1 comment

Best   /  Newest   /  Oldest
lizzy lizzy (@lizzy) Pinned comment
The full text of the truncated comment I shared in my first comment is worth reading. Here it is in its entirety: goo.gl/SmlsaB
See More
0 +
 
lizzy lizzy (@lizzy) Pinned comment
"Your Gleeful Liberal Takedown of Hillary Clinton Is Affirming Institutional Sexism. It’s time liberals acknowledge that their vitriol toward the presidential candidate is hurting women — and speaks to something deeper"

This is such a sweeping, self-righteous and accusatory statement that I think it hurts Hillary's campaign more than it helps. Also, given how short and light the article was I can't help but to wonder if the GOP is behind this, hmmm.

As a woman, I am keenly aware of sexism. I am also aware that as a public figure, running to be nation's first female President, sexism is only amplified. Yet, as the top user comment on the article states, "It is not sexist to point out that she has promoted war in the Mideast, supported a coup in Honduras, pushed for deportation of refugee children from Latin America, and taken the side of big oil and Wall Street rather than that of working class people. It is not sexist to point out that her support for Bill Clinton’s crime omnibus disproportionately…" No politician is perfect, but to a significant number of liberals, she has, over the years, accumulated too many negatives.

I consider myself a feminist and would love to see a female elected to the country's highest office (Elizabeth Warren!), yet I will not vote for Hillary Clinton because I do not believe that she is the better of the two Democratic candidates. My opinion is largely based on both candidates' past record. As Dr. Alia said in her article (posted here goo.gl/OQmQFU), you can still be a feminist and not vote for Hillary.
See More
0 +
 
More