Far too simplistic.
Donna T. Deal

Your EXPLANATION of the troubles of HRC is “easy and lazy”. You wrote “The issue is sexism, pure and simple”, dismissing all of the excellent points the author made with no justification other than your preferred worldview. I understand the allure of the victim/oppressor narrative, it is an easy and lazy answer to everything. It simplifies everything. In this case, the politics of the presidential election are much more complex than that. There is an epic sea change in American politics that reflects an epic sea change in American culture. This is interesting if you care to observe it. You will be unable to observe it if you insist on shoving everything into your preformed narrative of sexism.

The value here is to fully jump into the viewpoint of the author for a bit, just to try it out. Get in the skin of the “other”. It can be very enlightening. It helps broaden out worldview and creates empathy for people from diverse backgrounds. Hating the Trump people can be exhausting.

BTW if you have been paying attention, ALL of the presidential candidates from both parties for the last couple of decades have been elites who only pretend to be for the back row people. HRC is the Goldman Sachs candidate just as much as Mitt Romney ever was. Democrats are just better at faking concern than the Republicans are.

Like what you read? Give Jim Michels a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.