Flawed: Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good If Youre A Female Presidential Candidate

[synergie]

Last edited Sat Jan 7, 2017, 07:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Link

“Perfect is the enemy of the good.”


Those are the words I keep coming back to after the improbable, yet all-too-cliche, election of Donald Trump. Of course we empowered the least qualified and most dangerous man to the highest office of the land. Because his female opponent wasn’t perfect.

That's what it means to be a woman Even the richest, Whitest, smartest, most elite woman with connections everywhere couldn't pull it off

 — @FeministaJones

All throughout Hillary Clinton’s historic campaign, one word followed her around everywhere she went: ”flawed.” Even when newspapers endorsed her and advocated for her promotion, they needlessly caveated Clinton with this adjective. The Chicago Sun-Times described her as “flawed, but upstanding.” The Charlotte Observer went one step further and put it in their headline: “For president: A flawed, but capable, Clinton.” And the Cincinnati Enquirer even played into the “both sides” of it all by stating: “Presidential elections should be about who’s the best candidate, not who’s the least flawed. Unfortunately, that’s not the case this year.”

The media is an easy scapegoat, but that's just bullshit. Maybe try running a candidate who isn't fatally flawed next time.

 — @Olivianuzzi

@Olivianuzzi doesn't your response reinforce the point? Journalists' belief that Clinton was "fatally flawed" was baked into the coverage.

 — @JoyAnnReid

“Flawed,” when attached to Clinton, didn’t take on the connotation of “We all make mistakes and that’s okay.” That’s reserved for men. Instead, it became an insidious reminder of the perfection that the world expects from women. This impossible standard is a trap because when we inevitably fall short of meeting it, society tells us that we only have ourselves to blame: “If only you were more of this or less of that, then you would have succeeded.”

Given that EVERYONE has flaws, I am beginning to think that "flawed candidate" is a polite way of saying B---ch

 — @dissentingj

But that framework of understanding is a farce, as Sady Doyle explains, on the myth of the Exceptional Woman:

“Patriarchy has always had room for the Exceptional Woman — the one woman smart enough, sweet enough, strong enough, soft enough, pure enough, sexy enough to satisfy all of our culture’s contradictory demands on women, and thus make it to the top of a sexist system on merit alone. Patriarchy needs that woman. She provides men with an excuse to blame women for their own pain and struggles while simultaneously assuring women that sexism only needs to be outwitted to be overcome. She tells us that the system is survivable for women — you simply have to be the right kind of woman.”

For many liberal men in the Democratic primary, that Exceptional Woman™ was Elizabeth Warren. “I would vote for a woman if it were Warren!” became the defacto “I’m not a sexist, I swear!!!” shield. As Jef Rouner observed in April:

Because Warren decided not to run, it is perfectly safe to project all our hopes for a liberal utopia on her and dump all our vague anxieties regarding the rise of a woman to the last great seat of traditionally male power on Clinton. It’s win-win because it’s imaginary and we control all the variables.

To expand upon this point further, Tara Saurus asserted:

Whenever I hear or read, “I just wish it were a different woman, not Clinton,” I want to laugh. There is not a woman on this earth who wouldn’t be hated and villainized for encroaching on territory that has belonged to men for centuries. Oh, you like Warren? Me too. Run Warren through this machine and see how she comes out. Remember just a couple of years ago when Clinton was a beloved meme, texting on a plane in her shades? And her decades voted as one of the most admired people on earth? No woman gets to ride a white horse to high-level leadership positions. No, you get dragged in the mud for making choices that differ from the system, then you get dragged in the mud when you fall in line with the system. There isn’t a single female face in American politics that would reach her level of candidacy without ploughing through rabid misogyny veiled as ethics and dissent. Women don’t walk into male spaces unmarred, unhated. We straddle the daily work of uplifting ourselves and others and operating under the leaders that push us down, balancing choices precariously. We come in scarred, injured, bleeding and still — WE PUSH IN. For decades straight. Unwanted, unwelcome, and often at a disadvantage, we persevere because we **must** make room for ourselves; that invite to the table never comes. That’s how this works, not just at the presidential level, but at every level of superlative power. 240 years of keeping us out. I assure you, there’s not a single one of us that wouldn’t wind up the same.

And as if overcoming a patriarchal system that has shut women out of executive power wasn’t enough to contend with, Clinton faced unprecedented obstacles along the way, including a foreign power (Russia) hacking our election and a domestic agency (the FBI) interfering with it at the 11th hour. Yet despite the extreme nature of these roadblocks, we *still* blamed the woman for failing to clear this skyscraper of a bar. Because she was “flawed,” we didn’t ask how our country could elect this horrible man, but instead wondered why the woman didn’t run a pitch-perfect campaign.

Faced with subversion of American democracy by foreign govt and rogue FBI, "Hillary should have run a better campaign" not a good response

 — @paulkrugman

Mission accomplished, I guess. If your vote was influenced by the DNC or Podesta hacks, you played into their plan.

 — @ParkerMolloy

As Kara Calavera so articulated laid out, “Ironically, Hillary Clinton’s ‘fatal flaws’ were due to her transparency, and not, as the media claims, her secretive nature.” When it came to decisions around public disclosure, Clinton was stuck between a rock and a hard place: Decades-long attacks had produced little evidence of wrongdoing, yet they had imprinted so many negative — and often false — notions on the electorate. This put her in a precarious position: As a public official, she wanted to overcome the “untrustworthy” label that had plagued her for years, but as a woman she knew that any information she put out there would be ruthlessly examined through a microscope.

And indeed, Clinton was arguably the most forthcoming presidential candidate of 2016; she released her full tax returns, she supplied doctor’s notes about her health, and she was open about the inner workings of the Clinton Foundation. But it was the worst of both worlds: Everything she offered up turned into a witch hunt to find corruption that did not exist, and when she became understandably protective in reaction to those efforts to undermine her, she was labelled as too guarded. Clinton just couldn’t win.

After following & investigating her since the 1970s I can say "Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest & trustworthy" - Jill Abramson https://t.co/GGJsotJTDx

 — @MargaretEWard

So while (white, male) pundits give the same mediocre take over and over again on how “Russia didn’t prevent Clinton from visiting Wisconsin,” I’ve been ruminating on the word “flawed” and how it was wielded like a weapon against Clinton. What is the path forward for female candidates when we just witnessed the most qualified woman lose out to the least competent man? For women who aspire to be President, will they continue to drown in double standards, or will they be able to assert their equal humanity to men without being trapped by it? I don’t think there’s a single answer for every woman. Like anything, one’s life circumstances and social standing as they intersect with history matter.

But here’s what I think all women can take away from the 2016 election: There’s no room for superfluous self-doubt anymore. Strangely enough, I think that Hillary’s loss can embolden us to act more confidently and deliberately than ever before. There’s something oddly freeing about witnessing a woman with the utmost privilege do everything “right” and not be rewarded. It means that we don’t have to second-guess ourselves all the time or play by the rules anymore; we can re-write them any way we damn please.

One thing America's crushing of women this year did for me is remove all within me that stood in the way of being a woman with self esteem

 — @xeni

If you thought I was an angry feminist bitch before I hope you're ready for me the next four years.

 — @shutupgunther

So will we see a female Commander-in-Chief in our lifetime? I honestly can’t say. Throwing the patriarchal playbook to the wind doesn’t mean that institutionalized barriers will disappear overnight. And certainly there is a lot less flexibility for women who aren’t white, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied, etc.

But here’s what I do know: If and when a woman does break that highest and hardest glass ceiling, it sure as hell won’t be pretty.

[metroins]

1. I honestly think being a woman

Had very very very little to do with this election.

I think Trumpism and overall hatred had a lot to do with it.

I was and am a pretty big Hillary fan, but I think she lacked the charisma to take a bite into Trumps over the top style.

The Comey letter is what I think actually did her in, but she still won by almost 3 million votes....she actually won, but still lost.

[synergie]

2. A lot of that overall hatred and quite a bit of Trumpism is rooted in misogyny.

I don't think it was a charisma issue, Trump lied, he wasn't held to any standards, and his incompetence was entertaining, so they didn't bother with him, they kept saying dumb things about her.

The stuff they're still saying is pretty much all misogyny.

[sheshe2]

4. +1000

Hammer meets nail. You said it all.

[boston bean]

12. So true!

[uponit7771]

14. +1

[Exilednight]

28. I don't believe that. People who voted for Trump would have voted for Palin.

[JTFrog]

35. Of course you don't. nt

[niyad]

5. if you think misogyny had nothing to do with it, you are really in la-la land. 30 years of

unbridled hatred, contempt, and anger for an incredibly intelligent, capable, strong and amazing woman, one who is admired all around the world (except in this country).. nah, misogyny has nothing to do with it.

[spin]

7. Also don't forget that it is difficult for one pantry to hold the oval office for more ...

than two terms. It's called the third term curse.

[brer cat]

8. How do you define "Trumpism"

without misogyny? What was the overall hatred that had very very very little to do with women? Did you not find the criticisms of her appearance, her voice, her stamina to be even a wee bit sexist?

[JTFrog]

34. Of course you do. nt

[Cha]

3. Thank you for this, synergie.. will

read more when I have some time.. thanks!

[sheshe2]

6. Great read.

Yes, she was the flawed candidate. SHE. Yes, we woman need to be perfect at all times, we need to dress sharply, speak softly or we may come off shrill. We are told to smile more yet not to widely we will come off as insincere. Never laugh out loud, never enjoy a good joke, stay demure and feminine. We are judged not for our brains or the accomplishments we have achieved, we are only ever judged by a preconceived notion of how real women should deport themselves.

Given that EVERYONE has flaws, I am beginning to think that "flawed candidate" is a polite way of saying B---ch

 — @dissentingj


The tweet above says it all, even after 15 plus years voted as the most admired woman in the world, we will only ever be considered B***ches.

Thanks synergie great post.

[mcar]

9. Still makes me furious

I never saw a Presidential candidate referred to that way, constantly. Yet, not one of the others was perfect.

Hmm, wonder why?

[brer cat]

10. Fantastic OP, synergie!

I will be rereading this and sharing. There are some really excellent points, but this one jumped off the page immediately:

“Ironically, Hillary Clinton’s ‘fatal flaws’ were due to her transparency, and not, as the media claims, her secretive nature.”

That is very true, and has been largely ignored.

I love you for finding and posting this!

[karynnj]

11. ANY losing candidate goes through that same nonsense

Consider that the nominee is someone who had the political skill and accomplishments to get the nomination. When that person loses, many find it easiest to scapegoat the nominee. In many years it might be that the other side had an advantage that could not be overcome. Other times, our infrastructure pure and simple was a mess. It might be that our message as conveyed did not win.

Yet, the candidate becomes the scapegoat - especially as the history of the election is rewritten to scrub many errors of the winner and to emphasize far beyond reasonableness the flaws of our candidate. The media wants a narrative that "makes sense" - you lose because you make mistakes.

I suspect the difference is that you cared more about Hillary Clinton than any previous candidate. I can tell you that both DU and Daily Kos were scathing in their attacks on John Kerry in 2004. Ignored was that he ran a high road campaign, with relatively few gaffes and nearly pulled off what should have been an unexpected upset. DU JK existed for many months as a safe space for the few of us - shocked that he seemed almost as hated as GWB. In the media, you had Bill Clinton essentially diminishing both Al Gore and Kerry - contrasting himself as someone who could win.

What is particularly annoying is that any real person will do something over the almost 2 years that you work impossible hours that is really a bad idea. When it likely hurts most is when there is an element of truth in the accusation and, for many, that becomes the whole story. Some might say that HRC's big mistakes were made before she declared - she skirted the MOU on how to keep the Clinton Foundation separate from the State Department, she ignored at least the spirit of the Obama policy designed to increase transparency by not archiving her email with the State Department when she left, and - knowing she intended to run for President and she did not NEED the money- giving those high paid speeches to audiences like Goldman/Saks. None of these were illegal, but she paid a political price for each of them. You could observe that it was Trump with REAL court cases - including the Trump University one he settled right after the election. However, part of the explanation of her loss will likely be these three things.

One observation - HRC enjoys far greater support here than Kerry did in January 2005. I looked and I do not see that Clinton supporters need - as we did - a safe space.

[synergie]

16. I think you're missing the point here, which was that this was happening throughout

the election, not just AFTER the election. This was the narrative. I suspect you didn't read the article, or pay attention to what was being said PRIOR to November 8th. Even then, the amount of hate directed towards her and those who supported her, was at an unusual level.

Even now, you're literally saying things that are not true, but you don't seem to wish to acknowledge facts. You're still slinging the same attacks that you were doing in the primaries, perhaps because due to your personal dislike of the candidate, due to the 20 years of utter lies, the misogyny or the vicious attacks that have been common place?

You could also observe the media's failure to actually address real scandals, the constant harangues from the supposed left, which excused Trump and pretty much everyone else to continue to pretend that normal practice for ex officials were reasons to pour scorn upon Hillary. She won 3 million votes despite all of this, yet still people ignore the numerous factors that actually lost her the 70,000 votes to heap blame upon her for getting standard speakers fees? For releasing her taxes, so you knew how much she was paid? They were not only not illegal, there was literally nothing ethically or politically wrong with them. She didn't ignore the spirit of anything, she was merely spitefully denied the same accommodations made for Obama with the blackberry, and everyone refuses to pay attention to the normal operations of the diplomatic staff, which included using separate accounts, all the Secretaries of state before her did it, but when it's her, it's evil!

Who asked for a "safe space"? We know that DU allows and has allowed open season on Hillary supporters, from alert abuse, silencing, swarming, and harassment offline. It's simply honest to take a look at the factors that engendered such abuse and made it so very easy for so many not only to attack her but her supporters, at the root of that is misogyny. It's undeniable. We're still dealing with today.

[karynnj]

21. I guess you missed the intra party attacks in 2000, 2004 and 200

The rules themselves were stricter in 2016 as to what could be said about HRC than the rules in 2008, which were stronger than in 2004.

Nothing I said was untrue or reflected a dislike of Clinton. I assume you mean my comment that she could have avoided two of the most negative stories had she followed what she agreed to and honored Obama's call for transparency. I stated they were not illegal, but it is impossible to claim they did not hurt her. I still do not get why she did the speeches - and suspect the answer is like her husband's as to why Monica, that we learned in summer 2004 - because she could.

None of these things were principled stands she took because her conscience demanded she do them in spite of future political costs. I would argue that had none of these happened, she would have won in a landslide. Consider even with all three, she was far ahead until the first Comey letter. Note if the SD had the email to put out in 2013, there would have been no email scandal, thus no Comey.

Consider that her email impacted the Obama administration's reputation and took valuable time from the State Department to deal with.

[synergie]

24. Once again, I wonder if you read the post.

I even explained why the speeches were not so mystifying, since that is LITERALLY what every past Sec of State has done. The fact that SHE did them and was compensated commensurate with her stature is what gets everyone's goat, but you criticizer her and bring up Monica, because you literally don't get how your mindset oozes your dislike. Perhaps if you read the piece, some of your confusions would be cleared up.

I'm sorry, but there was nothing unprincipled here, nor were they "stands", nor did conscience enter into the matter. What future political costs? I mean literally, none have ever been exacted from ANYONE other than her, special rules for her, to which no one ever in history has ever been held to. What we've learned here is that she will be attacked, by everyone, even people who think they're making principled stance where conscience plays a role, and who think bringing up her husband's mistakes to attack her once again is a legitimate thing to do and not utterly craven.

I would argue that you are missing the actual facts here, and that she did win in a landslide. It took voter suppression, failed voting machines and a legal push by the GOP to prevent actual counts of votes in suspect areas to steal this election.

Note, there was no email scandal, it was ginned up by RWers and kept alive by a complicit and incompetent media and taken up by factions that lack conscience and principles and which do indeed harbor an intense hatred for her, as exemplified in your own post, which seems blind to what it actually contains.

Consider that her email did no such thing, and took so such time, but that the GOP and the media and factions on the left flamed this nothingburger into yet another faux scandal that produced literally not a single thing. No crime, no violations, nothing. But like with Monica, the GOP and the anti-Clinton factions decided to make a hue and cry over it, because they knew that they could and that people who enjoy hating the Clintons and who deny their own misogyny would eat it up with a spoon.

Consider that the flaws here are not hers, but those of her haters who still cannot own that they blatantly demonstrate with every utterance.

[karynnj]

25. What you ignore is that even when she was SoS, there were congressional and Foia requests for her

emails. Note - I did not say anything about the server. What I said was that she opted not to archive the emails with the SD when she left. You can argue all you want that Powell actually destroyed his (Rice did not use email). It is still absolutely true that Congress delayed her final testimony because they wanted her emails first. They asked when they would get them every time someone from the State Department briefed them on anything. As I said NOT ILLEGAL, but it was a political poor decision to not leave them when she left. Did she really thing Congress would get bored waiting or that the SD would stonewall for 4 years?

The speeches were a negative issue against her in both the primaries and the general election. I agree that it was her right to give them and receive compensation. What I am saying is that she did not need the money and should have been able to forecast that she could be attacked for doing so. It is a choice she made - and I bet you - that if she could go back to 2013, she would not give those speeches.

You completely miss what I meant when I said none of these things were principled actions that she did even knowing the political cost. My point is that all three things listed were things done carelessly without thinking they could be baggage.

PS I READ your posts - and could have reminded you that you are not suppose to quote more than 4 paragraphs.
PSS Reading them does not mean I agree
PSSS I am not in the least confused -- and it is beyond rude saying that someone who disagrees is "confused"

She did not win in a landslide. I agree that the electoral congress should not exist, but it does. By the agreed on rules, you need to win the electoral Congress. She blew out the California and several other states, but you can not take extra CA votes and apply them to WI! I also agree that the Obama years should have included a major revamp to fix everything wrong in the voting system. There is actually a stronger case that Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 would have been won by the Democrats without voter suppression.

[Yurovsky]

26. The question has never been answered honestly...

'Why didn't you just use the State Dept servers?"

I think the Clinton's have long acted just (barely) on the legal side of the fence, looking to gain advantage wherever possible. That is what lawyers do. That is what accountants do. That is,what most people want their lawyer or accountant to do. But when the gray areas come under the spotlight, it isn't always pretty or easy to explain, and HRC and her associates did a very bad job of explaining why she needed to establish and maintain her own server.

I'm not saying she did anything wrong, but it exposed her to unnecessary scrutiny and allowed the media and the GOP to ignore substantive issues and focus on scandal, real or imaginary. Sure hindsight is 20/20, but I believe there are a half dozen different decisions that HRC and her team could have made over the past 8 years that would have yielded a different result vs Trump. I still can't believe that POS eked out a win in the EC, but that reality has slowly come to the fore and it sickens me. I will probably just stay home buried under the covers on January 20th, hoping to wake up on the 21st to find it was all just a bad dream.

[synergie]

27. So you STILL have not read the post, as you attack her to illustrate how it's not about

Clinton hate with you. Still not a politically poor decision, for literally anyone BUT her, you'd realize this if you bothered to read the article I posted, but you seem to wish to ignore that to engage in the double standards it points out. What I'm saying is that, the money she received from the speeches that literally EVERYONE gives was not an issue for anyone BUT her, despite the fact that she didn't keep it.

My point is that had you read the article, you'd understand that there was no carelessness, just a lot of people holding her to standards that don't apply to anyone else, given that literally everything she did and did not do is converted to "baggage" for no reason at all.

You clearly did not, and sure you could have made pedantic points, while ignoring the entire content of what you claim to have read, your agreement is not required, but some indication that you processed the point would have been good, instead you exemplify the flaws in those who continue to ignore the misogyny here.

It's pretty rude to pretend that someone explaining how you missed the point, when you plainly did is simply "disagreeing".

3 million popular vote difference is actually a landslide, since it's a rather historic number, pretending it did not happen is kind of dishonest. We're not talking electoral college here, which she lost by 70,000 in states where MORE than that margin went uncounted, that we know of.

You don't get to do what the RW is doing by pretending CA shouldn't exist or that is the ONLY place where she won. You also don't get to ignore what actually happened in WI, or MI, or pretend that Californian votes are somehow being applied elsewhere, I mean what is that bit of utterly confused nonsense anyway?

It's not Obama's job to do that, and had people bothered to show up in the midterms, perhaps that might have been done, but they did not.

There is actually a stronger case that this election would have been won by the Dems, had the issues KNOWN by the intelligence agencies and noticed by anyone paying attention been acknowledged in 2016, but people are too busy blaming the "flawed" candidate by engaging in some pretty low attacks, and denying the root of the hatred that abounds here, where every fact is rejected while you basically assail the candidate for imagined wrongs and admonish her for daring to forget that rules don't apply to her, and that everything she says and does will be wrong, by the mere virtue of the person herself.

[karynnj]

29. Look, I know you LOVE the piece, which incidentally you posted more than you are allowed to

I found it was full of declarations, that were completely unsupported. You love it because it validates what you already thought.

I can not believe the absolutely ridiculous ways you have twisted my comments. The fact is you can not WIN in a landslide, when you lose per the way the race is determined. That does not mean I am pretending CA does not or should not exist. SHE LOST. I would have been happier had she won.

I have posted about voter suppression. I have posted that Comey's two letters should never have happened. I have posted that the leaked emails likely hurt. Those are outside factors that hurt her. However - even given that - she would have won without the email controversy (which she caused by ignoring the requests as Secretary and leaving without giving them to the SD.), and the incredible tone deafness of doing those speeches and the ability to say that she avoided even the perception that there could have been any conflict of interest between the Clinton Foundation and her State Department - Obama created that mou to protect his administration. Had she followed it in spirit and to the letter of the written document there would have been nothing anyone could have used.

I DID NOT MISS THE POINT of the article, I disagree with it. I can see you think Clinton walked on water and no one else was ever held to the standards she was. I listed three things that I know hurt her. I said NONE were illegal.

[synergie]

31. Wow, you "know" a lot of things that you can't support, don't you?

You "love" making such unsupported declarations because it would seem that you resent that your comments were addressed in a totally straightforward way. I cannot believe that you would declare that taking your comments as written is somehow twisted, they were, but they were delivered that way.

The fact is that she didn't lose votes, she didn't lose voters, and you cannot pretend that "she's so unpopular" and "she's so flawed" can stand when SHE WON ACTUAL VOTES. All this nonsense about "if you don't count CA, then she lost" is literally what Trump is saying, and it's stupid. I'm sure you would have been happier had she won those 70,000 votes in several states where votes were not counted, however, it's dishonest to pretend that screeching "she lost" over and over again, and attacking her makes any sense given all the facts you literally have to blind yourself to, in order to support your attacks. i get, it you don't like her, you make so secret of the fact, and despite your denials the content of your posts makes that rather plain, no "twisting" necessary, you do present that rather straightforwardly.

Once again, you keep reiterating points, while literally ignoring mine, there was no tone deafness. Quite literally. Ther ewas no perception of anything, since there has literally in the history of the US, ever been a problem with giving speeches. Literally. Also, there was no perception, no proof, not literal ANYTHING unethical or opaque or hidden about the Clinton Foundation. Nothing. Literally.

Sorry, but you're proving once again that your confirmation bias that everything is in the flawed reasoning that a person should have perfect 20/20, and realize that everything she did and did not do would be twisted against her, and it's her fault. It's not. There will always be something to be used against her, as you keep proving.

You did miss the point. It's not about disagreement, you literally don't get it. I can see that you like to see many things that are clearly not in evidence, while ignoring all that is. No one actually was held to the standard that she was, you listed standards that no one was ever held to, but apparently are so busy pretending that I am imagining things you created, to bother paying attention to what you're saying.

Open your eyes, stop day dreaming about what you think I'm saying and listen what I'm actually saying, and read for comprehension.

You're doing just what that article stated, you think if she did NOT walk on water, than she was flawed, and it's the not walking on water that did her in, rather than the doubles standards YOU keep blindly applying, while snarkilly projecting your own unreasonable bias.

You missed the point, and keep making mine. When you're blind to the double standards you apply and dismiss anyone pointing them out of your own magical thinking, you're literally unable to figure out why your stance is the only thing flawed here.

[karynnj]

32. Talk about unsupported statements! That describes this

Entire rant. I stand by what I have written and will not try to counter your twisting what I said. It is clear that you are still too emotional to interpret anything I say in a coherent way. For instance, saying she lost the election is a very sad truth. It does not mean I am saying CA does not count. It does, but elections are won by winning the electoral college.

PS you are the only one accusing me of magical thinking.

[crazycatlady]

13. I think we need to elect a woman as VP before we'll elect one president

I'd love to see Amy Klobuchar on the ticket in 2020 (with a white male governor at the top). Kirsten Gillibrand would be a good choice too, but I'd like to see the next ticket stay away from NY.

[Tatiana]

15. She was held to a much higher standard than any other candidate in Presidential history.

There are a multitude of reasons why she lost, including misogyny. Look at the bills that are being pushed in Kentucky and Ohio and Florida and Iowa. There is a very real war on women taking place. Men are passing bills that say women have no control over what they do with their own bodies. They want to take us back to the time when women were essentially property and chattel.

What's so disheartening is that women actually voted for that monster. Rich women and poor ones who rely on services like Planned Parenthood for health care.

The Clinton campaign never really took the threat seriously. They exhibited too much faith in the American public. I also believe Obama should have stressed that Russians were trying to influence the election -- optics be damned.

[oasis]

17. Exactly right. 100%

[Gothmog]

18. As the father of two daughters, I am so disappointed with this election

[betsuni]

19. K&R!

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

20. So, Clinton was "flawed." WTF does that make

the crass, imbecilic, misogynistic, racist, lying, cheating, thieving, bully who will be inaugurated all too soon?

[treestar]

22. The media could not have fluffed up the email scandal

against any white men, IMHO. No one would have been interested.

One thing I am relieved at is that Hillary will not be going through the next four years investigated and judged over every damn thing they can lay their hands on. You know they did a lot to Obama with the hope of showing a black man cannot do the job. But it would have been even more vicious when they wanted to prove a woman couldn't.

[meow2u3]

23. That's a crock of excrement

The Democrats could have run the Virgin Mary for President and the moronic corporate media would have given her bad press--just because she's a woman, propping up the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet of Revelation as the next savior of the country. The stupid American people would have voted for Satan because he's a man who's tough and would subjugate the whole country to his will!

[Rex]

30. People just sat back and watched bogus investigation after investigation

nobody tried to stop it. The press loved it when Trump would say something horrible, loved it! The GOP ran their batch of useful idiots, Russia ran it's darkhorse.

Darkhorse won. World fucked.

[Blue_Tires]

33. Well said....

excellent points.