She was jibbed for sure, but she's not an alcoholic, nor does losing a political campaign justify being one. Actually, she seems pretty happy lately. But that's besides the point. The cultural hatred of women is so blindingly obvious. It tends to fall most on the "wrong kind of woman" - liberal white women who are too old to perform femininity - like Hillary, taking forms like exaggerated firestorms over every word or action of hers, overweening, constant demands for apology and self-flagellation, and preferring a heavily disliked, childish reality TV personality as president.
The problem with women like Hillary is she makes no concessions to men's need to have women exist for us. She's not pretty, she doesn't coddle us with her "down-to-earthness" or anti-feminist politics, she refuses play the perfect Madonna morally pure guardian of womanhood above politics and instead openly acts like a politician, and she makes a point of passing the barriers (those "qualifications") that have excluded people like her from high office for decades. She dares us to expose our own hypocrisies about them. It's all a little too infuriating, and hence she must be destroyed.
The trouble is that this suggests pretty or feminine women have it easier in politics, which I disagree with: either they are cast as "bimbos" or window dressing or pushed aside by cutthroats, especially where politics is very dominated by golf club cliques. There's a reason the Thatcher archetype is mimiced by many female politicians: society views femininity as a weakness or at least an impediment to power.
The problem with Hillary (and has been for quite some time) is that she never allowed people to see the real her: by all accounts a funny, interesting individual and instead relied on campaigns to make her image for her. which especially hurt her with a candidate like Trump, who wears his heart (?) on his sleeeve.
