Yes, the message should matter much more than the messenger. But in politics, it's very difficult to separate them. An awful lot of the criticism of Hillary revolves around her history and private conversations. I have no way to judge the veracity of most of those who claim first-hand knowledge of the various bad things she's accused of doing.

She rubs me the wrong way, too. I don't like the way she talks when she gives speeches. It's grating to my ears and it's a visceral reaction. Her head-bobbing when Bill gave speeches was another thing that I thought was manipulative and the press played along with it. I don't like some of the things I've read about her time in Arkansas (like her making so much money on cattle futures, with help from her friends). But she seems to generate great loyalty from people who know her (with the famous exception or two).

I don't think she's evil. I think the fact that she's held up so well from the decades of whithering criticism indicates that she's not just a political hack. She's a hack with some substance, unlike, say, (fill in the blank).

Calling her "skank" strikes me as being much worse than calling Bush "shrub" and I thought that was borderline childish. If one has criticism of her, one makes a better case by using verifiable facts and by not using misogynistic terms.

IMHO, of course. :-)

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who wonders why so many are brainwashed that Presidents have to be "likable" these days.)