General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Banality of Henry Kissinger [View all]H2O Man
(79,009 posts)unfamiliar with the lady who posted the OP, I suppose they might mistake it for being "snarky, pretentious, and trolling." And that error in perception and judgment likely does explain the toxicity of many of the responses to the OP. Still, rather than adding something positive to the discussion -- something that several people who disagreed with the OP proved was indeed possible -- a number of pro-Clinton folks displayed the attitude that seems unattractively entrenched in some of our most vocal community members.
I should note that, in the past 36 hours, I've read a few OPs that were misguided, at least one being an obvious attempt to "stir the pot." Thus, on one that expressed "concern" about a photograph of Ms. Clinton used on a campaign ad, I simply wrote that I like the picture. I do. And one one that claimed Ms. Clinton cannot defeat Jeb Bush, I responded that indeed she can, though it is possible that he could win, too.
I'm convinced that it is possible to discuss the topic of Hillary Clinton's run for president in 2016 in a rational, logical manner. It takes no more energy, I find, than to engage in silly personal attacks -- including with people we do not know, and incorrectly assume are snarky, pretentious, and/or trolling.