Here’s a fun exercise I’ve suggested on here before: replace “women” (or female as he said, which is so lovely) with “black people” or “jews” - now everyone can see how terrible it sounds, huh?

The most damning portion of his statement is not included here. It was his explanation that women don’t actually want to be in leadership roles, because they have “circular ambition” and just “want to be happy”, whereas men have “vertical ambition” and want to be promoted.

The fact that I am finding joy and solidarity in something Kelly does makes me even angrier at Trump. She’s awful... but war rules of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” seem to apply here. Yes. I’m going with that.

Update: HERE’S MEGYN

It...actually explains a lot about Trump’s mindset, if true. If the assumption is you’re at fault for being attacked, and that every negative opinion or comment is viewed as an attack, then you do everything you can to prove it’s not your fault and, I guess, attack back to prove it.

It's like they can't land on the decent, non-shitty opinion on anything. Not even by accident. How is this possible?

TIL I’m a weak woman for keeping silent about sexual harassment because I feared retribution. The more you know! How can the GOP be the party of ignorance if their candidate and his family educate Americans on important issues every day?!

Not like those assholes who let themselves be harassed, amirite? This reminds me of Trump’s press conference where he suggested that Putin call’s Obama the n-word, and that it’s Obama’s fault for not being respected. Whoever get’s attacked is to blame for not preventing it in the first place. The Trumps have very odd…

I find her communication skills amazing, yes, she is professorial, but never condescending, and has a gift for explaining very complicated things so that they can be understood. I did not know she is a bad campaigner. I like her for the policies she supports, her substance, and I loathe Hillary for her substance, her…

Everyone keeps bringing Warren up as a better option, but she was a miserable campaigner during her senate race. She was extremely well-financed and was virtually tied with Scott Brown for a long time leading up to the election. She was very popular before she was the Dem nominee in that race and has been popular as a…

Says the person who dislikes a candidate based on her voice.

You built a really cute strawman and set him on fire there.

Hey, I caught an old Friends episode the other day. They made a joke about President Clinton and her husband. In 1996. And I clearly remember there being a ton of jokes about having two presidents at the time.

The weird thing is that, objectively, her voice is the opposite of shrill. It’s too low pitched.

FYI, I’m not a Hillary fangirl and found her neither insincere or robotic. She didn’t sound stilted or strange to me. She’s just not as gifted an orator as Obama or her husband. (And I think Obama is better than Bill.)

No campaign is flawless, nor would anyone expect anything involving human being to be flawless, so I…

You can say what you said. It’s when you start using words like shrill, nagging, etc. that you’re entering dangerous waters because we rarely lob similar criticisms against men. For example, Trumps speaking voice aint that great, but other than mocking his pronunciation of huge, we don’t see that in the media much.

I mean, some people just suck at public speaking and have no talent for it, all the coaching in the world be damned. So I’m fine with her speaking just being adequate, it’s not her thing. And while it’s possibly the most important thing when GETTING elected, it’s barely in the top 10 for governing effectively. She is…

Now you’re just flying off the rails away from what we’re talking about, which is whether her oratory skills are sufficient, and where criticisms of her speech go from being legitimate to being sexist. 10 years of planning can’t change the fact that she doesn’t have the same natural speaking ability as people like her…

“Robotic” and “insincere” are both perfectly fine criticisms. So, in fact, are Sullivan’s “pedestrian” and “uninspiring”. People are free to disagree with you, but those are terms that are routinely applied to male speakers as well as female.

You can address it, but address it in a way that isn’t sexist. The criticisms launched by Hume and Sullivan both fell into the trap of criticizing her for things that, if they were coming from someone with the bass provided by having an adam’s apple and more testosterone, would have been considered perfectly fine.