Apparently, supporters of Hillary Clinton say that it will be proof of sexism if these words show up in reporting about her campaign:
will do anything to win
represents the past
out of touch
I had thought that Hillary's calculating failure to admit to her secretive email server until reported in the New York Times, a paper that she would, undoubtedly, have thought she was entitled to some cover from, reflected her overconfident assumption that the Presidential mantle was inevitably hers. Her insincere comments following disclosure of the scandal reveal her continued belief that she will be carried on the pillowed berth on which the lap dance media had carried her during Bill's presidency. Some may now wonder whether the coziness of that relationship, a relationship that represents the past, the halcyon days of Clinton and oral sex in the Oval Office, will result in her actions being glossed by the media.
Apparently, despite a New York home, Hillary is so out of touch with New York and its paper that she thought she was entitled to win despite her disingenuous explanations for the server and the failure to provide access to all her emails.
The question remains, for this polarizing figure in American politics, though what difference at this point does it make, is whether she is willing to do anything to win?