Well, I thank you for taking the time to respond.
I come from, and have been educated in, a tradition which assumes that politics is division by definition. I come from that school of thought which says that polemics and iconoclasm are, when presented properly and argued for with rigour and a whole-hearted embrace of facts, good things in and of themselves.
So I am not much interested in the argument that people must be presented with thorns in an otherwise rosey, bipartisan narrative.
I think, and I can support my thoughts with evidence, that Clinton is spectacularly corrupt and represents the worst of the privileged, entitled political class.
If people read my arguments — based as they are on the specifics of foreign and domestic policy — and conclude that I am some sort of sexist, misogynistic pig, that is of course their right. Just as it is my right to say that those people demonstrate, by their conclusions, illiteracy and stupidity.