Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I voted for Hillary Clinton and thought she was by far the most qualified of the candidates. It didn't bother me that people perceived her as feeling "entitled" to the presidency. I don't think they would have said that about a male candidate. Instead they would say he "deserved" it for his years of public service. While Clinton may not have been the best at making the public love her, I still think she was still the best choice for this country and she got 3 million more votes than Trump, but unfortunately the Electoral College numbers doomed her.
While I hoped she would be elected, I will admit that I don't really like her. She is said to be very nice in person, but her public image is that of an elitist smarty-pants. Her image puts people off, and she doesn't know how to fix this. The American public has been conditioned to favor alpha male cowboy types who ride into town brandishing their guns and promising to fix everything. We eat that up, but we demonize and scorn uppity women, especially if they're older, overweight and lack sex appeal.
Clinton was in a no-win situation. Men don't like her because she's smarter than most of them, and women don't like her because she doesn't bake cookies. She was damned if she did and damned if she didn't. And I can understand why people wouldn't have wanted Bill Clinton back in the White House in any capacity after the Monica Lewinsky thing.
Having a third candidate in the race, Bernie, was another death knell. That is a brilliant strategy if you want to get elected - split the opposition into two warring factions. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the right had been covertly funding Bernie's campaign, knowing he couldn't win, because he took votes from Clinton and made a Republican victory more likely
I don't think it is that important that a candidate be likeable, though it helps of course. What's important to me is that he or she has the brains, the experience and the skills to lead this country. I believe Clinton was more qualified than many previous U.S. presidents. But her unlikeability was no match for Trump's populist appeal, and she had baggage. Her campaign was doomed from the start. I don't think Bernie would have done any better.
Clinton's time has passed, though, I'm sorry to say. There is too much ill will toward her, and she is perceived as being too old. It's a shame, because I think she would have been a fine president. If you were an employer hiring for the position and both Trump's and Clinton's resumes landed on your desk (with no names, genders or photos to identify the applicant), who would you think was the better candidate?
I hope a woman as bright, dedicated and politically experienced as she will run for president some day. It might not be in my lifetime (I'm nearly 70), but it will happen.
I voted for Hillary Clinton and thought she was by far the most qualified of the candidates, though she didn't run the best campaign. It didn't bother me that people perceived her as feeling "entitled" to the presidency. I don't think they would have said that about a male candidate. While she may not have been the best at making the public love her, I still think she was still the best choice for this country.
Even I, who voted for her, don't really like her that much. She is probably very nice in person, but her public image, that of an elitist smarty-pants, puts people off and she doesn't know how to fix this. The American public has been conditioned to favor alpha male cowboy types who ride into town brandishing their guns and promising to fix everything. We eat that up, but we demonize and scorn uppity women.
Clinton was in a no-win situation. Men don't like her because she's smarter than most of them, and women don't like her because she doesn't bake cookies. She was damned if she did and damned if she didn't. And I can understand why people wouldn't have wanted Bill Clinton back in the White House in any capacity after the Monica Lewinsky thing.
I don't think it is that important that a candidate be likeable, though it helps of course. What's important to me is that he or she has the brains, the experience and the skills to lead this country. I believe Clinton was more qualified than many previous U.S. presidents. But her unlikeability was no match for Trump's populist appeal, and she had baggage. Her campaign was doomed from the start. I don't think Bernie would have done any better.
Clinton's time has passed, though, I'm sorry to say. There is too much ill will toward her, and she is too old. It's a shame, because I think she would have been a fine president. If you were an employer hiring for the position and both Trump's and Clinton's resumes landed on your desk (with no names, genders or photos to identify the applicant), who would you think was the better candidate?
I hope a woman as bright, dedicated and politically experienced as she will run for president some day. It might not be in my lifetime (I'm nearly 70), but it will happen.
Why do you believe that? People said the same thing about Jeb. We are sick of political dynasties.
Why do you believe that? People said the same thing about Jeb. We are sick of political dynasties.
I believe it because women are often held to different standards than men. But that's for another thread. There's another reason: "Dynasty" means that power is passed down through the generations within a family or group. I never thought of the Clintons as a political team. The real dynasties were the the Kennedys and Bushes.
If you were an employer hiring for the position and both Trump's and Clinton's resumes landed on your desk (with no names, genders or photos to identify the applicant), who would you think was the better candidate?
What am I looking for in an employee? If the business is failing I'm going for Trump. Clinton had no economic accomplishments that I've ever seen.
Having a third candidate in the race, Bernie, was another death knell. That is a brilliant strategy if you want to get elected - split the opposition into two warring factions. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the right had been covertly funding Bernie's campaign, knowing he couldn't win, because he took votes from Clinton and made a Republican victory more likely
.
If she couldn't deal with Bernie no wonder she couldn't deal with Trump.
I voted for Hillary due to my extreme dislike and distrust of Trump. I hated his bullying tactics during the primaries plus I never did like the man. That said I would have voted for Bernie with a smile on my face instead of holding my nose for Hillary. It is too bad the DNC made the decision for us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
