[garbanzo]

I sort of have to agree with you. Let me make clear that I’m no fan of Hillary. But she was assertive and passionate in a way that were she a male, would have been a plus for her.

[Bernard]

she was assertive and passionate in a way that were she a male, would have been a plus for her

And that is where the liberal fantasy stops, in this case. Women and men are not alike; they are different. What works for a man does not always work for a woman, and what works for a woman does not always work for a man. No matter how much the liberal feminists from the '60's attempt to defy biology, this is true. And women who try to act like men come across poorly.

Since most people in this country are heterosexual, and respect, if not follow, the concept of monogamy, people from either sex who try to act like the other sex will look strange or unpleasant. That might appeal to a small base, but not the majority.

[ken21]

i do not agree.

passionate men often turn off people.

[chilepepper]

i am no fan of Hillary but i think her response was OK, particularly in the context of the debate.

that said, i still think she is in deep trouble - there just isn't enough lipstick in the world to cover over Hillary's negatives...

[pieceofthepuzzle]

I agree that she didn’t come off that badly in her response, but I do not agree that her response would have been better received if she were a male candidate. Actually, I think it is significantly more likely that she would not receive the same amount of sympathy if she were a male candidate. Gender has been a definitive plus for Hillary. Not a drawback.