How very evolved of you. Let's not talk about her ties to big business and let's just talk about sexism forever. Hillary never pandered to anyone in an unbecoming way did she?

You’re grossly misrepresenting what stein said. And your trick works with Hillary too. “The other is a corporate whore who supported the Iraq war.” See?

Bill didn’t rape Monica—but it’s not as simple as “they’re both adults,” either.

Honestly, I have way less of a problem with HRC than I do with her supporters who can’t just be reasonable like you and take a measured stance like this. The victim-shaming I’m seeing from HRC supporters elsewhere in this comment section is frankly terrifying.

How about refraining from bringing a rapist back into the White House?

He obviously abused his position of power over Monica Lewinsky? And Hillary did in trying to cover it up?

The whole Lewinsky thing came to light because he was being sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones. He’s also been accused of sexual assault by Kathleen Willey, who says it took place while he was President. These two names I know off the top of my head, as I did Broaddrick, because it was such big news at the…

ok gotcha - so if you decide she isn’t a survivor...then you don’t have to be believed? I don’t think you get the point of that political movement...but your choice.

No investigation has disproven Broaddrick’s claim. Therefore, it all comes down to, do you believe a sexual assault victim or do you not? Hillary apparently does not. Or, she’s decided that supporting a rapist is just not that big deal.

You don’t think Hillary had political aspirations in 1999, when Broaddrick accused Bill of rape? Hillary was elected to the Senate in 2000. That’s one year later, if you need help with the math.

It’s puzzling how so many people here are trying to exculpate Hillary in this.

As a fellow lefty who watched this all unfold, yes I think she was calculating her career moves from day one.

“If you are getting pushback, it may be because suggesting that she is “let[ting] other women’s lives be destroyed by her husband so she could advance her career” is a baffling interpretation”

I’ve had a lot of discussions w/ my mom about Hillary’s candidacy, and she says this is the reason she ultimately can’t vote for her. She agrees that Hillary seems smart, super competent, and is definitely on the receiving end of some bullshit institutional sexism, but she still can’t vote for her b/c of this. Idk who…

I am on the same page as you. It not having an open relationship or arrangement, or whatever that is bothersome. It’s the fact that Bill Clinton has allegedly assaulted multiple women in the process, and Hillary Clinton seems to be ok with it.

A lot of people on Jezebel love to criticize me for not being an avid Hillary supporter. I will vote for her because she isn't Trump, that doesn't mean she was my first choice. But the reason I don't trust her is that she always seemed willing to let other women's lives be destroyed by her husband so she could advance…

You can get hyper analytical, but it seems pretty clear that Bill has mistreated women for a long time and Hillary has done her best to be part of the machine that keeps him clean enough (and in the process rolling over those women) that they can accomplish their political goals in spite of his behavior.

People with “bad” credit got that by their OWN actions,

AMEN. There is a reason vets suggest against giving older pets multiple vaccines at the same time. Why can’t human doctors acknowledge it?

Except that’s not what Stein is saying. She is saying that (a) the reduction in vaccination is alarming, that (b) one of the major reasons why some people have this alarming belief about vaccines is because the proximity of corporate lobbyists to our regulatory apparatus has diminished public trust in said apparatus,…