Your Gleeful Liberal Takedown of Hillary Clinton Is Affirming Institutional Sexism

I submit a different rationale: people don’t like Clinton because she is inherently unlikeable. She is guarded and almost never spontaneous. Her answers tend to be vague and palliative. The confidence which she projects is tinged with defensiveness. She is not funny, she is not warm, she does not project depth, only sternness.

Hillary Clinton ran for Senate having no prior gubernatorial experience except First Lady. Which was, for all of the insights it may have provided, an unelected and unaccountable position. She ran against a weak opponent in NY with the full benefit of the DNC machine and all of her husband’s fundraising contacts behind her. This made her AUTOMATICALLY beholden to special interest groups, as she did not have enough of a populist base to win on her own.

As Senator, her accomplishments were limited. The 9–11 responders’ bill which she touts as her main achievement is viewed by New Yorkers as too little, too late. As Secretary of State, her accomplishments were limited. Arab Spring caught her completely by surprise, Libya may have been a bad choice, no progress on Israel/Palestine, China, Iran, or any other major international issue.

Do you really want to hold up a woman who owes her political life to her husband as a feminist icon? Wouldn’t literally any other self-made female politician be better?

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.