I doubt that the next woman to run for president will be burdened to prove she's not divisive or polarizing because of Hillary. Hillary Clinton was considered polarizing before she ran for any office, and may have even managed to become slightly less so thought her campaigns and time in the Senate.

Had she begun her political career as a universally loved and highly regarded figure and become polarizing through the course of running for office, that might present some sort of obstacle to future candidates, but in this case it's a bit of baggage that was particular to Hillary from before the start and is only likely to become an issue in the future if the next woman to seek the presidency is Chelsea Clinton.

yeah, I also can't help wondering if a man whose wife had famously cheated on him, time and time again, would find it an advantage (or at the very least, not a disadvantage) in running for office. I suspect he'd be crucified.

I liked Hillary's speech, I even--to an extent--still like Hillary, but for all the feminist moaning and groaning I feel that she was allowed to continue way longer than any other candidate in her situation would have been allowed to. If their positions were reversed, Obama would have been forced out before the end of February.

Yes, the clip of men derided her voice is appalling (though I have woman friends who can't stand her voice) but you could easily put a similar clip together of "racist" statements about Obama (especially if you include commentary from Faux). I think it's also a little bit misleading to call it all sexism. People called Gore stiff, and Kerry a flip-flopper, but it was due to an underlying discomfort with the way they spoke. Clinton has the same problem. She doesn't have a comfortable manner, and her speaking voice can put people on edge. While commentators may reduce it to "it sounds like my wife telling me to take out the garbage," it is really that a strident tone sometimes creeps into her speeches, and the truth of what they are saying is: "I find it uncomfortable to listen to her." I find the same true of McCain. I can hardly listen to him speak. With Bush, I have to leave the room. Obama and Bill Clinton both, have great speaking voices and timing (Obama is actually way more stilting than Bill Clinton), which makes it easier to listen to what they have to say.

Seriously?

Had situations been reversed, a man "willing to stick it out to the end" would have been seen as competitive and ambitious -- particularly in such a close race. (A race that might not have been ended so early had there not been a media frenzy declaring it over well before it was actually over.)

I don't disagree that Hillary lost (unfortunately, but obviously), nor do I feel that she was wrong in backing out now. But still, to say that any other race would have ended sooner is kind of crazy in my book ...

I for one think that any man who was as close to winning would have been applauded for sticking it out, at least until a loser was *truly* clear, and not derided for "ruining party unity."

I'm not sure if the hypothetical really works in this case. A male candidate in Hillary's position wouldn't have led to the identity-politics victimhood "one-upping" contest that grew out of the course of this primary campaign and likely would have been less prone to thraten an intra-party rift the way this race has. Of course, a make candidate in Hillary's position would have been viewed as a cuckold and likely wouldn't have been well enough respected to make it past New Hampshire...

she tried to put together a health care reform bill during Bill's first term? Grade school?! Not polarizing until she ran for office. What about the 8 years of Whitewater investigation. Boy, either you are woefully or purposefully ignorant.

I was counting her political career having started in earnes when she ran for the Senate in 2000 (and going into that race, there was much concern expressed about how being such a polarizing figure could hurt her in the campaign).

I would agree that she didn't have such a divisive image in 1992 when very few people really knew much about her, but I don't remember seeing her name on any ballots that year.

Barack wasn't Ted Kennedy. He was a newcomer seen by many as over-stepping his bounds. If he was behind after super Tuesday and lost the caucuses following, believe me, he would have had a talking too. And any time a man has stayed in past the point where they could win, they have not been seen as strong, but as destructive to the party (Jerry Brown particularly was derided). The only reason Hillary wasn't more aggressively asked to step out was out of respect the party has for (and what it feels it owes) the Clintons.