Treating women equally should mean that they can be criticized equally.
Regardless of the sex of the candidate, Hillary, even by the concerns expressed in that article by folks that support her, is not running a good campaign. Her husband, regardless of his sex, who happens to have run two national campaigns and some campaigns as governor successfully, has stepped in to help. If Hillary was doing well, he would not have to.
It's got zero to do with sex and everything to do with her performance to date.
If it's demeaning, Hillary earned it by her performance. Not because of her sex or anything else.
I find such a conclusion lamely simplistic and ignoring basic facts.
The Clinton campaign is scrambling - by many, many accounts - including some in that article. They were not prepared for the states beyond the first few primaries as that article reinforces. They have not done well making their case to Iowa and New Hampshire where they spent massive ad money and resources - so that part of the campaign has fallen short. They're behind in organization in Nevada and there's simply no good excuse for that.
"Bill Clinton, according to a source with firsthand knowledge of the situation, has been phoning campaign manager Robby Mook almost daily to express concerns about the campaign’s organization..."
Why does Bill need to do that if she's doing such a bang up job? Is Bill being sexist trying to fix his wife's campaign?
I doubt Elizabeth Warren would make the same mistake twice like Hillary has. It's got nothing to do with sex and everything to do with a candidate making similar mistakes like they did in 2008.
= new reply since forum marked as read
