I was thinking about this on my drive in this morning. My chief complaint with her is that she seems to have a lot of naked ambition, and will run roughshod over whomever, and say anything and everything and flip positions on a whim in order to get elected.
However, she's hardly unique in that respect. So that brings me to why it's HER that I dislike in particular. And I honestly asked myself if it's different because she's a woman. I sincerely believe it's not. I have a lot of strong women in my life (wife with a career, daughter, mother with a successful career, CEO at work, etc) and I admire and respect and support them all.
No, what I think the difference is with Hillary is that she's very political and she's been doing it in the public eye for 25 years. For most of us, most Presidential candidates come out of more or less nowhere every 4-8 years. Yeah, they're senators or governors or whatever, but for the most part unless you're in their district, you likely haven't heard of them unless you're a politics junky. Think of recent ones, prior to the election:
-Rubio: who?
-Carson: who?
-Fiorina: that lady from HP?
-Bush: yeah, knew him, and he didn't go far
-Cruz: he's popped up in the last few years, but a relative newbie.
-Sanders: he's somewhat famous as an Independent in Congress but did you know much about him before this?
-Romney: Who?
-Obama prior to 2008: who?
-Gore: didn't know of him before he was Bill's VP
-Bill Clinton: Never heard of him before he ran in '92
Then you have Hillary, who has basically had this huge amount of ambition in the public spotlight for the past 25ish years. Even if some guy like Cruz or Obama has been scheming since college, we didn't hear much about him until he was basically in the race; versus Hillary we've had to see her plot and position and adjust and readjust in the public spotlight, and it just makes it seem so much fake and dirtier, you know?