The question is not whether I approve of applying the remarks to all women, the question is whether many people, including Hillary Clinton Democrats, will do so.
Their argument is that the remarks "objectify" women which is indicative of an irrational, illogical, and disreputable "extension " to all women, precisely what you're complaining of.
Whether this is feminist claptrap or not is really not the issue, as I said, the issue is the vulnerability of the candidate in the general election which is perfectly proper to explore providing it is done in a fair manner, which means to accurately quote the candidate's own words and provide him with ample opportunity to defend.
It is fair because Republicans or conservatives need to know the facts, the charges and the defenses to those charges, to determine whether the candidate is viable.
Whether this is feminist claptrap or not is really not the issue, as I said, the issue is the vulnerability of the candidate in the general election which is perfectly proper to explore providing it is done in a fair manner, which means to accurately quote the candidate's own words and provide him with ample opportunity to defend. It is fair because Republicans or conservatives need to know the facts, the charges and the defenses to those charges, to determine whether the candidate is viable. I vehemently disagree.
It is not Kelly's function to make inferences that could far and away be better answered by a debating opponent, than as an ostensible moderator.
To the case in point: does anyone actually believe a charge of misogyny from Hillary Clinton, of all people, would carry the same weight as by an, again, ostensible moderator?
Your reply demonstrates out of your own mouth to any reader of this thread the disreputable
modus operandi of Trump supporters.
Attack the messenger, discredit the source, resort to Saul Alinsky tactics and justify everything with the ends justify the means.