I seem to remember feeling like this back when she ran previously. She doesn't seem to choke in debates, so why does she do it in the wild?
Honestly - and I think this might make some people angry - in the debates she is well rehearsed, finely tuned, and prepared. Out "in the wild" as you say, whether it is behind closed doors as in the fundraiser/BLM protester situation, or another moment where she is caught off guard or out of her element, she simply shows her true colors.
Where are you guys getting that she spoke at her funeral? I watched the whole thing and no First Lady spoke. I believe this was an interview after the funeral service.
Where are you guys getting that she spoke at her funeral? I watched the whole thing and no First Lady spoke. I believe this was an interview after the funeral service.
Meh. I think I've gone past peak outrage at this point. I'm seriously fatigued and don't have it in me to continue to be upset (after her apology) that she gave more credit than was due when speaking about a dead woman. That particular snippet was terrible, but when you take the context of the entire video it makes more sense - HIV was only briefly mentioned, Nancy Reagan's advocacy for diseases like Alzheimer's was a much larger part of the conversation.
Maybe it's my WASPy background showing, but I'm used to people saying only nice things about a dead person at their funeral.
It's definitely beyond frustrating that she keeps choking like this.
But....
What I'm about to say is in no way a defense of her comments and well, all the other missteps, but rather, an explanation for why she keeps stepping in it when it seems nobody else does it with this frequency. Here goes --
Hillary Clinton has probably cobbled together the most diverse coalition in political history. It's diverse racially, sure, but she's also got people of different ethnicities and of different socioeconomic backgrounds. There's feminists and the gay community, there's union members and wealthy and powerful business leaders, Muslims and Jews, everything. She has done this while also being held to a much different standard - the fact that she's a former First Lady and former Secretary of State means she's called to speak on a wider array of issues (like Nancy Reagan's death) and she has to maintain a level of professionalism befitting someone who was effectively the country's ambassador to the world. And she's doing this all in the most batshit crazy election ever on so many levels.
Her critics say she tries to be everything to everybody. I think that's true in a way, and in a sense, she's a victim of her own success. She keeps fucking up because she is actually trying to be so many things to so many people. In this case, the rest of the candidates aren't being called on to say nice things about a dead old lady with whom they disagree with politically. She stepped in it because she is trying to be a gay rights advocate, diplomatic representative of the current administration, former First Lady, and presidential candidate.
And similarly, she's got microaggression issues. Those are terrible and she needs to stop that shit. But we don't see the other candidates choking in the same way not because they are more skilled or better yet, more empathetic, but because none of them are logging hundreds of hours in black communities with tapes rolling nonstop. Had they, it's inevitable each one of them would have stepped in it at least as often.
None of this is offered to excuse what happened here or all the other missteps. But I think the other candidates are juggling 2 or 3 balls, and she's juggling 10, so it's not all that surprising that she drops them more often.
Her critics say she tries to be everything to everybody. I think that's true in a way, and in a sense, she's a victim of her own success. She keeps fucking up because she is actually trying to be so many things to so many people.
It would be better if she stopped doing this and instead would just be genuine. However, I think her problem, as I mentioned earlier, is that her genuine self is...not so great.
As for the Nancy thing, she could have left it with the Alzheimer's comments, and it would have been fine, and it would have been a very nice thing to say at(?)/about someone's funeral. There was no reason and no need to bring "gay rights activist" into this situation, or "be everything to everybody" into this situation. If indeed she was trying to bring anything political into it, or to advance herself in some way, as I think you're trying to suggest, well that's in terribly poor taste. Just say nice things about Nancy and leave it at that.
Her critics say she tries to be everything to everybody. I think that's true in a way, and in a sense, she's a victim of her own success. She keeps fucking up because she is actually trying to be so many things to so many people.
It would be better if she stopped doing this and instead would just be genuine. However, I think her problem, as I mentioned earlier, is that her genuine self is...not so great.
As for the Nancy thing, she could have left it with the Alzheimer's comments, and it would have been fine, and it would have been a very nice thing to say at(?)/about someone's funeral. There was no reason and no need to bring "gay rights activist" into this situation, or "be everything to everybody" into this situation. If indeed she was trying to bring anything political into it, or to advance herself in some way, as I think you're trying to suggest, well that's in terribly poor taste. Just say nice things about Nancy and leave it at that.
This is what confuses me about the whole thing - I cannot fathom what she was trying to do with this. There was nothing at all to be gained by bringing the topic up, and, as we have seen, so very much to lose. I honestly don't know what she was thinking.
Are we really surprised? I feel like this has been her entire campaign so far: Do or say something stupid, but people are so desperate for her to be the candidate, that they shrug off far more than they would if she wasn't a Clinton. The whole, 'I don't like her, but I'm still going to vote for her' is a huge problem to me. Why? Why are we so desperate to make her president? Damn it! Surely there's someone better out there.
She wouldn't be shrugged off if their were better opponents, I think. Â Think Obama 2008. Â I don't think it's because she's a Clinton. Â I'm not sure the Dems have better options right now.Â
At the same time, I think there would be better candidates out there if it hadn't been clear the past few years that she was the DNC's chosen one. There may have been a lot of interest, but everyone saw it as Hillary's year. Even some of the outrage I hear about Bernie needing to step aside points to that a lot of the Democratic Party just wants this to be her coronation, not an election.
I'm surprised anyone is surprised by this. She is barely passable as a liberal candidate. Rewriting history with enhanced Reagan fawning is right up her alley.
I'm really tired of people claiming that someone who has fought so hard for women's rights is not a liberal.
I wish that HRC had more liberal stances on some issues, and I'm angry about her microaggressions, but to completely disregard these * efforts because they aren't sufficiently worthy of liberalism is pretty anti-feminist.
It would be better if she stopped doing this and instead would just be genuine. However, I think her problem, as I mentioned earlier, is that her genuine self is...not so great.
As for the Nancy thing, she could have left it with the Alzheimer's comments, and it would have been fine, and it would have been a very nice thing to say at(?)/about someone's funeral. There was no reason and no need to bring "gay rights activist" into this situation, or "be everything to everybody" into this situation. If indeed she was trying to bring anything political into it, or to advance herself in some way, as I think you're trying to suggest, well that's in terribly poor taste. Just say nice things about Nancy and leave it at that.
This is what confuses me about the whole thing - I cannot fathom what she was trying to do with this. There was nothing at all to be gained by bringing the topic up, and, as we have seen, so very much to lose. I honestly don't know what she was thinking.
I think it was a legitimate mistake. By the time she met Nancy Reagan, she was speaking out about the AIDS epidemic (everyone was). She gave more credit to Nancy than was due, assuming the conversation started with the Reagan Whitehouse, instead of realizing it was more of a matter things getting to the point of being such a huge health crisis in the 80's that it couldn't not be talked about. Obviously it shouldn't have been included in the list of causes Nancy championed because it was only later that she became an (albeit very likely reluctant) advocate.
Look, I get it. Popular narrative is that Hillary is evil and incredibly calculating and if that's honestly someone's opinion of her, she'll never be able to say or do anything right regardless.
She said the other day she is not a natural politician like her husband or the President. I kind of agree with these bumps lately. She is lucky there is trump, for sure
Her critics say she tries to be everything to everybody. I think that's true in a way, and in a sense, she's a victim of her own success. She keeps fucking up because she is actually trying to be so many things to so many people.
It would be better if she stopped doing this and instead would just be genuine. However, I think her problem, as I mentioned earlier, is that her genuine self is...not so great.
As for the Nancy thing, she could have left it with the Alzheimer's comments, and it would have been fine, and it would have been a very nice thing to say at(?)/about someone's funeral. There was no reason and no need to bring "gay rights activist" into this situation, or "be everything to everybody" into this situation. If indeed she was trying to bring anything political into it, or to advance herself in some way, as I think you're trying to suggest, well that's in terribly poor taste. Just say nice things about Nancy and leave it at that.
I didn't say she was trying to be a gay rights activist when she was talking about Nancy Reagan.
I didn't say she was trying to advance herself when talking about Nancy Reagan either. I'm sure that's what you think of her, but what I'm saying is that my impression is that she was trying to diplomatically say nice things about a dead old lady. She was asked to speak about it because she's a former First Lady, but is being held to the standard of someone running for the democratic nomination for president, who earned the endorsement of the Human Rights Campaign.
Yes she should have stopped at Alzheimer's. She fucked up. big time. I have been very clear on that.
But what I'm saying is that she fucks up more than most not because, as you say, she isn't her genuine self (whatever that means) and her genuine self isn't very nice (as if you are the expert in her genuine self). Or because she's a total train wreck. Rather, I think she fucks up more than most because her life experiences have put her in a position where she's asked to comment on a much, much broader array of stuff and because she's built a broad coalition who hold her to a high standard.
The reason other politicians don't have her frequency of fuck ups is not because they are better human beings than her or because they are better at being politicians or because she's incompetent. It's because they cling to their comfort zones, don't take risks, and don't have the experience or stature to be asked for their opinions on things. She doesn't. Both by choice (she could ignore black voters like Bernie does and save herself the embarrassing interactions being caught on tape). And by duty and necessity (I'm sure she didn't race to the reporter to offer her opinion of Nancy Reagan).
So if you think Bernie's purportedly shorter lists of campaign fucks ups is because he's morally superior to her, then all I have to say to that is LOfuckingL.
ESF, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you or talk down to you. I said that I read your comments a certain way, but I can certainly concede that I misread them, I left that door open. I'm not going to LOfuckingL at you for disagreeing.
I'm not an expert on Hillary's "genuine self", but I think for example that she did show her true colors when she didn't think the cameras were rolling at the fundraiser where she was confronted by a BLM protester. She was condescending and nasty to that woman and had her thrown out. That event had nothing to do with her reaching out to black voters, it was her courting rich white donors. I'm not sure how that had anything to do with her taking a risk or leaving her comfort zone?
I understand that Hillary has had to contend with a lot of different interests throughout her career. But that doesn't explain or excuse her changing her tune and flip flopping on her positions whenever it politically suits her, and not seemingly because it's what she believes. I hear what she is campaigning on now (and much of it is influenced by Bernie's platforms), but I have no idea what she would do in the White House.
As for Bernie, we will never agree, and I'm ok with that. It doesn't bother me. But to say he hasn't taken risks throughout the course of his career is silly. And I don't mean the civil rights stuff back in the 60s.
I'll ditto ESF in here. It was a mistake to mention AIDS at all. Reagan and AIDS in the same sentence is never a positive thing. However, it's been mentioned over the years that Reagan most likely would have never funded the little HIV research he did, were it not for Nancy. No one I know will ever consider either Reagan an AIDS activist. But I can see how one might argue that Nancy opened up the door to a conversation that Ronald refused to have.
I'll ditto ESF in here. It was a mistake to mention AIDS at all. Reagan and AIDS in the same sentence is never a positive thing. However, it's been mentioned over the years that Reagan most likely would have never funded the little HIV research he did, were it not for Nancy. No one I know will ever consider either Reagan an AIDS activist. But I can see how one might argue that Nancy opened up the door to a conversation that Ronald refused to have.
While this may be entirely true, it, IMO, was only because of Ryan White.
....I may be on the rabid side about both Reagans so take that for what it's worth.
I will also sit in ESF's camp because she's right. She is asked about a wider variety of things because of who she is and what she has been. There are more landmines for her because of it. Again, this does not excuse it, because I am still baffled by it.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
Go to the profile of Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton 26 mins ago4 min read On the fight against HIV and AIDS—and on the people who really started the conversation. Yesterday, at Nancy Reagan’s funeral, I said something inaccurate when speaking about the Reagans’ record on HIV and AIDS. Since then, I’ve heard from countless people who were devastated by the loss of friends and loved ones, and hurt and disappointed by what I said. As someone who has also lost friends and loved ones to AIDS, I understand why. I made a mistake, plain and simple. I want to use this opportunity to talk not only about where we’ve come from, but where we must go in the fight against HIV and AIDS. To be clear, the Reagans did not start a national conversation about HIV and AIDS. That distinction belongs to generations of brave lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, along with straight allies, who started not just a conversation but a movement that continues to this day. The AIDS crisis in America began as a quiet, deadly epidemic. Because of discrimination and disregard, it remained that way for far too long. When many in positions of power turned a blind eye, it was groups like ACT UP, Gay Men’s Health Crisis and others that came forward to shatter the silence — because as they reminded us again and again, Silence = Death. They organized and marched, held die-ins on the steps of city halls and vigils in the streets. They fought alongside a few courageous voices in Washington, like U.S. Representative Henry Waxman, who spoke out from the floor of Congress. Then there were all the people whose names we don’t often hear today — the unsung heroes who fought on the front lines of the crisis, from hospital wards and bedsides, some with their last breath. Slowly, too slowly, ignorance was crowded out by information. People who had once closed their eyes opened their hearts. If not for those advocates, activists, and ordinary, heroic people, we would not be where we are in preventing and treating HIV and AIDS. Their courage — and their refusal to accept silence as the status quo — saved lives. We’ve come a long way. But we still have work to do to eradicate this disease for good and to erase the stigma that is an echo of a shameful and painful period in our country’s history. This issue matters to me deeply. And I’ve always tried to do my part in the fight against this disease, and the stigma and pain that accompanies it. At the 1992 Democratic National Convention, when my husband accepted the nomination for president, we marked a break with the past by having two HIV-positive speakers — the first time that ever happened at a national convention. As First Lady, I brought together world leaders to strategize and coordinate efforts to take on HIV and AIDS around the world. In the Senate, I put forward legislation to expand global AIDS research and assistance and to increase prevention and education, and I proudly voted for the creation of PEPFAR and to defend and protect the Ryan White Act. And as secretary of state, I launched a campaign to usher in an AIDS-free generation through prevention and treatment, targeting the populations at greatest risk of contracting HIV. The AIDS crisis looks very different today. There are more options for treatment and prevention than ever before. More people with HIV are leading full and happy lives. But HIV and AIDS are still with us. They continue to disproportionately impact communities of color, transgender people, young people and gay and bisexual men. There are still 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States today, with about 50,000 people newly diagnosed each year. In Sub-Saharan Africa, almost 60 percent of people with HIV are women and girls. Even though the tools exist to end this epidemic once and for all, there are still far too many people dying today. That is absolutely inexcusable. I believe there’s even more we can — and must — do together. For starters, let’s continue to increase HIV and AIDS research and invest in the promising innovations that research is producing. Medications like PrEP are proving effective in preventing HIV infection; we should expand access to that drug for everyone, including at-risk populations. We should call on Republican governors to put people’s health and well-being ahead of politics and extend Medicaid, which would provide health care to those with HIV and AIDS. We should call on states to reform outdated and stigmatizing HIV criminalization laws. We should increase global funding for HIV and AIDS prevention and treatment. And we should cap out-of-pocket expenses and drug costs—and hold companies like Turing and Valeant accountable when they attempt to gouge patients by jacking up the price of lifesaving medications. We’re still surrounded by memories of loved ones lost and lives cut short. But we’re also surrounded by survivors who are fighting harder than ever. We owe it to them and to future generations to continue that fight together. For the first time, an AIDS-free generation is in sight. As president, I promise you that I will not let up until we reach that goal. We will not leave anyone behind.
Post by imobviouslystaying on Mar 12, 2016 21:05:05 GMT -5
I am tired of the idea that Hillary needs to be all things at all times to all people. Good god, she must be exhausted.
I'd say more but I misplaced my eyeballs when someone up here bemoaned the fact that Hillary just needs to be genuine, you guys and all of her issues would be solved.
The AIDS crisis was and continues to be a complicated issue, muddied by the changing social mores of that era and those that followed. I am continually frustrated by the lack of understanding for those times and the great shifts that have come afterwards. The responses on this board both to Hillary and to Nancy Reagan reflect that lack of insight.
It was a crappy thing to say but in the scheme of things, I do think Nancy deserves more credit. There are a slew of people within the realm of politics who will follow a bad policy to the damned ground, even once it's clear those policies are harmful and dangerous. Regardless of how Nancy had her come to Jesus moment, that moment came and she used the influence she had to be another voice in that fight.
You can't dismiss people out of hand simply because they've had a different moral and mental journey than others.
I feel confident that if Nancy and Hillary had both known where some of the policies they supported, implemented, or championed in the past would lead, they would have made different decisions.
Go to the profile of Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton 26 mins ago4 min read On the fight against HIV and AIDS—and on the people who really started the conversation. Yesterday, at Nancy Reagan’s funeral, I said something inaccurate when speaking about the Reagans’ record on HIV and AIDS. Since then, I’ve heard from countless people who were devastated by the loss of friends and loved ones, and hurt and disappointed by what I said. As someone who has also lost friends and loved ones to AIDS, I understand why. I made a mistake, plain and simple. I want to use this opportunity to talk not only about where we’ve come from, but where we must go in the fight against HIV and AIDS. To be clear, the Reagans did not start a national conversation about HIV and AIDS. That distinction belongs to generations of brave lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, along with straight allies, who started not just a conversation but a movement that continues to this day. The AIDS crisis in America began as a quiet, deadly epidemic. Because of discrimination and disregard, it remained that way for far too long. When many in positions of power turned a blind eye, it was groups like ACT UP, Gay Men’s Health Crisis and others that came forward to shatter the silence — because as they reminded us again and again, Silence = Death. They organized and marched, held die-ins on the steps of city halls and vigils in the streets. They fought alongside a few courageous voices in Washington, like U.S. Representative Henry Waxman, who spoke out from the floor of Congress. Then there were all the people whose names we don’t often hear today — the unsung heroes who fought on the front lines of the crisis, from hospital wards and bedsides, some with their last breath. Slowly, too slowly, ignorance was crowded out by information. People who had once closed their eyes opened their hearts. If not for those advocates, activists, and ordinary, heroic people, we would not be where we are in preventing and treating HIV and AIDS. Their courage — and their refusal to accept silence as the status quo — saved lives. We’ve come a long way. But we still have work to do to eradicate this disease for good and to erase the stigma that is an echo of a shameful and painful period in our country’s history. This issue matters to me deeply. And I’ve always tried to do my part in the fight against this disease, and the stigma and pain that accompanies it. At the 1992 Democratic National Convention, when my husband accepted the nomination for president, we marked a break with the past by having two HIV-positive speakers — the first time that ever happened at a national convention. As First Lady, I brought together world leaders to strategize and coordinate efforts to take on HIV and AIDS around the world. In the Senate, I put forward legislation to expand global AIDS research and assistance and to increase prevention and education, and I proudly voted for the creation of PEPFAR and to defend and protect the Ryan White Act. And as secretary of state, I launched a campaign to usher in an AIDS-free generation through prevention and treatment, targeting the populations at greatest risk of contracting HIV. The AIDS crisis looks very different today. There are more options for treatment and prevention than ever before. More people with HIV are leading full and happy lives. But HIV and AIDS are still with us. They continue to disproportionately impact communities of color, transgender people, young people and gay and bisexual men. There are still 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States today, with about 50,000 people newly diagnosed each year. In Sub-Saharan Africa, almost 60 percent of people with HIV are women and girls. Even though the tools exist to end this epidemic once and for all, there are still far too many people dying today. That is absolutely inexcusable. I believe there’s even more we can — and must — do together. For starters, let’s continue to increase HIV and AIDS research and invest in the promising innovations that research is producing. Medications like PrEP are proving effective in preventing HIV infection; we should expand access to that drug for everyone, including at-risk populations. We should call on Republican governors to put people’s health and well-being ahead of politics and extend Medicaid, which would provide health care to those with HIV and AIDS. We should call on states to reform outdated and stigmatizing HIV criminalization laws. We should increase global funding for HIV and AIDS prevention and treatment. And we should cap out-of-pocket expenses and drug costs—and hold companies like Turing and Valeant accountable when they attempt to gouge patients by jacking up the price of lifesaving medications. We’re still surrounded by memories of loved ones lost and lives cut short. But we’re also surrounded by survivors who are fighting harder than ever. We owe it to them and to future generations to continue that fight together. For the first time, an AIDS-free generation is in sight. As president, I promise you that I will not let up until we reach that goal. We will not leave anyone behind.
So, not using this to advance her political agenda then.
Look, I get it. Popular narrative is that Hillary is evil and incredibly calculating and if that's honestly someone's opinion of her, she'll never be able to say or do anything right regardless.
Look, I get it. Popular narrative is that Hillary is evil and incredibly calculating and if that's honestly someone's opinion of her, she'll never be able to say or do anything right regardless.
Look, I get it. Popular narrative is that Hillary is evil and incredibly calculating and if that's honestly someone's opinion of her, she'll never be able to say or do anything right regardless.
Those are terrible and she needs to stop that shit. But we don't see the other candidates choking in the same way not because they are more skilled or better yet, more empathetic, but because none of them are logging hundreds of hours in black communities with tapes rolling nonstop. Had they, it's inevitable each one of them would have stepped in it at least as often.
I don't really know what to do with this, except to say that it's obviously possible to interact with black people without committing microaggressions. She's dismissive as fuck in some of her interactions in a way that makes her appear disingenuous, as if she logs those hours to cash in on them later. This is a Hillary problem. Trying to defend it (and I'm sorry, but you are), by trying to say anyone would do the same is not true.
Like I said, it's patently obvious that in your eyes, she's damned if she does and she's damned if she doesn't. You can try to cover it, but your bias is showing.
Those are terrible and she needs to stop that shit. But we don't see the other candidates choking in the same way not because they are more skilled or better yet, more empathetic, but because none of them are logging hundreds of hours in black communities with tapes rolling nonstop. Had they, it's inevitable each one of them would have stepped in it at least as often.
I don't really know what to do with this, except to say that it's obviously possible to interact with black people without committing microaggressions. She's dismissive as fuck in some of her interactions in a way that makes her appear disingenuous, as if she logs those hours to cash in on them later. This is a Hillary problem. Trying to defend it (and I'm sorry, but you are), by trying to say anyone would do the same is not true.
Well damn said. The defense is not good. I had to make a comment and not just Like
She is the fucking goddamned candidate for United States mutherfucking president. It is her current job right now to explain to a concerned public what she will do to address issues as those issues arise or as the opportunity to address them arises.
She fucked up. She issued an apology and in that apology, she explained her feelings on the issue and how she would proceed as president.
At this point, you're just mad she can string a coherent policy point together instead of tying everything back to income equality.
I mean I'm sure that's what prevents AIDS and addresses homophobia.
Like I said, it's patently obvious that in your eyes, she's damned if she does and she's damned if she doesn't. You can try to cover it, but your bias is showing.
I won't deny that I'm biased. I don't think most of the members of this board can deny being biased, either, though.
I'm really not trying to be an ass here, but Hillary does piss me right the hell off. Just when I think I'm maybe warming to her a little (i.e. 2 debates ago), she keeps doing doing stuff that angers me. But as you say, I'm biased to begin with. I'll never say otherwise.
Those are terrible and she needs to stop that shit. But we don't see the other candidates choking in the same way not because they are more skilled or better yet, more empathetic, but because none of them are logging hundreds of hours in black communities with tapes rolling nonstop. Had they, it's inevitable each one of them would have stepped in it at least as often.
I don't really know what to do with this, except to say that it's obviously possible to interact with black people without committing microaggressions. She's dismissive as fuck in some of her interactions in a way that makes her appear disingenuous, as if she logs those hours to cash in on them later. This is a Hillary problem. Trying to defend it (and I'm sorry, but you are), by trying to say anyone would do the same is not true.
I see what you're saying and I agree with you. I also would add that I see it as not just a Hillary problem, but one extends to many white liberals in general, especially older ones. Hillary should absolutely not be reacting so poorly to people she claims to advocate for. There is no excuse and it's disappointing and embarrassing.
In addition*, I'd like to see Bernie answering similar questions on video, unscripted and up close and personal. I have an idea of what he believes will help the issues that are unique to POC, though it seems he conflates some of that with issues that the poor and working class face. But either no one is asking him or those videos are just not being shared. I'd like to see more of him speaking one on one to his supporters (or detractors) on these topics un an off the cuff situation, but all I can seem to find are rally/debate/town hall type speeches.
*I'd actually like to see all the candidates answer these questions, though I realize these are not issues the GOP candidates acknowledge or address at all.
Garance Franke-Ruta, who was an HIV/AIDS activist during the height of the epidemic, explained what Hillary was thinking. I can't C&P because the tweets are embedded in the article.
Like I said, it's patently obvious that in your eyes, she's damned if she does and she's damned if she doesn't. You can try to cover it, but your bias is showing.
I won't deny that I'm biased. I don't think most of the members of this board can deny being biased, either, though.
I'm really not trying to be an ass here, but Hillary does piss me right the hell off. Just when I think I'm maybe warming to her a little (i.e. 2 debates ago), she keeps doing doing stuff that angers me. But as you say, I'm biased to begin with. I'll never say otherwise.
Oh yes, because saying someone's wild gestures and shouting tone being a turnoff and/irritating is completely on par with saying someone else's "genuine self is...not so great".
I've never claimed to not have bias against Bernie, but I've also never said or implied that I think he has poor moral character. I think he genuinely wants to help but I don't think his policies are very realistic. And I don't think he's evil at all, despite his seeming reluctance to address what I consider to be issues, like the silence on the racist and sexist hashtags being spread by the most vocal of his supporters.