I personally liked Obama not making a big deal about being the first black president. Most people didn’t vote for him for that reason.
“Bernie Bros.”
Women who date “Bernie Bros”… :dubious:
“There’s a special place in Hell for women who don’t support other women”.
… Look at how many women voted for Trump. Perhaps, (along with men,) women don’t like to be told what to do and who to vote for. Most “Bernie Bros” would vote for Elizabeth Warren if she were to run.
Yes.
And apart from that, it really is tempting the Gods to pronounce ‘Wobbles is going to be the First XXX president’ because it assumes the presidency is already assured.
Did her campaign focus too much on her being the first female president? Probably.
But that’s separate from the issues with “Bernie Bros” (which is a whole other can o’worms) and also not the reason that Trump won. Trump won because a lot of people in a lot of states voted for him, and I question whether anyone claiming to have voted for him simply because Clinton was a bit pushy is being entirely honest about their motivations.
Judging by the ubiquity of “I’m with HER” bumper stickers and signs, her gender was not an insignificant part of her campaign.
I voted for her but very reluctantly…
For me it was because she is a genuinely unpleasant, vindictive, self absorbed person. She STILL can’t accept blame for her loss to Trump. She does her cause no favors by trying to reclaim the spotlight.
She cheated during the primary.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC were in the bag for Hillary and when DWS got kicked off the DNC, Hillary gave her a job in her campaign.
Every time they brought up Russian involvement, it reminded me that what Russia did was reveal actual emails by Hillary Clinton exposing her cheating, the DNC bias and Hillary’s inconsistency when she talked to the masses and when she gave highly paid secret speeches. Something may come of the whole Russia thing but for now it does as much to make Hillary toxic as it does to undermine Trump.
Her saving grace was that she was running against a bobblehead.
What exactly would you like explained? There was certainly a small but nasty coterie of Bernie supporters with a serious sexist bent, who were condemned by Sanders himself. The term itself was a media invention that took on a life of its own, albeit with a considerable amount of assistance from Clintonians. In the end, like “deplorables”, it came to signify a much broader and much less well-defined group than it originally had. I’m not sure what else I can say.
No, it wasn’t. And the “make me the first woman president” stuff didn’t help either. So was there “too much focus” as the OP asks? As I said above: probably.
Again with the “secret speeches”. We’ve been round and round on this already many times, so I’ll leave it by once again pointing out that “private” and “secret” are not the same thing, particularly as, within the context, one comes with considerable added insinuation.
Hilariously, Ms. Wasserman Schultz — who is now in the bag for another investigation * — called Russia an ‘Enemy State’ recently.
I blenched at that, but consoled myself that at least she isn’t now in Hil’s old job at State.
Imran left the laptop, with username RepDWS, in a phone booth in circumstances that suggest that it was not accidentally forgotten there. Alongside it, he left a copy of his ID and letters to the U.S. attorney that ensured it would be treated as evidence instead of simply returned as a missing laptop.
If say, one gets over a $1,000,000 paid by banks for one to to speak 4 - 5 times to assembled bussed-in banksters, I doubt if one can claim “It’s Nobody’s Business But Our Own!” — even if one wasn’t running for president.
I think Obama and Hillary actually both tried to tone down the “first black” “first woman” president aspect. Although Hillary couldn’t suppress it at times: "(i.e., winning nomination: “For the first time ever, a woman will be the nominee of a major political party”)
But Obama and Hillary’s supporters, on the other hand, and some circles of the media, played that angle up relentlessly, to the point of irritating a sizable swath of the electorate.
Can you point to an example of this attitude?
Or, for that matter, an example of her camp “focusing on her potentially being the first female president.”
I did find this articlefrom June of 2016, but it wasn’t part of the campaign.
According to recollection of the 2016 campaign, the campaign touted experience, policy, and “she’s not Trump.” I think Obama being the first black president got a lot more play than Hillary potentially being the first female.
Why should that cost her any votes when she was running against someone else to whom that description applies even more?
My IMHO answer to the thread title question: No, not that I could tell.
It may be a personal pet peeve, but when I’m watching Food Network on a competition show like Chopped, it’s a near certainty that the female participants in their bio section will mention something to the effect of, ‘Because I’m a woman’ or ‘Because women chefs…’ It’s a minor annoyance, but in my view they are there to cook and produce the best dish as measured by the judging criteria. In Clinton’s case, as President she would be responsible for making choices that are best for the country so arguably there may be some overlap there with the fact that she is a woman, advancing the idea of gender equality, etc. but mostly I viewed it the same way I viewed it on Chopped. A minor annoyance added to the pile of disfavorable things. I would never have voted for Clinton anyways, not because of her focus on her gender, but it didn’t go on the plus side of the scale.
I don’t know how much it was played up, considering I didn’t really think about it with any degree of seriousness until the day of the election. The only time I thought about her gender was when people were being misogynistic toward her, like Trump making comments about her ass not being very impressive. (The core problem as I see it is misogyny, and once you resolve that, there won’t be so many annoying women pointing out that they are women, on cooking shows or otherwise.) I’m just saying, I was never like, “ooh, first woman President!”
But on election day, people were putting “I voted” stickers on Susan B. Anthony’s grave and I thought, “Shit. I guess this is a big deal.” I know some of my friends were really swayed by her gender, or saw it as significant to what she represented politically, but I never viewed her as anything other than an unusually competent and highly ambitious middle of the road politician. I voted for her without much enthusiasm.
Among those I know who were swayed by her gender, it wasn’t anything about her being the “first” woman - just that she was a woman, period, and so ostensibly was better for women’s equality than a man would be. I take issue with that assumption.
I do think she opened many, many doors for future female politicians down the road, however. She deserves credit for that.