If Secretary Clinton was male

Of course. Men are persistent; women are stubborn.

And when she gets needled by reporters (and she does get needled) to bite at the bait of "Do you think you're wrongly attacked because you're a woman?"
All she does is smile and say "I'll let the voters make that decision." She has played the "woman card" NOT AT ALL, as far as I can tell. But to hear Trump and his minions tell it, she harps on it all the time.

Bullshit. You act as if there has never been a male candidate who has been portrayed as weak. Do you remember Dukakis? Or Gerald Ford? Neither of them were women?

Hillary is not a very good candidate. She will win (and given the alternative I am happy about that)... but it is time to stop blaming her self-inflected problems on her gender. If you run for president, you are going to be pressed on your weaknesses. It is part of the game whether you are a man or a woman.

Equality means equality. This urge to protect a woman from the scrutiny and criticism faced by every other candidate in the history of American politics is not a step toward equality.

Let's ask the question in an academic way.

Do you really believe that Hillary Clinton (as the most fantastically qualified candidate in the history of the Republic) should she somehow above the normal rough and tumble of American politics that every candidate of either party faces?

Romney was pilloried for being wealthy, out of touch and wooden. McCain was criticized for his age, and his martial problems. Bush was attacked as unintelligent and not serious. Every candidate, Rebublican or Democrat, gets attacked for things that the opposition and the public at large see as weaknesses.

I assume that Hillary Clinton isn't any different... and that she has some weaknesses that will be attacked by the opposition (just as Clinton supporters have attacked every Republican candidate before her).

What attacks do you see as fair game against Hillary Clinton?

Holy poop balls Max, Hillary hasn't been given a pass, I don't think there is another person in pubic life who has been so thoroughly scrutinized and branded as a terrible person even though multiple Congressional investigations turn up zip.
I posted this past summer about my bout with pneumonia and how during my Tues visit to a pulmonary specialist he stated there was nothing wrong with my respiratory system and he was flat stumped why I was coughing up blood.......and how my husband called 911 on friday because I had a high fever....voila, I had pneumonia. My symptoms were much more dramatic than Hillary's, and it doesn't surprise me they told her it was probably allergies.

Its beyond laughable that you can even entertain the notion that I or any other woman would think she should be above the rough and tumble. Have you been paying attention? You haven't, have you? You can't see anything except the unfairness against men because women exist. I don't know why you are so hyper-sensitive over the fantasy that women rule the world, but your consistent degradation of all that is female is insulting.

Yeah, I know you claim to believe in "EQUAL", but I call bullshit. You erupt like a ripe pimple at any suggestion that women may not be treated fairly as if everyone is pointing at you. Maybe you just have a guilty conscience. I don't know and I don't care. Ive heard every bit of nonsense I can handle from you. Go join one of those groups that reinforces your sense of outrage and impotence. See if that makes you happy, and if it doesn't, let go of that chip on your shoulder and reacquaint yourself with humanity.

Here's a tip, try not to be so open in your contempt of the feeble female intellect and their silly notions of life or anything else. You just might just find that there are a precious few women who might deserve your respect. The trick will be convincing them you are worthy of their respect.

That's cute Glitterbag, but not on target. No one, not even Trump, is attacking Hillary for her intelligence. She is being attacked for her integrity. This is a weakness that she has caused by her own words and actions.

But the question is whether it is fair for her to face this criticism.

We attacked McCain for being old and crotchety. We brought up McCain's connection with previous scandals (even though he was cleared after an investigation). We attacked Romney for being wooden and out of touch.

I will be willing to bet good money, Glitterbag, that you yourself have made jokes about Romney's underwear.

So why is criticism of Hillary Clinton being put out of bounds?

Actually, after the 2013 gun control debacle, the odds of the Democratic candidate winning in 2016 (no matter how good they are) are zero.

You make me chuckle when you keep saying this. I am wondering what you are going to say if (as I fully expect) Hillary wins in November.

Why would you wonder? I've already explained, endlessly and repeatedly, how I would respond in such an unlikely situation.

Romneys underwear???? are you drunk?

Once again you fail to see the point. I did not say she couldn't be criticized (and certainly not because she is a woman) my point was that men are admired for playing hurt.

If Trump had pneumonia and thought he could make all of his commitments, and he got woozy because of dehydration he wouldn't be accused of hiding a health problem. Hell no, he soldiers on. A regular mensch, admirable.

This is not a call to feminists to bash males Max, its something that most of us know. Please do not assume I respond to issues as you do.

I don't buy into your criticism of Hillary's integrity, but don't bet good or bad money that i would make cheap jokes about someones religion, that sounds more like you.

I am not sure I understand that Glitterbag.

I have two very simple questions that I think are fair. I would like straightforward answers (if you would be so kind).

1. What criticisms could be made about Hillary Clinton that would be fair?

2. How many of the criticisms that you made about the past few Republican candidates would be fair if someone made them of Hillary Clinton?

I believe you are factually incorrect, but I will give you a chance to show me what you are talking about.

Can you give me a single example of a man being admired for "playing hurt" during a presidential election? Or, are you just making stuff up.

The 1960 election featured two men (Nixon and Kennedy) both trying to hide health issues while disclosing issues about the other. This is an example where you were clearly wrong.

Facts matter.

Max, you are a sucking chest wound. You know damn well I was not talking about a former male candidate running for president 'playing hurt". If there is one, I don't know who it is.
If I had an inkling you had one honest bone in your body, I might be willing to spend hours explaining to you why I don't believe what you want to believe I believe.

Just looking at your last response, its obvious you either don't understand or you are willfully trying to distort my comments. You are not my first idiot, and you probably won't be the last.

If you are recovering from a stoke, or aneurysm or brain surgery I'm not aware, and I truly hope you are healthy. That being said, you suck the air out of the room, and remind me of my first husband. I was trapped for 4 years with that nutbag, and I won't ever repeat that experience again.

Facts do matter, Max...so does reading comprehension. Since I don't think you are able to read or comprehend anything I write I suggest you ignore me. If you annoy me again over imaginary nonsense, i will be forced to send you a much stronger message.

We seem to have this ritual going between us glitterbag.

1. You make a factual claim that I suspect is not based on fact (In this case that "men are admired for playing hurt").

2. I challenge your claim by asking for facts. (in this case asking for an example where a male candidate was "admired for playing hurt").

3. You respond with personal attacks (in this case that I am a dishonest idiot who may be recovering from a stroke with no reading comprehension skills and a sucking chest wound).

Facts matte. If you are going to make factual claims, it is fair for me to ask you to back them up with facts. When you make personal attacks, you only show that you have nothing.

The fact that we keep repeating this pattern over and over again is amusing... which I guess is the reason I keep playing this game with you.



LOL (Oh no please! Not a stronger message!)

I told you there was no male presidential candidate that 'played hurt'. But thats not good enough for you, is it.

Let me put this in terms you might understand, Go **** in your hat.

Fini

So what were you talking about then?

This thread seems to be making the claim that Secretary Clinton would not be facing criticism (it least to the same degree as she is) if she were male. I questioned this in a perfectly reasonable way; asking for specific attacks that Clinton has faced that male candidates haven't also faced. No one came up with any specific examples. All I got for asking this question is personal attacks (which is rather ironic if you think about it).

It doesn't seem like this claim has any basis in fact.

Facts matter. That is all I am saying.

Hillary looked great, but the bloviater drank copious amounts of water and wiped his upper lip frequently.

There have been guesses about cocaine, but I'm no judge at all, even against him that I don't like. Others may recognize it, or, toy with it, like Colbert.

On that we agree Glitterbag.

Hillary wiped the floor with Trump during the debate. I expected that she would win convincingly and she exceeded my expectations. (I don't think had anything to do with either of their genders. Hillary is simply far more capable than Trump.)