My personal opinion is that she should leave it to the surrogates. Unless she's asked a specific question about a specific situation or comment, she shouldn't go there. In this particular case she was asked specifically about Trump's most recent odious comments so I think it was fair play. This is not to say that she shouldn't tout her platform which contains many "pro-women" agendas.

In her last presidential campaign (2008) she did stay away from the "women" thing but she lost, lost to the black guy that was pretending it was no big deal that he was black. Weird thing, campaigns.

I think there are certain women who may support Hillary because she's a woman, sure. I also don't think she would lose these votes by downplaying the sexism thing. Sort of like Obama didn't lose the black vote with his strategy.

I am curious how it sounds to men, specifically men who are Democratic leaning, when sexism is invoked.

And isn't always the most disgusting and most stupid ones, who are the first at criticizing women's looks? Rosie O'Donnell is fat and ugly but she's not any fatter or uglier than LardAss Trump.

Personally, I don't think it helps her to stray far from policies and the 'what are you going to actually do' question.

The problem is, Trump actually is a sexist. But most reasonable people have already worked that out.

I have to laugh when I see these homely women fawning over him when he's making appearances, knowing that, besides the fact that he wouldn't hesitate to criticize their looks or style of dress, he can't wait to get away and change his clothes and douse himself in Purell. (I can't resist the image of him and Angela Merkel going toe to toe . . . her trying to discuss the issues, him critiquing her appearance.) And one notes that, while slagging immigrants, he seems to keep rather quiet about the fact that he has married two of them!

He's rather quiet about the whole Marla Maples marriage too. He has a daughter from that marriage who is starting to look pretty much porn-star-ish. I wonder if knowing that her dad wants to date her older half sister, and not her, has damaged her self image?

Never mind that, his mother emigrated from Scotland and both his father's parents emigrated from Germany. He'd not even exist without immigrants.

Oh, for a time machine and a box of johnnies ...

Welcome to Donald's America...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/12/28/americans-are-still-attacking-sikhs-because-they-think-theyre-muslims/

Not that beating up random Muslims is right either.

This stuff really pisses me off. It just highlights the utter ignorance that is rampant in this whole issue. I wonder how many people like this have Bosnian friends for example (there are quite a few Balkan communities in this area anyway) who have to listen to them wax lyrical about how horrible Muslims are, yet they don't even realise the person their talking to is likely a Muslim - they just look 'white' and are assumed to be Catholic or Orthodox. It's bad enough that I have to listen to the 'immigrants are horrible' rants from my father-in-law as I, and my half-Mexican stepson, sit there open mouthed wondering if he even thinks where the hell the two of us came from

Drives me nuts. Hate someone for being a cnut, not because of some misled ideological bullshit.

I'm just waiting for him to start the gay bashing.

"According to the report’s findings, half of the American public associates the turban with Islam and believes that Sikhism is a sect of the religion."

With this level of ignorance, is it any wonder that people like Trump garner the support they do?

The onus is not on the American people to understand and recognize all world religions. I honestly couldn't tell you the difference between a Methodist and a Presbyterian.

What is unacceptable is that anybody thinks it's a good idea to knock over innocent men in the street --- regardless of their religion or dress.

EDIT: And, yes, they feel empowered by this Donald Trump bullshit.

Well said.

I'm still expecting that after the initial four caucus/primaries: Iowa, NH, SC and Nevada, a majority of Republicans will coalesce around a serious candidate.

There is a tendency on this thread to dismiss the R nominees as a group as a clown car, but there are some very serious people in the car, among whom I count Kasich, Christie, Bush and Rubio. Any of those four would be vastly superior to the opposition, meiner meinung nach, and one of them might very well be the next president.

Okay.

Kasich ain't gonna be president. He's a mess. He always looks/acts like he's just been through a traumatic event and may lose his shit at any minute. I don't dislike his politics, he's just not the guy.

Rubio, I know he's the establishment's fair haired boy, but I think he's a dud too. I don't see his path to the White House any way I try to look at it.

Which leaves us with Bush and Christie.

I don't know how to fix Jeb's problems with the voters but I think he'd make a decent president. Probably quite good.

Chris Christie has turned his numbers around in New Hampshire and is now ahead of Cruz. This is no small feat. His stump and town halls are extraordinary --- I wish I could go to one. He's authentic and entertaining and should appeal to the thinking man's Republican voter.

I think I could deal with either a Bush or Christie presidency quite well. Basically the same way that if I was still living in the UK, I could deal with the Tories winning the election. Sensible and centre-right is OK - especially in the US where centre-right is almost left wing.

Bernie's still the man for me, though. Even if it is unlikely he'll overcome Hillary in the primary. Hillary would be OK too, I just prefer Bernie.