That’s not what I was referring to. I was referring to the male Clinton’s high lisping voice. I don’t think that was modeled on Hillary Clinton at all, and was probably more the actor than the character.
Which? Please explain.
I get what you’re saying, and I agree. I’ve noted it above. The female Trump looks jarringly out of place, even moreso than the male Trump. This is interesting social commentary. However, it’s disingenuous to say that this election turned out the way it did because of sexism alone, and not because the Democratic Party fielded a horrible candidate.
I didn’t dislike the Clinton surrogate, but he comes off unappealing because of intangibles which would be impossible to pin down. I think a older man with a grizzled voice would be a better Clinton analogue to get people’s reactions than a young man. Honestly, plugging a book was about all she could do because it was her name attached to some resource to find her message.
The cookie-baking reference was seized upon as evidence not just that Hillary wasn’t a stay-at-home mom, but that she had contempt for women who had made this choice. (What she really had contempt for was the assumption that, for a politician’s wife, this was the only choice.)
The press and the public chose to misunderstand her, and they made her atone. “Family Circle” magazine ran a contest pitting Hillary Clinton’s cookie recipe against Barbara Bush’s. Barbara, with her usual patrician who-the-hell-cares? insouciance, turned in a recipe essentially copied from the back of the chocolate-chip package. Hillary’s entry was hipper: modernized with oatmeal. It was a canny, good-humored response to a situation both ludicrous and covertly hostile. Here was a supremely talented and accomplished woman who had made a verbal blunder, and we punished her by making her put on an apron. I’m embarrassed now to see that I copied down the recipe. (Although the cookies, as I remember, were excellent.)
My brain must not work right. (Or maybe it’s suspended in a jar of life-giving Nutritive Matrix®?) I thought real-Hillary was far more likeable in the debates than most of you seem to have. I didn’t think male-Hillary seemed horrible here. Real-Trump and female-Trump seemed obnoxious. (But female-Trump seemed less so, maybe just because of my hatred for real-Trump?)
I never bought into that whole Monica Lewinsky scandal.
I didn’t, though. I had a different impression going in. I thought before watching the video that the male Clinton would come across as weak and ineffectual, which wasn’t my impression after watching the video.
You think so? Remember, I voted for her. I didn’t particularly like her, but she wasn’t Trump.
I have no idea if she’s hateful or not. Compared to Trump and his supporters, she isn’t. She simply manages to take center-right positions because her people think it makes her more electable. I have no way of knowing what her actual views are, but hateful wouldn’t be the right word to describe her.
It turns out that people speaking with force and a confident disregard for veracity of statements can be very difficult to argue against. It doesn’t help that per this clip Trump actually had her dead to rights on statements of TPP support, which made flimsy denials seem slimy.
I think it goes a little deeper than that. There is a strong cultural narrative stuck to Hilary about her deceptiveness and artificiality. There’s a lot to explore in why she got that narrative stuck to her in the first place (where cultural misogyny plays a big role), but to put it in terms of naked effectiveness, the reality was that this was her narrative environment, the story that was already in the minds of a lot of Americans, when she came up for election.
This helped me understand a bit how a bully can be seen as strong, as protective, as a defender, and that’s not something I fully appreciated about Trump voters before. I didn’t care about the words, I cared about the tone, and the sloppiness just seemed to reconfirm the idea that she was taking none of the bullshit that her wheedling opponent was serving up.
I don’t think this means that misogyny played no role, but I think for a lot of voters, it’s going to be a more subtle and insidious influence. It’s not “herpaderp no damn woman never gonna be in no white house.” We see honesty and statistics and smiling as weak, as feminine, as manipulative. That’s the milieu HRC entered, however unfair that is.
America loves a preacher. It is harder for women to be preachers and to be socially accepted. But if we had one, she might very well be our first woman president, regardless of her policies.
Exactly, that’s very well put. It seems to me that buying into that narrative of her supposed deceptiveness, “sliminess”, and the plot line casting her as a ‘horrible candidate’ shows that what really made her a bad candidate wasn’t her resume or her background or her gender, but her inability to rewrite the narrative her opponents wrote for her.
We can’t. We were informed in the very first response that the basis of the topic doesn’t exist.
edited to add: the original first response was eaten, so I’d like to point out that I was not referencing what is now the new first response, from @Daedalus.
Sort of a non-answer to question swept up in the by-catch of your other conversation. I asked what you were trying to refine, in a conversation with another user. So, thanks for the encouragement!
Understanding.
The evidence provided.
Comprehension of the topic.
My view of the universe.
The structure of the debate.
Those all sound great! Good luck, be glad to help.
The logical processes of another person.
Nope. That’s not something I am going to support you refining here. That’s someone elses, not yours, to refine. Have a kid or teach a philosophy class if you want to assume that particular air and be respected for it.
My own logical processes.
My opinions and perspectives.
Those sound great too! Again, any way I can help, be glad to.
I’m sorry, I didn’t take notice of who I was responding to in the first place at the time. I have deleted the post in question and will refrain from replying to you in the future, and ask that you do the same in regards to me.
Here is a thought; could the result of the election possibly have anything to do with the diametrically opposed POLICIES of the two candidates?
Could it be possible that voters aren’t the BF Skinner automatons you want them to be, but are capable of making rational decisions that don’t agree with what you want them to do?
If that was the only reason people voted on candidates, Hillary would have won in a massive landslide. Her actual policies were some of the most liberal and progressive of any Democrat in decades, but she got pigeonholed as a “centrist”, “republican lite” or even “the same as Trump”. When all people remember about a candidate is HER EMAILS!, their policies and platform get obscured.
