Still waiting. 
Hardly. It was locker room talk. Many women also engage in locker room talk. Trump got caught on tape. Oh well, big deal. Not good, but big deal. Trump hasn’t lived his last 20+ years in politics trying to win election day votes, not like Clinton has. Trump is (still!) not a fully-polished politician.
Clinton may never have been caught on tape with locker room talk, but she has been caught by eyewitnesses for her vulgar and rude treatment of help staff. They both are people of power who have mistreated other people.
Clinton did not over focus on being potentially the first female President. But she lost what I consider, for her, to have been a nearly unloseable election. Back in 2014 and 2015, and 10 months of 2016, I thought that this race was hers to lose. But she lost it because of arrogance and self-entitlement. Trump ran the race, did his homework, figured out how to win. Clinton, in her recent interview with Jane Pauley, admitted a big mistake was her personal emails. No surprise there. And she is still gob-smacked. Again, no surprise there. Arrogance lost it for her. Not to say Trump is not arrogant. He most certainly is. But arrogance lost it for Clinton.
Dude. I’ve been a woman my whole life. I know what women do and do not talk about in all-female social spaces. I have never in my life, even in college dorms where crude sexual boasting was more or less the norm, heard a woman brag about how she just can’t resist walking up to good-looking men and kissing them, let alone about grabbing random dudes by their genitals. A woman who did talk that way would (rightly) be treated as if she had severe psychological problems.
Best reply to that is, “There’s a special place in hell for women who support a woman simply because she’s a woman and men who support a man simply because he’s a man.”
So… no examples of Bernie supporters being sexist?
Maybe I’m being impatient. If so, I’m sorry.
Well, if you’ve never heard it, it must never happen. 
Seriously, I’ll give you that. While the specific act of grabbing genital regions is likely bragged about more by hetero men than by hetero women, and that because of the Mars-Venus thing, locker room talk can be equally raunchy by both genders. It’s likely more prevalent by men than by women, but it is raunchy by both genders nonetheless.
I’m a guy, I played football, baseball and basketball, and ran track. Back in the day. I’m a former enlisted Marine. I’ve never been around such talk. But it does happen, and it’s just locker room talk.
Fretful Porpentine, or anyone, has such locker room talk that you’ve either witnessed or said yourself necessarily mean that the speaker was a horrible person and whose attitudes towards that gender are despicable? Certainly not always.
I would say that there is a pretty firm, bright line between discussing the attractiveness of members of one’s preferred gender (which is, indeed, “just locker room talk,” even if it’s done in a crude or objectifying way), and bragging about kissing or groping people against their will. The second is either true, or it isn’t. If it is true, yes, I would say that anyone who does those things is a horrible person whose attitudes toward that gender are despicable. If it isn’t, the speaker may or may not be a horrible person, but they ARE a bullshitter who likes to run their mouth about stuff they wouldn’t actually do – which is not a desirable trait in a president of the United States for reasons that should, by now, be obvious.
If Trump had groped women against their will, or boasted of doing so like a Sheik in his harem you might have a point. Since he explicitly made it clear he was doing things that they willingly let him do — which was the basis of the conversation: what such ladies would allow to the famous — the point doesn’t stand.
And nor to be fair were Mr. Clinton’s gallantries forced on the unwilling. To call either a rapist, or a molester, or an assaulter is wholly ridiculous. And sometimes some of Clinton’s accusers seemed to have considered the cash value of making an accusation in advance. Not merely in recompense from the courts or as hush-money, also with payments for a story from a corrupt media.
I absolutely think so. The whole “future is female” thing was absolutely ridiculous – people got way too carried away with the gender of their chosen candidate rather than what she spoke about. I didn’t vote for the witch, this is just my view on the matter.
Yes Donald Trump and Bill Clinton are one thing. Bill Cosby another.
IIRC during the DNC convention the major backstage graphics include Hillary “breaking” some sort of glass ceiling thingy…
Then, where she was supposed to give her victory speech the night of the elections…the whole reason for the why it was there was yet again another “breaking” the glass ceiling theme…
Vote for a “woman”…yeah…a definite thing…
This is one woman who didn’t hold her daughter’s hand and cry tears of joy! I felt like crying b/c she was running again ! She was the last person I wanted to vote for .
Hillary is still whining about not winning, she was on Sunday Morning today crying about how much it hurt to had lost. I found this to be a real turnoff .
Not in my opinion. I honestly rarely heard about it. It seemed weird enough that we discussed the lack of talk about it on this message board, IIRC. I think it might’ve actually helped, the same way being the potential first black president helped Obama.
I do think they focused too much on being “not Trump” though. Sure, to me it seems like the obvious reason to vote for her, even if you don’t like her. But apparently that was not enough. A lot of people were more “not Hillary.”
To be fair, trump gave them fresh reason to focus on that on a fairly regular basis.
Well, from overseas the main selling-point was that she was going to be — not even could be, it was so inevitable — the First Woman President of the United States ! The ‘HER TURN’ bit followed from that, still more than from her being an ex-president’s wife, stepping into his shoes as if the USA was a banana republic, where that’s the way they do things, but from the fact she represented All Women, and was a little bit more precious than they.
Plus that she deserved it.
It was hers to win. It was there for the taking.
All she had to do was be preferable to Trump.
Something managed by chronic severe indigestion.
And she couldn’t even do that.
That doesn’t make her speeches “secret” and it certainly doesn’t impute nefarious intent. Donald Trump’s tax returns aren’t “secret” either, and he has the right not to release them either (Trump lying about why he wasn’t releasing them was far more suggestive of nefarious intent that simply refusing to release them, really).
So you voted for the guy who has repeatedly expressed the desire to use the power of his office to legally harass (and in some cases imprison) his critics? Fortunately the Constitution has thus far prevented him from doing so (which is why his administration has also expressed a desire to modify the First Amendment) but Trump is no champion of free speech even compared to Clinton.
No, I’m basing it on the same experience as this:
The number of Trump supporters who used “he’s not Hillary” as the reason to vote for him was substantial (the reverse was also true, but that’s a separate point).
Sarah Palin was an incoherent idiot who couldn’t answer the question “How was your day, Governor?” without spouting nonsensical word salad. She also quit her job as governor for reasons having something to do with dead salmon; again, she was unable to adequately and coherently give a decent rationale for her decision. Concerns about the potential for her to ascend to the presidency (given McCain’s age and health) were legitimate.
Condoleeza Rice, conversely, was seen as a smart, knowledgeable woman in an influential political position. There were legitimate policy disagreements with her, but I’ve never heard her “not acknowledged”.
Yeeeeess…well done for spotting that “things you focus on” is definitely a subset of “things you mention”. For Lesson Two, we’ll work on how “things you mention” is not necessarily a subset of “things you focus on”.
I know it doesn’t seem like it sometimes but I’m not here 24/7 and I had a particularly busy weekend so this is the first I’ve seen of your various posts.
Given the subject, finding citations that aren’t from a source with an axe to grind has proved challenging but here’s a Slate article that splits the difference about as well as any. The article points out that the 1) there were plenty of sexist Bernie Bros and 2) the Clinton campaign was equally obnoxious. So some claims of sexism were well-founded and others were anti-Sanders reactionary rhetoric.
I think the core of the issue probably lands here:
Yet more of her blundering, caused by massive conceit, was her choice of nondescript running mate — certainly Donald did exactly the same but his own charismatic attraction to the People covered like St. Martin’s Cloak the bland uninterest of one mostly unknown: Hillary, radiating unattraction, could not give life to the millionaire bagman she selected.
Had she gone with someone of her own calibre — not a Sanders since he is left; not a Warren since she is woman, taking the glow off Hillary’s own unique womanhood — a Dr. Phil, a Perez Hilton, a Larry Flint, she might have outshone the Golden One.
I found that without a doubt, I stand with Hillary. I’m with her. I believe Hillary will best represent our country and is the most qualified for the job.
Kim Kardashian