I don't mean this in a rude or crass way, but good lord she is not exactly a looker. Not that she had the best genetics to work with but.....yikes.
I agree -a woman is supposed to be a sex symbol for a bunch of lonely white guys on an internet forum, never mind her qualifications, or the fact that the vast majority of you are hardly 'lookers' either.
-----
It is sh**t like this that fuel the perception that the campaign against Hillary is based mainly on misogyny and double-standards. I doubt any of you would base the qualifications of a male politician of a similar age on how he looks.
Oh give me a break.
I dont like any of the Clintons regardless of how they look. I happen to find it funny that along with all 3 of them being awful people politically, they are also fairly ugly as well. If you find that offensive or some form of 'misogyny' that says more about you than me.
For the record I think most people would agree that Ted Cruz is not an attractive person either but are people who criticize his campaign lambasted for being sexist? Whether you like it or not, people who enter the public arena are judged heavily based on their physical appearance. Would I make a final decision to vote for someone based on their looks? Of course not. But there are plenty of people who do. My grandmother voted for JFK because he was "just so handsome" and literally had no other reason.
