Hillary Clinton warns Harris & Warren of double standard in prez. elections

[Mr. Morden]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/10/clintin-warns-kamala-harris-elizabeth-warren-243616

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

She's right. Female candidates are attacked way more on social media than their male counterparts. They accuse Harris of sleeping their way to the top while there is no word around Booker.

[Rookie Yinzer]

In before white males run in here saying she's making it up.

She's right. Female candidates are attacked way more on social media than their male counterparts. They accuse Harris of sleeping their way to the top while there is no word around Booker.

Warren and Harris need to be prepared to be called a b*tch, c*nt, wh*re, etc. by both the right and the left.

[OSR stands with Israel]

She's right. Female candidates are attacked way more on social media than their male counterparts. They accuse Harris of sleeping their way to the top while there is no word around Booker.

The reason they will question Harris(and not for the reasons you say they will attack her for ) and not Booker is cause Booker is much more qualified to become president

[JA]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Plagiarizing Trump, I see.

[Sirius_]

She's right. Female candidates are attacked way more on social media than their male counterparts. They accuse Harris of sleeping their way to the top while there is no word around Booker.

The reason they will question Harris(and not for the reasons you say they will attack her for ) and not Booker is cause Booker is much more qualified to become president

It could be either, depending on how sexist and how informed the people are.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

That is, unfortunately, true and Warren and Harris seems to be potentially especially vulnerable for two distinct reasons: Warren can be portrayed as as some crazy older angry woman, and thus unlikeable, while Harris was already targeted for owing her career to her good looks. This is especially peculiar since it's been already seen on many occasions being more attractive isn't any advantage for female politicians.

[Illini Moderate]

She's right. Female candidates are attacked way more on social media than their male counterparts. They accuse Harris of sleeping their way to the top while there is no word around Booker.

The reason they will question Harris(and not for the reasons you say they will attack her for ) and not Booker is cause Booker is much more qualified to become president

Because being more highly qualified for office shielded a certain candidate from double standards this past election right??

[publicunofficial]

🙄🙄🙄

[Inmate Trump]

Sexism definitely played a role in her loss.

It's not the sole reason, but no one can say that at least some part of why she lost had to do with sexism.

[world.execute(me)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Plagiarizing Trump, I see.

Remember, leftists never hurl sexist abuse at women.

[Kamala]

This is true, although I think a lot of you are missing the point.

Yes, there will be a lot of gender-based insults and insinuations, (b*tch, sleeping to the top, shrill) and women in politics have thick enough skin to not be preoccupied with those.

What Clinton is saying, and a lot of women know, is that some voters have implicit double standards on what is and isn't acceptable for a female candidate to be. For example, Clinton's "basket of deplorables" thing was stupid, yes, but Trump said a lot worse about a lot more people, yet Clinton's comments were scrutinized much more. And it's very difficult to be taken seriously as a woman in a male-dominated society like ours. For example:

If Warren goes on a strong invective about Wall Street execs or something, being sharply critical of them, many Republicans (and some Democrats) would say she's unhinged. If Bernie does it, Republicans would say "I disagree with him, but at least he's authentic!"


Gillibrand has a rather high-pitched voice, so many people (men and women) simply won't take her seriously. It doesn't matter what she's talking about, many people would just dismiss her due to her voice. If she had a deeper voice, or were a man, some people would be fawning over her.

I've also seen this kind of double standard with Harris, with people on here talking about how she's a poor speaker or something. Like, she's no Churchill, or Obama 2004, but she's definitely not bad. She's very warm and charming when she speaks, and definitely not cold or off-putting.

[Mr. Smith]

Harris is most vulnerable in this regard.

[MAINEiac4434]

This is a trainwreck of a thread, except for Kamala.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

LOL Hillary was given a free pass by the media.

The Democrats also ruthlessly destroyed Sarah Palin.

One of the reasons you lost was because Huma Abedin was married to a creep. Everyone knew he was a creep, and guess what? He was. His laptop destroyed you. If you were truly serious about this run you would have forced Huma to dump Anthony OR dump Huma.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This had nothing to do with you being a woman, and worse things were said about Trump. The reason they stuff like this about you is because of this quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah how dare Bernie Sanders primary votes vote for him over you? Off with their heads!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is the strangest belief those on the left have - they feel that what the voters choose is "destroying democracy," and they consider attacks against them an attack against democracy. When the voters choose something they don't like, it's "destroying democracy."

Can anyone explain this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's assume this is true.

It was $100,000! You had $1.2 BILLION + dozens of Super PACs including Correct the Record.

If the Russians beat your $1.2 billion + top political minds IN THE WORLD with just $100,000, then I will not vote for you due to you being incompetent. If the Russians get 12,000 more utility than you then if the Russians had 3 million soldiers we'd need 36 BILLION soldiers to win the war.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

CORRECT THE RECORD?!?!?! Lol you guys spent like $6 million to harass people on places like Reddit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Translation: Watergate was 40 years ago, BUT HOW DARE I LOSE?!?!??!?!

[Mr. Smith]

LOL Hillary was given a free pass by the media.

The Democrats also ruthlessly destroyed Sarah Palin.

One of the reasons you lost was because Huma Abedin was married to a creep. Everyone knew he was a creep, and guess what? He was. His laptop destroyed you. If you were truly serious about this run you would have forced Huma to dump Anthony OR dump Huma.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This had nothing to do with you being a woman, and worse things were said about Trump. The reason they stuff like this about you is because of this quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah how dare Bernie Sanders primary votes vote for him over you? Off with their heads!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is the strangest belief those on the left have - they feel that what the voters choose is "destroying democracy," and they consider attacks against them an attack against democracy. When the voters choose something they don't like, it's "destroying democracy."

Can anyone explain this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's assume this is true.

It was $100,000! You had $1.2 BILLION + dozens of Super PACs including Correct the Record.

If the Russians beat your $1.2 billion + top political minds IN THE WORLD with just $100,000, then I will not vote for you due to you being incompetent. If the Russians get 12,000 more utility than you then if the Russians had 3 million soldiers we'd need 36 BILLION soldiers to win the war.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

CORRECT THE RECORD?!?!?! Lol you guys spent like $6 million to harass people on places like Reddit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Translation: Watergate was 40 years ago, BUT HOW DARE I LOSE?!?!??!?!

.....

I'mma jus' gonna leave this here

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Also could you imagine Margaret Thatcher acting like this? I can't.

Hillary had everyone helping her - foreign countries such as Mexico, Ukraine, Russia, and Germany; Republicans were helping her, the entire media Establishment was helping her; celebrities were helping her; she had a million Super PACs, a billion dollars spent....

She lost because Trump was smarter than she was.

[Kamala]

Also could you imagine Margaret Thatcher acting like this? I can't.

Neither can I, because Thatcher was a pretty explicit anti-feminist. She may have shattered the glass ceiling, but she pulled the ladder up with her.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Also could you imagine Margaret Thatcher acting like this? I can't.

Neither can I, because Thatcher was a pretty explicit anti-feminist. 

So is Clinton.

[Kamala]

Also could you imagine Margaret Thatcher acting like this? I can't.

Neither can I, because Thatcher was a pretty explicit anti-feminist. 

So is Clinton.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Also could you imagine Margaret Thatcher acting like this? I can't.

Neither can I, because Thatcher was a pretty explicit anti-feminist. 

So is Clinton.

[img width=760 height=497]http://i0

- Heavily connected to sexual perverts Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton, and Harvey Weinstein
- Rode her husband's coattails to get where she is
- Stole a Senate seat from a woman who did work to climb the ladder (Clinton stole the Senate seat from Nita Lowey)
- Directly criticizes women for not voting for her, then when she asked if she'd support a woman President, she said "Only if I agree with her"

"Feminist"

OK

LOL!

[Kamala]

Also could you imagine Margaret Thatcher acting like this? I can't.

Neither can I, because Thatcher was a pretty explicit anti-feminist. 

So is Clinton.

[img width=760 height=497]http://i0

- Heavily connected to sexual perverts Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton, and Harvey Weinstein

https://twitter.com/meganamram/status/917846981526953984

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Also could you imagine Margaret Thatcher acting like this? I can't.

Neither can I, because Thatcher was a pretty explicit anti-feminist. 

So is Clinton.

[img width=760 height=497]http://i0

- Heavily connected to sexual perverts Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton, and Harvey Weinstein
- Rode her husband's coattails to get where she is
- Stole a Senate seat from a woman who did work to climb the ladder (Clinton stole the Senate seat from Nita Lowey)
- Directly criticizes women for not voting for her, then when she asked if she'd support a woman President, she said "Only if I agree with her"

"Feminist"

OK

LOL!

We really should stop beating a dead [political] horse named Hillary.

[PoliticalJunkie23]

Sexism is still strong in the political system, and I have a feeling it will be stronger in 2020 than it was in 2016 if Harris or Warren are the nominees. Let's not kid ourselves though, conservative women constantly face sexist attacks from the left as well.

[OneJ]

This is true, although I think a lot of you are missing the point.

Yes, there will be a lot of gender-based insults and insinuations, (b*tch, sleeping to the top, shrill) and women in politics have thick enough skin to not be preoccupied with those.

What Clinton is saying, and a lot of women know, is that some voters have implicit double standards on what is and isn't acceptable for a female candidate to be. For example, Clinton's "basket of deplorables" thing was stupid, yes, but Trump said a lot worse about a lot more people, yet Clinton's comments were scrutinized much more. And it's very difficult to be taken seriously as a woman in a male-dominated society like ours. For example:

If Warren goes on a strong invective about Wall Street execs or something, being sharply critical of them, many Republicans (and some Democrats) would say she's unhinged. If Bernie does it, Republicans would say "I disagree with him, but at least he's authentic!"


Gillibrand has a rather high-pitched voice, so many people (men and women) simply won't take her seriously. It doesn't matter what she's talking about, many people would just dismiss her due to her voice. If she had a deeper voice, or were a man, some people would be fawning over her.

I've also seen this kind of double standard with Harris, with people on here talking about how she's a poor speaker or something. Like, she's no Churchill, or Obama 2004, but she's definitely not bad. She's very warm and charming when she speaks, and definitely not cold or off-putting.

Much of it if not all of it is absolutely true.