaign. If you're running for president, it's because you want to be president, not to run interference for another candidate (and if those other candidates can't adequately defend themselves in a primary, then they shouldn't be the nominee in a general election).

I do hope that Warren is smart enough to realize she shouldn't run, but I feel like there will be too much pressure on her -- and too many ideas put in her head about it -- not to do so.

Really enjoyed the interview Hillary did with Recode (stream archive here). The part about how she was handed a more or less bankrupt DNC that she had to inject money into while Trump was handed state-of-the-art facility really helps flesh out the picture. I just hope the Democrats are finally feeling hungry enough to put their money where their mouth is and invest in what we need to win the battles to come.

It's a pretty stark contrast to what most of us had read and heard before the campaign, that Hillary had the Obama team and their winning data operation from '08 and '12. Though do I remember reading a number of stories about how Priebus had overseen a lot of investments into data and GOTV efforts at the RNC after Obama's re-election and think not enough attention was paid to that.

 

[Pixieking]

I mean, I don't see how Trump himself doesn't make that crucial divide as clear as possible.

It's hard to separate out the narrative that the GOP spent 20+ years crafting against Hillary and the inherent sexism of society/the electorate, but Trump winning is the focal point of the two strands. An inept, sexual assaulting bad businessman who doesn't know how government works won against literally one of the most qualified candidates in history.

The electorate bought the narrative that Hillary was fake, manipulative, bad with tech and crooked, and this was most likely helped by implicit sexism.

It's effing crazy that you can't even fathom that maybe it's because she just puts people off because of her. Do you not like Trump because he's a man? It's crazy that without indication this is where you go...

You're almost there with this paragraph, and then you lose it.

Trump is given a free pass - day-in, day-out - for things that Hillary would've been impeached 10 times over for. It's not that people don't like Trump because he's a man, it's that he is liked because he's a man. A woman with all of Trump's flaws would be ground into dust, by politicians on both sides of the aisle, by the media, by the electorate. Just ask Carly Fiorina, who got attacked by Trump during the Republican primaries for her track record at HP.

(Yes, I said I was ignoring you, but I was curious how deep a hole you were digging for yourself)

 

[shinra-bansho]

I can't really fathom why one would post an excerpt of an article that states that people dislike her for diametrically opposed reasons than they used to, as some sort of magic bullet to show how sexism hasn't played a role in creating Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

As the lead researcher for Sheryl Sandberg's, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, I profiled this body of scientific research in her book. And what the data clearly shows is that success and likeability do not go together for women.

This conclusion is all too familiar to the many women on the receiving end of these penalties. The ones who are applauded for delivering results at work but then reprimanded for being ”too aggressive," ”out for herself," ”difficult," and ”abrasive." Just look at Jill Abramson, the first woman executive editor of the New York Times, who was described by staffers as ”impossible to work with," and ”not approachable," in a Politico article just days after the paper won four Pulitzer prizes (the third highest number ever received by the newspaper).

The psychological research on success-likability penalties tells us that women and men can be viewed as similarly competent, yet still receive different likability scores. Scientific research also tells us that male and female leaders are liked equally when behaving participatively (i.e. including subordinates in decision making), which seems consistent with what Zenger and Folkman observe. But when acting authoritatively, women leaders are disliked much more than men. To be clear, it is not that women are always disliked more than men when they are successful, but that they are often penalized when they behave in ways that violate gender stereotypes.

peer reviewed studies continually find, is that high-achieving women experience social backlash because their very success – and specifically the behaviors that created that success – violates our expectations about how women are supposed to behave. Women are expected to be nice, warm, friendly, and nurturing. Thus, if a woman acts assertively or competitively, if she pushes her team to perform, if she exhibits decisive and forceful leadership, she is deviating from the social script that dictates how she ”should" behave. By violating beliefs about what women are like, successful women elicit pushback from others for being insufficiently feminine and too masculine. As descriptions like ”Ice Queen," and ”Ballbuster" can attest, we are deeply uncomfortable with powerful women. In fact, we often don't really like them.

https://hbr.org/2013/04/for-women-leaders-likability-a

• When participants saw male politicians as power-seeking, they also saw them as having greater agency (i.e., being more assertive, stronger, and tougher) and greater competence, while this was not true for their perceptions of power-seeking female politicians.
• When participants saw female politicians as power-seeking, they also saw them as having less communality (i.e., being unsupportive and uncaring), while this was not true for their perceptions of power-seeking male politicians.
• When female politicians were described as power-seeking, participants experienced feelings of moral outrage (i.e., contempt, anger, and/or disgust) towards them.
• Participant gender had no impact on any of the study outcomes – that is, women were just as likely as men to have negative reactions to power-seeking female politicians.

http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/price-power-power-seeking-and-backlash-against-female-politicians

 

[RDreamer]

I don't think she should be wasting her and a lot of other people's time and money to run a fake campaign. If you're running for president, it's because you want to be president, not to run interference for another candidate (and if those other candidates can't adequately defend themselves in a primary, then they shouldn't be the nominee in a general election).

Not always true, especially on the right. Ben Carson wasn't actually running for president. Most of the people in that clown car were on glorified book tours. They sometimes do it to raise their profile for the base.

Now, that's happened less on the left and I don't think Warren seems like the type to do that.

 

[shinra-bansho]

If Warren does run, she'll lose. Probably to a less qualified man. Like unemployed man Jason Kander. Which is why she won't run.